Perhaps the problem is that the size of the U.S. makes it all but impossible for citizens to have any effect whatsoever on their Federal government. But not to fear! I see how we can test this hypothesis:
I propose that Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Northern California secede from the Union and establish their own nation. Over the course of the next twenty years we'll track the progress of both countries and see how closely each abides by the principles embodied in the Constitution, along with surveys determining whether or not citizens think they can actually influence their federal government in an effective and regular fashion.
As a resident of one of the affected states I can honestly say I'm all for the experiment. I seriously doubt the rest of the states would miss us anyway. And perhaps with a smaller country teeming with people who honestly believe in the 2nd Amendment we'd be more likely to shoot politicians who get out of hand, encouraging them to be more circumspect in their enthusiasm to amass power and limit rights.
Some of the folks that actually had a hand in crafting the Constitution, or interpreting it after the inception of the Republic, seem to think differently than your esteemed self. But feel free to ignore them; no doubt you are far wiser than they could ever hope to be.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August 1789
"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves...congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788
"[A militia is] the effective part of the people at large." Noah Webster
"First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided." Patrick Henry
"That the powers of government may be resumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state." New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, 1788
"....to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly antirepublican principle..." Patrick Henry
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton
"Every free man has a right to the use of the press, so he has to the use of his arms." Tench Coxe
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half deprived of the use of them;...the weak will come prey to the strong." Thomas Paine
"The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he live precariously and at discretion. And though for a while, those, who have the sword in their power, abstain from doing him injury, yet by degrees he will be awed." James Burgh, 1775
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"A militia, when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." RICHARD HENRY (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free society." James Madison
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry
Just a few for consumption. And finally:
"3800 times a day, an American firearm owner uses her or his firearm to prevent a [crime]. In 99% of those 3800 daily firearm defenses, no one is shot at all -- & because non-violence is non-news, you never hear about it." --- J. Neil Schulman 1993-07-15 on KNX (reprinted in J. Neil Schulman 1994 _Stopping Power_ pg 237)
No, it did show that Gore won. The reason it wasn't published was because they knew that bringing it up now, after 9/11, would be enormously unpopular - especially with the people of New York. And that would seriously affect sales.
What I find amazing about scrolling through discussions like this is just how easily Microsoft brainwashed a great many people into thinking that the activation code scheme is okay. I mean hell, MS doesn't need to defend itself as so many drooling zombies will gladly spend an inordinate amount of time justifying the necessity of the activation code. They've bought into the argument lock, stock, and barrel, no doubt surrendering the use of their higher brain functions in the process.
The entire idea of the activation code is so fundamentally anti-consumer-rights I can't even begin to find the tiniest bit of the aforementioned justifications plausible. If I were to buy WinXP, I'd expect:
a) to be able to install it without calling the company for a magic number, since *I've never had to do this for any other piece of software I've ever owned over the last 20 years*;
b) that I damned well have the right to put it on all of my home machines without the company having a fit; and
c) that if I change out my hardware, especially if I'm doing testing configs for clients, I don't have to have the okay of the company to use a piece of software *that I goddamn well bought and own*.
Microsoft has replaced the idea of software ownership with software leasing; now they intend to replace this with the idea of software rental only with Microsoft approval, to be renewed under MS terms.
The weirdness is that *people accept this as okay and normal, even though in the PC OS biz it's never, ever been done this way before*. Almost as if they said "hey, the Great Bill has handed down the mandate, all hail the Great Bill".
Lord, why doesn't MS declare itself a religion a la Scientology? It seems just as effective at gaining converts who'll happily swallow any bullshit that's fed to them.
I guess they don't teach basic science in college anymore.
The link to the survey you gave dealt with a *self-selected group of people*, no different than a Cosmo magazine survey. As anyone who's had Statistics 101 can tell you, *these surveys mean jack* - they're completely non-scientific and utterly worthless.
You'll note that I challenged you to provide empirical evidence. Apparently you can't.
Regardless of what the folks at AOL and MS say, this isn't a self-rating system. It'll start out that way, no doubt, but these 'industry leaders' will soon find that if the system is used they'll have *enormous* content control over web sites.
