The thing is heach of us is an instance. If you copy it, you are another instance, because every modification of the instance does not touch the original. So the definition of "YOU" must be that it's you, not that you are a copy of some other you.
The distinction is important, because I'd grant, I wouldn't care been the original or the copy, because they have the same exact properties. But there's still a really that it's not really you (ie: physical ideantical, but not the same matter). So yes...but depends on your definition of "you".
I am living with my girlfriend and a friend, and I have this notebook, which is the only computer at home. My girlfriend didn't even notice it's Linux, and can do everything she needs. (Open Office, Gaim, Evolution, Galeon). My other friend also uses it without complain.
What unix needs are good admins that will install the best programs for each tipe of user (not everyone want's vim - not even me, even though it's what I use when coding) and maintain the PC and the health of the system, and that can teach the basics (how to login, where they can write to the disk, what happened with C:, etc).
It's really 85% usable now, though 10% instable or maintainable by non techies.
I was refering to real world comunism, not the utopian from Marx. BSDL is communist in the sense that your code belongs to everyone else, and you can't do anything to avoid it.
He never cared looking like a stupid, in fact, it was an integral part of the plan of becoming the richest man on earth. Anyone that looks to smart is cut in peaces before reaching target.
Yes, if you are in the bussiness of selling software to _third parties_, of course you can't 100% free ride on everyone elses works under the GPL and keep everything secret.
If that's your case, you should either ship the full sources, modularize your code (so you don't need to ship GPL code for your clients) or pay for a non-GPL version of the code, which many companies do.
If you are not redistributing, you could do whatever you want with the GPL code. And no, it's not comunism, if I code under the GPL, I am protecting my code from being freerided. And free riding on everyone elses works is plain pure comunism.
In brief: - BSD Licenses and the likes = Comunism. - Other licences = Not comunism.
Duopoly, whatever. It's not that I don't know the difference, but look at the numbers. How difficult is it to sell some competing coke? Very difficult. Who get's the lian's share?
You may not accept the fact that individual preferences are not individual, but teached or imposed at least to a significant degree, I am ok with that.
Economics as is is a blind science, if a science at all. You may analize the ratinality of war, or how to better use the scarce resources to win one. But is that a little to narrow sighted? Because wars happen due to economic factors most of the time (comunism spreading, oil control, etc.). Thus the because of economic reasons, war must be called, and before that can happen, people must be influenced to think they need a war. The end result, oh, people desire war. It was in their preferences curves, now let's make war efficient.
It's just a stupid example, but I think you can get the idea (and totaly disagree with that point of view)...
Economics is the stufy of how people allocate scarce resources to pursue their goals. Economics does not explain what the goals are.
Smart observation. So what's next? That given their goals, people organize in firms to produce efficiently what they need.
But the thing is, organizations TELL people what they need, and people must comply or be segregated. And they usually comply. Looks at coca-cola, designer clothes (do you think people would choose these where not because of irrational advertizing?).
Yes, moving preferences, studied by physicology, psychology and sociology and greatly influenced by economic firms and organizations (studied by economists).
Yet, economists can't acknowledge that ther little pretty efficient firms are trying to fuck the consumers minds as well as their preferences all the time. That's why a huge amount of SCARCE resources is devoted to that task, and that why you have monopolies like Coca-cola, Pepsi or Nike.
So...no...your observation, while mainstream and convenient, is really not true. A more realistinc definition could be:
"Economics is the stufy of how people allocate scarce resources to pursue someone elses goals without even noticing it."
Another case that confounds economic prediction is advertising specifically designed to create illusory value
And that's something economists don't want to talk about. People values are affected by companies and organizations. Economists fools themselves thinking people have independant subjetive preferences. Scarce resources are used to produce Coca-cola because Coca-cola knows how to tweak persons indifference curves.
So economist could explain how to produce Coca-cola efficiently (well, actually that's not even true, and engineer would do a better job) but not why society is producing Coca-cola, or war.
