While I am at it, you can also vote for a sustainable development without spending money by recycling.
The only effective form of recycling is limited to aluminum cans. All other forms actually take more energy and materials (damage to the environment) than just making new products from scratch.
Recycling, on the whole, is a government-mandated piece of feel-good bullshit.
BestBuy is arguably a huge and very wealthy corporation. Yet despite your arguments re libel, http://bestbuysux.org/ has been going strong for years. It stands to reason that other sites about other companies would similarly persevere. As an example, just google "Microsoft sucks" and gape in awe as page after page of possibly libelous accounts of MS's activities make themselves available for your perusal.
Ultimately what we have to remember is that there isn't a single shred of evidence that videogames contribute to violent behavior. Not one little bit.
There is, however, a great deal of evidence that indicates that parents play a huge role in whether or not their children grow up to be good citizens or nasty little fucks. Reams of evidence, in fact. A veritable mountain of evidence.
If you want to have a real effect on whether or not kids are going to turn into worthless pieces of shit, it isn't videogames that should be regulated - but who gets to be a parent in the first place.
While your grammar may be correct, you point exudes prejudice as opposed to intelligence.
No, it expresses a realistic expectation of the individual involved. If you can't be bothered to put forth the effort to master the basics of your own native tongue then I have no reason to believe that you aren't equally lazy when it comes to other endeavors. As an employer I won't hire you hire - plain and simple. Why should I? You've already proven that you're "too good" to bother with something as simple as correct spelling; why should I expect anything less egotistical from you on the job? This sort of pseudo-intellectual snobbishness that some of the geek set wear as a warped badge of honor tells me that you're just an asshole, when all is said and done - and proud of it. So much 'better' than your fellow man that even the use of a spell-checker is beneath you.
I don't have the time or energy to waste on little shits who seem to be eternally stuck in in some kind of pubescent "I'm such a cool rebel!" mode. They're no different than those idiots who think that ragging on Britney Spears while extolling the virtues of their shitty garage band somehow makes them counterculture, and therefore better than everyone around them. People like this need to grow the fuck up and start acting like adults.
Elitist prick I might be, but it beats being a pathetic little toad who takes pride in his deliberate intellectual incompetence.
No, that's exactly the way it should be. A person who can't be bothered to learn the simple basics of their mother tongue is a person who's lazy and self-involved. This is especially true when it comes to communicating via the internet, as a plethora of spelling and grammar checkers are only a click away.
That isn't the sort of person I want working for me in my place of business. If you're so goddamned lazy you can't even be bothered to learn how to communicate properly then there's no reason in the world I should think that you won't be an equally lazy, egotistical ass when it comes to doing the job.
Act like an intellectual incompetent and you'll be treated like one. There's nothing 'unfair' about this. If you don't like it then learn how to speak and write the language you supposedly have the wit to master, seeing as how you grew up with it.
Or at least master left-clicking on the spell-checker before you post. But then we can safely assume that people who can't be bothered to learn how to spell or use a dictionary are also too fat-assed to use a spell-checker, so I guess that's probably asking too much of these fools.
We're talking about the 30-50 year olds who don't have the stamina anymore.
That would be "we're talking about 30-50 year olds who aren't that fucking stupid anymore, and who've managed to pick up this thing called 'a life' along the way to middle age."
So they shut down a site that was trading in illegal stuff. What is the big deal? (other than the fact that the feds are concerned with THIS and not so much things that really hurt human beings)
Torrents wouldn't be so bloody popular unless the current distribution model for media was a source of widespread dissatisfaction. Despite a plethora of laws passed to uphold aging business models, the number of Americans (just Americans) engaging in illegal downloading activity passed more than an estimated *70 million* last month. When a quarter of your citizens consistently and repeatedly break the law despite the imposition of relatively harsh (even ludicrous) prison sentences then there's something seriously wrong with the law - by definition. The citizens supposedly define the law, and if a good chunk of them ignore it (with the numbers rising every month) it's a fair bet that the law they're dismissing doesn't reflect their own interests or goals.
