The US is a two party system mainly because that's how people polarize, to two 'extremes.' (Now-as to wether they are actual 'two extremes' or a left and right wing flapping on the same big stoopid bird is another matter...)
The two party system really has seemed to promote discussion of less worthy issues. I do not think that whether or not a President would nominate a judge who promises to overturn Roe v. Wade is a good way to assess his leadership skills, for example. That's why I encourage third party voting, since the left-right paradigm seems to have one big common platform: bigger federal government.
"One of the thing I liked at Microsoft was that most of the programmers there, in addition to being very bright, cared about writing quality, robust code.... People cared about their code being as bug free as possible and were willing to sacrifice their weekends and social lives in order to write the best code they could. It was an attitude I saw througout my twelve and a half years at Microsoft."
So, given that..convince the average buyer to go with something different than Windows.
Wrong. Convincing the average Walmart shopper to buy a computer without Windows is tough. Convincing the shoppers that are looking elsewhere, in stores where the Linux machines are truly identical (for example, where you pick the system and the operating system separately), then it would be impossible to hide the cost difference without the store intentionally changing the price of one irrespective of the other. That is of course. silly marketing. If you want to offer a cheaper alternative, then you'd better make it cheaper.
So, given that..convince the average buyer to go with something different than Windows.
Wrong. Convincing the average Walmart shopper to buy a computer without Windows is tough. Convincing the shoppers that are looking elsewhere, in stores where the Linux machines are truly identical (for example, where you pick the system and the operating system separately), then it would be impossible to hide the cost difference without intentionally changing the price of one irrespective of the other.
Support people always see the worst customers. Just like the cop that pulls you over is likely to be one of the more assholeish ones.
I have met a lot of computer users, and I do know many that would never be able to handle anything besides Windows, but most people I know understand that Microsoft develops Windows which is the software that makes up that start menu and the icons.
Besides, believing that Windows IS your computer is more likely to make the shopper question why a computer sold without it costs less, since the idea that a computer can be sold without Windows would appear so out of the ordinary.
Suppose I went to a computer store and picked out a Linux system with a DVD drive and a 2.5 GHz Celeron. Suppose further that I used the same computer store to pick out a Windows system without the DVD drive and with a 2.4 GHz P4.
The real question of whether or not the end user "sees" the value is the comparison between the "vanilla" Windows machines and the "vanilla" Linux ones. If a store offers Windows and Linux computers with the specs you described, than I will admit that shoppers may not "see" the value shopping at that store.
Still, I find it hard to believe that other shoppers would never see the value at a different store.
PHBs have started to turn to some form of Linux. As more and more do, do we want to let them make the decisions about which particular form to go with? Or do we want to at least influence, if not outright make that decision?
They won't decide the future of Linux, but they will decide if the future of Linux coincides with their project goals.
It's not like there is any governing body that steers "Linux."
Name one thing in RHEL that's broken that RH hasn't fixed. RHEL is rock solid, and you'd be hard pressed enough just to find stuff that shipped broken that did get fixed.
Unfair comparison. Moving from Celeron to P4 is expensive. If you find a computer store that lets you buy a computer without Windows bundled in, you'll find that you save about 70-100 dollars.
Windows may have faults, but poor performance is generally not one of them.
Depends on how you guage it. If you take off the services enabled by default on, say, Mandrake, it's a lot faster than stock Mandrake. Then again, most people who feel like Windows performs better are put off by slow responsiveness in X. For example, XFree86 clients redraw themselves when they resize or get exposed. If XFree86 kept window contents buffered, then Linux would feel a lot faster.
This is a legitimate concern, of course. A lot of folks recomend Linux because they claim it's faster, and a lot of potential users get put off by the fact that it isn't.
On virtually anything besides the GUI (only a small part of the applications themselves are tied to the GUI), I find that Linux and Windows are about the same, with any slight advantages going in favor of Linux. YMMV.
Hold a regular bi-partisan election? Quite a few folks out there consistently vote libertarian, so I don't know where you get that our elections are bi-partisan.
Linux version 2.4.22 (root@macuser.org) (gcc version 3.2.1) #2 Mon Nov 02 00:08:59 EST 2003
Note that 2.4.x series kernels are supposed to be built with gcc 2.95.x. The new 2.6.0 kernels have gcc 3.x as the "official" compiler for the x86 architecture.
It looks like they'll be releasing multi-sessioned discs with normal audio in the first session, and compressed, DRM'ed music files in the second session, as well added 'extras', including access to exclusive online content.
I bet it all sucks. How many times does a big company throw "exclusive online content" at the customers only to find out it's really shameless self-promotion. Take Lord of the Rings, for example. I like the films, but a little too much hype, thank you.
I'll drink a Budweiser if that's all there is available...if Bush were the only available candidate for the 2004 election, I think I would leave the country.
I don't think it's wise to tell developers what tools to use, but I think a standards body such as the LSB but targetted towards packages would be half the work.
