I seem to remember some company in Redmond coming out with a pretty popular operating system for PCs, and another company that specializes in online search but also has created a fairly popular phone OS. So while there aren't many well-known open-source alternatives, there certainly are alternatives to OS X.
They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications
Sorta. They need to be able to get their work done quickly and efficiently and right now. If you give 'em something that looks and feels similar and does similar things but is better in some way (cheaper, faster, etc), people can and do switch.
It's from the 50s when we had something resembling free markets. Quick, how many major computer hardware manufacturers are there? So what are your choices, really? What are the choices of the general public, who know very little about computers or what goes into them?
Which 50's are we talking about? The 1950's had some of the highest taxes, tightest regulations, and greatest consolidation of markets for consumer products in American history. Quick, how many different telecom companies could you work with in 1955? How about computers? How many choices did you have in a rather competitive market (at the time) like cars?
If you want to compare with markets that are free by libertarian standards, you have to go back to the 1850's and look at markets that weren't yet industrialized, like potatoes or buggy whips.
And more seriously, this is definitely useful, because otherwise a foreign country could set up rules that heavily favors the plaintiff and abuse US citizens for, say, writing negatively about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Posh Spice.
If this is really about terrorist info, then it would seem like a useful thing to do would be to grab the IP address of the person who's doing the posting and allow them to give up as much information as they like, while blocking anyone else from reading it. You might not get much, but you might get something useful. Oh, and keep hold of the access logs to see who's frequenting the site.
But since they didn't do any of the sorts of things that would be useful for actually tracking down the bad guys, this looks an awful lot like they wanted to hit something else hosted on the same box but needed a good excuse.
I travel very often so I have a fair idea of how the traveling costs trend and what I notice is that I get fucked harder and harder by the airlines, but since there is price fixing, there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
Except that there is something you can do about it: Not fly so much. Travel via other methods (driving, bus, rail, ferry, etc) or don't travel at all.
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout."
- Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal
Remember Murdoch constantly advocating that other publications go for a paywall. This is why: if he puts things behind a paywall, then he'll be creamed in the marketplace, but if everyone does it then everyone will be forced to pay somebody, thus creating a market for Internet news.
Of course, he's being an idiot, because there's this little organization called the BBC which provides very good coverage and is publicly controlled.
The Supreme Court has clearly stated that spending money is equivalent to free speech, and since equality is commutative that must mean that free speech is equivalent to spending money. It's really quite logical.
Not "anything" that alters consciousness: For instance, it's still perfectly legal to drink as much coffee as you need to somehow drag yourself to work. It's also legal for stores to play elevator music that dulls your senses so you'll buy more stuff. And of course, commercial television is still legal.
We here at the Slashdot Institute of Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Surprisingly Obvious resent your implication that your non-rigorous "common sense" could possibly outweigh improperly organized research.
So let's say one side of a debate says we should teach that the Earth is about 4 billion years old, and the other side says we should teach that the Earth is about 6000 years old. If we go with your idea of compromising, we now end up choosing to either teach both (which is confusing) or teaching that Earth is about 2 billion years old (which is clearly wrong). (See also the Middle Ground fallacy)
The other problem with "Oh, just compromise" is that it tends to favor whichever side adopts the more extreme position. For instance, if I propose increasing Social Security payments to $10,000 per month, and you think that nothing should change, when we compromise those payments might be only $5,000 per month, but is still far closer to what I wanted than what you wanted.
The third problem is that attempts to compromise favor the group that refuses to play. It would be like a price bargaining that goes something like this: "I'll pay $50." "I'll only sell for $150." "I'll only pay $50." "Well, ok, I'll sell for $125." "I'll only pay $50."...
There are several other things that a driver could have tried to slow or stop a car that's not responding to the accelerator or brakes, such as: - Use the emergency brake. It's there for a reason, and could help you slow down. Best done after shifting into neutral - otherwise the brake is competing with the engine. - Cut the ignition. This will probably destroy the engine, but if it stops the car it may save your life. - If it's an automatic transmission, shift into park. This will likely do horrible things to the transmission, but may save your life. - If none of the above work, you can probably slow down the car a lot by shifting into low gear (which you can do on an automatic, that's what the "1" and "2" are for). This will also do bad things to your transmission. - If all else fails, then your goal is to use the terrain to reduce the upcoming impact - go up a hill, sideswipe a bush or pole, anything to avoid hitting things with the front of your car at high speed.
So I'm curious how many of these drivers did any of these.
Interesting bit of trivia.... the human testicles are designed to allow the production of baby gravy (technical term.. look it up) at colder temperatures.
Why do you think a very easily damaged body part is right out on the edge of the body completely unprotected by bone or even muscle (bearing in mind that evolution doesn't select for comedic value)?
