There are so many other options: from.mov to video containing mp3 files. Why.wmv?
Inertia, it works,... basically people have been successfully using it for a while. Technically QuickTime is older but prior to iTunes QuickTime was a bit flaky on the PC side and Windows Media filled the void. It is harder to displace a "defacto standard" than fill a void.
Linux will always be the people's operating system, made by people for people.
No, Linux has never been the "people's OS". It has an entrenched by nerds for nerds culture. It remains the "geek's OS". "People's" implies a far larger segment of the population than are willing *or* capable of embracing Linux.
I know we all get frustrated with how dumb people can be at times, but people are bombarded and manipulated by thousands of ad messages a day trying to make them insecure, superficial and helpless. That's why the average user doesn't care about the same things that free software types do.
Some free software types are following a pied piper just like some corporate consumers. Marketing is about providing information and persuasion, sometimes this persuasion crosses the line and involves gross exaggeration, FUD, etc. This happens on both the commercial and the free software side. Feelings of insecurity and helplessness are effectively leveraged by some free software advocates, hence the occasional hysteria.
As far as I remember X11 was totally out of the question at the time UNLESS you happened to have an ET4000 graphics card. As for auto detection, I want some of what you're smoking mate. It was the pits...
I believe I had an ATI Mach32, SoundBlaster 16, 3Com network card. It all worked perfectly via autoconfig with Yggdrasil, Yggdrasil was the exception at the time. Other distros truly sucked in comparison when I tried them out.
Since I started messing around with Linux in 1997, the quality and ease of installation has improved exponentially. There is no comparison between installing Red Hat 5 point (whatever it was) and the Ubuntu ISO I could download today.
Latecomers like you don't understand how good it used to be. My first Linux distro was Yggdrasil, 1994'ish. It installed fine, it autodetected video, audio, etc. It was clean and easy, no silly questions, no technical knowledge was needed, and the machine restarted with graphics and sound. I was shocked and horrified when I tried other Linux distros a year or two later. Only recently have we returned to this point.
Not a great analogy, but look at the state of modern music.
I'd emphasize your caveat. Music has not really changed, in any generation it is predominantly crap. We are biased because the stuff we hear from a decade or two ago comes from the minority of good stuff. the stuff we hear from a centuries ago is usually only the magnificent. Previous generations have sorted and ranked the music, today's music is undergoing that process, your involvement in this process colors things.
And for those that are entrenched in their current OS, they are terrified to change. Particularly those Apple guys:-)
Huh, I'd say it is the other way around. Apple is delivering UNIX to the masses, not Linux. As Linux blunted Microsoft's advance towards the server, Apple has blunted Linux's advance towards the desktop. Much open source software runs under both Mac OS X and Linux, traditional UNIX apps and tools as well, specialized apps (chem/bio for example) have been ported from Sun/SGI to Mac OS X, etc. Now add the commercial apps and games on top of all that. People coming from traditional UNIX backgrounds are now considering Mac, unlike 4-5 years ago. People getting tired of Windows are far more likely to consider Mac today than Linux. The basic problem is that Linux still has a by nerds, for nerds attitude. Vocal portions of the community think the problem
is the user, that the user should know how to download source, compile, and install a wireless driver to get the factory wireless on their Dell laptop working. The average user does not care about the GPL or DRM, they don't care about buying proprietary hardware from a single source, all they care about is functionality working out of the box. Apple wins there.
I'm not sure if I understand what you consider technical literacy, apologies if I misunderstood.
"Technical Literacy" does not involve the sort of things you would run into in a CS or EE class, nor does it involve IT topics such as installing drivers, etc. "Technical Literacy" is being able to do the very basic through technical means, at least to me. This does involve evaluating a website's "objectivity, authority and timeliness.", just as in the dark ages (when I was in school) and we were expected to do the same with books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Other than learning to do a google search rather than learning the Dewey Decimal System I think there is a lot of overlap. If a person can do some research using the web (using the previous criteria), write an essay on a topic, and do some math in a spreadsheet I'd say they are technically literate.
That said, I think computers are highly overrated with respect to education. They are a "buzzword", a budget justifier, a crutch or excuse, etc. Sure put one or two in each class, more in the school library, but it would be better to give each child a couple pencils and a pad of paper than a laptop.
"Again, I've seen chem and bio environment in industry and academia migrate from Sun to Linux to Mac OS X."
Most of these people are not computer geeks and don't really know what they're doing. They try to use linux without involving people who know what they're doing, give up on it because it's hard, and go to a mac.
"give up on it because it's hard", you realize you are making my earlier point, about having to jump through hoops to get some things working under Linux?
They pay a premium (although a much smaller one than in the past) for their pretty case, pretty GUI, a few Apple apps, and the high level of integration between the OS and the hardware. Or they could pay a smaller premium to just have the integration done. They choose not to do this, and they buy the mac. It doesn't mean the mac is better. It just means that they don't know enough to make an informed decision. It also doesn't mean their decision is the wrong one - but they'll never know whether it was or not.
They have made an informed decision. They just want to get their work done, and since Linux and Mac OS X *both* run their software, but Mac OS X is less of a hassle and offers more options elsewhere they find it a better solution. Again, much of the chem/bio software is coming from Sun and SGI systems originally, it is not tied to Linux. Many people just need a generic UNIX environment and Mac OS X is attractive. I'm not saying it will replace Linux, merely that it has blunted Linux's advance to the desktop. As you your self write: "give up on it because it's hard". Why bother when you have the same apps?
