The author is not trying to minimize your needs, he's evaluating from the only point of view he has, his own. It's not POSSIBLE to present a full picture given the astronomical number of things and programs that different people use. Every user is different and there will be no single moment when linux suddenly becomes "ready for the desktop". It will happen at different times for different users. It's never going to be "just like windows", there will be some differences (just look how windows has changed) simply because it IS different. The question is will the user be able to adjust and do their stuff and will it be worth the switching costs?
There is a real method for installing software in linux, it's called an RPM. And you don't have to use the command line to do it, there have been gui interfaces for this for ages, and they even resolve dependancies.
I don't know where you get the idea that ANYONE is "silencing criticism" here in the US. There seems to be plenty of criticising going on here. So I don't know where this whole McCarthy bit comes from, it just makes you sound silly.
I don't know if what you are saying is true, but assuming for the moment that it is. I think you MAY have a point. Certainly I don't think a 13 year old (well not most 13 year olds) are capable of making adult like decisions and ought to be treated that way by the law. OTOH 17 year old girls are a way different bunch. Many of them are sexually active and are engaged in other adult activities. This doesn't make molestation by a 40 year old man correct, espcially if he raped her (in the non-stautory sense). OTOH, if she would have been 18 then it all would have been legal?? That just doesn't make sense to me. And she bears some responsibility for this as well, as she was certainly old enough that she SHOULD have known better (at 17).
They are walking along the street when the trader sees a dollar laying on the ground and says to the economist "there's a dollar laying there on the ground". As the trader picks up the dollar, the economist chuckles and exclaims that it cannot possibly be, since if it really was a dollar someone would have already picked it up. So the trader examines the dollar and tells the economist that it is, in fact, a real dollar, and chuckles at the economist's folly. "Well that may be true" the economist responds, "but it's not on the ground anymore."
Using that as the standard I can make pretty much any unsubstantiaed accusation I want, cause, you know, it MIGHT be true in the future. Who needs proof when you have wild, unsubstantiated accusations that cannot be disproven since they always posit their predictions to occur at some unknown future time. The point is you have no evidence to suggest any such development, being that these were excluded as being outside the range of the FCC.
All that is happening here is that VoIP providers that connect to traditional networks are being forced to follow the same rules for wiretaps that regular carriers do. This isn't some vast expansion of wiretapping powers, this is equals being treated equally. VoIP that doesn't terminate on a POTS network isn't affected. Move along.
No it's not illegal, and if anyone RTFA they'd know that this FCC rule only applies to VoIP stuff that connects to the traditional phone network ala Vonnage.
Re:No more Kernel Panic and Linux Thinking
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 1
Sometimes yes and no, in my experience, especially with faster computers you frequently don't notice. It tires to do the windows equivalent of a core dump before the restart IIRC, which is why you may see the BSOD on some for longer than you do on others.
Well of course there are some company's that are just greedy and unreasonable SOBs. My point was just that MOST of them are willing to be reasonable. All in all i'd say that most of the people posting here have the right idea, look it over first, possibly with a lawyer, and make any modifications you need to to protect your prior work and your unrelated work.
Because voice recognition is not really there yet, plus having everyone in the office using voice recognition would be pretty irritating. As for handwriting, anyone can type much faster than they can write with a little bit of practice, so typing is still a good skill to learn.
The warnings went on the pack in the mid 60s in the US. And it was well known before then smoking wasn't good for you. If you don't believe that, ask any WWII aged vet. Even then they knew cigs weren't particularly healthy, but when you might be about to die in a war zone, they were a small comfort.
MOST (not all but most) employers are willing to be reasonable, the "we own everything you do" clause it there because it's the easiest and quickest way for them to cover their ass. As many other posters have said, if you are salaried, then anything you invent duing your job tenure that is reasonably related to your job desciption should be the company's property. Most employers are perfectly willing to give exemptions for unrelated stuff, they just would prefer not to get screwed, and a blanket clause in the contract is the fastest way to prevent that.
Re:No more Kernel Panic and Linux Thinking
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 1
You do know the the default behavior in 2k and XP is to auto-reboot instead of bluescreen (if it can), right? My experience is totally the opposite. While 2k and XP are markedly better than any of the old 9x stuff, I wouldn't say they are better than linux, though they are approaching it now in terms of stability. I used win2k for a number of years and still do use it for some business machines. My laptop is a Powerbook and my home tower is a slackware server, so I pretty much see it all.
