"How many Windows-eschewing users are not also eschewing the social networking services and all the other 2.0 supersites with their dubious end-user license agreements"
I don't use Windows and I don't use social networking sites. I do have a MySpace page. But there is little info there and I check it about twice a year.
Honestly, the longer I am in IT the less necessary all the technology seems to me. Maybe I'm just getting old. But if I can't have a social life without using the Internet, then I have bigger problems.
"Because if something like that is critical, that means you're going to sacrifice a lot of freedom, and you'd be OK with torturing your neighbors, and all kinds of things like that, just so you could keep persisting in your lifestyle."
When I read the headline, the first thing that popped into my head was "stability". I used a Palm 700w running Windows Mobile 5 for about a year. The thing crashed more often than a Hollywood stunt man. Sometimes it would ring for incoming calls, sometimes not. Sometimes it would send and receive email, sometimes not. Often it would ring and crash so that I could not stop the ringing without removing the battery, as the phone was unresponsive. I particularly liked it when it would reboot in the middle of a call.
This was not a hardware problem. I had the phone replaced under warranty five times with the same result. I ran no third-party applications. Every person in my company hates their 700w. That is not an exaggeration. I am the IT guy here and handle all the cell phones. Literally everyone has told me how much they hate the phone. I now use a 700p (palm OS) and have zero problems. As you may have gathered, I will never use another Windows-driven PIM and will take every opportunity (like this one) to expound on their crappiness.
"I am sure if you looked you could find the federal revenue figures for 1980 through 1985, which would show a sudden increase following the tax cuts."
Ok, I Googled "US federal revenue figures 1980 1985" (without the quotes). I came up with this page which indicates that in constant dollars federal revenue fell after the Reagan tax cuts. But I think the real question is not just whether revenue increased or decreased, but what it did in relation to the rest of the economy. This page seems to indicate that, as a share of GDP, revenue fell after the Bush 43 tax cuts. So it does not seem at all clear to me that decreasing income taxes increases revenue.
I think we need some citation on this. It sounds to me like more supply-side BS. I would point out that every time we reduce taxes we get massive deficits. Reagan and Bush 43 come to mind. If lower taxes increase revenue, then why did Bush 41 have to raise taxes?
Remember the massive economic expansion after WWII? What do you think the top marginal rate was at that time?
Perhaps, but I don't think so. Can you really ever have too much storage? Do you have a hard disk on your computer that you haven't eventually filled? I don't.
More space just means I can carry more around. I currently have a 3rd gen (I think. 4 buttons under the screen) 40 GB iPod. It's not nearly enough. If I had more space, I could carry my entire music collection (~60 GB and growing monthly). More space still (and a video screen) I could carry all of my movies too (hundreds of gigs). Then I would need more space to carry all of my pictures (~20 GB and growing). If I had more, I could carry all of my important or entertaining documents. Then comes the ebooks. So, as you can see we are far away from the amount of storage I could use. And data only gets bigger. I will always get more music, movies, pictures etc. I don't think it ever really plateaus.
I say that because a sample size of 8 is not representative of computer users as a whole. ~90% of computers worldwide (and in the US) run Windows. So for you to ask whether anyone still uses Windows (especially based on your sample size of 8) is unserious.
Windows is not relevant for you. For which I congratulate you. I have used Mac's at home since OS 8 and I now work with mostly Mac's at my job. But we certainly have lots of Windows machines. In all of my previous jobs it was pretty much all Windows. It is still the standard OS for most businesses and consumers. So, I apologize for being a bit flip in my first response. But I can assure you, people still use Windows.
"Right now, each and every desktop needs to be loaded. When a new version of an application comes out, and users want the newer version, you've got to manually upgrade each system. If someone wants access to an application that isn't on their system, it has to be installed. If a user gets a new PC, you've got to reinstall everything all over again."