Actually your claim goes beyond disputable and is flat our wrong. Mac OS X offers superior driver support because the hardware and the software is coming from Apple."
What that actually means is that Mac OS X offers horribly inferior driver support, because it only supports computers you purchase from Apple, whereas both Linux and Windows will run on a very wide range of hardware (Linux, of course, running on a dramatically wider range than Windows.)
Nice try, though.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Mac OS X *only* runs on hardware from Apple, so all the generic PC hardware out there is irrelevant, as is their drivers. As I said, this is the upside of all-in-one sole-source configurations. The fact remains that when installing Linux on a PC, support for factory standard equipment is sometimes lacking, again the Dell D610 wireless example. This remains an issue that deters people from migrating from Windows to Linux and it remains an issue that makes Mac OS X seem more attractive for some users that do want UNIX. Not everyone wants to be a hobbyist, even those who want UNIX, some people just want the system to work out of the box.
If you only purchase hardware which Linux is known to work well with - still a vastly wider selection than what will work with OSX - then you can have that same experience on linux.
No, this only addresses one of several issues raised, drivers. My point stands, some users who are buying new systems and who navigate the compatibility minefield and get compatible hardware are still finding Mac OS X to be a more viable alternative. Again, I've seen chem and bio environment in industry and academia migrate from Sun to Linux to Mac OS X. Linux's migration to the common desktop has been blunted by Mac OS X.
There are workalikes available for linux; the games are a soft point, I admit. Most of the off-the-shelf software's functionality IS available today. Some of the most important windows programs run on wine, as well.
Largely irrelevant since many of those workalikes are also available for Mac OS X, for example OpenOffice.
Driver support? MacOSX supports less hardware than either Windows or Linux. Period. This is not disputable.
Actually your claim goes beyond disputable and is flat our wrong. Mac OS X offers superior driver support because the hardware and the software is coming from Apple. The wireless on an iBook works out-of-the-box. The wireless on my Dell D610 requires much jumping through hoops after installing Linux. This is the upside of all-in-one sole-source configurations, Apple laptops, iMac, Mini,...
Support for running Windows apps? You can run Windows in a VM, or you can run Windows on the hardware, or you can run wine. Precisely the same level of support for running Windows apps that you find in Linux. There is no difference.
Dual booting is a wash since you can do that on current Macs as well.
Regarding Wine, we are back to the difficulty of installation/configuration. It is not appropriate for normal desktop users, unlike the Parallels solution under Mac OS X.
Again, I think you are missing the point. It is not that wireless on the Dell laptop or Wine cannot be done under Linux, it is that they cannot be made to work trivially, that it is beyond the capabilities of normal users. That is why Apple has a serious advantage when it comes to bringing a UNIX environment to these users. The difference goes far beyond the "slightly simpler" that you claim.
Apple is able to be profitable by serving a niche that is almost more fashion-driven than anything else.
That is untrue, that is a stereotype that is about as accurate as Linux serving the nerd in "Mom's basement". Sure it happens, but it is the exception not the rule. A minor point that you seem to miss is that Apple works pretty hard at functionality in addition to being fashionable. Some may think the iMac is cool looking, but many like the functionality of an all-in-one design. Especially now that flat panels are ubiquitous and you get back an amazing amount of deskspace. The Mini, what is fashionable there? It is small box with rounded corner, what I love about it is it's size.
A far more important point with respect to Linux is that Apple is a more viable "UNIX" environment. Not only do I get easy access to traditional unix tools, apps, and most open source software but I also get (1) some off-the-shelf software like MS Office, some games, etc; (2) a very polished, consistent, and approachable user interface; (3) comprehensive driver support (sure I can get wireless to work with my Dell laptop under Linux but it is a pain, Mac users don't have to deal with such "costs"); and (4) better support for running Windows apps I've seen various chem/bio environments that are traditionally unix move from Sun/SGI to Linux to Mac OS X. As Linux blunted Microsoft's advance into server space, Apple has blunted Linux's advance into end user space, the desktop.
"We did not know one way or the other until we had troops on the ground."
Exactly my point. The administration assured us they did know; they lied.
They had bad intelligence from the CIA, and they are hardly the first administration to suffer from that. Recall that Clinton bad intelligence regarding chmical weapon precursors and bombed a civilian pharmaceutical plant. Also recall the bad intelligence where Clinton bombed the Chinese embassy in the Balkans. Using the word "lie" simply demonstrates a political agenda, not a historical one.
"Iraq regularly fired upon US aircraft."
Let me actually finish that sentence for you: "Iraq regularly fired upon US aircraft flying in their airspace." And let me also point out that if Iraqi aircraft were flying in our airspace.
The no-fly zones protecting the shiites and kurds was established as part of the Gulf War cease fire. They surrendered, the agreed to terms, they violated those terms and continued to engage in hostile actions.
"Iraq was involved in assassination attempts of US citizens, a former president for example."
You mean like when Bush tried to kill Saddam in the very first bombing of the war?
Again, they did so after they surrendered.
When we sneakily dropped all manner of high powered weapons on a major city in Iraq using aircraft that were invisible to Iraqi defenses?
