You think the censorship of profanity constitutes the limiting of information?
It's not your constitutional right to use the airways (radio frequencies et al.), that my tax dollars help to pay for, to use profanity that is not necessary for the exchange of information.
Not only that, but, Howard Stern (the basis for this thread) is an entertainer, not even a polical activist (as in: the focus of his program). If, on the other hand, he did host a program that was politically focused, I would be much more likely to let this kind of thing pass. But, that's not at all the case.
Censorship of profanity != despotism. To say it is is the kind of retoric that, when said enough times, stupid people begin to believe and it then becomes the truth to them.
I thoroughly agree with your observation. It's getting to be quite sickening.
The patterning I'm seeing is that whatsoever is hurtful to Bush becomes of merit in this forum. So, it's not: Bush's opponent is sooo much better than he, but: 'Anyone but Bush, even if he is a confirmed liar.' (What? You don't like that statement/generality? Go talk to the Swiftboat Vets about it.) It's foolishness the way Bush is handled on this site.
To bolster the above examples, the story doesn't use liar, that is purely editorial. I see lots of use of doubtful and disputed for discribing the information they made choices about. Let's also bring up the African "yellow-cake" report. Most democrats say that it was false information that the British supplied or that it did not happen. However this is not the case according to a British investigation into the matter.
After the Rather affair, the acticle makes it clear that it is still dubious when,
speaking on the condition of anonymity
is involved in a story. It really can become a tool of any media source for saying what ever they want about whoever they want, without being held accountable. In the Rather case, there was physical evidence presented which turned out to damn the presenters of it. But, word of mouth is totally different.
The point here is not so much to slam the senator but to reel in the 'he said, she said' kind of reporting that so conveniently rears it's head from time to time.
It's just better to wait and see. I must admit, since this is a 'hearsay' situation, if it is the truth, who in in the administration is going to own up to it at this time (or later for that matter)?
What an amazing sense of compasion Ms. Feinstein has for the Bush administration: She's dismayed that there are reports of this, that, and the other! There can be no other explaination as to why she would bother to be so outspoken about such an allegation, unless there were cold hard facts about what was allegedly perertrated.
This jumping the gun on this issue is no more astute than Dan Rather and his brillant, yet revealing, ways.
the ability to win the Election even after losing the popular vote. This hardly seems democratic.
That's because it was a means of compromise between rural and urban areas of the early United States. It's purely Constitutional. You might be able to go ahead and extend such an arguement to:
Why don't we get to vote in every single vote that Congress faces?
Ans: Because we are a Democratic Republic. Not a pure democracy.
Not only that, but we use to not be able to elect our own Senators, that used to be left up to those we elected to Congress as representatives. That was changed in an amendment which could also change what you mentioned as not seeming democratic. But, again, we are not a pure democracy, but a democratic republic.
You are right you cannot legislate people into heaven and while the constitution is clearly a framework for which other finer details of laws where to fall under it does leave morality to the people, who in turn get to vote for those representives who hopefully act and think as they do.
To imply that government does not or should not legislate morality is a falicy. It does it all of the time. There are thousands of laws that have been passed, some repealed, some expired, some still around, that have to some extent or another have made the target of that law legally condemnable.
So, the issue at stake here is: what is right and wrong? Who, in the elected offices, is going to determine that is the next question. There are those who believe that same-sex unions are an intrusion into the religious realm OR that it is some how detrimental to the social health of any nation. (Denmark would be some people's example of what a society does when same-sex unions are permitted. But I digress.)
