Why are so many people tightwads about anti-virus? Computer related infections could be very expensive, so I wouldn't go with anything but the very best money can buy and that is Kaspersky.
Also, I wouldn't advocate home dentistry, either. Although I'm sure many are trying to figure out how to do just that, these days.
(x) George Bush (x) The crazy man from Youtube with the insane looking teeth. ( ) Moot (x) Bill Gates ( ) Linus Torvalds ( ) Obama ( ) Joe Biden (x) Sarah Palin (x) John McCain ( ) Other (x) Cowboy Neal
undesirable for whom? While this might positively applicaple for e.g. victims of rape there are tons of possible missuses which really should be feared.
All memory of Goatse could be erased! That has to count for SOMETHING.
TWCTF for the original Quake is probably the best mod of all time. Not Counterstrike, or Team Fortress (lol sorry). Not only because the inventor of the Geek Code Block had something to do with it. KTHXBYE!
I admit that the summary was a little hard to follow - I had to read it a couple of times too - TFA makes the situation much more clear.
The crimes that are tough to catch a crook at are the ones you can't really explain in a paragraph. I'm surprised they stayed in this for so long. Seems like they were itching to get caught.
For the same reason any advocacy body does anything: getting your brand name out in the press with some positive association, so that people will be more likely to have a favorable impression when it comes time to make a decision about whether to buy Sun, HP, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Linux, etc. "I read that Linux's ecosystem is worth 25Bn dollars... that must mean there's a lot of people out there using it successfully, let's check it out."
$25 Billion is peanuts compared to the size of Microsoft. This does not factor. The ecosystem of Microsoft is in the trillions. This number would work against Linux that way. The only way you could sell it is by looking at the rates of expansion and trying to compare them.
That's a lovely assertion. Except nowhere in the article, summary, or any related supporting text about this study that I've seen do they make any such claim.
I extrapolated that as the only feasible cause for their concern. There is no other viable reason, and you have not presented one yet.
Do you just throw random latin into your posts in an attempt to sound more intelligent?
At this point you have completely discredited yourself.
"The article speculates that the operators of HerbalKing simply passed on to associates the keys to the automated, 35,000-strong botnet, and the spam flow didn't miss a beat." Whatever. I've seen way too many scifi films to believe that. Obviously, skynet is now self-aware.
I was suggesting that my interpretation of the Linux Foundation's move here would only to be one that could suggest that they have eaten into their competitor's market share. Why else would they release the figure? What do you think made them want to establish a value on the Linux ecosystem? They certainly can't do anything with that number, can they? I took it as that they were suggesting some kind of value was associated to their cause, which is the opposite of the cause of Microsoft. OSS has worked directly against Microsoft's interests and therefore that number could only represent $25 billion that Microsoft missed out on... and that suggestion is the fallacy I was pointing at, because it couldn't possible be equivalent.
I've read your "supporting arguments," and they still make no sense, as I indicated in my response. Your assertion that they're committing a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) is not supported in any post you've made, because there is no mention in the summary or the article that Linux Foundation has claimed "Linux is worth 25 Billion. Microsoft is losing market share. Therefore, Microsoft is losing market share because Linux is worth 25 Billion." So please, for us benighted ignoramuses, please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that they're committing this logical fallacy, or admit that you used the term improperly in an attempt to sound intelligent which has failed miserably.
Why else would Linux Foundation make a claim to the net value of Linux? They can't sell it. They can't hedge against it. They can't borrow against that figure. Tell me why they are releasing this information. What is your opinion on the reason they are placing this value on the Linux ecosystem? I told you what I thought about it.
But if they can hold it up and show people how they have grown, well the likelihood is that they would try to demonstrate that the growth has eaten into their competition's market share, but this is a comparison of apples and oranges but also this is Non Sequitur. The less plausible explanation to attribute this growth of Linux is the growth in the circumference of Linux nerds.
It is more likely that the growth of Linux adoption has come from the fact that it's free, but not necessarily at the expense of any competitor. Apart from a sharp downturn after the bubble, Microsoft's MSFT stock has remained at a seemingly constant valuation.