Saddam was warned prior to the attack. He was given a deadline.
... there is literally no point in being there. At all. I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-stupid...
Yet you exhibit stupidity by failing to recognize that your arguments are against the invasion, and not applicable to the current war. Again, today there *is* and al-quaeda presence, today there *is* an internation johadist presence, etc. That is what is relevant today, not WMD years ago. Again, the fixation and yesteryears WMD issue indicates a fixation on politics.
We did not know one way or the other until we had troops on the ground. The UN inspectors had been fooled before. Iraq wanted people to think they may have WMD, they believed it to be a deterrent. All Iraq had to do was destroy the pre-Gulf War material everyone agrees they had under the supervision of the UN. However they chose not to in order to keep people guessing. And that's all we had prior to the invasion, guesses on *both* sides. When it comes to guesses, it is considered safer to overestimate your enemy rather than underestimate them. 9/11 reinforced this truth.
Iraq was not threatening us or our interests.
Iraq regularly fired upon US aircraft. Iraq was involved in assassination attempts of US citizens, a former president for example.
Iraq was not threatening an ally or an ally's interests...
Iraq was routinely supporting suicide bombings in Israel. They considering do so a PR bonanza.
Being anti-war is great and all, but in your particular case your distortions and bending of the truth is nearly as self-serving as the proponents of the invasion.
*MOST IMPORTANT* of all with respect to being anti-war please note that all of this is largely moot. The reason for the invasion and the reason for being there now are two different things. Al-Quaeda may not have had a significant presence in Iraq before the invasion but they do now. To abandon Iraq would be similar to the west's abandonment of Afghanistan in the 90s.
Personally, I don't believe the Iraqi War has really increased the threat to the west or created more jihadists. The outrage amongst extremists would be the same due to the war against the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Jihadists from around the world would have flocked there rather than Iraq. The Jihadists stress Iraq today because they are media and PR savvy enough to know that Iraq is where they can drive a wedge between westerners. They learned from Vietnam that wars can be won by victories in the press, despite defeats on the battlefield. Keep in mind that both sides are lying to you and manipulating you. Militant Islam has been attacking the west since the 1970s and they have been getting better and better at it each year. They want a conflict with the west, they want to destroy the west. The only thing that the Iraqi War has changed is that the IEDs are going off in Bhagdad, Iraq rather than Kabul, Afghanistan.
... then paying more for apples reduces your freedom to satisfy other wants.
Thank you for the cut-and-paste from your econ 101 textbook. Might I suggest a rereading though? If apples are more reliable or efficient than the alternatives then in the long term it will increase your ability to satisfy other wants and needs. As a Linux advocate I would have expected you to understand this, or did you not realize that you are arguing *against* Linux because of the initial higher cost due to retraining. Once past the retraining the cost savings come in, not before.
In a world where computers have become central to communication, free speech depends on software. If that software is not free, there's a real danger to speech.
Nonsense. *Any* web or email client facilitates free speech. Whether it is proprietary or open source is irrelevant. You might also want to return to your Econ 101 textbook. If in some far-fetched ultra-paranoid future a common browser began to censor communications then a need would arise and the market would provide a solution. As Firefox did when the market developed a need for a more secure browser.
I'm a brilliant musician, but nobody knows. I want to share my music - but music players delete it after three plays.
More nonsense. Then release your music as a DRM-free MP3 and it won't be subject to such restrictions.
have to agree... He's saying that a computer without Windows is not a product. A bigger BS statement has rarely been made by a reputable PC manufacturer.
You can agree, but that merely makes two of you that are "wrong". He said "OS", not "Windows": 'The PC without an OS is not a product...". You may disagree with their decision to offer only one OS, and for that one OS to be Windows, but that is a separate issue.
Well, at least viral marketing can be killed instantly by the negative karma that comes about when the blatant lies of this being an 'enthusiast's user opinion' are uncovered.
Viral marketing does not require astroturfing. A company can legitimately engage in viral marketing by being supportive of actual users and fans.
No, whoever supports it and interacts with the customers should own it. If it is an internal product then that may be IT, if it is a product for outsiders then that may be Tech Support. I've worked in both environments, and while my ego as a developer says I am at the top of the food chain and should be in charge of everything, I realize that things worked pretty well when others owned the deployment and interacted with customers. It was an interesting environment when Tech Support owned the distribution. We would create a build, do our own testing, and then deliver a text file with the CRCs of files. QA would take a wiped system and check out the source and all development tools from version control, build, and verify CRCs matched. An unexpected high number of problems were detected by this simple step. Putting barriers between developments and customers is probably a good idea.
Thank you media for not blowing this up to Scott Peterson level.
This just goes to show you that stuff like this happens all the time that never gets seen in national media.
This is being blown up in the media, the nerd media. Slashdot is convering this just like the TV media covered OJ. Exact same reason, a "famous" suspect with respect to the demographics of the audience.
Type 3+ (basic military) armour will stop most shots and helmets are there to stop headshots. If you are reduced to scavenging ammo from enemy combatants that you can't kill without the ammo you scavenged from enemy combatants, you have already lost. Dum dums are still worthless against an armoured foe, as are hunting rounds.