Imagine: some vocal group of parents complain that a bisexual support site is 'pornographic'. Since the 'family values' folks at AOL/MS no doubt agree that bisexuality is sick, twisted, and un-American, they threaten that site with black-listing unless they change their rating to 'pornographic'. There may not be a whit of porn on the site, but the mere fact that so many people hate bisexuals would be enough to get the site 'reviewed' and threatened by these industry leaders. End result: one way or another the bisexuality site drops off the radar for just about every user who has the software. Or gets flooded with porn freaks looking for pics of Bisexual Babes(TM).
Another example: a particular forum with a penchant for criticizing AOL and/or MS (can't think of one off the top of my head...) always has a small number of posts that contain swearing. Why the fuck that would matter I wouldn't know, but The Committee (which incidentally has AOL and MS on the board) tells the site they have to rate themselves as containing 'adult content' or be blacklisted. Whoops, a site critical of members of The Committee also drops off the radar! Imagine that! Hey, don't complain, you sick little dickwads - they're just protecting 'family values'!
Yet another example: I used to run a personal site for friends that contained a number of different, disparate sections. One dealt entirely with bisexuality issues, another showcased the writing talent of a lady who liked to parody Xena, a third had a rather nifty Xena-site search engine, a fourth had two fully-transcribed pornographic novels ("Lauren Gisal"), yet another dealt entirely with jokes, etc. How exactly does one rate such a site? As porn because it has the two porn novels? That would effectively include every other section on the site unless I went to the trouble to separate them out. What a pain in the ass.
Oh, yeah, I can see that this rating system would be a *great* idea. If you're one of The Committee, that is.
Yes, and I'm old enough to remember it. Trying to get the Boomers from WP 5.1 and the DOS prompt to Win3.1 and Word was a royal pain in the ass. They knew WP, they knew DOS, screw this new GUI thing.
But their bosses said 'thou shalt learn if thou wants to be employed', so they did. If their bosses hadn't said this they'd probably still be using a DOS prompt and WP 5.1.
But really, nearly all of them hated it. Especially the point-and-click way of doing things at first.
So you have two possible outcomes, both of which you made up off the top of your head, and don't allow for alternatives. Let's see....
Opera: funny, I show this to people and they go nuts over it. No long load times, no extraneous crap or bloat, a very easy preferences menu to setup - and they can use it in both Windows or Linux since the versions are practically the same. I'd say regardless of OS that Opera is just as good as or better than IE at giving folks "web experience".
OT Rant:
I'd also say that the "web experience" had better goddamned well be work-related or I'll pull their history file and hand it over to their boss. It's the people who waste so much time on the Winboxen that cause me the most headaches, since they're also the ones most likely to download crap like "bonzi buddy" or whatnot and fuck up their systems.
(Hell, my boss keeps downloading and installing music-sharing programs along with the ad software that comes with them, even though I've told him repeatedly that his system keeps getting screwed up because of it. He doesn't give a shit if I have to regularly do maintenance on his box just so long as he can piss away his time looking for music.)
end OT rant
As for the desktops my experience has been that users jump right in to KDE and figure things out with a minimum of effort (most just think it's a Windows theme, for chrissakes). The.doc transform is a problem, no doubt about it, but a number of my folks use StarOffice 5.2 anyway (they *like* everything being on the SO pseudo-desktop, go figure). And since 99% of them don't insert complex Excel tables into their Word docs the conversion process is 100% dead-on.
Review the word "anecdotal". Grab a Websters and look it up.
My counter-argument is also anecdotal and thus as worthless as your own. I've dealt with thousands of Windows and hundreds of Linux machines over the years and the Windows machines regardless of use have always been what I would term 'highly unstable'. It's the primary reason I moved Linux to my home desktops - couldn't take the propensity for Windows to crash (usually while I was doing something critical) anymore.
The point is your personal experiences, like mine, count for dick when compared to empirical evidence. I *suspect* that Linux is far, far more stable than Windows (yes, even Win2000) because my unscientific data-gathering techniques tell me that this is true. But I have no scientific evidence of any kind to back this up.
Even so, I'm not quite silly enough to proclaim 'the OS is rock solid' based upon the evidence of two machines. When I say "Windows blows for stability compared to Linux" I do so based upon those thousands of Windows/hundreds of Linux boxes I've fought with over the last 7 or 8 years (after Linux became nicely usable in the server environment). I think that I'm right since I've seen zero evidence to refute my assumptions, but I have no empirical evidence at all to back up this statement.
Neither do you. The difference between us is that your limb is supported by a grand total experience of two machines, while mine rests upon thousands of machines. Which of us do you suppose is more likely to be right?