The RIAA and MPAA refuse to adapt to changing market conditions. Just plain, flat-out refuse. Probably because they know that in this case while adaption might very well preserve or even increase profits, it'll almost certainly strip them of the non-economic power they've acquired over the last fifty years - power that the tin-pots in the industries love more than money itself. So instead of adapting and avoiding this whole mess they buy laws and send Americans to jail over COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, which is just fucking stupid.
And yet despite this, the increasingly stiffer penalties, and the crackdowns, the number of Joes and Janes breaking these laws is climbing faster than at any other time in history since the Prohibition! That should tell you something right there about how well the law reflects the will of the people it supposedly serves.
Just like soaps, movies, and books, it's escapism that you can live vicariously through because you don't really want divorce, scandel, murder, and heartbreak in your real life.
You can get all of this in something called a 'book', available at these places called, interestingly enough, 'bookstores'. And it's a virtual guarantee that the quality of the writing will almost certainly far exceed anything found in 99% of the blogs out there.
I know, I know, radical concept trying to pry your fat ass out of the computer chair to go do something in the real world - just thought I'd mention it for the more adventurous among you....
The last thing the open-source community needs is a war between its developers.
No, the last thing the open source 'community' needs is a borg-like avoidance of conflict. Conflict is *good*; it spurs change, reveals flaws, and pushes people to either put up or shut up.
People who clamor for an end to conflict with the tired 'let's just all get along' line are, in fact, poison to any endeavor which wants to remain vibrant and strong. It's unfortunate that anyone pays any attention at all to these losers, whose only real goal is to shut down any and all opposition to their own pet views of How The World Should Be(TM).
No, let's NOT just all get along. Let's argue, fight, criticize, disagree and struggle whenever we feel that it's appropriate to do so. And if anyone comes along and whines about this state of affairs, let's bitch-slap the wannabe tin-potters into next week without so much as giving them the time of day.
This person is not being indicted for using crypto, his use of it is simply being used to show intent... why is that so wrong?
Because you, like most of the slashdotters arguing in favor of this ruling, apparently haven't read the fucking article. There is no evidence whatsoever that the man used encryption for ANYTHING AT ALL, much less hiding child porn. None. Nada. Zip.
It was present on his computer. That's it. It's also present on your computer if you use WinXP, Win2000, or have just about any distro of Linux. And we'll be sure to use it as 'evidence' of your intent to 'hide your crime' should we ever suspect you of doing anything illegal.
The answer is because, like it or not, law is a highly technical field. You might as well ask why the field of medicine isn't more plainly understandable by the majority of people. Or particle physics, or topological mathematics.
If the law isn't understandable by a majority of the citizens, the government has no business holding those citizens accountable to the laws.
Unlike particle physics or topological mathematics, laws are solely constructed at the whim of the people. If the laws aren't comprehensible to the average citizen then the law has been drafted in this fashion to the benefit of someone who isn't an average citizen, most likely a lawyer who profits from the fact that Joe Smith can't make heads or tails of it on his own.
However, evidence that he used encryption to commit a crime does show an attempt to "destroy" evidence and is wholly relevant to the case at hand.
Except that according to the article there's absolutely no evidence of any such thing. So why was the fact that he had encryption software on his computer introduced at all? As a biased attempt to sway the jury, of course.
Although I don't see why they even bothered. The guy was fucked from day one due to the other evidence collected against him.
Firefox is a browser, not a religion - although quite a few people seem to treat it as such. Probably the same folks who think that Google and Apple are worthy of worship and should never be criticized.
Instead of trying to gloss over the bugs and flaws while shrilling "Firefox uber alles!" it'd be of more value to say "yep, it's software; software has bugs, that goes with the territory. Let's identify them, make them public, and fix them." Borg-like geek loyalty to a piece of software is not only counterproductive, it's just plain stupid.