Compliant software would all use autotools (which sucks for the anti-m4 crowd), and especially follow proper naming convention. Binary incompatibility bumps up major number, new featuresets or addons to the API/ABI bump the minor number, and minor enhancements and bugfixes bump up the teeny number.
Compliant software would also need to have man pages (even if it just refers to a website):)
Once you get standards in project source code, you'll see 99% of package management problems go away, and you'll start to see the incredible robustness and advantages that package management offers really shine.
To me, it's more important that developers all follow their own ideas and tangents, and making a coherent desktop should be the distribution's responsibility.
Efforts to make the standard libraries and desktops play along together are really important, too.
Corporations are institutions completed created by the government.
Nope.
They have no inherent rights or powers aside from what the government has given them
One could argue that humans have no inherent rights or powers aside from what their government allows. Does that mean that humans are "institutions completely created by the government?"
so it seems to me that not restricting them is the exact same thing as giving them power.
I just don't agree with your two premises, therefore I cannot accept your conclusion.
Re:Why The "Matrix-In-A-Matrix" Idea Is Stupid:
on
The Matrix: Resolutions
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Remember that your argemnt stems from the fundamental belief that there is no God, hence mankind must have created him. I personally consider it wiser to withold belief until there are facts that show that a theory is true, but others feel quite convinced that they have such evidence.
I can easily belive aliens created me just as well as god did. Or just as fair, I can belive I was created by mighty powerfull trees. I can't prove it but I can belive it.
While I do understand that your point was that beliefs have no basis in fact, and hence cannot be validated or compared, I question whether or not you truly could believe such things.
Most believers I know genuinely feel like they're right. It is impossible for the brain to forcibly will nonsense into truth.
Re:Why The "Matrix-In-A-Matrix" Idea Is Stupid:
on
The Matrix: Resolutions
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Small minds make up answers to stop fear, or the truth.
That's an even more interesting argument, when turned against non-believers. Perhaps we (I'm a non-believer as well) are just using logic and reason to construct ideas that eliminate the otherwise obvious truth that a Creator exists.
Of course, I still maintain my disbelief, but your statement doesn't follow any kind of logic or reason. I would not bring it up in any theological debate if I were you.
I disagree. My first reason is that there are more citizens than there are corporations. Money or no money, we don't have to vote corporate tools into office.
Secondly, I can only think of a few laws that explicitly empower corporations (the Telecommunications Act of, what was it, 1997? comes to mind).
The problem is that most Americans are apathetic and vote for "whoever," if at all. We fund corporations by buying their products and voting for candidates they support. We aren't forced into doing either, so I'd say the corporations have as much power as we as a nation let them.
Furthermore, I would contend that most corporations provide our country with jobs, stimulate the economy, and help more than they hurt. It is only a small fraction of corporations that are like Microsoft, Enron, GE, etc., that control unruly amounts of power.
Which is why we need to vote for third party candidates, and avoid giving our business to the corporations that are screwing the public. We Americans really need to start taking matters into our own hands and do something about the sad state of American politics.
I'd say the patent office has handed corporations quite a bit.
Patents are good when they protect the little guy from the big guy, and they even make sense for corporationsn at times.
In my opinion, the problems come when people patent the digital equivalent of eating cereal with milk. A more knowledgeable USPTO would go a long way to keep the suits off our backs.
Slashdot Mirror
The two party system really has seemed to promote discussion of less worthy issues. I do not think that whether or not a President would nominate a judge who promises to overturn Roe v. Wade is a good way to assess his leadership skills, for example. That's why I encourage third party voting, since the left-right paradigm seems to have one big common platform: bigger federal government.
Were these the guys that brought us Windows 95?
I believe you, but you cannot extrapolate Wal Mart's case to the entire computer retail sector.
Wrong. Convincing the average Walmart shopper to buy a computer without Windows is tough. Convincing the shoppers that are looking elsewhere, in stores where the Linux machines are truly identical (for example, where you pick the system and the operating system separately), then it would be impossible to hide the cost difference without the store intentionally changing the price of one irrespective of the other. That is of course. silly marketing. If you want to offer a cheaper alternative, then you'd better make it cheaper.
P.S sorry bout the fscked post.
Wrong. Convincing the average Walmart shopper to buy a computer without Windows is tough. Convincing the shoppers that are looking elsewhere, in stores where the Linux machines are truly identical (for example, where you pick the system and the operating system separately), then it would be impossible to hide the cost difference without intentionally changing the price of one irrespective of the other.
I have met a lot of computer users, and I do know many that would never be able to handle anything besides Windows, but most people I know understand that Microsoft develops Windows which is the software that makes up that start menu and the icons.
Besides, believing that Windows IS your computer is more likely to make the shopper question why a computer sold without it costs less, since the idea that a computer can be sold without Windows would appear so out of the ordinary.
The real question of whether or not the end user "sees" the value is the comparison between the "vanilla" Windows machines and the "vanilla" Linux ones. If a store offers Windows and Linux computers with the specs you described, than I will admit that shoppers may not "see" the value shopping at that store.