I do have to admit, that while there is a direct reference to Christianity in the Constitution, there is not sanctioning of it therein. My observation of the Constitution is not that it says this is right or wrong, but that it is a framework by which government is to be ordered. The Bill of Rights and the Amendments go into the details of right and wrong (slavery, free speech, etc.) And here is my point: when Adams referred to the Constitution as being "made only for a religious and moral people" he was right. Because, unless you are willing to treat people right (which is what those two things are suppose to do: is teach one how and why to treat people right). And this is where we might disagree (if there has been any such agreement up til the present): I believe that the definition of morality is ultimately based in the fundamental notion that there is a God, that there is an ultimate reward or punishment for the choices one makes, and it is from the Bible that that God is revealed. While it remains foolishness in the eyes of some, it pervades our culture and our conscienceness. If it did not, do you think we would have a nation, that dispite the minority that Christians are, people still treat each other with some level of civility and respect for the law? Have you ever been to a country where the general populace is not so respecting of the little things that make our country great (I specifically mean how we treat each other, otherwise this country would be a hell hole like Yugoslavia, Iraq, or Rwanda where there are large segments of the population that hate each other as oppossed to loving their neighbors as themselves).
As an aside, I really liked your "they goofed" statement. And it is applicable to the slavery issue, which was a direct compromise with the southern states. Notice I said "compromise." I doubt the northern representitives thought it was the highest good for any nation. But, I do not believe that the inclusion of their culture, in mentioning "in the year of our Lord" was a compromise in the least bit. It was what they were immersed in, grew up and died with, barring a possible few (Jefferson, Franklin perhaps?). As far a treaty goes, who knows what kind of genuflecting that was toward that Muslim 'nation' (they have been protrayed as being quite sensitive about what religion one belongs to). But, it certainly wasn't the Constitution and I think they goofed on stating that because of any confusion it might have passed to that one group of people, who only cared if you were Muslim or not, a sense that the people of the U.S. were something they were not.
The government's place it to protect people from other people.
Exactly: people in office determine what is moral and what is depravity, they write laws against the depravity, and then use those laws to protect people from other people. I'm not at all concerned about if same-sex marriages pass then what's to stop people from wanting to married some animal. That's rediculous and bad arguement.
You make an interesting point when taken by itself and without the background of this thread:
From what is
liberty the freedow from? (Liberty implies freedom, but freedom from what?)
Judges declare today that having the ten commandments posted in a public place is unconstitutional. Yet, both the Declaration of Independence and The Unite States Constitution make clear references to God and in the case of the Constitution, Christianity:
"...in the Year of our
Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." as found in Article VII (emphasis mine)
But, I don't mean to dispute your point of discrimination. It's a very good point. But, I believe, in the light of such a quote as John Adams':
there are requirements that make things like democracy and liberty properly work and that those things are based upon that which brings the least amount of harm to the doers of such things and their fellow country men and women.
And that is precisely what is being argued here: right and wrong. That which is morality and that which is depravity.
Well, you can't have a majority without the individual. Without defining the rights of the individual you would not have rights for the majority too. Seeing as how they are individuals also; they too have rights (not that you implied to the contray).
The problem with your arguement still rests on the definition of liberty. What is it freedom from? It's obviously not freedom from the "tyranny of the majority", otherwise the Founding Fathers would never have granted a single vote to the people. They would have continued to make decissions, without accountability, for the people. They would never have established elections for Congress nor for the President.
The advantage of elections (which, by some, seems to lead only to a "tyranny of the majority") is that the people get a chance to think for themselves. This in turns puts responsibility directly on to the individual. And I dare to state that without individual responsibilty there is no individual liberty.
With that said, we might have somewhat of a dicotomy between what the majority asks for (not that that's always correct) and what the individual gets to do (which left unchecked by the majority leads to the harm of others).
Why should the liberty of some be sacrificed for the religious particulars of others?
That brings up an interesting question:
What did the Founding Fathers mean by
liberty?
Contextually, you could hardly remove any definition that the Founding Fathers had from the context of religion, specifically Christianity (even in as much as Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin adheared to it precepts).
So, without defining what religion/Christianity means by liberty, let me pose this:
Liberty emplies freedom from something. What is that something?
Does it mean:
Freedom to do whatever you please regardless of what others think?
Freedom to do whatever you want but according to what society at the moment thinks? (I would think this is, perhaps, the current state in America right now)
Freedom to do what you like but according to certain rules and regulations? (In the case of Christianity, the Bible, which would most closely fit the context of the previous suggestion and the context of America during the time of the Founding Fathers.)