Don't expect any empirical evidence here on slashdot. Anything even remotely smacking of the scientific method is completely lost most of the flame-boys who fight the Win/Linux wars.
If you want completely unscientific, anecdotal evidence without any statistical significance whatsoever, I can tell you that the last three years working with middle school students has been a real eye-opener in regards to usability. Put a 12-year-old in front of a computer - Linux or Windows, it doesn't matter - and they'll master the machine far faster than any adult. The only difference between the two is that with Linux they'll end up doing things you didn't even know were possible.
The middle school kid doesn't care about the OS. A computer is a computer, it does cool things like email, chat, and play games, and they'll find out how to do these things no matter what the OS is. There's no difference (again, completely anecdotal observations over about a thousand kids) in how quickly they learn either OS or the apps that come with it.
Adults, on the other hand, seem to resist change with whatever energy they can muster. They don't have the 'my-brain-is-young-and-flexible' advantage that a 12-year-old does, nor do they 'intuitively get' computers. Learning is a very slow process for them, so after they do it once they aren't at all interested in doing it again.
I've come to suspect that the reason so many adults use Windows and don't try Linux is simply because most of them don't have the mental wherewithall to make the change without a great deal of effort. Not because Linux is particularly difficult (the kids sure don't seem to think so), but because change of any kind strains the poor adult brain.
I'd postulate that if Linux were taught to middle and school kids rather than Windows, they'd end up being in the reverse situation of their parents, i.e., they'd stick with Linux no matter what and resist going to Windows because learning something new would be a pain in the ass after brain ossification takes place (18+).
Adults take the path of least resistance; kids are more willing to try things out. This might be a primary defining factor for Windows vs. Linux on the desktop, especially since the latest Redhat and SuSe distros install just as easily as Windows does (in SuSe's case, even easier I'd say).
People yammer on and on about the heat tolerance of Intel vs AMD chips as if this were some terribly huge issue, e.g. "what if your CPU fan dies?" In all the time I've worked with personal computers, over at least a couple of thousand machines, never once - not *once*, mind you - have I *ever* seen a CPU fan blow out.
The closest I've ever gotten to a CPU fan failing is when one fell off the processor because the shop that put together the box didn't actually snap it down. Fortunately I heard the 'thump' and turned the machine off. But as for an actual mechanical failure - never.
I don't root for AMD because they're the underdog. I don't root for them at all. I buy from them because right now I can get a 1.4 ghz processor for $149 (retail) that will outperform a 1.7 ghz Pentium. That's the kind of value a smart person just can't pass up.
For that price I'll take the chance on a fan failing. Especially since I've never had one die on me before.
Perhaps those without the neurological horsepower are also incompetent when it comes to voting on issues which affect all of us.
I used to be in favor of universal suffrage but at my age and after what I've seen it seems to a) be a load of horseshit, since the 'people' rarely decide anything, and b) when the people actually do force an action of some sort, it's almost always as bad or worse than what their elected, corporate-owned reps would've done.
Why the fuck should these ignoramuses have any say whatsoever in how my life is run, especially with respect to issues they don't understand? Hell, if I don't understand something on the ballot or think I don't have enough information to make an informed decision, *I don't vote on that issue*. Why not enforce this outside the political structure by putting the internet and the code it rests on into the hands of the people who actually have a clue? Screw Joe Sixpack and all his relatives, they aren't competent to make these decisions.
Man, am I off topic. Time to get back to work for my clueless, technologically illiterate bosses.
Once again someone else makes the mistake of spouting off tired old sayings like "you get what you pay for" as if that actually said something definitive about Linux. Problem is, Linux is *NOT* -
(and just in case you're not paying attention)
- LINUX IS NOT -
(let's pound the point home, since the religious capitalists have such a hard time with the concept)
- a business venture working within a capitalist environment. This means that *basic market rules re capitalism do not apply to Linux development*, any more than basic market rules under the rubric of capitalism can say anything whatsoever about charity efforts (other than how they impede good ol' capitalistic efforts to sell needed aid).
The entire issue of money is a non-sequiter in Linux development. Payoff comes in terms that have nothing to do with a market economy, or any economic theory whatsoever. Trying to apply market economy fundamentals or the basics of capitalism to Linux is a fool's game.
Not only is it a fool's game, but it's painfully, obviously so to anyone who spends more than a few minutes thinking about.