I don't think his statement is intended to "oppose your position". I think what he's done is pointed out that the logical fallacy you referenced doesn't apply to this situation. Or, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya... "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I am a big picture thinker. I connect disparate facts, and sometimes I forget to fully support my arguments. Typically I let Slashdot figure it out for themselves, but I think that people are missing the boat on this thread.
Yes, you are absolutely right. He is saying that. He's just incorrect. See my supporting arguments and feel free to debate them. If you decide not to debate them, I'll accept that as a nod from you, in support of them.
Actually, that's a pretty good measure of value. Google had three choices
Who was Google a benefactor to directly though? Who made the money?
Google was the benefactor, and therefore we seem to be comparing apples and oranges. Sure you're correct in suggesting that there is value in OSS. The Linux foundation is correct in attributing value, but what I was pointing out was that trying to correlate this value with the decline of Microsoft or any other competitors, is flawed logic.
Yes, the Linux Foundation has not suggested there is a correlation, but there is no other feasible reason for them to attribute a value to Linux unless to measure how successful it is and the only reason you would want to do that is to determine how much of the market you have taken from the other guys.
With WotLK I won't need to worry about stupid 25man raid times...which are such a waste of time anyway -- for all my efforts in T6 content I get to replace it all in 3 weeks! x.x
Wait a minute... it's 4:30pm and I just thought of this brave new strategy. OH SH-
I then get a tax-bill based on the next-door property valuation. Who could argue? Who could argue and win a court-case against the county tax_man ??
Then you sue because they are different houses. Home appraisers would be called in on both sides and your home's true value would be established, regardless of whether you chose to sell or not. And you would be a fool not to sell your $10M home if it was that inflated (and your argument suggests that it was inflated).
If the Brooklyn Bridge were destroyed, what effect would it have on the local economy? There is your hidden value. The bridge produces value despite there being no price tag.
But now you are suggesting that OSS can be destroyed which at current time is impossible.
If the entire Linux technology sphere magically vanished overnight (don't ask me how), would the damage to the economy be in excess of $25 billion? Just because there's no liquidity doesn't mean there's no value.
Nothing would happen because OSS is by definition FREE TO USE, and therefore it cannot disappear unless people just stop using it. The only reason they would stop using it is if it was banned because terrorists get funding from it and in order to prove that, they would have to prove it had value. OH SH-
This is an example of someone not understanding what a particular logical fallacy actually is, and throwing it against the wall hoping it will stick.
While your response appears to have merit, it lacks substance. How exactly do you oppose my position? You haven't read my clarification post yet. Give it a read and rebut if you like. Bellyache all you want, but until you refute what I'm saying you don't have a leg to stand on.
A occurred, then B occurred. Therefore, A caused B.
A: Linux is worth $25 Billion B: Microsoft market share has decreased
Therefore A caused B? No. There is no evidence of that.
I love Linux but that kind of logic is simply flawed and therefore people who love Microsoft could use it against OSS in their sales pitch. A good part of OSS is the ability to have groupthink be thwarted by the input from many open (freely offered) sources. I happen to be a proponent of OSS.
A: Linux is worth $25 Billion B: Microsoft market share has increased
Therefore A caused B?
Linux foundation is suggesting that their value of Linux is somehow relevant. It's not that relevant.
How can you put a value on something that is inherently invaluable? How do you account for the savings of using free products that also cause additional savings (from avoiding security holes, for example).
You cannot attribute a price on the value of Linux. It's simply priceless and that was the intent of my original comment.
Pure nonsense. Value can be attributed to things that produce value. Would you say the Brooklyn Bridge is worth nothing because it can't be bought or sold? I'd hope not.
If the Brooklyn Bridge is free, what value does it really have?
The only tidbit of info I have so far is that the LInux Foundation has valued Google's use of Linux for Android at $1.3 billion worth of R&D.
Value can only be attributed towards things that can be bought and sold.
This is therefore an example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc; ie., just because Linux foundation says the Linux footprint is worth $25 Billion, is a fallicy because nobody can purchase it. It could show a measure of the rate of Linux adoption, but such suggestions must be understood by looking at the bigger picture. Who's losing when Linux is being adopted and also, which projects are not going with Linux?
There is also the long-tail of Linux adoption that couldn't possibly be accounted in their figure.
I must maintain that the big picture is currently too big for anyone to fully interpret at present, especially the Linux foundation who is subject to some considerable bias.