I will say I did learn something reasonably valuable from bad teachers, which was don't trust authority to do the right thing or tell the truth, especially when questioned. By high school, I knew how to ignore, work around, go above, and end the career of bad teachers, which has served me well in my professional life.
Even Glenn Beck couldn't come up with a conspiracy theory looney enough to link those two phenomena...
Sure he could.
"Obama is having his tools in the Senate demand that they use this particular contractor as a way to undermine support for Christianity by making them servants of the liberal academic elite, imposing unwanted big government on the God-fearing citizens of Utah."
No, there aren't certain standards with payware. That's why your standard EULA denies all warranties, express or implied, including the warranty of merchantability (which would require that the product be something roughly like what the seller says it is) and the warranty of fitness for a particular purposes (which would require that the product be capable of solving the problem its advertising says it would).
And incidentally, in an environment where information gets spread pretty easily, the information regarding which free stuff is crap and which free stuff is really useful gets spread pretty easily, and as a result the "hidden cost" you have is also a lot lower than you think.
Incidently, at least one claim of his in his prologue (that very few people were uneducated) is simply untrue - In 1870, about 40% of Americans were illiterate. A big part of the reason for that was that 80% African-Americans at the time were illiterate - slaveowners actively prevented slaves from learning to read because slaves who could read tended to cause trouble (e.g. Nat Turner), and during the Reconstruction of the Civil War anybody who tried to teach former slaves ran the risk of being lynched or run out of town. In rural areas, education beyond about a 6th grade level was unusual, because teenagers were expected to work on their parents' farms and homesteads.
The idea that 19th century America was some sort of paradise is either ignorant or racist: For African-Americans, it's the period where slavery was generally at its most brutal (as slaveowners tried to prevent rebellions such as Nat Turner), followed by the brief relief of the Civil War and emancipation, only to have that dream crushed by the KKK and similar groups by the 1890's. For American Indians, the same period generally marks the ending stages of the genocide which started in 1492, most notably at the Wounded Knee Massacre. For Hispanic-Americans, this would be the period in which Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California were taken from Mexico and the Hispanic population largely forced out.
Slashdot Mirror
They need to know there are alternatives
I seem to remember some company in Redmond coming out with a pretty popular operating system for PCs, and another company that specializes in online search but also has created a fairly popular phone OS. So while there aren't many well-known open-source alternatives, there certainly are alternatives to OS X.
They need to be able to run their applications on them, in exactly the same way they already run those applications
Sorta. They need to be able to get their work done quickly and efficiently and right now. If you give 'em something that looks and feels similar and does similar things but is better in some way (cheaper, faster, etc), people can and do switch.
Meh, the death of satire was predicted back when they gave Henry Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize.
It's from the 50s when we had something resembling free markets. Quick, how many major computer hardware manufacturers are there? So what are your choices, really? What are the choices of the general public, who know very little about computers or what goes into them?
Which 50's are we talking about? The 1950's had some of the highest taxes, tightest regulations, and greatest consolidation of markets for consumer products in American history. Quick, how many different telecom companies could you work with in 1955? How about computers? How many choices did you have in a rather competitive market (at the time) like cars?
If you want to compare with markets that are free by libertarian standards, you have to go back to the 1850's and look at markets that weren't yet industrialized, like potatoes or buggy whips.
Now that is news!
And more seriously, this is definitely useful, because otherwise a foreign country could set up rules that heavily favors the plaintiff and abuse US citizens for, say, writing negatively about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Posh Spice.
It seems to me like the Times would have been better off offering *premium* content to subscribers rather than closing off the entire site altogether.
The New York Times tried this for about a year. It didn't take.
If this is really about terrorist info, then it would seem like a useful thing to do would be to grab the IP address of the person who's doing the posting and allow them to give up as much information as they like, while blocking anyone else from reading it. You might not get much, but you might get something useful. Oh, and keep hold of the access logs to see who's frequenting the site.
But since they didn't do any of the sorts of things that would be useful for actually tracking down the bad guys, this looks an awful lot like they wanted to hit something else hosted on the same box but needed a good excuse.
I travel very often so I have a fair idea of how the traveling costs trend and what I notice is that I get fucked harder and harder by the airlines, but since there is price fixing, there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
Except that there is something you can do about it: Not fly so much. Travel via other methods (driving, bus, rail, ferry, etc) or don't travel at all.
Apparently they're upset that Idaho's potatoes are more famous than theirs.
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout."
- Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal
How true. In the US, if you say the wrong things or talk to the wrong people, you can just be labelled a terrorist, sent to Gitmo, and tortured for a while:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Saleh_Kahlah_al-Marri
Remember Murdoch constantly advocating that other publications go for a paywall. This is why: if he puts things behind a paywall, then he'll be creamed in the marketplace, but if everyone does it then everyone will be forced to pay somebody, thus creating a market for Internet news.
Of course, he's being an idiot, because there's this little organization called the BBC which provides very good coverage and is publicly controlled.