What is to be wanted is as important or more than who to be a little more efficient. When you realize tastes and preference are not autonomous, you start to see the vaccum in the theory.
There is anice twist to this also. Geniuses show their talent whe very young. And after that they fade off. When you are 30 years old, you are not likely to make a great discovery in, for example math. Of course, by that time, you sure will trying to get a bride.
I will not be reseraching this paper much, but I do wonder how the cases where studied... Where they comparing apples to apples? Or did just compare after marriage and before marriage rates of discoveries? They need to take into account at what ages people get married, also. People usually get married when their are older, and want to get a life. And at that time, they are unlikely to make great dicoveries (statistically i mean).
And also the inevitable fact that when you want to care a bit about somebody else, you grow as a person. You are any less of genius, you just may have less time, and are probably older.
Yes, if you see "getting married" as getting some kind of "happiness insurace". Yes, some pleople never learn. You can't get that kind of insurace. If your wife is any good, she will let you be happy and be there so that you can meet your self expectations.
After all, there is a saying that says "behind every great man there is a great woman". Or that woman fall in love of what you "can be" not of what you actually are. Read these sayings as you like. There may be there for some reason.
I don't think that you being in a genius in ANY field makes you a better human being. Or a more charming person. Also happens with money. YES, you may 1000 woman arround telling you are a GREAT person. But do they love you, or your work? And what does a genius value more, and who is the start?
Love, after all, is mistical. It's just not a metter of convenience, it's magical, or it is not, no matter how convenient it looks for any one part.
I would argue that most geniuses don give a damn about true love. Thi study does not imply causation, and that's how I regard the study.
In the other hand, to have a happy and logingly life you have to really CARE about the other. It must begeniune, you love a PERSON, not certain features. I you love it as is, and that needs a lot of time.
Finally, I would argue that there are MANY cases where geniuses arised BECAUSE of love. And it's not only HOLLYWOOD that show these examples.
In other news, a resent research in "humannity labs" pointed out that human being try to be happy, not geniuses.
Yeah, and also caring a lot about the poor people in africa, the famine in your own country, or caring about abything at all, makes you obsolete....you will not longer be a genius...geniuses do not lose time, and do not have happy lives.
Welcome to the world, where Teresa de Calcuta or Ghandi are just normal guys, and Einstein and the likes are the examples to follow. Welcome to how history is written. Welcome to one of the saddests things of the latest centuries. Welcome where a world where what matters is beign whatever except feeling well and being happy. Welcome all, once again!
It has better OO handling (not copied, referenced, etc).
Re:Man, you hit the nail on the head
on
Science Faction
·
· Score: 1
Well, money is just a ticket that tells how much you can withdraw from the pool of offerings. When money becomes something else (ie: to accumulate wealth) you take a lot of risks, as in the extreme example I have shown. When there is a lot of unemployment, you need the markets to rearrange, and the unemployed to stop buying from the ones that do not turn their profits into demand.
After all, if they do not demand your services, why would you buy from them? Because they can be a little more effcient, thus you can't compete? No, not true. If you don't have a job, you don't care beign a little less efficient, as well as you unemployed next door. All you need to do is buy his services, and him you services (in a larger scale, i am being figurative). The real problem are goverments. They charge the most they can, basing that desicion on the more efficient companies (owned by these folks that are not spending their money). In the process, they make it impossible for less efficient people to start their own business. (simple exagerated example: suppose there are great farming technics. So a yard produces a ton of weat, or being no so productive, half a ton. Imagine they charge half a ton of taxes. If you are not 100% efficient, you you are forced to sell the property to some buy company, who's shareholders may not be willing to buy your work, thus you are unemployed Very efficient, wow. And the goverment tries to make it look they are the ones sustaining consumption, after all, they are the ones charging big companies to give away the money to the losers).
Nice point. I've been thinking about this issues for some time. But there's a twist to it, what would companies sell? If there is a lot of unemployed (read: goverment paid or financed jobs), and salaries as low, so will be the sales. And if goverment need to charge a lot of charges so to feed people with purchasing power so that they can survive, they do it buy taking money away from these same companies.