You don't need scavenged ammo to kill, the scavenged ammo is just a secondary benefit, a convenient resupply. Body armor does not cover the entire body. Wounds to the arms, legs, and especially the lower abdomen that would be survivable with military rounds would be far more traumatic with hunting ammo, bleed out and death far more likely to follow. Also, hunting rifles are often far more accurate than service rifles, especially so for AK class weaponry (mentioned due to original post), so avoiding armor (if necessary) is far more practical. Even if wearing armor, it does not necessary provide equal protection in all regions. There is a trade off between protection and freedom/range of movement. Attacks to the side, upper abdomen / neck, etc are still likely to be vulnerable to a civilian high power rifle round. The protection in that area is usually designed for shrapnel.
Again however, prosecution doesn't support your original position that soldiers can and will refuse those orders.
You are quite confused over my original position. Reread the ridiculous claim of another and my follow up in bold: "Yea, good luck with that. See, the military is already prepared for that answer. If you refuse a direct order in the field -- and make no mistake, when they come for you, it won't be in an office meeting -- you get shot on the spot". "That is one of the most ignorant and ill-informed things I have read in this thread. The truth is that from basic training onward US military personnel are taught that it is *their duty* to disobey illegal orders. Illegal orders include but are not limited to attacking non-combatants. An officer who threatens to shoot a soldier who refuses to follow an illegal order can be immediately relieved and taken in custody, even by a subordinate".
So you are entirely mistaken with respect to "can". Then can disobey an illegal order, as evidenced by the fact that they are trained to do so.
With respect to "will", no training is 100% effective. However soldiers are repeatedly trained to disobey illegal orders, and this deters officers from issuing them. Few things are worse for an officer than to lose face and credibility due to an order being refused. He can probably even be charged.
"Illegal orders include but are not limited to attacking non-combatants."
Attacking non-combatants is illegal according to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention -- you may have heard of it -- but the president argues that his role as commander-in-chief gives him the right to decide whether he wants to follow that law. As far as we know, this has only been used to justify torture, but there's no reason why it doesn't include killing. The president believes that he can legally withdraw Geneva convention protections on his say so, which includes ordering the military to kill American civilians.
No, the President does not believe in attacking non-combatants. However, the President does believe that those defined by the Geneva Convention as illegal combatants are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Hence some of the folks taken on the battlefields of Afghanistan going to Guantanamo. A modern terrorist is not unlike what the Geneva Convention defines as saboteurs and spies, and these are allowed to be executed in a time of war. The Geneva Convention even allows for the execution of legal combatants who intentionally attack non-combatants.
While the President argues that we are not bound by the Geneva Convention with respect to detainment of illegal combatants and terrorists, we are none the less running Guantanamo in a pretty humane fashion. The argument the president makes is more about jurisdiction, and less about actual treatment.
"Hunting rifles and ammo are deadlier than military rifles and ammo, Hunting ammo is designed to expand as it passes through tissue. The ammo used by hunters would result in a war crime if used by the military."
What a pile of rot. High explosive armour piercing rounds for the AK have been available in eastern europe for a long, long time, and they are a good deal worse than your dum dums. Also your hunting ammo is to all intents and purposes worthless against body armour; armour piercing doesn't deform much / at all on impact.
Hunting rifles tend to be accurate and scoped. So they are more akin to the low end of sniper rifles, head shots would be more natural, body armor less of a factor. However...
The high explosive armor piercing round are not for use against personnel, that would be a war crime. Could they be loaded and fired illegally, yes, just like the hunting rounds. Military rounds used against personnel may be armor piercing but they just make relatively clean smaller holes than hunting rounds. Unless you are wearing pretty heavy and modern body armor, ordinary civilian rounds from a hunting rifle will easily penetrate body armor. Hence the ceramic plate inserts. Hunting rifles often use the same ammunition as military rifles, 30'06 (WW1, WW2,...), 7.62 NATO =.308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO =.223 Remington, even the AK's 7.62x39 mm is used in some lightweight hunting rifles. So, the exotic ammo taken off of enemy dead could be fired by hunting rifles.
Abu Gharib? Iraqi civilian targets? Yes, they're taught to refuse those orders.
And yet those at abu were prosecuted. And those who intentionally attacked non-combatant have been charged with murder. *If* these acts were committed under orders why are the participants being prosecuted, because it was illegal for them to obey an illegal order. So yes they are taught to refuse and they are prosecuted when they fail to do so.
A particular person may be mightier holding a "pen" rather than a "sword", however that is only true because someone else with a "sword" is protecting the writer. Without the protection offered by another, the writer is at the mercy of others. The holder of the pen becomes the prop for a jihadist video.
The Iraqi War has not really increased the threat to the west or created more jihadists. The outrage amongst extremists would be the same due to the war against the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Jihadists from around the world would have flocked there rather than Iraq. The Jihadists stress Iraq today because they are media and PR savvy enough to know that Iraq is where they can drive a wedge between westerners. They learned from Vietnam that wars can be won by victories in the press, despite defeats on the battlefield.
Keep in mind that both sides are lying to you and manipulating you. Militant Islam has been attacking the west since the 1970s and they have been getting better and better at it each year. They want a conflict with the west, they want to destroy the west. The only thing that the Iraqi War has changed is that the IEDs are going off in Bhagdad, Iraq rather than Kabul, Afghanistan.
Slashdot Mirror
There are so many other options: from .mov to video containing mp3 files. Why .wmv?