And along the way, try to remember that Firefox is not the browser for everyone. That's actually a good thing; monoculture is bad even if the monoculture is an open source product. While I like the idea that Firefox is taking away IE market share I'd never want Firefox to *replace* IE; I'd much rather see a half-dozen or more browsers all competing at relatively low levels of share, with none of them ever coming close to reaching a dominant position. This is a better situation for all of us, even the ones who treat certain forms of software as their own personal religion.
Yes, no doubt many people download firefox more than once. But there are also those of use who carry it on a usb key\cd\share\whatever and install it multiple times from a single download (I do so myself.)
If this is true you could use the same logic for Opera, in which case the number of Opera users would be much higher than the number of downloads that Opera claims.
Or does this special sort of reasoning only apply to Firefox?
For a real-world example, just take a look at McDonalds. They claim "99 billion served", or so it says on the franchise a mile away. We all know that there aren't anything like 99 billion people on the planet (6.5 or thereabouts), and certainly a majority of these people don't even know what a McDonalds is (Third World); so it's clear to everyone that McDonalds is counting every single act of service and not individual customers. Their claim of "99 billion served" is just hype.
What's of real interest where Firefox is concerned is a) how many unique customers are there, and b) how many of these actually use the product, and don't just throw it away after the download because they don't happen to like it.
I've downloaded it and found it wasn't to my liking, so I decided to stick with Opera. In fact, I've downloaded several versions over time just to check and see if it was worth giving up Opera for. It isn't, but I'm guessing my downloads count as much as anyone else's even though Firefox isn't anywhere on my home network.
I already pay for cable. I already pay for every fucking show aired during the entire month on every channel I have access to. But like most folks I end up missing shows, or discovering a decent show halfway through the season - and in this case owning a VCR doesn't help.
BitTorrent, however, allows me to catch up on a series, or to get a show that I forgot about and missed. I've already paid for the ability to watch these shows; how is this any different than the time-shifting you do with a VCR? If I had a monster VCR (or Tivo-like device) capable of recording every channel 24/7 then I could do exactly what I do with BitTorrent, only legally, but such a device doesn't exist. I fail to see the distinction, except that the possibility exists that someone who doesn't subscribe to cable will also get the show. And in this case I say so what? It's not like the distributor is losing sales to someone who wouldn't subscribe to cable in the first place. And there exists the possibility that someone who gets addicted to a show or three will decide to get cable when he or she otherwise wouldn't.
If the companies that distributed these shows made them available for download themselves then I'd go to their sites and grab them. Commercials or not, I'll happily take faster transfer rates and higher quality over a torrent any day of the week. In fact, I'd be willing to give up cable altogether and subscribe to such a service because then I'd never have to worry about recording a show I'd otherwise miss, or not being able to find old episodes of an ongoing series I just discovered, or trying to find old shows that I want to watch over again just for kicks. I'd pay MORE for such a service than I ever would for cable.
There's a huge, untapped market out there for just such a service. The first company that jumps into the waters and provides precisely this is going to make a killing. Sure, local TV companies will lose out but so the fuck what? Times change, technologies change, new companies are born, old ones die. That's capitalism and that's the way it's supposed to be. Hanging on to a dead or dying past is for losers.
It must be a scary place looking through your economic worldview. No wonder you make such silly statements; you don't know any better.
This coming from someone who's grasp on basic economics is so poor he manages to embarrass himself in public without even realizing it.
Business is not, has never been, and will never be about "humanity", whatever the hell that means. It's about the bottom line, and for that you should be thankful. Without that motivational drive the human race would still be living in tribal groups digging roots out of the dirt with sticks.
Max
Re:Its only the bad things we head about?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 1
You can love APPLE and be critical at the same time!
Not if you're an Apple zealot. These folks are just as fucked in the head as Windows zealots, the whole lot looking for something to bow down to in unthinking worship.