You can't sell the Linux ecosystem, and if you believe you can buy it -- I have a bridge to sell you (please contact me right away because I also have some important Nigerian business that requires you immmmmediate and humbling attention, kind sirs.)
I like Linux, but these types of concepts are rooted in Non Sequitur; that the buy-in of Linux is rooted in the success of Linux. That can only be true of this is a zero-sum claim, and there is evidence of losses directly attributed which while plausible does not make these factually relevant.
When is the press going to realize that Java != Javascript? (Or Java !== Javascript, even!) Comparing "Java" performance between browsers is meaningless. (And isn't what SunSpider does anyway.) Comparing JavaScript performance has a very real impact on the users.
Not me, I use NoScript. Unless it's vital JS, I won't permit it to run and therefore it won't affect my experience (and you can't get a rubust solution to disable JS for IE -- only on Firefox.)
Slashdot Mirror
Why are so many people tightwads about anti-virus? Computer related infections could be very expensive, so I wouldn't go with anything but the very best money can buy and that is Kaspersky.
Also, I wouldn't advocate home dentistry, either. Although I'm sure many are trying to figure out how to do just that, these days.
(x) George Bush
(x) The crazy man from Youtube with the insane looking teeth.
( ) Moot
(x) Bill Gates
( ) Linus Torvalds
( ) Obama
( ) Joe Biden
(x) Sarah Palin
(x) John McCain
( ) Other
(x) Cowboy Neal
Microsoft is no more!!!!
Dammit, I'm moving.
All memory of Goatse could be erased! That has to count for SOMETHING.
It's funny you would say that considering how poorly TW2 was received for Quake 2!!! LOL
LMCTF was pretty spiffy. The first CTF of merit really since Zoid's official Q2CTF version took too long.
TWCTF for the original Quake is probably the best mod of all time. Not Counterstrike, or Team Fortress (lol sorry). Not only because the inventor of the Geek Code Block had something to do with it. KTHXBYE!
The crimes that are tough to catch a crook at are the ones you can't really explain in a paragraph. I'm surprised they stayed in this for so long. Seems like they were itching to get caught.
$25 Billion is peanuts compared to the size of Microsoft. This does not factor. The ecosystem of Microsoft is in the trillions. This number would work against Linux that way. The only way you could sell it is by looking at the rates of expansion and trying to compare them.
I extrapolated that as the only feasible cause for their concern. There is no other viable reason, and you have not presented one yet.
At this point you have completely discredited yourself.
We need Arnold to get to the choppa!!!!
On the internet, it certainly does. Thank you for responding. This response may be of interest to you, as it summarizes my response to a similar reply.
I was suggesting that my interpretation of the Linux Foundation's move here would only to be one that could suggest that they have eaten into their competitor's market share. Why else would they release the figure? What do you think made them want to establish a value on the Linux ecosystem? They certainly can't do anything with that number, can they? I took it as that they were suggesting some kind of value was associated to their cause, which is the opposite of the cause of Microsoft. OSS has worked directly against Microsoft's interests and therefore that number could only represent $25 billion that Microsoft missed out on... and that suggestion is the fallacy I was pointing at, because it couldn't possible be equivalent.
My job is 100% creativity, so therefore if I am not at peak creative levels, I cannot produce. :(
Why else would Linux Foundation make a claim to the net value of Linux? They can't sell it. They can't hedge against it. They can't borrow against that figure. Tell me why they are releasing this information. What is your opinion on the reason they are placing this value on the Linux ecosystem? I told you what I thought about it.
But if they can hold it up and show people how they have grown, well the likelihood is that they would try to demonstrate that the growth has eaten into their competition's market share, but this is a comparison of apples and oranges but also this is Non Sequitur. The less plausible explanation to attribute this growth of Linux is the growth in the circumference of Linux nerds.
It is more likely that the growth of Linux adoption has come from the fact that it's free, but not necessarily at the expense of any competitor. Apart from a sharp downturn after the bubble, Microsoft's MSFT stock has remained at a seemingly constant valuation.
I am a big picture thinker. I connect disparate facts, and sometimes I forget to fully support my arguments. Typically I let Slashdot figure it out for themselves, but I think that people are missing the boat on this thread.
