A much more serious issue is voter disenfranchisement - people who do care, who would vote, who are silenced. That is a huge issue. Why dont we see any commercials with video game charactars that say "voter disenfranchisment is bad"?
Because it's far less of a problem than one particular party gets sympathy points for making it seem like a problem.
Why don't we see bipartisan calls for serious jail time for anyone handing out packages of cigarettes (or underwear) to get "homeless" (what used to be called bums) to go cast a vote? What - they all tend to vote for one particular party? Oh, that's ok then, eh?
Talk about an ob hack! You might as well have the language set to Mandarin and a run Perl based interface to babelfish the translating for you real time...
Fraud in an election would get both parties screaming about how people's rights were violated, but evidently it's ok if it's done on a regular basis by elected officials.
Remember - it's illegal to sell your vote - unless you're a congressman.
It would far easier for them to take Firefox as a base and customize it for their services.
It would much more quickly accepted and far better from a "do no evil" perspective to finacially support the Mozilla team and offer various extensions to FireFox that would improve the search experience.
there are very good reasons why people outside the US have a very low opinion of Bush
So it's fair to say that there are also very good reasons that people inside the US have a very low opinion that people outside the US have only the best intentions for people inside the US?
... or is it only fair and informed if it supports your anti-US opinion?
The Linux community needs a strong thrust into one UI...This is what holds Linux back from taking Microsoft and beating the ever loving **** out of it.
Why? Does Linux have some sort of self-imposed deadline for world domination?
centering the stick does not stop a turn, but is instead necessary to continue turning properly and that to stop a turn to the left you have to move the stick to right of center.
Not in (some) modern aircraft, for 20 years or so now. In the F-16, centering the (side)stick applies the appropriate inputs to the control surfaces that the aircraft quits banking - no slight reverse stick is necessary. Pilots that transitioned from older aircraft were frequently seen stairstepping to get to a desired bank angle due to their habit of applying reverse stick pressure to stop the bank. Additionally, it's seldom necessary to use intentionally apply rudder force to correct for any flight path slid or skid in such aircraft, as the flight control system applied appropriate force automagically.
This sort of computer-assisted flight control is not at all difficult with modern systems.
Google's business is to make things easier to find and understand. How would an instant messaging program be applicable to this mission?
Well, there could easily be a bot named, ahhh, google, who would perform searches for you. This bot could "listen" to your chat, know what "room" you were in, etc., and use this metadata to help organize the search returns. Among those returns could be ads - i.e., it's Google via chat.
The good part of Google getting into such a business endeavor would be that they to date have a reputation of not abusing their business relationship to their users, unlike pretty much every other commercially oriented chat protocol.
I think the Dutch auction works against the investor, and in favor of Google.
That depends on the investor. If an "investor" is only buying a stock to try to capitalize on a short-term event, then he's not the sort of investor that a company particularly wants to be involved with. A company sells its stock to raise money to do something with. Any company worth owning a piece of wants to establish strong relationships with shareholders - relationships that require trust in each direction - the company wants to find investors that will stick with them through the thin times - the investor wants to find a company that will establish good, but not dramatic, growth of value. If it's too dramatic, it attracts too many hit-and-run investors, which is reflected in a highly variable stock price. Such wild swings in stock prices are, on the average, only good for stock brockers, because they get commissions on trades. It's the very rare person who can guess when to buy and when to sell every time, and you only need to lose all your money once to be broke forever.
An investor knows that what's good for google, is good for me - because he plans to keep that stock for a long time - and so is delighted to see that stock placed in many hands of others with similar long-term growth objectives.
Frankly, anyone buying google stock and planning to flip it quickly will get what they deserve - and that's whether they make money or lose it - if they make money, then great - if they lose, then's that's the breaks. The investor, who buys and holds google stock (and the more hands that stock can be placed in, the longer the hold times are likely to be), will eventually be rewarded with above market-average growth in value. Such a steady growth is how one gets rich - otherwise playing the lottery is cheaper and quicker and less headache.
I don't see how this is specific to OSS. After all, the same could be true about any software
The difference is that OSS doesn't have the luxury that closed-source does of being able to hide its kitty litter - everything is in the open is OSS by its very nature. Closed-source may operate for years with no one being the smarter that multiple patents are being violated.
'Every engineer has a Microsoft PC sitting next to their Sun Blade,' said their source. 'That's for business applications, and Linux is no threat there.'
that is kind of the point - I am sure that you can justify using the site without the ads.
Sure I can justify it - I'm not going to eat a bowl of shit just to get to the cherry.
Abusive ads are ignored in any way possible (adblock, making a note to never buy anything from that company, never visiting the site again, whatever) by everyone who visits a site in some way, either mentally or physically. If it blinks, wiggles, flashes, has sound, pops up, pops under, moves around, or is just plain ugly it gets ignored from then on - forever if it has any moving parts. Sites that elect to serve such abusive ads will eventually go out of business. Sites that make an effort to serve relevant and simple ads will still be around - some of them that make a serious effort to "do no evil", such as google, will even make money.