Hey, you pathetic zealots: get a clue. In fact, get an entire life. Apple is a company, nothing more, composed of human beings primarily motivated to make a profit above all other things. That's the entire *purpose* of Apple. They aren't worth worshipping any more than Ford or Edison Power is worth worshipping.
Back in the net revolution Microsoft was proclaimed down and out because they came to the party late, and then virtually overnight they became dominant.
What are you talking about? MS never gained a significant foothold of any kind in this arena. For all intents and purposes they've been shut out of the market. The only peripheral claim they can make is that IIS still runs on half the servers in the world, but that hardly counts as "dominating" the net.
The real threat that Microsoft faces, or at least their Windows platform, is from Apple - Apple has shown a brilliance at being able to understand, deliver, and market their products.
Apple consistently produces interesting products...and consistently blows potential market share land grabs. Where once Apple was a formidable competitor to MS it now accounts for what? About 5% of all PC sales? Big - fucking - deal.
As for the ipod, I'm willing to bet that Apple will blow this one too, within the next several years. It'd be par for the course for them and I don't see any change at Apple that indicates that *this* time it's going to be any different.
I think that the average person can re-install windows.
I don't know about the average person and Windows, but the average 12-year-old can install Suse Linux. I know because it was part of the course I constructed when I taught middle school. Of course, I suspect that children are far more adaptable (and considerably smarter) than most adults.
Neither is it fascist, it's the polar opposite, communist.
Calling yourself communist doesn't make you communist. You actually have to *practice* communism, a feat which no government has ever come close to at any time in human history.
China is a fascism, an autocratic authority ruling over an economic mix of capitalism and state-owned industry. It's the very definition of fascism.
Slashdot Mirror
While I am at it, you can also vote for a sustainable development without spending money by recycling.
The only effective form of recycling is limited to aluminum cans. All other forms actually take more energy and materials (damage to the environment) than just making new products from scratch.
Recycling, on the whole, is a government-mandated piece of feel-good bullshit.
Max
BestBuy is arguably a huge and very wealthy corporation. Yet despite your arguments re libel, http://bestbuysux.org/ has been going strong for years. It stands to reason that other sites about other companies would similarly persevere. As an example, just google "Microsoft sucks" and gape in awe as page after page of possibly libelous accounts of MS's activities make themselves available for your perusal.
Max
Ultimately what we have to remember is that there isn't a single shred of evidence that videogames contribute to violent behavior. Not one little bit.
There is, however, a great deal of evidence that indicates that parents play a huge role in whether or not their children grow up to be good citizens or nasty little fucks. Reams of evidence, in fact. A veritable mountain of evidence.
If you want to have a real effect on whether or not kids are going to turn into worthless pieces of shit, it isn't videogames that should be regulated - but who gets to be a parent in the first place.
Max
While your grammar may be correct, you point exudes prejudice as opposed to intelligence.
No, it expresses a realistic expectation of the individual involved. If you can't be bothered to put forth the effort to master the basics of your own native tongue then I have no reason to believe that you aren't equally lazy when it comes to other endeavors. As an employer I won't hire you hire - plain and simple. Why should I? You've already proven that you're "too good" to bother with something as simple as correct spelling; why should I expect anything less egotistical from you on the job? This sort of pseudo-intellectual snobbishness that some of the geek set wear as a warped badge of honor tells me that you're just an asshole, when all is said and done - and proud of it. So much 'better' than your fellow man that even the use of a spell-checker is beneath you.
I don't have the time or energy to waste on little shits who seem to be eternally stuck in in some kind of pubescent "I'm such a cool rebel!" mode. They're no different than those idiots who think that ragging on Britney Spears while extolling the virtues of their shitty garage band somehow makes them counterculture, and therefore better than everyone around them. People like this need to grow the fuck up and start acting like adults.
Elitist prick I might be, but it beats being a pathetic little toad who takes pride in his deliberate intellectual incompetence.