Off-topic but still in relation to the previous post, I'd remind the poster that a good deal of the effort put into Linux comes from *non-capitalist* countries. In fact, you might even say a major part of the effort comes from *socialist* countries.
(alert: No need to rant on the evils of socialism and bore us with your stupid, ignoramus attempts at humor, trolls. Whatever comments you thought to make, they aren't original and they aren't even mildly funny. Well, maybe to your fellow college buddy losers after a few beers, but not here. So, trolls, piss off and do the Beavis someplace else.)
As a final note, any moron who starts spouting off on why the cathedral is inherently a better approach than the bazaar is just that...a moron. Or perhaps a microsoftie, or both. The moron can't *prove* that this is true, of course, but hey, when you're worshipping at the altar of capitalism or whacking off to a poster of Bill G. no proof is needed.
Because somebody must pay the infrastructure you're using?
That would be me and every other person that pays monthly subscription fees. Contrary to your implication business doesn't subsidize my access or use of the internet one little bit.
If you have empirical proof to the contrary, please provide it.
Successful business ventures are not required to have a thriving, useful internet, regardless of what you might think. Whether or not businesses make it on the net might be important to you, but it's of absolutely no interest to me and won't affect my net access in the slightest.
Again, if you've empirical evidence to the contrary please provide it.
Max
Re:Kernel 2.4.13 is out..yay....
on
Linux 2.4.13
·
· Score: 1
Can you actually read English? I said 'use the last stable kernel which is at least six months, not one just out of development'. Try parsing my message next time.
The actual quote is: "It's never happened; no program has ever altered itself, or been altered to work in a different, better, or more complex fashion without human intervention."
What you described isn't evolution but a self-replicating virus no more complex than what the average hacker could cook up.
This is *not* evolution. All it is is a variation on the standard AI theme: a self-learning program that improves upon what it already knows. But unlike living organisms *it is incapable of developing new, useful characteristics*. It will *never* do this. The program is entirely confined within the box the programmer sets for it, utterly incapable of ever jumping out.
Evolution *requires* the ability to leap outside the box and develop new characteristics. No program on the face of the earth has ever done that, nor can anyone demonstrate a way of implementing this. Variations upon a theme are the best that these misnamed 'genetic programs' can ever do.
Max
Re:Kernel 2.4.13 is out..yay....
on
Linux 2.4.13
·
· Score: 1
Uh, that's what you're *supposed* to do unles you want to help with the beta-testing process. You *never ever* use a kernel less than six months old in a working environment. The release is done so that all of us geeks who like trying the new kernel out can, forwarding bug reports as we find them.
Remember, in Linux all beta-testing is *public*. If you don't want to beta test, just wait six months for a kernel to stabilize.
Methinks a bit more research into both programming and AI design would be of some benefit to you. The sources you mention claim in a completely unsupported manner that the internet is somehow akin to a natural system whereby a program could 'evolve' into something bigger. This is a fallacy of the worst sort; programs don't 'evolve' like living organisms - they are incapable of doing so in the most fundamental manner.
But if you program you'll see the error in this logic right away. You can't compare a program to a biological organism, it's apples and oranges. Makes for great science fiction, sure ("Two Faces of Janus"), but that's all it is - science fiction. The mechanism that drives biological evolution is completely lacking in computer programming. The perception that anything remotely like evolution could occur with a program on the internet is one of the wackiest ideas ever forwarded.
If you have any doubt about this think about how many *billions* of programs have been functioning on the net for the last 20 years, especially at the low-level end where you might expect such 'evolution' to occur if it could (e.g., basic routing). It's never happened; no program has ever altered itself, or been altered to work in a different, better, or more complex fashion without human intervention. Even programs *specifically made* to simulate evolution crap out completely in this regard.
One thing we know: AI *will not* be created by letting loose little 'software organisms' on the net. That has been, and will always be, firmly rooted in the realm of science fiction.
Don't forget white trash fuckwit drunks who refer to latinos as 'spics'. That sort of racist trash is the kind you want to see behind bars, not running security.
My wife recently said: "anytime you're ready to go just say the word". She too is convinced that the system is past repair; in ten years her vote has never counted for anything, never changed anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps the problem is that the size of the U.S. makes it all but impossible for citizens to have any effect whatsoever on their Federal government. But not to fear! I see how we can test this hypothesis:
I propose that Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Northern California secede from the Union and establish their own nation. Over the course of the next twenty years we'll track the progress of both countries and see how closely each abides by the principles embodied in the Constitution, along with surveys determining whether or not citizens think they can actually influence their federal government in an effective and regular fashion.