It's still not SCIENCE (that which is observable). I doubt it even qualifies for being theory. It's a logical conclusion to something that just must be true because we (sic) belive this, that, or the other about the universe. Dispite it being "logical" it doesn't make it science. Science is that which is observable and I belive, just like you might believe to the contray, that dark matter is but a guess: a stap in the dark (full pun intended).
When I speak of God, it's because of personal experience. And if I go into the history of the earth, from a Christian perspective, I will bring up such measurable pheonmena as the ever decreasing magnetic field around the earth (which if taking at the current rate, an assumption, I know, would be deadly over the supposed length of time that there has been life on the earth) or that the land surrounding the exit of the Grand Canyon is of a higher elevation than the entrance to it: meaning that water could not have flowed up hill to have formed such a great marvel over "millions" of years. I don't claim any period of time over which it was formed. But it was either created similar to its current state, or it was created via a sudden castatrophy, thus being quick and therefore any claims of geomorphic dating of the rocks at the top and the bottom become suspect if they point to a period of time that is extremely long.
I have to admit, I was correctly moded as troll. But, dark matter is still not science.
When I think of Apple I sure don't think about John Lennon, nor Paul, nor Ringo, nor any thing to do with the Beatles or their record company.
I do think about an Apple II computer, which was the first personal computer I ever played on (way back in 1980/1981) and Washington state. Which sometimes makes me think about Redmond and Microsoft.
So, with the help of stupid logic, Apple corps should sue Washington state for making people think about something besides their trademark. Better yet, go ahead and take a pop-shot at Microsoft, you silly lawyers!
Dark matter has got to be the most flimsy piece of science that has come about since the idea of space being full of ether. (How else could light travel from the Sun to the Earth?). It's like inventing truth for the sake of making the world make sense to you or your paradigm.
Dark Matter is a bunch of bull crap invented to make physicists feel better about not believing in God and His creative powers.
Society will always generate malcontents and folks with antisocial personality features.
Surely you don't mean to discredit these malcontents' freewill do you? And the suggestion that the have "need" to hurt other people also seems to disown them of their personal responsibility to behave properly dispite if they are malcontent and have antisocial personality "features". I'd rather call the later "choices."
Shheesh! What kind system would any lawful country have if they were to punish their criminals because someone else, i.e. "society," made them choose to be evil, malicious, self-serving, or greedy? Sure, society and it's micro-cosmos might promote these things, but everyone is ultimately responsible for their own decisions. Please, let us not even hint at the contrary.
Not since I started using Gentoo and upgraded to the 2.6 kernel line. (I currently run a 1.4 Celeron with 1GB RAM and with an older Nvidia card with 64MB.)
In fact, I did well with KDE and Gentoo on an Emachiens 600 Celeron with 256MB, before KDE went to 3.2 and before the 2.6 Kernel.
Maybe it's time to at least compile your kernel your self.
Hmmmm. Not in or worked for a school district that has been tight in its buget lately, have you?
Besides, the implication from my source was that they wanted the full version of MS Office for their teachers and ended up with a site licence from Sun.
The Dallas Independent School District, serving Dallas, Texas, has had a site licence for Star Office for more than a year now. [From 1999-2000 stats] there are more than 200 schools in the district servering more than 150,000 students (here and here)
They obtained the licence for the purpose of distributing it on the laptops they supplied their teachers (1,000+). I heard a figure on how much it cost, but it was not from an authoritive source. If the figure is true, then the savings over MS Office was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (read: > $500,000.00+).
Star Office is a wise move for any public institution spending tax-payer monies.
Some surprise that image-based internet traffic beats out that which is mainly text-based traffic.
Perhaps that's why web hosting companies can afford to advertise "unlimited" bandwidth as
long as their fine print requires the greater portion of the customer's traffic be text based and not otherwise.
Being a former Spanish teacher, my experience in my own learning and in the teaching of others of Spanish is that the main key to learning another language well is motivation.