... basically people have been successfully using it for a while. Technically QuickTime is older but prior to iTunes QuickTime was a bit flaky on the PC side and Windows Media filled the void. It is harder to displace a "defacto standard" than fill a void.
Inertia, it works,
Linux will always be the people's operating system, made by people for people.
No, Linux has never been the "people's OS". It has an entrenched by nerds for nerds culture. It remains the "geek's OS". "People's" implies a far larger segment of the population than are willing *or* capable of embracing Linux.
I know we all get frustrated with how dumb people can be at times, but people are bombarded and manipulated by thousands of ad messages a day trying to make them insecure, superficial and helpless. That's why the average user doesn't care about the same things that free software types do.
Some free software types are following a pied piper just like some corporate consumers. Marketing is about providing information and persuasion, sometimes this persuasion crosses the line and involves gross exaggeration, FUD, etc. This happens on both the commercial and the free software side. Feelings of insecurity and helplessness are effectively leveraged by some free software advocates, hence the occasional hysteria.
As far as I remember X11 was totally out of the question at the time UNLESS you happened to have an ET4000 graphics card. As for auto detection, I want some of what you're smoking mate. It was the pits ...
I believe I had an ATI Mach32, SoundBlaster 16, 3Com network card. It all worked perfectly via autoconfig with Yggdrasil, Yggdrasil was the exception at the time. Other distros truly sucked in comparison when I tried them out.
Since I started messing around with Linux in 1997, the quality and ease of installation has improved exponentially. There is no comparison between installing Red Hat 5 point (whatever it was) and the Ubuntu ISO I could download today.
:-)
Latecomers like you don't understand how good it used to be. My first Linux distro was Yggdrasil, 1994'ish. It installed fine, it autodetected video, audio, etc. It was clean and easy, no silly questions, no technical knowledge was needed, and the machine restarted with graphics and sound. I was shocked and horrified when I tried other Linux distros a year or two later. Only recently have we returned to this point.
Not a great analogy, but look at the state of modern music.
I'd emphasize your caveat. Music has not really changed, in any generation it is predominantly crap. We are biased because the stuff we hear from a decade or two ago comes from the minority of good stuff. the stuff we hear from a centuries ago is usually only the magnificent. Previous generations have sorted and ranked the music, today's music is undergoing that process, your involvement in this process colors things.
And for those that are entrenched in their current OS, they are terrified to change. Particularly those Apple guys
Huh, I'd say it is the other way around. Apple is delivering UNIX to the masses, not Linux. As Linux blunted Microsoft's advance towards the server, Apple has blunted Linux's advance towards the desktop. Much open source software runs under both Mac OS X and Linux, traditional UNIX apps and tools as well, specialized apps (chem/bio for example) have been ported from Sun/SGI to Mac OS X, etc. Now add the commercial apps and games on top of all that. People coming from traditional UNIX backgrounds are now considering Mac, unlike 4-5 years ago. People getting tired of Windows are far more likely to consider Mac today than Linux. The basic problem is that Linux still has a by nerds, for nerds attitude. Vocal portions of the community think the problem is the user, that the user should know how to download source, compile, and install a wireless driver to get the factory wireless on their Dell laptop working. The average user does not care about the GPL or DRM, they don't care about buying proprietary hardware from a single source, all they care about is functionality working out of the box. Apple wins there.
I'm not sure if I understand what you consider technical literacy, apologies if I misunderstood.
"Technical Literacy" does not involve the sort of things you would run into in a CS or EE class, nor does it involve IT topics such as installing drivers, etc. "Technical Literacy" is being able to do the very basic through technical means, at least to me. This does involve evaluating a website's "objectivity, authority and timeliness.", just as in the dark ages (when I was in school) and we were expected to do the same with books, magazines, newspapers, etc. Other than learning to do a google search rather than learning the Dewey Decimal System I think there is a lot of overlap. If a person can do some research using the web (using the previous criteria), write an essay on a topic, and do some math in a spreadsheet I'd say they are technically literate.
That said, I think computers are highly overrated with respect to education. They are a "buzzword", a budget justifier, a crutch or excuse, etc. Sure put one or two in each class, more in the school library, but it would be better to give each child a couple pencils and a pad of paper than a laptop.
"Again, I've seen chem and bio environment in industry and academia migrate from Sun to Linux to Mac OS X."
Most of these people are not computer geeks and don't really know what they're doing. They try to use linux without involving people who know what they're doing, give up on it because it's hard, and go to a mac.
"give up on it because it's hard", you realize you are making my earlier point, about having to jump through hoops to get some things working under Linux?
They pay a premium (although a much smaller one than in the past) for their pretty case, pretty GUI, a few Apple apps, and the high level of integration between the OS and the hardware. Or they could pay a smaller premium to just have the integration done. They choose not to do this, and they buy the mac. It doesn't mean the mac is better. It just means that they don't know enough to make an informed decision. It also doesn't mean their decision is the wrong one - but they'll never know whether it was or not.
They have made an informed decision. They just want to get their work done, and since Linux and Mac OS X *both* run their software, but Mac OS X is less of a hassle and offers more options elsewhere they find it a better solution. Again, much of the chem/bio software is coming from Sun and SGI systems originally, it is not tied to Linux. Many people just need a generic UNIX environment and Mac OS X is attractive. I'm not saying it will replace Linux, merely that it has blunted Linux's advance to the desktop. As you your self write: "give up on it because it's hard". Why bother when you have the same apps?