What we have now is a fundamentally un-democratic, sleaze-ridden gravy train for an 'elite' band of largely unknown technocrats, elected through an utterly flawed process.
The French demonstrated a rather effective solution to such a situation back in 1788 or so, but I don't think the ability to even dream of such an action is in their or anyone else's blood any longer.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's far less of a problem than one particular party gets sympathy points for making it seem like a problem.
Why don't we see bipartisan calls for serious jail time for anyone handing out packages of cigarettes (or underwear) to get "homeless" (what used to be called bums) to go cast a vote? What - they all tend to vote for one particular party? Oh, that's ok then, eh?
Ahhhh ... don't you too?
Remember - it's illegal to sell your vote - unless you're a congressman.
It would much more quickly accepted and far better from a "do no evil" perspective to finacially support the Mozilla team and offer various extensions to FireFox that would improve the search experience.
So it's fair to say that there are also very good reasons that people inside the US have a very low opinion that people outside the US have only the best intentions for people inside the US?
It's just more of that free-ipod bullshit.
Why? Does Linux have some sort of self-imposed deadline for world domination?
and there's something wrong about that?
Yep - as long as it is anti-Bush and the smallest relevancy to technology can be found it's considered viable Slashdot material.
Not in (some) modern aircraft, for 20 years or so now. In the F-16, centering the (side)stick applies the appropriate inputs to the control surfaces that the aircraft quits banking - no slight reverse stick is necessary. Pilots that transitioned from older aircraft were frequently seen stairstepping to get to a desired bank angle due to their habit of applying reverse stick pressure to stop the bank. Additionally, it's seldom necessary to use intentionally apply rudder force to correct for any flight path slid or skid in such aircraft, as the flight control system applied appropriate force automagically.
This sort of computer-assisted flight control is not at all difficult with modern systems.
Well, there could easily be a bot named, ahhh, google, who would perform searches for you. This bot could "listen" to your chat, know what "room" you were in, etc., and use this metadata to help organize the search returns. Among those returns could be ads - i.e., it's Google via chat.
The good part of Google getting into such a business endeavor would be that they to date have a reputation of not abusing their business relationship to their users, unlike pretty much every other commercially oriented chat protocol.
There's a difference?
Uh, no - that is the solution - everything else is a compromise.
Yes. Send me $10 and I'll tell you how.
*Strokes chin* How do they do this, exactly?
They've installed a 56K modem for their outbound line to keep everyone on equal footing.
It doesn't.
That depends on the investor. If an "investor" is only buying a stock to try to capitalize on a short-term event, then he's not the sort of investor that a company particularly wants to be involved with. A company sells its stock to raise money to do something with. Any company worth owning a piece of wants to establish strong relationships with shareholders - relationships that require trust in each direction - the company wants to find investors that will stick with them through the thin times - the investor wants to find a company that will establish good, but not dramatic, growth of value. If it's too dramatic, it attracts too many hit-and-run investors, which is reflected in a highly variable stock price. Such wild swings in stock prices are, on the average, only good for stock brockers, because they get commissions on trades. It's the very rare person who can guess when to buy and when to sell every time, and you only need to lose all your money once to be broke forever.
An investor knows that what's good for google, is good for me - because he plans to keep that stock for a long time - and so is delighted to see that stock placed in many hands of others with similar long-term growth objectives.
Frankly, anyone buying google stock and planning to flip it quickly will get what they deserve - and that's whether they make money or lose it - if they make money, then great - if they lose, then's that's the breaks. The investor, who buys and holds google stock (and the more hands that stock can be placed in, the longer the hold times are likely to be), will eventually be rewarded with above market-average growth in value. Such a steady growth is how one gets rich - otherwise playing the lottery is cheaper and quicker and less headache.
The difference is that OSS doesn't have the luxury that closed-source does of being able to hide its kitty litter - everything is in the open is OSS by its very nature. Closed-source may operate for years with no one being the smarter that multiple patents are being violated.
Does being illegal make it wrong?
Oh ye of little faith...
Sure I can justify it - I'm not going to eat a bowl of shit just to get to the cherry.
Abusive ads are ignored in any way possible (adblock, making a note to never buy anything from that company, never visiting the site again, whatever) by everyone who visits a site in some way, either mentally or physically. If it blinks, wiggles, flashes, has sound, pops up, pops under, moves around, or is just plain ugly it gets ignored from then on - forever if it has any moving parts. Sites that elect to serve such abusive ads will eventually go out of business. Sites that make an effort to serve relevant and simple ads will still be around - some of them that make a serious effort to "do no evil", such as google, will even make money.
That sword cuts both ways - if a site uses ads any more obtrusive than a google ad, I block it.
You're confusing me ... you gotta a source for that statement?
The French demonstrated a rather effective solution to such a situation back in 1788 or so, but I don't think the ability to even dream of such an action is in their or anyone else's blood any longer.
... and donate the money to your favorite educate-Africa charity. You'll get more bang for your buck.