I learned Spanish well one because I could and two it really tickled my fancy to learn another language. Eventually I met hispanics while attending LSU, in Baton Rouge. That really whet my apitite for mastering the new tongue. Finally, throw a hot latina in the mix and that's all she wrote. Just ask my Honduran wife.:P
Yes, that annoying feature of grouping 'similar' tasks that I also disable in my KDE environment.
But, that's not an issue in my work environment, where we only use NT 2000 which, thankfully doesn't group by 'similar' tasks. Also, it is only at work where I extensively use a Windows environment.
A word about browsers (and any thing else that requires change):
People, in general (more than 50% of them), prefer to resist change, and for that matter, extra work and/or thinking. It's just the way they are. It's what explains product loyalty. In this case, the product loyalty is browser based.
In my job, as a web server support admin, I find that 95%, or more, of the people I speak with in support situations are not even aware of the alternatives available to them. In fact, just last Sunday, a friend of mine was showing off his new Power Book to me (by the way, even though I am a complete Linux advocate, you have to give credit where credit is due: Mac has a great GUI). I had to laugh during his enthusiastic demo of Mac OS X's features when my friend opens up Safari and goes, "Check this out. It's a feature called 'tabbed browsing.'" He was a kid in a candy store and had just found new, profound flavor of buble-gum or something. But, how could I not laugh at this previously 100% Windows user's intron to me of something that I began using in Opera, back around 5.x-6.x (I really don't remember if 5.x had tabs or not. I really don't care since that browser drives me crazy. But that's just me.) Translation: it's be around for years. In my work day I begin with 12-13 of them opening in FireFOx (NT 2000 doesn't like that, even with 512MB RAM, but it gets by well enough). The number of tabs only increase from there, unless there's an accident of closing a tab. But no big deal there either, I just open another one and then drag it back between where I normally would have it in my list of tabs. You won't find any thing like that in a browser direct from MS.
Another example: my co-workers, particularly the NT techs. Most, certainly not all (thank God), of our NT techs still use IE for their work. I don't really know what they need for their work, but I've seen their desktops and their taskbars; WHAT A MESS! It's beyond me why they would waste their time with a browser (read: IE) that doesn't organize their open web pages into one taskbar entity, because they DO use other programs on the NT 2000 desktop, which we all must use at my job, regardless of the servers we admin for. (If you haven't guessed yet, I don't admin for NT servers, I get the please and ease of admining for Linux boxes. And a big THANK GOD for that!)
Back to my point: most people are not aware of features in other browsers AND if they are aware of new inovations (read: tab browsing, which is one reason I will never go back to IE) they are not in any hurry to change and think and evaluate something that, however troubling it can be at times: pop-ups, vulnerbilities, "________________" [fill in the blank], lack of inovation, etc.
So what if most of/. visitors are Windows based? There are plenty of better choices to MS products, even on their own OS platform. But, people the world over resist change; they get stuck in a rut, good or bad in it's results, and they either don't like to change, don't "need" to change, or cannot change. Thus, the end result is resistance to change; for the better or for the worst.
Slashdot Mirror
You think the censorship of profanity constitutes the limiting of information?
It's not your constitutional right to use the airways (radio frequencies et al.), that my tax dollars help to pay for, to use profanity that is not necessary for the exchange of information.
Not only that, but, Howard Stern (the basis for this thread) is an entertainer, not even a polical activist (as in: the focus of his program). If, on the other hand, he did host a program that was politically focused, I would be much more likely to let this kind of thing pass. But, that's not at all the case.
Censorship of profanity != despotism. To say it is is the kind of retoric that, when said enough times, stupid people begin to believe and it then becomes the truth to them.
despostism?
Could you elaborate on this "chain of despotism"?
I thoroughly agree with your observation. It's getting to be quite sickening.
The patterning I'm seeing is that whatsoever is hurtful to Bush becomes of merit in this forum. So, it's not: Bush's opponent is sooo much better than he, but: 'Anyone but Bush, even if he is a confirmed liar.' (What? You don't like that statement/generality? Go talk to the Swiftboat Vets about it.) It's foolishness the way Bush is handled on this site.