No, your line will not work. Yes, it can work when the unemployed to employed ratio is low.
What will HAVE to happen is companies will just give up trying to make their fortunes selling stuff to the masses. They will have to focus on making the rich happy.
Rich people, at some point, will have to either start spending their money (become real consumers), or losing it. For example, there is NO point is speding much money in investment projects right now. You have extra capacity. What you need is consumers. So you need the rich to start spending their money, and thus employing the uhg, unemployed.
You could think an extreme case: let's say Bill Whatever discovers a machine that can materilize whatever, anywhere, with zero cost, and that how the machine works it's a trade secret. What happens? Nobody can compete. So at first, every consumer buys from Bill Whatever.
If Bill Whatever doesn't spend his income, you have a problem. Suppose he puts it at a bank, and offers loans to consumers. Great! The weel keeps moving for a while. After some time, what??
No, Bill Whatever MUST spend his money in some way, he has to demand something back from everyone else in this world. But he can't stop the world. In this case the goverment can start printing paper and giving it to people for free, at which point Bill Whatever starts to feel the pressure to hire people.
The economy is trade, if few people have a lot, and they do not want to trade good for goods (read: demand services for their own consumption), only goods for money, the wheel stops, and you'll have the goverment expanding credit as a short term solution, then raising taxes, then..going into panic more, and after that, making a case to move to put rich people in line with reality (that is, making war, fear of losing everything for everyone inside their country).
That's what a recesion is. Tax increases do not solve the issue. Only wealth taxes would, or enforced consumption of the ones that have purchasing power (or you could just print money if there was a single world currency).
But the world having countries doesn't help, money moves very fast from country to country. So...
The real question really is, if we ever reach a point where we don't need everyone to work so that there is anough food and houses, why the heck would you need capitalism? I don't mean comunism, but why capitalism? If things are NOT scarce, economic rules do not aplly, and you only have "laws" of who owns what, and will shape the world we'll live in. The economy years are counted. This century is about the law...we are already seing this with stupid patents and laws like DMCA, Patrio-t Act, etc.
You could still use Linux without GNU tools. Linux is the kernel that is controlling my freaking laptop. It is operating my computer into a usable state. I can replace bash, GCC, and all the rest if I wanted.
Yeah, and you could shape the moon into a peanut with moon stone if you wanted. Even better, you'd still have the moonstone if the moon didn't exist at all. After all, it's the moonstone that counts, it shapes everything to your tastes.
If all of GNU was replaced, I'd still be using that Linux kernel. That's the difference, my motivation for using it.
Likewise, if the moon was transparent, I'd still be looking at eclipses. That's the difference, my motivation for watching them.
But I'm not choosing to use Linux for those GNU tools...
Likewise, I am not choosing to watch the eclipses because matter is opaque.
Truth is, the moon is not transparent. I don't give squat if you give credit to the moon whever you see a solar ecplise, but they depend on the moon matter beign opaque, and Linux depends (and always did) on GNU software being readily avaliable.
Wrog, all these apps work in other plataforms and also happen to work with Glinux. When you lauch the browser it sais "Mozilla", and it doesn't matter if it is Windows, MacOSX, Linux or Solaris.
On the other hand, when something just works because Glibc or GCC or bash is there, no credit is given, ever.
I don't think RMS is bithing for credit really, he is really part that he kickstarted all this well before Linus knew what a kernel was for.
He had a vision, and it worked out right. Truth does not prevail, but the ones that are doing it because the feel like do not eat credit. The only harm does is that you kill a lot work from people that would do it for the credit alone, as a kind of payment.
You could firmly believe you don't owe anything to your parents. In fact, most of us do but it's strikingly clear that if you don't commint suicide right away, then you must thanks them every, at least, 20 seconds, and your kids. You don't do that, because life must go on, but if you aren't really greatfull....well...