Actually your claim goes beyond disputable and is flat our wrong. Mac OS X offers superior driver support because the hardware and the software is coming from Apple."
What that actually means is that Mac OS X offers horribly inferior driver support, because it only supports computers you purchase from Apple, whereas both Linux and Windows will run on a very wide range of hardware (Linux, of course, running on a dramatically wider range than Windows.) Nice try, though.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Mac OS X *only* runs on hardware from Apple, so all the generic PC hardware out there is irrelevant, as is their drivers. As I said, this is the upside of all-in-one sole-source configurations. The fact remains that when installing Linux on a PC, support for factory standard equipment is sometimes lacking, again the Dell D610 wireless example. This remains an issue that deters people from migrating from Windows to Linux and it remains an issue that makes Mac OS X seem more attractive for some users that do want UNIX. Not everyone wants to be a hobbyist, even those who want UNIX, some people just want the system to work out of the box.
If you only purchase hardware which Linux is known to work well with - still a vastly wider selection than what will work with OSX - then you can have that same experience on linux.
No, this only addresses one of several issues raised, drivers. My point stands, some users who are buying new systems and who navigate the compatibility minefield and get compatible hardware are still finding Mac OS X to be a more viable alternative. Again, I've seen chem and bio environment in industry and academia migrate from Sun to Linux to Mac OS X. Linux's migration to the common desktop has been blunted by Mac OS X.
There are workalikes available for linux; the games are a soft point, I admit. Most of the off-the-shelf software's functionality IS available today. Some of the most important windows programs run on wine, as well.
...
Largely irrelevant since many of those workalikes are also available for Mac OS X, for example OpenOffice.
Driver support? MacOSX supports less hardware than either Windows or Linux. Period. This is not disputable.
Actually your claim goes beyond disputable and is flat our wrong. Mac OS X offers superior driver support because the hardware and the software is coming from Apple. The wireless on an iBook works out-of-the-box. The wireless on my Dell D610 requires much jumping through hoops after installing Linux. This is the upside of all-in-one sole-source configurations, Apple laptops, iMac, Mini,
Support for running Windows apps? You can run Windows in a VM, or you can run Windows on the hardware, or you can run wine. Precisely the same level of support for running Windows apps that you find in Linux. There is no difference.
Dual booting is a wash since you can do that on current Macs as well.
Regarding Wine, we are back to the difficulty of installation/configuration. It is not appropriate for normal desktop users, unlike the Parallels solution under Mac OS X.
Again, I think you are missing the point. It is not that wireless on the Dell laptop or Wine cannot be done under Linux, it is that they cannot be made to work trivially, that it is beyond the capabilities of normal users. That is why Apple has a serious advantage when it comes to bringing a UNIX environment to these users. The difference goes far beyond the "slightly simpler" that you claim.
Apple is able to be profitable by serving a niche that is almost more fashion-driven than anything else.
That is untrue, that is a stereotype that is about as accurate as Linux serving the nerd in "Mom's basement". Sure it happens, but it is the exception not the rule. A minor point that you seem to miss is that Apple works pretty hard at functionality in addition to being fashionable. Some may think the iMac is cool looking, but many like the functionality of an all-in-one design. Especially now that flat panels are ubiquitous and you get back an amazing amount of deskspace. The Mini, what is fashionable there? It is small box with rounded corner, what I love about it is it's size.
A far more important point with respect to Linux is that Apple is a more viable "UNIX" environment. Not only do I get easy access to traditional unix tools, apps, and most open source software but I also get (1) some off-the-shelf software like MS Office, some games, etc; (2) a very polished, consistent, and approachable user interface; (3) comprehensive driver support (sure I can get wireless to work with my Dell laptop under Linux but it is a pain, Mac users don't have to deal with such "costs"); and (4) better support for running Windows apps I've seen various chem/bio environments that are traditionally unix move from Sun/SGI to Linux to Mac OS X. As Linux blunted Microsoft's advance into server space, Apple has blunted Linux's advance into end user space, the desktop.
"We did not know one way or the other until we had troops on the ground."
... there is literally no point in being there. At all. I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-stupid ...
Exactly my point. The administration assured us they did know; they lied.
They had bad intelligence from the CIA, and they are hardly the first administration to suffer from that. Recall that Clinton bad intelligence regarding chmical weapon precursors and bombed a civilian pharmaceutical plant. Also recall the bad intelligence where Clinton bombed the Chinese embassy in the Balkans. Using the word "lie" simply demonstrates a political agenda, not a historical one.
"Iraq regularly fired upon US aircraft."
Let me actually finish that sentence for you: "Iraq regularly fired upon US aircraft flying in their airspace." And let me also point out that if Iraqi aircraft were flying in our airspace.
The no-fly zones protecting the shiites and kurds was established as part of the Gulf War cease fire. They surrendered, the agreed to terms, they violated those terms and continued to engage in hostile actions.
"Iraq was involved in assassination attempts of US citizens, a former president for example."
You mean like when Bush tried to kill Saddam in the very first bombing of the war?
Again, they did so after they surrendered.
When we sneakily dropped all manner of high powered weapons on a major city in Iraq using aircraft that were invisible to Iraqi defenses?