Max
I know it shouldn't happen, but it does
No, that's exactly the way it should be. A person who can't be bothered to learn the simple basics of their mother tongue is a person who's lazy and self-involved. This is especially true when it comes to communicating via the internet, as a plethora of spelling and grammar checkers are only a click away.
That isn't the sort of person I want working for me in my place of business. If you're so goddamned lazy you can't even be bothered to learn how to communicate properly then there's no reason in the world I should think that you won't be an equally lazy, egotistical ass when it comes to doing the job.
Act like an intellectual incompetent and you'll be treated like one. There's nothing 'unfair' about this. If you don't like it then learn how to speak and write the language you supposedly have the wit to master, seeing as how you grew up with it.
Or at least master left-clicking on the spell-checker before you post. But then we can safely assume that people who can't be bothered to learn how to spell or use a dictionary are also too fat-assed to use a spell-checker, so I guess that's probably asking too much of these fools.
Max
We're talking about the 30-50 year olds who don't have the stamina anymore.
That would be "we're talking about 30-50 year olds who aren't that fucking stupid anymore, and who've managed to pick up this thing called 'a life' along the way to middle age."
Max
So they shut down a site that was trading in illegal stuff. What is the big deal? (other than the fact that the feds are concerned with THIS and not so much things that really hurt human beings)
Torrents wouldn't be so bloody popular unless the current distribution model for media was a source of widespread dissatisfaction. Despite a plethora of laws passed to uphold aging business models, the number of Americans (just Americans) engaging in illegal downloading activity passed more than an estimated *70 million* last month. When a quarter of your citizens consistently and repeatedly break the law despite the imposition of relatively harsh (even ludicrous) prison sentences then there's something seriously wrong with the law - by definition. The citizens supposedly define the law, and if a good chunk of them ignore it (with the numbers rising every month) it's a fair bet that the law they're dismissing doesn't reflect their own interests or goals.
The RIAA and MPAA refuse to adapt to changing market conditions. Just plain, flat-out refuse. Probably because they know that in this case while adaption might very well preserve or even increase profits, it'll almost certainly strip them of the non-economic power they've acquired over the last fifty years - power that the tin-pots in the industries love more than money itself. So instead of adapting and avoiding this whole mess they buy laws and send Americans to jail over COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, which is just fucking stupid.
And yet despite this, the increasingly stiffer penalties, and the crackdowns, the number of Joes and Janes breaking these laws is climbing faster than at any other time in history since the Prohibition! That should tell you something right there about how well the law reflects the will of the people it supposedly serves.
Max
Dear Americans:
This should read 'dear humans', but I guess some europeans can't admit that their folks are just as fucking ignorant as our own.
Max
As if using an ignoramus like Kim Stanley Robinson to define libertarianism is somehow insightful...or was this meant as a joke?
Max
Just like soaps, movies, and books, it's escapism that you can live vicariously through because you don't really want divorce, scandel, murder, and heartbreak in your real life.
You can get all of this in something called a 'book', available at these places called, interestingly enough, 'bookstores'. And it's a virtual guarantee that the quality of the writing will almost certainly far exceed anything found in 99% of the blogs out there.
I know, I know, radical concept trying to pry your fat ass out of the computer chair to go do something in the real world - just thought I'd mention it for the more adventurous among you....
Max
The last thing the open-source community needs is a war between its developers.
No, the last thing the open source 'community' needs is a borg-like avoidance of conflict. Conflict is *good*; it spurs change, reveals flaws, and pushes people to either put up or shut up.
People who clamor for an end to conflict with the tired 'let's just all get along' line are, in fact, poison to any endeavor which wants to remain vibrant and strong. It's unfortunate that anyone pays any attention at all to these losers, whose only real goal is to shut down any and all opposition to their own pet views of How The World Should Be(TM).