Linus is not the creator of the Linux Operating System, period
I call it Linux. None of my friend would understand the difference between the CPU and the motherboard, or the difference between an OS and a hardware plataform, much less between a kernel and all the other parts of an OS.
Nevertheless, it's very sad to hear selfish rants like "I am tired of this credit stupid thing, just use stuff and never care about anything".
I wouldn't want to be your friend anytime soon:-) really. If I help you a lot, I don't expect a reward, but at least some recognition. Selfish people really suck. I do it a lot of times, and am not proud of it. It's wrong, and hurts good people, and you as well in the long run.
Zogger, you are right. I agree with you, we know a bit about computers. I was just talking about the common behaveour, where they want a news PC and old PC's aren't sold. I didn't got you wrong at all. I am at a celeron 433 and very happy, while some others feel the need for 3ghz computer with 128 MB of ram:-)
Some people just don't know where to start, yes, to make an anaogy, if you know a bit about cars you can get a used Accord cheap, but some people preffer the newset crap they can buy, and their kids have a windows of opportunity when they buy their first crap car:)
It lowers the entry barriers. I imagine in 2040 there will be great technology arroud, but will I be able to buy a used machine (or whatever) and make it work for my kinds? I am no so sure. I think the analogy is straightforward.
Oh, and why isn't the moon square? It's be great also. Well, God controls physics, so the moon is round, and Microsoft controls Windows, so they don't want to advertize other products, let alone use fair practices, that's why they where convicted also.
Easy, replace OpenOffice with Office, Calc with Excel, and Writer with Word, switch icons, use a MS theme, and tell mom it's the latest version, and that the old version has bugs that allow viruses to delete everything.
Ok, it's a cheap illegal move, but it should work. I have a hard time explaining the OpenOffice is like Office, but not Office. They think the computer is windows, and that a text editor must be Word.
We must teach people to understand the difference between the PC, the OS, and the various applications.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is heach of us is an instance. If you copy it, you are another instance, because every modification of the instance does not touch the original. So the definition of "YOU" must be that it's you, not that you are a copy of some other you.
...but depends on your definition of "you".
The distinction is important, because I'd grant, I wouldn't care been the original or the copy, because they have the same exact properties. But there's still a really that it's not really you (ie: physical ideantical, but not the same matter). So yes
I am living with my girlfriend and a friend, and I have this notebook, which is the only computer at home. My girlfriend didn't even notice it's Linux, and can do everything she needs. (Open Office, Gaim, Evolution, Galeon). My other friend also uses it without complain.
What unix needs are good admins that will install the best programs for each tipe of user (not everyone want's vim - not even me, even though it's what I use when coding) and maintain the PC and the health of the system, and that can teach the basics (how to login, where they can write to the disk, what happened with C:, etc).
It's really 85% usable now, though 10% instable or maintainable by non techies.
I was refering to real world comunism, not the utopian from Marx. BSDL is communist in the sense that your code belongs to everyone else, and you can't do anything to avoid it.
Hahaha. Well, you have never seen Mr. Gates in person, so how would you know?
He never cared looking like a stupid, in fact, it was an integral part of the plan of becoming the richest man on earth. Anyone that looks to smart is cut in peaces before reaching target.
Yes, if you are in the bussiness of selling software to _third parties_, of course you can't 100% free ride on everyone elses works under the GPL and keep everything secret.
If that's your case, you should either ship the full sources, modularize your code (so you don't need to ship GPL code for your clients) or pay for a non-GPL version of the code, which many companies do.
If you are not redistributing, you could do whatever you want with the GPL code. And no, it's not comunism, if I code under the GPL, I am protecting my code from being freerided. And free riding on everyone elses works is plain pure comunism.
In brief:
- BSD Licenses and the likes = Comunism.
- Other licences = Not comunism.
Duopoly, whatever. It's not that I don't know the difference, but look at the numbers. How difficult is it to sell some competing coke? Very difficult. Who get's the lian's share?
You may not accept the fact that individual preferences are not individual, but teached or imposed at least to a significant degree, I am ok with that.