Still, I find it hard to believe that other shoppers would never see the value at a different store.
They won't decide the future of Linux, but they will decide if the future of Linux coincides with their project goals.
It's not like there is any governing body that steers "Linux."
Name one thing in RHEL that's broken that RH hasn't fixed. RHEL is rock solid, and you'd be hard pressed enough just to find stuff that shipped broken that did get fixed.
A Microtel: 2.4 P4, 60GB drive, CD-RW, Ethernet, running SuSE 8.2 - $598.
Unfair comparison. Moving from Celeron to P4 is expensive. If you find a computer store that lets you buy a computer without Windows bundled in, you'll find that you save about 70-100 dollars.
If a computer company that didn't bundle Windows with their machines ever made it to Best Buy, I think people would see the difference.
Depends on how you guage it. If you take off the services enabled by default on, say, Mandrake, it's a lot faster than stock Mandrake. Then again, most people who feel like Windows performs better are put off by slow responsiveness in X. For example, XFree86 clients redraw themselves when they resize or get exposed. If XFree86 kept window contents buffered, then Linux would feel a lot faster.
This is a legitimate concern, of course. A lot of folks recomend Linux because they claim it's faster, and a lot of potential users get put off by the fact that it isn't.
On virtually anything besides the GUI (only a small part of the applications themselves are tied to the GUI), I find that Linux and Windows are about the same, with any slight advantages going in favor of Linux. YMMV.
Why not? Cable connections perform...better
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Hold a regular bi-partisan election? Quite a few folks out there consistently vote libertarian, so I don't know where you get that our elections are bi-partisan.
So why would they do it again? They may be assholes, but they aren't stupid.
Note that 2.4.x series kernels are supposed to be built with gcc 2.95.x. The new 2.6.0 kernels have gcc 3.x as the "official" compiler for the x86 architecture.
I bet it all sucks. How many times does a big company throw "exclusive online content" at the customers only to find out it's really shameless self-promotion. Take Lord of the Rings, for example. I like the films, but a little too much hype, thank you.
I'll drink a Budweiser if that's all there is available...if Bush were the only available candidate for the 2004 election, I think I would leave the country.
Compliant software would all use autotools (which sucks for the anti-m4 crowd), and especially follow proper naming convention. Binary incompatibility bumps up major number, new featuresets or addons to the API/ABI bump the minor number, and minor enhancements and bugfixes bump up the teeny number.
Compliant software would also need to have man pages (even if it just refers to a website):)
Once you get standards in project source code, you'll see 99% of package management problems go away, and you'll start to see the incredible robustness and advantages that package management offers really shine.
To me, it's more important that developers all follow their own ideas and tangents, and making a coherent desktop should be the distribution's responsibility.
Efforts to make the standard libraries and desktops play along together are really important, too.
Nope.
They have no inherent rights or powers aside from what the government has given them
One could argue that humans have no inherent rights or powers aside from what their government allows. Does that mean that humans are "institutions completely created by the government?"
so it seems to me that not restricting them is the exact same thing as giving them power.
I just don't agree with your two premises, therefore I cannot accept your conclusion.
I can easily belive aliens created me just as well as god did. Or just as fair, I can belive I was created by mighty powerfull trees. I can't prove it but I can belive it.
While I do understand that your point was that beliefs have no basis in fact, and hence cannot be validated or compared, I question whether or not you truly could believe such things.
Most believers I know genuinely feel like they're right. It is impossible for the brain to forcibly will nonsense into truth.
That's an even more interesting argument, when turned against non-believers. Perhaps we (I'm a non-believer as well) are just using logic and reason to construct ideas that eliminate the otherwise obvious truth that a Creator exists.
Of course, I still maintain my disbelief, but your statement doesn't follow any kind of logic or reason. I would not bring it up in any theological debate if I were you.
Metroid: Prime did the same thing. Nintendo again did something similar with Windwaker, too, except you didn't need a game, just the actual GBA.
Secondly, I can only think of a few laws that explicitly empower corporations (the Telecommunications Act of, what was it, 1997? comes to mind).
The problem is that most Americans are apathetic and vote for "whoever," if at all. We fund corporations by buying their products and voting for candidates they support. We aren't forced into doing either, so I'd say the corporations have as much power as we as a nation let them.
Furthermore, I would contend that most corporations provide our country with jobs, stimulate the economy, and help more than they hurt. It is only a small fraction of corporations that are like Microsoft, Enron, GE, etc., that control unruly amounts of power.
Which is why we need to vote for third party candidates, and avoid giving our business to the corporations that are screwing the public. We Americans really need to start taking matters into our own hands and do something about the sad state of American politics.
Patents are good when they protect the little guy from the big guy, and they even make sense for corporationsn at times.
In my opinion, the problems come when people patent the digital equivalent of eating cereal with milk. A more knowledgeable USPTO would go a long way to keep the suits off our backs.