Believe me, that was the least bogus part of my argument.
The Supreme Court has clearly stated that spending money is equivalent to free speech, and since equality is commutative that must mean that free speech is equivalent to spending money. It's really quite logical.
Not "anything" that alters consciousness: For instance, it's still perfectly legal to drink as much coffee as you need to somehow drag yourself to work. It's also legal for stores to play elevator music that dulls your senses so you'll buy more stuff. And of course, commercial television is still legal.
We here at the Slashdot Institute of Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Surprisingly Obvious resent your implication that your non-rigorous "common sense" could possibly outweigh improperly organized research.
To quote one of them: "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10! 10 compromised credit cards. Ah ah ah!"
So let's say one side of a debate says we should teach that the Earth is about 4 billion years old, and the other side says we should teach that the Earth is about 6000 years old. If we go with your idea of compromising, we now end up choosing to either teach both (which is confusing) or teaching that Earth is about 2 billion years old (which is clearly wrong). (See also the Middle Ground fallacy)
The other problem with "Oh, just compromise" is that it tends to favor whichever side adopts the more extreme position. For instance, if I propose increasing Social Security payments to $10,000 per month, and you think that nothing should change, when we compromise those payments might be only $5,000 per month, but is still far closer to what I wanted than what you wanted.
The third problem is that attempts to compromise favor the group that refuses to play. It would be like a price bargaining that goes something like this: "I'll pay $50." "I'll only sell for $150." "I'll only pay $50." "Well, ok, I'll sell for $125." "I'll only pay $50." ...
There are several other things that a driver could have tried to slow or stop a car that's not responding to the accelerator or brakes, such as:
- Use the emergency brake. It's there for a reason, and could help you slow down. Best done after shifting into neutral - otherwise the brake is competing with the engine.
- Cut the ignition. This will probably destroy the engine, but if it stops the car it may save your life.
- If it's an automatic transmission, shift into park. This will likely do horrible things to the transmission, but may save your life.
- If none of the above work, you can probably slow down the car a lot by shifting into low gear (which you can do on an automatic, that's what the "1" and "2" are for). This will also do bad things to your transmission.
- If all else fails, then your goal is to use the terrain to reduce the upcoming impact - go up a hill, sideswipe a bush or pole, anything to avoid hitting things with the front of your car at high speed.
So I'm curious how many of these drivers did any of these.
Err, that was a rhetorical question, just in case it wasn't clear.
Interesting bit of trivia.... the human testicles are designed to allow the production of baby gravy (technical term.. look it up) at colder temperatures.
Why do you think a very easily damaged body part is right out on the edge of the body completely unprotected by bone or even muscle (bearing in mind that evolution doesn't select for comedic value)?
Well, thank God for that!
I will say I did learn something reasonably valuable from bad teachers, which was don't trust authority to do the right thing or tell the truth, especially when questioned. By high school, I knew how to ignore, work around, go above, and end the career of bad teachers, which has served me well in my professional life.
Even Glenn Beck couldn't come up with a conspiracy theory looney enough to link those two phenomena...
Sure he could.
"Obama is having his tools in the Senate demand that they use this particular contractor as a way to undermine support for Christianity by making them servants of the liberal academic elite, imposing unwanted big government on the God-fearing citizens of Utah."
With payware certain standards are expected
No, there aren't certain standards with payware. That's why your standard EULA denies all warranties, express or implied, including the warranty of merchantability (which would require that the product be something roughly like what the seller says it is) and the warranty of fitness for a particular purposes (which would require that the product be capable of solving the problem its advertising says it would).
And incidentally, in an environment where information gets spread pretty easily, the information regarding which free stuff is crap and which free stuff is really useful gets spread pretty easily, and as a result the "hidden cost" you have is also a lot lower than you think.
Incidently, at least one claim of his in his prologue (that very few people were uneducated) is simply untrue - In 1870, about 40% of Americans were illiterate. A big part of the reason for that was that 80% African-Americans at the time were illiterate - slaveowners actively prevented slaves from learning to read because slaves who could read tended to cause trouble (e.g. Nat Turner), and during the Reconstruction of the Civil War anybody who tried to teach former slaves ran the risk of being lynched or run out of town. In rural areas, education beyond about a 6th grade level was unusual, because teenagers were expected to work on their parents' farms and homesteads.
The idea that 19th century America was some sort of paradise is either ignorant or racist: For African-Americans, it's the period where slavery was generally at its most brutal (as slaveowners tried to prevent rebellions such as Nat Turner), followed by the brief relief of the Civil War and emancipation, only to have that dream crushed by the KKK and similar groups by the 1890's. For American Indians, the same period generally marks the ending stages of the genocide which started in 1492, most notably at the Wounded Knee Massacre. For Hispanic-Americans, this would be the period in which Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California were taken from Mexico and the Hispanic population largely forced out.