Let's see, who had more civilian casualties, why the Iraqis. Maybe it has something to do the the war being fought in IRAQ. Nahhh, couldn't be. That's just plain logic, it certainly doesn't tell me anything about the american's behavior with regards to minimizing civilian deaths.
Oh yeah, and there isn't a proven link between DU shells and cancer (I've heard it from some extemely biase sources, but not from any more objective groups). I won't dispute the Iraq suffered, no matter how "goood" the US was, anytime you have a war you are going to have casualites, inflicting pain on both the civilians and the military personel. It's meerly a question of whether the war is worth the cost. Frankly, I care more about how the average Iraqi feels than what the bean counters at the UN think.
Your deficit swing comment is totally wrong. There never was a 500B dollar surplus. And we still haven't reached a 500B dollar deficit (though we came closer this year). (Oh and if you are counting SS separately you can get the deficit to well over 500B, but if you do that you obliterate the original surplus as well).
So your math doesn't work either way.
You didn't address my point about inflation, or of our debt RELATIVE to our income (comparing our deficit to prior years is meaningless, kind of like complaining about how my rent went up by 5% and ignoring my 30% increase in income over that time period).
And yes, your math is all wrong. Some work in your favor, and some don't. There aren't 280 million tax payers, since you have to exclude most kids under the age of 14 or 15, married individuals filing jointly reduce your count as well as those whose income's are to low to pay income taxes to begin with. That increases the average refund by maybe twofold. The "cost" of the tax cut was given over a ten year period, and was phased in (thought I believe the total was closer to 2 trillon). This should decrease your total refund by a little more than five fold. The result is current yearly refunds significantly smaller than your prediction.
Lastly, you argue that the wealthly benefitted disproprotionately from the tax cuts. Which SEEMS true enough looking at who got what "back" in terms of benefits. Of course, what you fail to disclose is that the wealthy also PAY in substantially more than the poor. So what you say, the rich got more back (in dollars) than the poor, they must have gotten the better deal. Then explain to me, if the poor got screwed and the rich got all the benefit, then how come the rich's share of the overall tax burden ROSE after the tax cut? (The percentage of total tax collection paid by those in the top brachets rose, meaning that the burden shifted toward the rich.)
The reason the dollar amounts are so "skewed" on the refunds is that the rich pay the lions share of the total dollars in the first place. Almost all the income taxes are paid by the top half (97%), for two reasons, they earn more income than the bottom half (thus a percentage tax would take much more from them than someone with less wealth) and they also pay a higher tax RATE as well. Almost any reduction in tax rates would "disproportionately" benefit the rich, simply because they pay almost all of the income taxes in the first place. In order to do what you suggest, we would have to intentionally screw the rich by specifically excluding them from any tax cuts at all.
The fundamental problem here is one of perception, there are two different views of the function and nature of a tax cut. One group sees tax cuts as a form of government spending. They see a wealthy guy getting lots of money after a tax cut and someone much poorer person not getting nearly as much. When a tax cut is looked at through the light of a benefit bestowed upon someone from the government, then it would NATURALLY seem outraegous that the rich are given so much more than the poor. After all, the rich don't need it and the poor do. The situation ought to be reversed!!! The other group sees taxes as cost imposed by society upon it's citizens. Therefore when a reduction in taxes is proposed, it would be expressly unfair to punish those who foot the heaviest bill. (Of course there are disagreements in DEGREE within these two groups) But the mindsets are fundamentally different.
Price discrimination only comes into play when a company has at least some pricing (monopoly) power. This is because the company faces a demand that is flexible with regards to price (as opposed to a competitive market where you sell at the going market price or lose all of your customers). This only works if Microsoft can keep the stong effects of its monopoly working for them. Basically, MS will have to lower prices for other customers, at least for those customers over whom it has less pricing power due to competition from linux, etc.
I understand the rationale, I just don't think they should have to pay for that distinction. Actually, it's one more tool that seems to put larger businesses at an advantage. (I know lots of small businesses are corps too). If we eliminate the corporate income tax, then we have to tax capital gains as regular income.