That's not really the case. Imaging programs like Ghost can install a system and applications in minutes over a network. You don't even have to visit the user's desk. With remote control software and directory services (like Active or Open Directory) applications can be installed and upgraded company wide from the Sys Admin's desk. Group policy can even specify entire departments to be upgraded at once. Network based profiles can handle the environment consistency angle. UNIX has done this since the '70s (at least!). Besides, running applications off of the network is nothing new. In the late '90s I worked at a company where most people ran Word, Excel and the like off of network shares.
Though I have not read TFA, I believe what Microsoft is going for is web based applications that people would subscribe to. Their problem is that there is less and less of a reason to upgrade your software and OS. MS Office is so mature and feature rich at this point that for most people and businesses Office '97 is sufficient. Same with Windows XP. IMO Windows 2000 was good enough. What compelling reason do I have to upgrade to Vista? Microsoft knows this. So they need a way to create recurring revenue streams. That's what this is about.
"...any wise observer of history will be aware that market forces will recognize this value and favor production of these types of information accordingly."
If you were not serious, please disregard the rest of this response. But that's just hilarious! Why don't you compare the ratings of Nova and American Idol and see if your theory holds up? Wise observers of history would more likely note that unregulated free markets tend towards monopoly and exploitation.
You note that news, science, and educational programming in general are of immense value, and yet you call the privileging of them "arbitrary". Market forces do not recognize value; they recognize profit. Better products certainly do not always win in the marketplace. Really, the "free market" does not exist outside of government regulation. Without governments and the rules, regulatons and structure they bring, all we have is a primitive barter system. That is the only true free market; trading milk for eggs.
"Since he can actually do what the article is saying that means Congress passed a law giving him that power, oh, that means he's acting within the law. The simple fact is that everything he is being accused of is LEGAL, either from the Constitution or from specific acts passed by Congress."
That's not entirely true. There is some debate as to whether the warrantless wiretapping program is legal. The Administration's position is that the authorization to use force that the congress passed grants the president the authority to have the NSA eavesdrop on americans without obtaining a warrant. But this claim has not been tested in court, so it's actual legality has not yet been determined. The Justice Department's investigation into the program would be a step towards determining the legality of the program's authorization. This is what Bush has blocked. The stated reason is to keep secret information from being made public. But this doesn't hold water. Secret hearings and investigations have been successfully conducted before; there is no reason to think that has changed.
It is interesting to note that the administration used the same justification (the resolution on the use of force) to claim the legality of trying prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in military tribunals without allowing them to see the evidence against them or affording them the protections of the Geneva Convention. So this too was "legal" until the Supreme Court said it was not. The same could happen with the warrantless wiretapping. But without investigations, we won't find out.
"ABC's programming sucks anyway. I can safely say it could cease to be and I would not miss it one bit."
This gets at my main reaction to all this. The networks and other "content providers" seem to forget that we consume their "content" by choice. We can choose not to watch. Television in general is completely unnecessary. If their "rules" become too restrictive, I will go read a book, ride my bike, get a drink with friends, play Quake, etc. ABC seems to forget that. I'm sorry if they don't like the way we watch their programs, but it really isn't up to them. It's not a legal matter, it's just reality.
"The subject of Creation (whether of the universe or of life) has not yet been completely explained by humans, if it ever will. Therefore it is not unreasonable to say that it is the work of a higher power."
No, it is not unreasonable. But I wonder why we shouldn't look. Why would God not want us to pull back the curtain and understand? Is he naked in there?;-) This is what puzzles me about the Pope's opinion. My persnal opinion (I am not Catholic, but Pope JPII is generally OK in my book) is that most religions don't want us looking too close for fear we may discover that what they have been telling us is not true.
I have often wondered why, if God really didn't want us to do something, He would make it possible for us to do it. Would you design and build something that did things you didn't want it to do? I have heard the explanation that he gave us free will and wants us to choose. But this amounts to us jumping through hoops. This is not the action of a loving God. It's sadistic if you think about it. I don't think that's God's angle. So why can't we look?