Economics as is is a blind science, if a science at all. You may analize the ratinality of war, or how to better use the scarce resources to win one. But is that a little to narrow sighted? Because wars happen due to economic factors most of the time (comunism spreading, oil control, etc.). Thus the because of economic reasons, war must be called, and before that can happen, people must be influenced to think they need a war. The end result, oh, people desire war. It was in their preferences curves, now let's make war efficient.
It's just a stupid example, but I think you can get the idea (and totaly disagree with that point of view)...
Economics is the stufy of how people allocate scarce resources to pursue their goals. Economics does not explain what the goals are.
Smart observation. So what's next? That given their goals, people organize in firms to produce efficiently what they need.
But the thing is, organizations TELL people what they need, and people must comply or be segregated. And they usually comply. Looks at coca-cola, designer clothes (do you think people would choose these where not because of irrational advertizing?).
Yes, moving preferences, studied by physicology, psychology and sociology and greatly influenced by economic firms and organizations (studied by economists).
Yet, economists can't acknowledge that ther little pretty efficient firms are trying to fuck the consumers minds as well as their preferences all the time. That's why a huge amount of SCARCE resources is devoted to that task, and that why you have monopolies like Coca-cola, Pepsi or Nike.
So...no...your observation, while mainstream and convenient, is really not true. A more realistinc definition could be:
"Economics is the stufy of how people allocate scarce resources to pursue someone elses goals without even noticing it."
Another case that confounds economic prediction is advertising specifically designed to create illusory value
And that's something economists don't want to talk about. People values are affected by companies and organizations. Economists fools themselves thinking people have independant subjetive preferences. Scarce resources are used to produce Coca-cola because Coca-cola knows how to tweak persons indifference curves.
So economist could explain how to produce Coca-cola efficiently (well, actually that's not even true, and engineer would do a better job) but not why society is producing Coca-cola, or war.
What is to be wanted is as important or more than who to be a little more efficient. When you realize tastes and preference are not autonomous, you start to see the vaccum in the theory.
Concerned, yes. I was not trying to imply they where bad people. They are just happy for different reasons.
It was a generalization, of course, there are all kind of variations, but scientific achievement is not the only reason why human race is surviving.
There is anice twist to this also. Geniuses show their talent whe very young. And after that they fade off. When you are 30 years old, you are not likely to make a great discovery in, for example math. Of course, by that time, you sure will trying to get a bride.
I will not be reseraching this paper much, but I do wonder how the cases where studied... Where they comparing apples to apples? Or did just compare after marriage and before marriage rates of discoveries? They need to take into account at what ages people get married, also. People usually get married when their are older, and want to get a life. And at that time, they are unlikely to make great dicoveries (statistically i mean).
And also the inevitable fact that when you want to care a bit about somebody else, you grow as a person. You are any less of genius, you just may have less time, and are probably older.
Yes, if you see "getting married" as getting some kind of "happiness insurace". Yes, some pleople never learn. You can't get that kind of insurace. If your wife is any good, she will let you be happy and be there so that you can meet your self expectations.
After all, there is a saying that says "behind every great man there is a great woman". Or that woman fall in love of what you "can be" not of what you actually are. Read these sayings as you like. There may be there for some reason.
I don't think that you being in a genius in ANY field makes you a better human being. Or a more charming person. Also happens with money. YES, you may 1000 woman arround telling you are a GREAT person. But do they love you, or your work? And what does a genius value more, and who is the start?
Love, after all, is mistical. It's just not a metter of convenience, it's magical, or it is not, no matter how convenient it looks for any one part.
I would argue that most geniuses don give a damn about true love. Thi study does not imply causation, and that's how I regard the study.
In the other hand, to have a happy and logingly life you have to really CARE about the other. It must begeniune, you love a PERSON, not certain features. I you love it as is, and that needs a lot of time.
Finally, I would argue that there are MANY cases where geniuses arised BECAUSE of love. And it's not only HOLLYWOOD that show these examples.