The deficit is NOT a record unless you ignore inflation and the relative size of the economy. That doesn't mean that it is good, but it certainly isn't a record.
Actually, even the semprons won't be much faster than your athlon XPs. The 754 is a dead end, even for the budget stuff.
The Semprons are going to be on the 939 as well, where they will likely get better performance.
Slashdot Mirror
The author is not trying to minimize your needs, he's evaluating from the only point of view he has, his own. It's not POSSIBLE to present a full picture given the astronomical number of things and programs that different people use. Every user is different and there will be no single moment when linux suddenly becomes "ready for the desktop". It will happen at different times for different users. It's never going to be "just like windows", there will be some differences (just look how windows has changed) simply because it IS different. The question is will the user be able to adjust and do their stuff and will it be worth the switching costs?
You don't get that on windows either, only on the Mac. I guess windows isn't ready for the desktop either.
Bluefish also looks good as a dreamweaver like program.
There is a real method for installing software in linux, it's called an RPM. And you don't have to use the command line to do it, there have been gui interfaces for this for ages, and they even resolve dependancies.
I don't know where you get the idea that ANYONE is "silencing criticism" here in the US. There seems to be plenty of criticising going on here. So I don't know where this whole McCarthy bit comes from, it just makes you sound silly.
I don't know if what you are saying is true, but assuming for the moment that it is. I think you MAY have a point. Certainly I don't think a 13 year old (well not most 13 year olds) are capable of making adult like decisions and ought to be treated that way by the law. OTOH 17 year old girls are a way different bunch. Many of them are sexually active and are engaged in other adult activities. This doesn't make molestation by a 40 year old man correct, espcially if he raped her (in the non-stautory sense). OTOH, if she would have been 18 then it all would have been legal?? That just doesn't make sense to me. And she bears some responsibility for this as well, as she was certainly old enough that she SHOULD have known better (at 17).
They are walking along the street when the trader sees a dollar laying on the ground and says to the economist "there's a dollar laying there on the ground". As the trader picks up the dollar, the economist chuckles and exclaims that it cannot possibly be, since if it really was a dollar someone would have already picked it up. So the trader examines the dollar and tells the economist that it is, in fact, a real dollar, and chuckles at the economist's folly. "Well that may be true" the economist responds, "but it's not on the ground anymore."
All that is happening here is that VoIP providers that connect to traditional networks are being forced to follow the same rules for wiretaps that regular carriers do. This isn't some vast expansion of wiretapping powers, this is equals being treated equally. VoIP that doesn't terminate on a POTS network isn't affected. Move along.
No it's not illegal, and if anyone RTFA they'd know that this FCC rule only applies to VoIP stuff that connects to the traditional phone network ala Vonnage.
Sometimes yes and no, in my experience, especially with faster computers you frequently don't notice. It tires to do the windows equivalent of a core dump before the restart IIRC, which is why you may see the BSOD on some for longer than you do on others.
Well of course there are some company's that are just greedy and unreasonable SOBs. My point was just that MOST of them are willing to be reasonable. All in all i'd say that most of the people posting here have the right idea, look it over first, possibly with a lawyer, and make any modifications you need to to protect your prior work and your unrelated work.
Because voice recognition is not really there yet, plus having everyone in the office using voice recognition would be pretty irritating. As for handwriting, anyone can type much faster than they can write with a little bit of practice, so typing is still a good skill to learn.
The warnings went on the pack in the mid 60s in the US. And it was well known before then smoking wasn't good for you. If you don't believe that, ask any WWII aged vet. Even then they knew cigs weren't particularly healthy, but when you might be about to die in a war zone, they were a small comfort.
MOST (not all but most) employers are willing to be reasonable, the "we own everything you do" clause it there because it's the easiest and quickest way for them to cover their ass. As many other posters have said, if you are salaried, then anything you invent duing your job tenure that is reasonably related to your job desciption should be the company's property. Most employers are perfectly willing to give exemptions for unrelated stuff, they just would prefer not to get screwed, and a blanket clause in the contract is the fastest way to prevent that.