Good post! I agree with most of it. But I'd like to reply to one part:
"How do you scientifically disprove "love thy neighbour"? How would you scientifically disprove "thou shalt not kill"?"
While it is not possible to "disprove" advice, it is possible to observe cause and effect. One can treat others as they like to be treated, and observe the reaction. Conversely, one can act without regard to others and observe the result. One can then make a determination as to which course of action brings about a desirable result. There are many variables obviously; perhaps more than we can take into account. The context of our interactions affect the outcomes as well.
But I think that particular actions, or types of actions, will bring about consistent results. In this way we can show whether loving one's neighbor is really better than acting without regard to one's neighbor. Here "better" is defined as resulting in a desirable outcome. Yes, this depends on what outcome we want. But we can determine through observation which tools are right for which jobs. This brings such advice as "love thy neighbor as thy self" out of the abstract and into the more concrete world of cause and effect.
I think that Zerocool^'s response was a good partial explanation. I'm not sure where you are or how well you know American culture. But we Americans are a self-absorbed bunch. Many of us have a comfortable life here, and we don't want to disturb that. Many of us, having been shocked by the 9/11 attacks, now look to the government for safety and security. So we are wary of the government's actions, but also still scared of the "terrorists". So we are pulled in different directions at once. I think that violations of our rights and freedoms would need to become more flagrant and obvious before most Americans would take to the streets. Our mistrust of the government would have to outweigh our fear of terrorists. On the whole, that has not happened.
While it may seem obvious to outsiders what is happening, we do not have the same viewpoint. We trust our government more than you do. More than we should, IMO. There are a lot of psychic hurdles that must be overcome before most people will think that their own countrymen, their own President, indeed their own government has turned on them.
Finally, I think part of the reason that more people are not speaking up is that the implications of coming to the conclusion that you have a rogue government are so serious and profound. It's the same reason we do nothing about our dependence on oil. In the face of all the hard work and difficulty and pain involved with making these changes, many of us prefer to pretend it will all work out okay somehow. We desprately need to hold on to this fantasy, because the alternative will bring our world crashing down.
"I absolutely agree with that. Which is why I find it so puzzling that no one is bitching about the IRS invading your privacy. What business do they have who I donate charity to? What gives them the power to audit anyone for any reason on whim?"
Some of the things you mention (like SS#'s, income info) are required. But you are not required to give the IRS your mortgage info. You are likewise not required to give them your charitable conributions info. You give them that info voluntarily to prove your eligibility for deductions. Outside of what is on your W2, there isn't much you are required to give them.
"Cops get phone number connection information all the time, using a simple subpoena, which they then need because personal ID is attached."
Right, so where's the subpoena? Do you think the NSA does not know who's phone numbers these are? If so, you're absolutely adorable.
"But the so called NSA "spying" program is using aggregate info, looking for calling patterns, which, when established, can then be used for the required warrant from the FISA court for the actual wiretap"
Which, to my knowledge, they are not getting. See that's the issue. There is little or no judicial oversight happening here. And it really really looks like the administration has been lying to us about it.
"You do realize that phone records of reporters could be legally subpoenaed as part of a leak investigation being performed by the DoJ instead of some nefarious link to the NSA program don't you?"
Exactly. So let's see some subpoenas. Let's see some warrants. That's what is at issue here. The NSA is doing this without judicial oversight, and that's the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't use Windows and I don't use social networking sites. I do have a MySpace page. But there is little info there and I check it about twice a year.
Honestly, the longer I am in IT the less necessary all the technology seems to me. Maybe I'm just getting old. But if I can't have a social life without using the Internet, then I have bigger problems.
I know I'm stepping in it to ask this, but why do you say that? There is ample evidence that it was.
This is the United States in 2008.