No, let's NOT just all get along. Let's argue, fight, criticize, disagree and struggle whenever we feel that it's appropriate to do so. And if anyone comes along and whines about this state of affairs, let's bitch-slap the wannabe tin-potters into next week without so much as giving them the time of day.
Max
This person is not being indicted for using crypto, his use of it is simply being used to show intent... why is that so wrong?
Because you, like most of the slashdotters arguing in favor of this ruling, apparently haven't read the fucking article. There is no evidence whatsoever that the man used encryption for ANYTHING AT ALL, much less hiding child porn. None. Nada. Zip.
It was present on his computer. That's it. It's also present on your computer if you use WinXP, Win2000, or have just about any distro of Linux. And we'll be sure to use it as 'evidence' of your intent to 'hide your crime' should we ever suspect you of doing anything illegal.
Max
The answer is because, like it or not, law is a highly technical field. You might as well ask why the field of medicine isn't more plainly understandable by the majority of people. Or particle physics, or topological mathematics.
If the law isn't understandable by a majority of the citizens, the government has no business holding those citizens accountable to the laws.
Unlike particle physics or topological mathematics, laws are solely constructed at the whim of the people. If the laws aren't comprehensible to the average citizen then the law has been drafted in this fashion to the benefit of someone who isn't an average citizen, most likely a lawyer who profits from the fact that Joe Smith can't make heads or tails of it on his own.
Max
However, evidence that he used encryption to commit a crime does show an attempt to "destroy" evidence and is wholly relevant to the case at hand.
Except that according to the article there's absolutely no evidence of any such thing. So why was the fact that he had encryption software on his computer introduced at all? As a biased attempt to sway the jury, of course.
Although I don't see why they even bothered. The guy was fucked from day one due to the other evidence collected against him.
Max
Firefox is a browser, not a religion - although quite a few people seem to treat it as such. Probably the same folks who think that Google and Apple are worthy of worship and should never be criticized.
Instead of trying to gloss over the bugs and flaws while shrilling "Firefox uber alles!" it'd be of more value to say "yep, it's software; software has bugs, that goes with the territory. Let's identify them, make them public, and fix them." Borg-like geek loyalty to a piece of software is not only counterproductive, it's just plain stupid.
And along the way, try to remember that Firefox is not the browser for everyone. That's actually a good thing; monoculture is bad even if the monoculture is an open source product. While I like the idea that Firefox is taking away IE market share I'd never want Firefox to *replace* IE; I'd much rather see a half-dozen or more browsers all competing at relatively low levels of share, with none of them ever coming close to reaching a dominant position. This is a better situation for all of us, even the ones who treat certain forms of software as their own personal religion.
Max
Yes, no doubt many people download firefox more than once. But there are also those of use who carry it on a usb key\cd\share\whatever and install it multiple times from a single download (I do so myself.)
If this is true you could use the same logic for Opera, in which case the number of Opera users would be much higher than the number of downloads that Opera claims.
Or does this special sort of reasoning only apply to Firefox?
Max
For a real-world example, just take a look at McDonalds. They claim "99 billion served", or so it says on the franchise a mile away. We all know that there aren't anything like 99 billion people on the planet (6.5 or thereabouts), and certainly a majority of these people don't even know what a McDonalds is (Third World); so it's clear to everyone that McDonalds is counting every single act of service and not individual customers. Their claim of "99 billion served" is just hype.
What's of real interest where Firefox is concerned is a) how many unique customers are there, and b) how many of these actually use the product, and don't just throw it away after the download because they don't happen to like it.
Max
I've downloaded it and found it wasn't to my liking, so I decided to stick with Opera. In fact, I've downloaded several versions over time just to check and see if it was worth giving up Opera for. It isn't, but I'm guessing my downloads count as much as anyone else's even though Firefox isn't anywhere on my home network.
Max
You don't have a right to just get it for free...
I already pay for cable. I already pay for every fucking show aired during the entire month on every channel I have access to. But like most folks I end up missing shows, or discovering a decent show halfway through the season - and in this case owning a VCR doesn't help.