As a resident of one of the affected states I can honestly say I'm all for the experiment. I seriously doubt the rest of the states would miss us anyway. And perhaps with a smaller country teeming with people who honestly believe in the 2nd Amendment we'd be more likely to shoot politicians who get out of hand, encouraging them to be more circumspect in their enthusiasm to amass power and limit rights.
(sigh) I only wish.
Max
Some of the folks that actually had a hand in crafting the Constitution, or interpreting it after the inception of the Republic, seem to think differently than your esteemed self. But feel free to ignore them; no doubt you are far wiser than they could ever hope to be.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August 1789
"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves...congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788
"[A militia is] the effective part of the people at large." Noah Webster
"First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided." Patrick Henry
"That the powers of government may be resumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness...That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state." New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, 1788
"....to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly antirepublican principle..." Patrick Henry
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton
"Every free man has a right to the use of the press, so he has to the use of his arms." Tench Coxe
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half deprived of the use of them;...the weak will come prey to the strong." Thomas Paine
"The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he live precariously and at discretion. And though for a while, those, who have the sword in their power, abstain from doing him injury, yet by degrees he will be awed." James Burgh, 1775
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"A militia, when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." RICHARD HENRY (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free society." James Madison
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry
Just a few for consumption. And finally:
"3800 times a day, an American firearm owner uses her or his firearm to prevent a [crime]. In 99% of those 3800 daily firearm defenses, no one is shot at all -- & because non-violence is non-news, you never hear about it." --- J. Neil Schulman 1993-07-15 on KNX (reprinted in J. Neil Schulman 1994 _Stopping Power_ pg 237)
Max
No, it did show that Gore won. The reason it wasn't published was because they knew that bringing it up now, after 9/11, would be enormously unpopular - especially with the people of New York. And that would seriously affect sales.
Max
You're assuming this is still a representative democracy. I'd say that's no longer a given.
Max
What I find amazing about scrolling through discussions like this is just how easily Microsoft brainwashed a great many people into thinking that the activation code scheme is okay. I mean hell, MS doesn't need to defend itself as so many drooling zombies will gladly spend an inordinate amount of time justifying the necessity of the activation code. They've bought into the argument lock, stock, and barrel, no doubt surrendering the use of their higher brain functions in the process.
The entire idea of the activation code is so fundamentally anti-consumer-rights I can't even begin to find the tiniest bit of the aforementioned justifications plausible. If I were to buy WinXP, I'd expect:
a) to be able to install it without calling the company for a magic number, since *I've never had to do this for any other piece of software I've ever owned over the last 20 years*;
b) that I damned well have the right to put it on all of my home machines without the company having a fit; and
c) that if I change out my hardware, especially if I'm doing testing configs for clients, I don't have to have the okay of the company to use a piece of software *that I goddamn well bought and own*.
Microsoft has replaced the idea of software ownership with software leasing; now they intend to replace this with the idea of software rental only with Microsoft approval, to be renewed under MS terms.
The weirdness is that *people accept this as okay and normal, even though in the PC OS biz it's never, ever been done this way before*. Almost as if they said "hey, the Great Bill has handed down the mandate, all hail the Great Bill".
Lord, why doesn't MS declare itself a religion a la Scientology? It seems just as effective at gaining converts who'll happily swallow any bullshit that's fed to them.
Max
Most of the money is in the form of software. Ol' Bill has funded a number of new buildings, and you know what they all have in common?
"The William H. Gates (building)."
Nothing like trying to buy immortality.
Max
I guess they don't teach basic science in college anymore.
The link to the survey you gave dealt with a *self-selected group of people*, no different than a Cosmo magazine survey. As anyone who's had Statistics 101 can tell you, *these surveys mean jack* - they're completely non-scientific and utterly worthless.
You'll note that I challenged you to provide empirical evidence. Apparently you can't.
Max
Regardless of what the folks at AOL and MS say, this isn't a self-rating system. It'll start out that way, no doubt, but these 'industry leaders' will soon find that if the system is used they'll have *enormous* content control over web sites.