This was not a hardware problem. I had the phone replaced under warranty five times with the same result. I ran no third-party applications. Every person in my company hates their 700w. That is not an exaggeration. I am the IT guy here and handle all the cell phones. Literally everyone has told me how much they hate the phone. I now use a 700p (palm OS) and have zero problems. As you may have gathered, I will never use another Windows-driven PIM and will take every opportunity (like this one) to expound on their crappiness.
Ok, I Googled "US federal revenue figures 1980 1985" (without the quotes). I came up with this page which indicates that in constant dollars federal revenue fell after the Reagan tax cuts. But I think the real question is not just whether revenue increased or decreased, but what it did in relation to the rest of the economy. This page seems to indicate that, as a share of GDP, revenue fell after the Bush 43 tax cuts. So it does not seem at all clear to me that decreasing income taxes increases revenue.
Remember the massive economic expansion after WWII? What do you think the top marginal rate was at that time?
More space just means I can carry more around. I currently have a 3rd gen (I think. 4 buttons under the screen) 40 GB iPod. It's not nearly enough. If I had more space, I could carry my entire music collection (~60 GB and growing monthly). More space still (and a video screen) I could carry all of my movies too (hundreds of gigs). Then I would need more space to carry all of my pictures (~20 GB and growing). If I had more, I could carry all of my important or entertaining documents. Then comes the ebooks. So, as you can see we are far away from the amount of storage I could use. And data only gets bigger. I will always get more music, movies, pictures etc. I don't think it ever really plateaus.
Windows is not relevant for you. For which I congratulate you. I have used Mac's at home since OS 8 and I now work with mostly Mac's at my job. But we certainly have lots of Windows machines. In all of my previous jobs it was pretty much all Windows. It is still the standard OS for most businesses and consumers. So, I apologize for being a bit flip in my first response. But I can assure you, people still use Windows.
No, you're not.
That's not really the case. Imaging programs like Ghost can install a system and applications in minutes over a network. You don't even have to visit the user's desk. With remote control software and directory services (like Active or Open Directory) applications can be installed and upgraded company wide from the Sys Admin's desk. Group policy can even specify entire departments to be upgraded at once. Network based profiles can handle the environment consistency angle. UNIX has done this since the '70s (at least!). Besides, running applications off of the network is nothing new. In the late '90s I worked at a company where most people ran Word, Excel and the like off of network shares.
Though I have not read TFA, I believe what Microsoft is going for is web based applications that people would subscribe to. Their problem is that there is less and less of a reason to upgrade your software and OS. MS Office is so mature and feature rich at this point that for most people and businesses Office '97 is sufficient. Same with Windows XP. IMO Windows 2000 was good enough. What compelling reason do I have to upgrade to Vista? Microsoft knows this. So they need a way to create recurring revenue streams. That's what this is about.
They do; I've seen them. But they are MUCH less frequent than they used to be.
"You'll have business students saying all I'm doing is emulating the behavior I'll need when I get out in the real world."
The sad part is I agree with them...
If you were not serious, please disregard the rest of this response. But that's just hilarious! Why don't you compare the ratings of Nova and American Idol and see if your theory holds up? Wise observers of history would more likely note that unregulated free markets tend towards monopoly and exploitation.
You note that news, science, and educational programming in general are of immense value, and yet you call the privileging of them "arbitrary". Market forces do not recognize value; they recognize profit. Better products certainly do not always win in the marketplace. Really, the "free market" does not exist outside of government regulation. Without governments and the rules, regulatons and structure they bring, all we have is a primitive barter system. That is the only true free market; trading milk for eggs.
Your bloviating aside, the Supreme Court says you're wrong. Go take it up with them.
Then the joke's on you my friend. We've been spying on you for years!
That's not entirely true. There is some debate as to whether the warrantless wiretapping program is legal. The Administration's position is that the authorization to use force that the congress passed grants the president the authority to have the NSA eavesdrop on americans without obtaining a warrant. But this claim has not been tested in court, so it's actual legality has not yet been determined. The Justice Department's investigation into the program would be a step towards determining the legality of the program's authorization. This is what Bush has blocked. The stated reason is to keep secret information from being made public. But this doesn't hold water. Secret hearings and investigations have been successfully conducted before; there is no reason to think that has changed.