Saddam was warned prior to the attack. He was given a deadline.
Yet you exhibit stupidity by failing to recognize that your arguments are against the invasion, and not applicable to the current war. Again, today there *is* and al-quaeda presence, today there *is* an internation johadist presence, etc. That is what is relevant today, not WMD years ago. Again, the fixation and yesteryears WMD issue indicates a fixation on politics.
Iraq had no WMD.
...
We did not know one way or the other until we had troops on the ground. The UN inspectors had been fooled before. Iraq wanted people to think they may have WMD, they believed it to be a deterrent. All Iraq had to do was destroy the pre-Gulf War material everyone agrees they had under the supervision of the UN. However they chose not to in order to keep people guessing. And that's all we had prior to the invasion, guesses on *both* sides. When it comes to guesses, it is considered safer to overestimate your enemy rather than underestimate them. 9/11 reinforced this truth.
Iraq was not threatening us or our interests.
Iraq regularly fired upon US aircraft. Iraq was involved in assassination attempts of US citizens, a former president for example.
Iraq was not threatening an ally or an ally's interests
Iraq was routinely supporting suicide bombings in Israel. They considering do so a PR bonanza.
Being anti-war is great and all, but in your particular case your distortions and bending of the truth is nearly as self-serving as the proponents of the invasion.
*MOST IMPORTANT* of all with respect to being anti-war please note that all of this is largely moot. The reason for the invasion and the reason for being there now are two different things. Al-Quaeda may not have had a significant presence in Iraq before the invasion but they do now. To abandon Iraq would be similar to the west's abandonment of Afghanistan in the 90s. Personally, I don't believe the Iraqi War has really increased the threat to the west or created more jihadists. The outrage amongst extremists would be the same due to the war against the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Jihadists from around the world would have flocked there rather than Iraq. The Jihadists stress Iraq today because they are media and PR savvy enough to know that Iraq is where they can drive a wedge between westerners. They learned from Vietnam that wars can be won by victories in the press, despite defeats on the battlefield. Keep in mind that both sides are lying to you and manipulating you. Militant Islam has been attacking the west since the 1970s and they have been getting better and better at it each year. They want a conflict with the west, they want to destroy the west. The only thing that the Iraqi War has changed is that the IEDs are going off in Bhagdad, Iraq rather than Kabul, Afghanistan.
... then paying more for apples reduces your freedom to satisfy other wants.
Thank you for the cut-and-paste from your econ 101 textbook. Might I suggest a rereading though? If apples are more reliable or efficient than the alternatives then in the long term it will increase your ability to satisfy other wants and needs. As a Linux advocate I would have expected you to understand this, or did you not realize that you are arguing *against* Linux because of the initial higher cost due to retraining. Once past the retraining the cost savings come in, not before.
In a world where computers have become central to communication, free speech depends on software. If that software is not free, there's a real danger to speech.
Nonsense. *Any* web or email client facilitates free speech. Whether it is proprietary or open source is irrelevant. You might also want to return to your Econ 101 textbook. If in some far-fetched ultra-paranoid future a common browser began to censor communications then a need would arise and the market would provide a solution. As Firefox did when the market developed a need for a more secure browser.
I'm a brilliant musician, but nobody knows. I want to share my music - but music players delete it after three plays.
More nonsense. Then release your music as a DRM-free MP3 and it won't be subject to such restrictions.
have to agree... He's saying that a computer without Windows is not a product. A bigger BS statement has rarely been made by a reputable PC manufacturer.
...". You may disagree with their decision to offer only one OS, and for that one OS to be Windows, but that is a separate issue.
You can agree, but that merely makes two of you that are "wrong". He said "OS", not "Windows": 'The PC without an OS is not a product
MS conducts themselves as a bully. Nobody likes a bully.
Some girls are attracted to bullies.
Well, at least viral marketing can be killed instantly by the negative karma that comes about when the blatant lies of this being an 'enthusiast's user opinion' are uncovered.
Viral marketing does not require astroturfing. A company can legitimately engage in viral marketing by being supportive of actual users and fans.
The developers need to own the entire product
No, whoever supports it and interacts with the customers should own it. If it is an internal product then that may be IT, if it is a product for outsiders then that may be Tech Support. I've worked in both environments, and while my ego as a developer says I am at the top of the food chain and should be in charge of everything, I realize that things worked pretty well when others owned the deployment and interacted with customers. It was an interesting environment when Tech Support owned the distribution. We would create a build, do our own testing, and then deliver a text file with the CRCs of files. QA would take a wiped system and check out the source and all development tools from version control, build, and verify CRCs matched. An unexpected high number of problems were detected by this simple step. Putting barriers between developments and customers is probably a good idea.
Thank you media for not blowing this up to Scott Peterson level. This just goes to show you that stuff like this happens all the time that never gets seen in national media.
This is being blown up in the media, the nerd media. Slashdot is convering this just like the TV media covered OJ. Exact same reason, a "famous" suspect with respect to the demographics of the audience.
Type 3+ (basic military) armour will stop most shots and helmets are there to stop headshots. If you are reduced to scavenging ammo from enemy combatants that you can't kill without the ammo you scavenged from enemy combatants, you have already lost. Dum dums are still worthless against an armoured foe, as are hunting rounds.