You do know the the default behavior in 2k and XP is to auto-reboot instead of bluescreen (if it can), right? My experience is totally the opposite. While 2k and XP are markedly better than any of the old 9x stuff, I wouldn't say they are better than linux, though they are approaching it now in terms of stability. I used win2k for a number of years and still do use it for some business machines. My laptop is a Powerbook and my home tower is a slackware server, so I pretty much see it all.
Oh yeah, and there isn't a proven link between DU shells and cancer (I've heard it from some extemely biase sources, but not from any more objective groups). I won't dispute the Iraq suffered, no matter how "goood" the US was, anytime you have a war you are going to have casualites, inflicting pain on both the civilians and the military personel. It's meerly a question of whether the war is worth the cost. Frankly, I care more about how the average Iraqi feels than what the bean counters at the UN think.
More people are experts at sex than windows or linux??
You didn't address my point about inflation, or of our debt RELATIVE to our income (comparing our deficit to prior years is meaningless, kind of like complaining about how my rent went up by 5% and ignoring my 30% increase in income over that time period).
And yes, your math is all wrong. Some work in your favor, and some don't. There aren't 280 million tax payers, since you have to exclude most kids under the age of 14 or 15, married individuals filing jointly reduce your count as well as those whose income's are to low to pay income taxes to begin with. That increases the average refund by maybe twofold. The "cost" of the tax cut was given over a ten year period, and was phased in (thought I believe the total was closer to 2 trillon). This should decrease your total refund by a little more than five fold. The result is current yearly refunds significantly smaller than your prediction.
Lastly, you argue that the wealthly benefitted disproprotionately from the tax cuts. Which SEEMS true enough looking at who got what "back" in terms of benefits. Of course, what you fail to disclose is that the wealthy also PAY in substantially more than the poor. So what you say, the rich got more back (in dollars) than the poor, they must have gotten the better deal. Then explain to me, if the poor got screwed and the rich got all the benefit, then how come the rich's share of the overall tax burden ROSE after the tax cut? (The percentage of total tax collection paid by those in the top brachets rose, meaning that the burden shifted toward the rich.)
The reason the dollar amounts are so "skewed" on the refunds is that the rich pay the lions share of the total dollars in the first place. Almost all the income taxes are paid by the top half (97%), for two reasons, they earn more income than the bottom half (thus a percentage tax would take much more from them than someone with less wealth) and they also pay a higher tax RATE as well. Almost any reduction in tax rates would "disproportionately" benefit the rich, simply because they pay almost all of the income taxes in the first place. In order to do what you suggest, we would have to intentionally screw the rich by specifically excluding them from any tax cuts at all.
The fundamental problem here is one of perception, there are two different views of the function and nature of a tax cut. One group sees tax cuts as a form of government spending. They see a wealthy guy getting lots of money after a tax cut and someone much poorer person not getting nearly as much. When a tax cut is looked at through the light of a benefit bestowed upon someone from the government, then it would NATURALLY seem outraegous that the rich are given so much more than the poor. After all, the rich don't need it and the poor do. The situation ought to be reversed!!! The other group sees taxes as cost imposed by society upon it's citizens. Therefore when a reduction in taxes is proposed, it would be expressly unfair to punish those who foot the heaviest bill. (Of course there are disagreements in DEGREE within these two groups) But the mindsets are fundamentally different.
Price discrimination only comes into play when a company has at least some pricing (monopoly) power. This is because the company faces a demand that is flexible with regards to price (as opposed to a competitive market where you sell at the going market price or lose all of your customers). This only works if Microsoft can keep the stong effects of its monopoly working for them. Basically, MS will have to lower prices for other customers, at least for those customers over whom it has less pricing power due to competition from linux, etc.
God speaks through him? I hadn't heard that one before!
I understand the rationale, I just don't think they should have to pay for that distinction. Actually, it's one more tool that seems to put larger businesses at an advantage. (I know lots of small businesses are corps too). If we eliminate the corporate income tax, then we have to tax capital gains as regular income.
The deficit is NOT a record unless you ignore inflation and the relative size of the economy. That doesn't mean that it is good, but it certainly isn't a record.
Actually, even the semprons won't be much faster than your athlon XPs. The 754 is a dead end, even for the budget stuff. The Semprons are going to be on the 939 as well, where they will likely get better performance.
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/ashcroft.h tml
I thought there was still a lot of disagreement about the long term hormonal effects of contraceptives.