Imagine: some vocal group of parents complain that a bisexual support site is 'pornographic'. Since the 'family values' folks at AOL/MS no doubt agree that bisexuality is sick, twisted, and un-American, they threaten that site with black-listing unless they change their rating to 'pornographic'. There may not be a whit of porn on the site, but the mere fact that so many people hate bisexuals would be enough to get the site 'reviewed' and threatened by these industry leaders. End result: one way or another the bisexuality site drops off the radar for just about every user who has the software. Or gets flooded with porn freaks looking for pics of Bisexual Babes(TM).
Another example: a particular forum with a penchant for criticizing AOL and/or MS (can't think of one off the top of my head...) always has a small number of posts that contain swearing. Why the fuck that would matter I wouldn't know, but The Committee (which incidentally has AOL and MS on the board) tells the site they have to rate themselves as containing 'adult content' or be blacklisted. Whoops, a site critical of members of The Committee also drops off the radar! Imagine that! Hey, don't complain, you sick little dickwads - they're just protecting 'family values'!
Yet another example: I used to run a personal site for friends that contained a number of different, disparate sections. One dealt entirely with bisexuality issues, another showcased the writing talent of a lady who liked to parody Xena, a third had a rather nifty Xena-site search engine, a fourth had two fully-transcribed pornographic novels ("Lauren Gisal"), yet another dealt entirely with jokes, etc. How exactly does one rate such a site? As porn because it has the two porn novels? That would effectively include every other section on the site unless I went to the trouble to separate them out. What a pain in the ass.
Oh, yeah, I can see that this rating system would be a *great* idea. If you're one of The Committee, that is.
Max
Yes, and I'm old enough to remember it. Trying to get the Boomers from WP 5.1 and the DOS prompt to Win3.1 and Word was a royal pain in the ass. They knew WP, they knew DOS, screw this new GUI thing.
But their bosses said 'thou shalt learn if thou wants to be employed', so they did. If their bosses hadn't said this they'd probably still be using a DOS prompt and WP 5.1.
But really, nearly all of them hated it. Especially the point-and-click way of doing things at first.
Max
So you have two possible outcomes, both of which you made up off the top of your head, and don't allow for alternatives. Let's see....
.doc transform is a problem, no doubt about it, but a number of my folks use StarOffice 5.2 anyway (they *like* everything being on the SO pseudo-desktop, go figure). And since 99% of them don't insert complex Excel tables into their Word docs the conversion process is 100% dead-on.
Opera: funny, I show this to people and they go nuts over it. No long load times, no extraneous crap or bloat, a very easy preferences menu to setup - and they can use it in both Windows or Linux since the versions are practically the same. I'd say regardless of OS that Opera is just as good as or better than IE at giving folks "web experience".
OT Rant:
I'd also say that the "web experience" had better goddamned well be work-related or I'll pull their history file and hand it over to their boss. It's the people who waste so much time on the Winboxen that cause me the most headaches, since they're also the ones most likely to download crap like "bonzi buddy" or whatnot and fuck up their systems.
(Hell, my boss keeps downloading and installing music-sharing programs along with the ad software that comes with them, even though I've told him repeatedly that his system keeps getting screwed up because of it. He doesn't give a shit if I have to regularly do maintenance on his box just so long as he can piss away his time looking for music.)
end OT rant
As for the desktops my experience has been that users jump right in to KDE and figure things out with a minimum of effort (most just think it's a Windows theme, for chrissakes). The
Max
Review the word "anecdotal". Grab a Websters and look it up.
My counter-argument is also anecdotal and thus as worthless as your own. I've dealt with thousands of Windows and hundreds of Linux machines over the years and the Windows machines regardless of use have always been what I would term 'highly unstable'. It's the primary reason I moved Linux to my home desktops - couldn't take the propensity for Windows to crash (usually while I was doing something critical) anymore.
The point is your personal experiences, like mine, count for dick when compared to empirical evidence. I *suspect* that Linux is far, far more stable than Windows (yes, even Win2000) because my unscientific data-gathering techniques tell me that this is true. But I have no scientific evidence of any kind to back this up.
Even so, I'm not quite silly enough to proclaim 'the OS is rock solid' based upon the evidence of two machines. When I say "Windows blows for stability compared to Linux" I do so based upon those thousands of Windows/hundreds of Linux boxes I've fought with over the last 7 or 8 years (after Linux became nicely usable in the server environment). I think that I'm right since I've seen zero evidence to refute my assumptions, but I have no empirical evidence at all to back up this statement.
Neither do you. The difference between us is that your limb is supported by a grand total experience of two machines, while mine rests upon thousands of machines. Which of us do you suppose is more likely to be right?