You don't need scavenged ammo to kill, the scavenged ammo is just a secondary benefit, a convenient resupply. Body armor does not cover the entire body. Wounds to the arms, legs, and especially the lower abdomen that would be survivable with military rounds would be far more traumatic with hunting ammo, bleed out and death far more likely to follow. Also, hunting rifles are often far more accurate than service rifles, especially so for AK class weaponry (mentioned due to original post), so avoiding armor (if necessary) is far more practical. Even if wearing armor, it does not necessary provide equal protection in all regions. There is a trade off between protection and freedom/range of movement. Attacks to the side, upper abdomen / neck, etc are still likely to be vulnerable to a civilian high power rifle round. The protection in that area is usually designed for shrapnel.
Again however, prosecution doesn't support your original position that soldiers can and will refuse those orders.
You are quite confused over my original position. Reread the ridiculous claim of another and my follow up in bold: "Yea, good luck with that. See, the military is already prepared for that answer. If you refuse a direct order in the field -- and make no mistake, when they come for you, it won't be in an office meeting -- you get shot on the spot". "That is one of the most ignorant and ill-informed things I have read in this thread. The truth is that from basic training onward US military personnel are taught that it is *their duty* to disobey illegal orders. Illegal orders include but are not limited to attacking non-combatants. An officer who threatens to shoot a soldier who refuses to follow an illegal order can be immediately relieved and taken in custody, even by a subordinate".
So you are entirely mistaken with respect to "can". Then can disobey an illegal order, as evidenced by the fact that they are trained to do so. With respect to "will", no training is 100% effective. However soldiers are repeatedly trained to disobey illegal orders, and this deters officers from issuing them. Few things are worse for an officer than to lose face and credibility due to an order being refused. He can probably even be charged.
"Illegal orders include but are not limited to attacking non-combatants."
Attacking non-combatants is illegal according to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention -- you may have heard of it -- but the president argues that his role as commander-in-chief gives him the right to decide whether he wants to follow that law. As far as we know, this has only been used to justify torture, but there's no reason why it doesn't include killing. The president believes that he can legally withdraw Geneva convention protections on his say so, which includes ordering the military to kill American civilians.
No, the President does not believe in attacking non-combatants. However, the President does believe that those defined by the Geneva Convention as illegal combatants are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Hence some of the folks taken on the battlefields of Afghanistan going to Guantanamo. A modern terrorist is not unlike what the Geneva Convention defines as saboteurs and spies, and these are allowed to be executed in a time of war. The Geneva Convention even allows for the execution of legal combatants who intentionally attack non-combatants.
While the President argues that we are not bound by the Geneva Convention with respect to detainment of illegal combatants and terrorists, we are none the less running Guantanamo in a pretty humane fashion. The argument the president makes is more about jurisdiction, and less about actual treatment.
"Hunting rifles and ammo are deadlier than military rifles and ammo, Hunting ammo is designed to expand as it passes through tissue. The ammo used by hunters would result in a war crime if used by the military."
...
...), 7.62 NATO = .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO = .223 Remington, even the AK's 7.62x39 mm is used in some lightweight hunting rifles. So, the exotic ammo taken off of enemy dead could be fired by hunting rifles.
What a pile of rot. High explosive armour piercing rounds for the AK have been available in eastern europe for a long, long time, and they are a good deal worse than your dum dums. Also your hunting ammo is to all intents and purposes worthless against body armour; armour piercing doesn't deform much / at all on impact.
Hunting rifles tend to be accurate and scoped. So they are more akin to the low end of sniper rifles, head shots would be more natural, body armor less of a factor. However
The high explosive armor piercing round are not for use against personnel, that would be a war crime. Could they be loaded and fired illegally, yes, just like the hunting rounds. Military rounds used against personnel may be armor piercing but they just make relatively clean smaller holes than hunting rounds. Unless you are wearing pretty heavy and modern body armor, ordinary civilian rounds from a hunting rifle will easily penetrate body armor. Hence the ceramic plate inserts. Hunting rifles often use the same ammunition as military rifles, 30'06 (WW1, WW2,
Abu Gharib? Iraqi civilian targets? Yes, they're taught to refuse those orders.
And yet those at abu were prosecuted. And those who intentionally attacked non-combatant have been charged with murder. *If* these acts were committed under orders why are the participants being prosecuted, because it was illegal for them to obey an illegal order. So yes they are taught to refuse and they are prosecuted when they fail to do so.
the Pen, sir, is mightier
A particular person may be mightier holding a "pen" rather than a "sword", however that is only true because someone else with a "sword" is protecting the writer. Without the protection offered by another, the writer is at the mercy of others. The holder of the pen becomes the prop for a jihadist video.
The Iraqi War has not really increased the threat to the west or created more jihadists. The outrage amongst extremists would be the same due to the war against the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. Jihadists from around the world would have flocked there rather than Iraq. The Jihadists stress Iraq today because they are media and PR savvy enough to know that Iraq is where they can drive a wedge between westerners. They learned from Vietnam that wars can be won by victories in the press, despite defeats on the battlefield. Keep in mind that both sides are lying to you and manipulating you. Militant Islam has been attacking the west since the 1970s and they have been getting better and better at it each year. They want a conflict with the west, they want to destroy the west. The only thing that the Iraqi War has changed is that the IEDs are going off in Bhagdad, Iraq rather than Kabul, Afghanistan.