It is interesting to note that the administration used the same justification (the resolution on the use of force) to claim the legality of trying prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in military tribunals without allowing them to see the evidence against them or affording them the protections of the Geneva Convention. So this too was "legal" until the Supreme Court said it was not. The same could happen with the warrantless wiretapping. But without investigations, we won't find out.
I think we all know the answer to that!
This gets at my main reaction to all this. The networks and other "content providers" seem to forget that we consume their "content" by choice. We can choose not to watch. Television in general is completely unnecessary. If their "rules" become too restrictive, I will go read a book, ride my bike, get a drink with friends, play Quake, etc. ABC seems to forget that. I'm sorry if they don't like the way we watch their programs, but it really isn't up to them. It's not a legal matter, it's just reality.
No, it is not unreasonable. But I wonder why we shouldn't look. Why would God not want us to pull back the curtain and understand? Is he naked in there? ;-) This is what puzzles me about the Pope's opinion. My persnal opinion (I am not Catholic, but Pope JPII is generally OK in my book) is that most religions don't want us looking too close for fear we may discover that what they have been telling us is not true.
I have often wondered why, if God really didn't want us to do something, He would make it possible for us to do it. Would you design and build something that did things you didn't want it to do? I have heard the explanation that he gave us free will and wants us to choose. But this amounts to us jumping through hoops. This is not the action of a loving God. It's sadistic if you think about it. I don't think that's God's angle. So why can't we look?
"How do you scientifically disprove "love thy neighbour"? How would you scientifically disprove "thou shalt not kill"?"
While it is not possible to "disprove" advice, it is possible to observe cause and effect. One can treat others as they like to be treated, and observe the reaction. Conversely, one can act without regard to others and observe the result. One can then make a determination as to which course of action brings about a desirable result. There are many variables obviously; perhaps more than we can take into account. The context of our interactions affect the outcomes as well.
But I think that particular actions, or types of actions, will bring about consistent results. In this way we can show whether loving one's neighbor is really better than acting without regard to one's neighbor. Here "better" is defined as resulting in a desirable outcome. Yes, this depends on what outcome we want. But we can determine through observation which tools are right for which jobs. This brings such advice as "love thy neighbor as thy self" out of the abstract and into the more concrete world of cause and effect.
While it may seem obvious to outsiders what is happening, we do not have the same viewpoint. We trust our government more than you do. More than we should, IMO. There are a lot of psychic hurdles that must be overcome before most people will think that their own countrymen, their own President, indeed their own government has turned on them.
Finally, I think part of the reason that more people are not speaking up is that the implications of coming to the conclusion that you have a rogue government are so serious and profound. It's the same reason we do nothing about our dependence on oil. In the face of all the hard work and difficulty and pain involved with making these changes, many of us prefer to pretend it will all work out okay somehow. We desprately need to hold on to this fantasy, because the alternative will bring our world crashing down.
Care to elucidate? Or are you just ranting?
Some of the things you mention (like SS#'s, income info) are required. But you are not required to give the IRS your mortgage info. You are likewise not required to give them your charitable conributions info. You give them that info voluntarily to prove your eligibility for deductions. Outside of what is on your W2, there isn't much you are required to give them.
Right, so where's the subpoena? Do you think the NSA does not know who's phone numbers these are? If so, you're absolutely adorable. "But the so called NSA "spying" program is using aggregate info, looking for calling patterns, which, when established, can then be used for the required warrant from the FISA court for the actual wiretap"
Which, to my knowledge, they are not getting. See that's the issue. There is little or no judicial oversight happening here. And it really really looks like the administration has been lying to us about it.
Exactly. So let's see some subpoenas. Let's see some warrants. That's what is at issue here. The NSA is doing this without judicial oversight, and that's the problem.