Max
Don't expect any empirical evidence here on slashdot. Anything even remotely smacking of the scientific method is completely lost most of the flame-boys who fight the Win/Linux wars.
If you want completely unscientific, anecdotal evidence without any statistical significance whatsoever, I can tell you that the last three years working with middle school students has been a real eye-opener in regards to usability. Put a 12-year-old in front of a computer - Linux or Windows, it doesn't matter - and they'll master the machine far faster than any adult. The only difference between the two is that with Linux they'll end up doing things you didn't even know were possible.
The middle school kid doesn't care about the OS. A computer is a computer, it does cool things like email, chat, and play games, and they'll find out how to do these things no matter what the OS is. There's no difference (again, completely anecdotal observations over about a thousand kids) in how quickly they learn either OS or the apps that come with it.
Adults, on the other hand, seem to resist change with whatever energy they can muster. They don't have the 'my-brain-is-young-and-flexible' advantage that a 12-year-old does, nor do they 'intuitively get' computers. Learning is a very slow process for them, so after they do it once they aren't at all interested in doing it again.
I've come to suspect that the reason so many adults use Windows and don't try Linux is simply because most of them don't have the mental wherewithall to make the change without a great deal of effort. Not because Linux is particularly difficult (the kids sure don't seem to think so), but because change of any kind strains the poor adult brain.
I'd postulate that if Linux were taught to middle and school kids rather than Windows, they'd end up being in the reverse situation of their parents, i.e., they'd stick with Linux no matter what and resist going to Windows because learning something new would be a pain in the ass after brain ossification takes place (18+).
Adults take the path of least resistance; kids are more willing to try things out. This might be a primary defining factor for Windows vs. Linux on the desktop, especially since the latest Redhat and SuSe distros install just as easily as Windows does (in SuSe's case, even easier I'd say).
Max
People yammer on and on about the heat tolerance of Intel vs AMD chips as if this were some terribly huge issue, e.g. "what if your CPU fan dies?" In all the time I've worked with personal computers, over at least a couple of thousand machines, never once - not *once*, mind you - have I *ever* seen a CPU fan blow out.
The closest I've ever gotten to a CPU fan failing is when one fell off the processor because the shop that put together the box didn't actually snap it down. Fortunately I heard the 'thump' and turned the machine off. But as for an actual mechanical failure - never.
I don't root for AMD because they're the underdog. I don't root for them at all. I buy from them because right now I can get a 1.4 ghz processor for $149 (retail) that will outperform a 1.7 ghz Pentium. That's the kind of value a smart person just can't pass up.
For that price I'll take the chance on a fan failing. Especially since I've never had one die on me before.
Max
Perhaps those without the neurological horsepower are also incompetent when it comes to voting on issues which affect all of us.
I used to be in favor of universal suffrage but at my age and after what I've seen it seems to a) be a load of horseshit, since the 'people' rarely decide anything, and b) when the people actually do force an action of some sort, it's almost always as bad or worse than what their elected, corporate-owned reps would've done.
Why the fuck should these ignoramuses have any say whatsoever in how my life is run, especially with respect to issues they don't understand? Hell, if I don't understand something on the ballot or think I don't have enough information to make an informed decision, *I don't vote on that issue*. Why not enforce this outside the political structure by putting the internet and the code it rests on into the hands of the people who actually have a clue? Screw Joe Sixpack and all his relatives, they aren't competent to make these decisions.
Man, am I off topic. Time to get back to work for my clueless, technologically illiterate bosses.
Max
Once again someone else makes the mistake of spouting off tired old sayings like "you get what you pay for" as if that actually said something definitive about Linux. Problem is, Linux is *NOT* -
(and just in case you're not paying attention)
- LINUX IS NOT -
(let's pound the point home, since the religious capitalists have such a hard time with the concept)
- a business venture working within a capitalist environment. This means that *basic market rules re capitalism do not apply to Linux development*, any more than basic market rules under the rubric of capitalism can say anything whatsoever about charity efforts (other than how they impede good ol' capitalistic efforts to sell needed aid).
The entire issue of money is a non-sequiter in Linux development. Payoff comes in terms that have nothing to do with a market economy, or any economic theory whatsoever. Trying to apply market economy fundamentals or the basics of capitalism to Linux is a fool's game.
Not only is it a fool's game, but it's painfully, obviously so to anyone who spends more than a few minutes thinking about.