Yes, you are absolutely right. He is saying that. He's just incorrect. See my supporting arguments and feel free to debate them. If you decide not to debate them, I'll accept that as a nod from you, in support of them.
Who was Google a benefactor to directly though? Who made the money?
Google was the benefactor, and therefore we seem to be comparing apples and oranges. Sure you're correct in suggesting that there is value in OSS. The Linux foundation is correct in attributing value, but what I was pointing out was that trying to correlate this value with the decline of Microsoft or any other competitors, is flawed logic.
Yes, the Linux Foundation has not suggested there is a correlation, but there is no other feasible reason for them to attribute a value to Linux unless to measure how successful it is and the only reason you would want to do that is to determine how much of the market you have taken from the other guys.
Non Sequitor, checkmate.
FUCK IT. I'm going home!!!!
(And I'm only working between 10pm and 1am from now on!)
Because I'll be more productive, I can get away with only working for 3 hours.
My new World of Warcraft schedule will be as follows:
8am-1pm (World PvP & farming)
2pm-9:59pm (BG premades & Arenas)
With WotLK I won't need to worry about stupid 25man raid times ...which are such a waste of time anyway -- for all my efforts in T6 content I get to replace it all in 3 weeks! x.x
Wait a minute... it's 4:30pm and I just thought of this brave new strategy. OH SH-
Then you sue because they are different houses. Home appraisers would be called in on both sides and your home's true value would be established, regardless of whether you chose to sell or not. And you would be a fool not to sell your $10M home if it was that inflated (and your argument suggests that it was inflated).
But now you are suggesting that OSS can be destroyed which at current time is impossible.
Nothing would happen because OSS is by definition FREE TO USE, and therefore it cannot disappear unless people just stop using it. The only reason they would stop using it is if it was banned because terrorists get funding from it and in order to prove that, they would have to prove it had value. OH SH-
While your response appears to have merit, it lacks substance. How exactly do you oppose my position? You haven't read my clarification post yet. Give it a read and rebut if you like. Bellyache all you want, but until you refute what I'm saying you don't have a leg to stand on.
Canada?
A: Linux is worth $25 Billion
B: Microsoft market share has decreased
Therefore A caused B? No. There is no evidence of that.
I love Linux but that kind of logic is simply flawed and therefore people who love Microsoft could use it against OSS in their sales pitch. A good part of OSS is the ability to have groupthink be thwarted by the input from many open (freely offered) sources. I happen to be a proponent of OSS.
A: Linux is worth $25 Billion
B: Microsoft market share has increased
Therefore A caused B?
Linux foundation is suggesting that their value of Linux is somehow relevant. It's not that relevant.
How can you put a value on something that is inherently invaluable? How do you account for the savings of using free products that also cause additional savings (from avoiding security holes, for example).
You cannot attribute a price on the value of Linux. It's simply priceless and that was the intent of my original comment.
If the Brooklyn Bridge is free, what value does it really have?
Pardon my spelling errs. :)
fallicy -> fallacy
immmmmediate (as intended)
Value can only be attributed towards things that can be bought and sold.
This is therefore an example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc; ie., just because Linux foundation says the Linux footprint is worth $25 Billion, is a fallicy because nobody can purchase it. It could show a measure of the rate of Linux adoption, but such suggestions must be understood by looking at the bigger picture. Who's losing when Linux is being adopted and also, which projects are not going with Linux?
There is also the long-tail of Linux adoption that couldn't possibly be accounted in their figure.
I must maintain that the big picture is currently too big for anyone to fully interpret at present, especially the Linux foundation who is subject to some considerable bias.
You can't sell the Linux ecosystem, and if you believe you can buy it -- I have a bridge to sell you (please contact me right away because I also have some important Nigerian business that requires you immmmmediate and humbling attention, kind sirs.)
I like Linux, but these types of concepts are rooted in Non Sequitur; that the buy-in of Linux is rooted in the success of Linux. That can only be true of this is a zero-sum claim, and there is evidence of losses directly attributed which while plausible does not make these factually relevant.
Not me, I use NoScript. Unless it's vital JS, I won't permit it to run and therefore it won't affect my experience (and you can't get a rubust solution to disable JS for IE -- only on Firefox.)