BitTorrent, however, allows me to catch up on a series, or to get a show that I forgot about and missed. I've already paid for the ability to watch these shows; how is this any different than the time-shifting you do with a VCR? If I had a monster VCR (or Tivo-like device) capable of recording every channel 24/7 then I could do exactly what I do with BitTorrent, only legally, but such a device doesn't exist. I fail to see the distinction, except that the possibility exists that someone who doesn't subscribe to cable will also get the show. And in this case I say so what? It's not like the distributor is losing sales to someone who wouldn't subscribe to cable in the first place. And there exists the possibility that someone who gets addicted to a show or three will decide to get cable when he or she otherwise wouldn't.
If the companies that distributed these shows made them available for download themselves then I'd go to their sites and grab them. Commercials or not, I'll happily take faster transfer rates and higher quality over a torrent any day of the week. In fact, I'd be willing to give up cable altogether and subscribe to such a service because then I'd never have to worry about recording a show I'd otherwise miss, or not being able to find old episodes of an ongoing series I just discovered, or trying to find old shows that I want to watch over again just for kicks. I'd pay MORE for such a service than I ever would for cable.
There's a huge, untapped market out there for just such a service. The first company that jumps into the waters and provides precisely this is going to make a killing. Sure, local TV companies will lose out but so the fuck what? Times change, technologies change, new companies are born, old ones die. That's capitalism and that's the way it's supposed to be. Hanging on to a dead or dying past is for losers.
Max
It must be a scary place looking through your economic worldview. No wonder you make such silly statements; you don't know any better.
This coming from someone who's grasp on basic economics is so poor he manages to embarrass himself in public without even realizing it.
Business is not, has never been, and will never be about "humanity", whatever the hell that means. It's about the bottom line, and for that you should be thankful. Without that motivational drive the human race would still be living in tribal groups digging roots out of the dirt with sticks.
Max
You can love APPLE and be critical at the same time!
Not if you're an Apple zealot. These folks are just as fucked in the head as Windows zealots, the whole lot looking for something to bow down to in unthinking worship.
Hey, you pathetic zealots: get a clue. In fact, get an entire life. Apple is a company, nothing more, composed of human beings primarily motivated to make a profit above all other things. That's the entire *purpose* of Apple. They aren't worth worshipping any more than Ford or Edison Power is worth worshipping.
Max
Back in the net revolution Microsoft was proclaimed down and out because they came to the party late, and then virtually overnight they became dominant.
What are you talking about? MS never gained a significant foothold of any kind in this arena. For all intents and purposes they've been shut out of the market. The only peripheral claim they can make is that IIS still runs on half the servers in the world, but that hardly counts as "dominating" the net.
The real threat that Microsoft faces, or at least their Windows platform, is from Apple - Apple has shown a brilliance at being able to understand, deliver, and market their products.
Apple consistently produces interesting products...and consistently blows potential market share land grabs. Where once Apple was a formidable competitor to MS it now accounts for what? About 5% of all PC sales? Big - fucking - deal.
As for the ipod, I'm willing to bet that Apple will blow this one too, within the next several years. It'd be par for the course for them and I don't see any change at Apple that indicates that *this* time it's going to be any different.
Max
I think that the average person can re-install windows.
I don't know about the average person and Windows, but the average 12-year-old can install Suse Linux. I know because it was part of the course I constructed when I taught middle school. Of course, I suspect that children are far more adaptable (and considerably smarter) than most adults.
Max
No operation is going to hire "non-skilled people" for any department let alone an important one as IT.
You've apparently never worked for government.
Max
Neither is it fascist, it's the polar opposite, communist.
Calling yourself communist doesn't make you communist. You actually have to *practice* communism, a feat which no government has ever come close to at any time in human history.
China is a fascism, an autocratic authority ruling over an economic mix of capitalism and state-owned industry. It's the very definition of fascism.
Max