Off-topic but still in relation to the previous post, I'd remind the poster that a good deal of the effort put into Linux comes from *non-capitalist* countries. In fact, you might even say a major part of the effort comes from *socialist* countries.
(alert: No need to rant on the evils of socialism and bore us with your stupid, ignoramus attempts at humor, trolls. Whatever comments you thought to make, they aren't original and they aren't even mildly funny. Well, maybe to your fellow college buddy losers after a few beers, but not here. So, trolls, piss off and do the Beavis someplace else.)
As a final note, any moron who starts spouting off on why the cathedral is inherently a better approach than the bazaar is just that...a moron. Or perhaps a microsoftie, or both. The moron can't *prove* that this is true, of course, but hey, when you're worshipping at the altar of capitalism or whacking off to a poster of Bill G. no proof is needed.
Max
Prove it. Back it up with something more substantial than your personal opinion, like, say, with *empirical evidence*.
If you can't do this, you're just arguing out of your ass. Not at all uncommon here, but fun to point out nevertheless.
Max
Because somebody must pay the infrastructure you're using?
That would be me and every other person that pays monthly subscription fees. Contrary to your implication business doesn't subsidize my access or use of the internet one little bit.
If you have empirical proof to the contrary, please provide it.
Successful business ventures are not required to have a thriving, useful internet, regardless of what you might think. Whether or not businesses make it on the net might be important to you, but it's of absolutely no interest to me and won't affect my net access in the slightest.
Again, if you've empirical evidence to the contrary please provide it.
Max
Can you actually read English? I said 'use the last stable kernel which is at least six months, not one just out of development'. Try parsing my message next time.
Max
The actual quote is: "It's never happened; no program has ever altered itself, or been altered to work in a different, better, or more complex fashion without human intervention."
And this is 100% true.
Max
What you described isn't evolution but a self-replicating virus no more complex than what the average hacker could cook up.
This is *not* evolution. All it is is a variation on the standard AI theme: a self-learning program that improves upon what it already knows. But unlike living organisms *it is incapable of developing new, useful characteristics*. It will *never* do this. The program is entirely confined within the box the programmer sets for it, utterly incapable of ever jumping out.
Evolution *requires* the ability to leap outside the box and develop new characteristics. No program on the face of the earth has ever done that, nor can anyone demonstrate a way of implementing this. Variations upon a theme are the best that these misnamed 'genetic programs' can ever do.
Max
Uh, that's what you're *supposed* to do unles you want to help with the beta-testing process. You *never ever* use a kernel less than six months old in a working environment. The release is done so that all of us geeks who like trying the new kernel out can, forwarding bug reports as we find them.
Remember, in Linux all beta-testing is *public*. If you don't want to beta test, just wait six months for a kernel to stabilize.
Max
Methinks a bit more research into both programming and AI design would be of some benefit to you. The sources you mention claim in a completely unsupported manner that the internet is somehow akin to a natural system whereby a program could 'evolve' into something bigger. This is a fallacy of the worst sort; programs don't 'evolve' like living organisms - they are incapable of doing so in the most fundamental manner.
But if you program you'll see the error in this logic right away. You can't compare a program to a biological organism, it's apples and oranges. Makes for great science fiction, sure ("Two Faces of Janus"), but that's all it is - science fiction. The mechanism that drives biological evolution is completely lacking in computer programming. The perception that anything remotely like evolution could occur with a program on the internet is one of the wackiest ideas ever forwarded.
If you have any doubt about this think about how many *billions* of programs have been functioning on the net for the last 20 years, especially at the low-level end where you might expect such 'evolution' to occur if it could (e.g., basic routing). It's never happened; no program has ever altered itself, or been altered to work in a different, better, or more complex fashion without human intervention. Even programs *specifically made* to simulate evolution crap out completely in this regard.
One thing we know: AI *will not* be created by letting loose little 'software organisms' on the net. That has been, and will always be, firmly rooted in the realm of science fiction.
Max
Not spic welfare druggies who can't speak English
Don't forget white trash fuckwit drunks who refer to latinos as 'spics'. That sort of racist trash is the kind you want to see behind bars, not running security.
Max
My wife recently said: "anytime you're ready to go just say the word". She too is convinced that the system is past repair; in ten years her vote has never counted for anything, never changed anything.
Only: go to where?
Max
format c:
followed by an install of SuSe Linux. I *guarrantee* you'll never have to deal with MS Messenger again.
Max