In other news, a resent research in "humannity labs" pointed out that human being try to be happy, not geniuses.
Yeah, and also caring a lot about the poor people in africa, the famine in your own country, or caring about abything at all, makes you obsolete....you will not longer be a genius...geniuses do not lose time, and do not have happy lives.
Welcome to the world, where Teresa de Calcuta or Ghandi are just normal guys, and Einstein and the likes are the examples to follow. Welcome to how history is written. Welcome to one of the saddests things of the latest centuries. Welcome where a world where what matters is beign whatever except feeling well and being happy. Welcome all, once again!
It has better OO handling (not copied, referenced, etc).
Well, money is just a ticket that tells how much you can withdraw from the pool of offerings. When money becomes something else (ie: to accumulate wealth) you take a lot of risks, as in the extreme example I have shown. When there is a lot of unemployment, you need the markets to rearrange, and the unemployed to stop buying from the ones that do not turn their profits into demand.
After all, if they do not demand your services, why would you buy from them? Because they can be a little more effcient, thus you can't compete? No, not true. If you don't have a job, you don't care beign a little less efficient, as well as you unemployed next door. All you need to do is buy his services, and him you services (in a larger scale, i am being figurative). The real problem are goverments. They charge the most they can, basing that desicion on the more efficient companies (owned by these folks that are not spending their money). In the process, they make it impossible for less efficient people to start their own business. (simple exagerated example: suppose there are great farming technics. So a yard produces a ton of weat, or being no so productive, half a ton. Imagine they charge half a ton of taxes. If you are not 100% efficient, you you are forced to sell the property to some buy company, who's shareholders may not be willing to buy your work, thus you are unemployed Very efficient, wow. And the goverment tries to make it look they are the ones sustaining consumption, after all, they are the ones charging big companies to give away the money to the losers).
It's so sad.
Nice point. I've been thinking about this issues for some time. But there's a twist to it, what would companies sell? If there is a lot of unemployed (read: goverment paid or financed jobs), and salaries as low, so will be the sales. And if goverment need to charge a lot of charges so to feed people with purchasing power so that they can survive, they do it buy taking money away from these same companies.
No, your line will not work. Yes, it can work when the unemployed to employed ratio is low.
What will HAVE to happen is companies will just give up trying to make their fortunes selling stuff to the masses. They will have to focus on making the rich happy.
Rich people, at some point, will have to either start spending their money (become real consumers), or losing it. For example, there is NO point is speding much money in investment projects right now. You have extra capacity. What you need is consumers. So you need the rich to start spending their money, and thus employing the uhg, unemployed.
You could think an extreme case: let's say Bill Whatever discovers a machine that can materilize whatever, anywhere, with zero cost, and that how the machine works it's a trade secret. What happens? Nobody can compete. So at first, every consumer buys from Bill Whatever.
If Bill Whatever doesn't spend his income, you have a problem. Suppose he puts it at a bank, and offers loans to consumers. Great! The weel keeps moving for a while. After some time, what??
No, Bill Whatever MUST spend his money in some way, he has to demand something back from everyone else in this world. But he can't stop the world. In this case the goverment can start printing paper and giving it to people for free, at which point Bill Whatever starts to feel the pressure to hire people.
The economy is trade, if few people have a lot, and they do not want to trade good for goods (read: demand services for their own consumption), only goods for money, the wheel stops, and you'll have the goverment expanding credit as a short term solution, then raising taxes, then..going into panic more, and after that, making a case to move to put rich people in line with reality (that is, making war, fear of losing everything for everyone inside their country).
That's what a recesion is. Tax increases do not solve the issue. Only wealth taxes would, or enforced consumption of the ones that have purchasing power (or you could just print money if there was a single world currency).
But the world having countries doesn't help, money moves very fast from country to country.
So...
The real question really is, if we ever reach a point where we don't need everyone to work so that there is anough food and houses, why the heck would you need capitalism? I don't mean comunism, but why capitalism? If things are NOT scarce, economic rules do not aplly, and you only have "laws" of who owns what, and will shape the world we'll live in. The economy years are counted. This century is about the law...we are already seing this with stupid patents and laws like DMCA, Patrio-t Act, etc.
You could still use Linux without GNU tools. Linux is the kernel that is controlling my freaking laptop. It is operating my computer into a usable state. I can replace bash, GCC, and all the rest if I wanted.
Yeah, and you could shape the moon into a peanut with moon stone if you wanted. Even better, you'd still have the moonstone if the moon didn't exist at all. After all, it's the moonstone that counts, it shapes everything to your tastes.
He is not a PR guy, he talks to developers involved in kernel hacking mostly.
If all of GNU was replaced, I'd still be using that Linux kernel. That's the difference, my motivation for using it.
Likewise, if the moon was transparent, I'd still be looking at eclipses. That's the difference, my motivation for watching them.
But I'm not choosing to use Linux for those GNU tools...
Likewise, I am not choosing to watch the eclipses because matter is opaque.
Truth is, the moon is not transparent. I don't give squat if you give credit to the moon whever you see a solar ecplise, but they depend on the moon matter beign opaque, and Linux depends (and always did) on GNU software being readily avaliable.
Wrog, all these apps work in other plataforms and also happen to work with Glinux. When you lauch the browser it sais "Mozilla", and it doesn't matter if it is Windows, MacOSX, Linux or Solaris.
On the other hand, when something just works because Glibc or GCC or bash is there, no credit is given, ever.
I don't think RMS is bithing for credit really, he is really part that he kickstarted all this well before Linus knew what a kernel was for.
He had a vision, and it worked out right. Truth does not prevail, but the ones that are doing it because the feel like do not eat credit. The only harm does is that you kill a lot work from people that would do it for the credit alone, as a kind of payment.
You could firmly believe you don't owe anything to your parents. In fact, most of us do but it's strikingly clear that if you don't commint suicide right away, then you must thanks them every, at least, 20 seconds, and your kids. You don't do that, because life must go on, but if you aren't really greatfull....well...
Linus is not the creator of the Linux Operating System, period
:-) really. If I help you a lot, I don't expect a reward, but at least some recognition. Selfish people really suck. I do it a lot of times, and am not proud of it. It's wrong, and hurts good people, and you as well in the long run.
I call it Linux. None of my friend would understand the difference between the CPU and the motherboard, or the difference between an OS and a hardware plataform, much less between a kernel and all the other parts of an OS.
Nevertheless, it's very sad to hear selfish rants like "I am tired of this credit stupid thing, just use stuff and never care about anything".
I wouldn't want to be your friend anytime soon
Zogger, you are right. I agree with you, we know a bit about computers. I was just talking about the common behaveour, where they want a news PC and old PC's aren't sold. I didn't got you wrong at all. I am at a celeron 433 and very happy, while some others feel the need for 3ghz computer with 128 MB of ram :-)
:)
Some people just don't know where to start, yes, to make an anaogy, if you know a bit about cars you can get a used Accord cheap, but some people preffer the newset crap they can buy, and their kids have a windows of opportunity when they buy their first crap car
It lowers the entry barriers. I imagine in 2040 there will be great technology arroud, but will I be able to buy a used machine (or whatever) and make it work for my kinds? I am no so sure. I think the analogy is straightforward.
Oh, and why isn't the moon square? It's be great also. Well, God controls physics, so the moon is round, and Microsoft controls Windows, so they don't want to advertize other products, let alone use fair practices, that's why they where convicted also.
Easy, replace OpenOffice with Office, Calc with Excel, and Writer with Word, switch icons, use a MS theme, and tell mom it's the latest version, and that the old version has bugs that allow viruses to delete everything.
Ok, it's a cheap illegal move, but it should work. I have a hard time explaining the OpenOffice is like Office, but not Office. They think the computer is windows, and that a text editor must be Word.
We must teach people to understand the difference between the PC, the OS, and the various applications.