To bolster the above examples, the story doesn't use liar, that is purely editorial. I see lots of use of doubtful and disputed for discribing the information they made choices about. Let's also bring up the African "yellow-cake" report. Most democrats say that it was false information that the British supplied or that it did not happen. However this is not the case according to a British investigation into the matter.
After the Rather affair, the acticle makes it clear that it is still dubious when,
is involved in a story. It really can become a tool of any media source for saying what ever they want about whoever they want, without being held accountable. In the Rather case, there was physical evidence presented which turned out to damn the presenters of it. But, word of mouth is totally different.The point here is not so much to slam the senator but to reel in the 'he said, she said' kind of reporting that so conveniently rears it's head from time to time.
It's just better to wait and see. I must admit, since this is a 'hearsay' situation, if it is the truth, who in in the administration is going to own up to it at this time (or later for that matter)?
What an amazing sense of compasion Ms. Feinstein has for the Bush administration: She's dismayed that there are reports of this, that, and the other! There can be no other explaination as to why she would bother to be so outspoken about such an allegation, unless there were cold hard facts about what was allegedly perertrated.
This jumping the gun on this issue is no more astute than Dan Rather and his brillant, yet revealing, ways.
And, the proof of your allegation is...?
That's because it was a means of compromise between rural and urban areas of the early United States. It's purely Constitutional. You might be able to go ahead and extend such an arguement to:
Ans: Because we are a Democratic Republic. Not a pure democracy.Not only that, but we use to not be able to elect our own Senators, that used to be left up to those we elected to Congress as representatives. That was changed in an amendment which could also change what you mentioned as not seeming democratic. But, again, we are not a pure democracy, but a democratic republic.
You are right you cannot legislate people into heaven and while the constitution is clearly a framework for which other finer details of laws where to fall under it does leave morality to the people, who in turn get to vote for those representives who hopefully act and think as they do.
To imply that government does not or should not legislate morality is a falicy. It does it all of the time. There are thousands of laws that have been passed, some repealed, some expired, some still around, that have to some extent or another have made the target of that law legally condemnable.
So, the issue at stake here is: what is right and wrong? Who, in the elected offices, is going to determine that is the next question. There are those who believe that same-sex unions are an intrusion into the religious realm OR that it is some how detrimental to the social health of any nation. (Denmark would be some people's example of what a society does when same-sex unions are permitted. But I digress.)
I do have to admit, that while there is a direct reference to Christianity in the Constitution, there is not sanctioning of it therein. My observation of the Constitution is not that it says this is right or wrong, but that it is a framework by which government is to be ordered. The Bill of Rights and the Amendments go into the details of right and wrong (slavery, free speech, etc.) And here is my point: when Adams referred to the Constitution as being "made only for a religious and moral people" he was right. Because, unless you are willing to treat people right (which is what those two things are suppose to do: is teach one how and why to treat people right). And this is where we might disagree (if there has been any such agreement up til the present): I believe that the definition of morality is ultimately based in the fundamental notion that there is a God, that there is an ultimate reward or punishment for the choices one makes, and it is from the Bible that that God is revealed. While it remains foolishness in the eyes of some, it pervades our culture and our conscienceness. If it did not, do you think we would have a nation, that dispite the minority that Christians are, people still treat each other with some level of civility and respect for the law? Have you ever been to a country where the general populace is not so respecting of the little things that make our country great (I specifically mean how we treat each other, otherwise this country would be a hell hole like Yugoslavia, Iraq, or Rwanda where there are large segments of the population that hate each other as oppossed to loving their neighbors as themselves).
As an aside, I really liked your "they goofed" statement. And it is applicable to the slavery issue, which was a direct compromise with the southern states. Notice I said "compromise." I doubt the northern representitives thought it was the highest good for any nation. But, I do not believe that the inclusion of their culture, in mentioning "in the year of our Lord" was a compromise in the least bit. It was what they were immersed in, grew up and died with, barring a possible few (Jefferson, Franklin perhaps?). As far a treaty goes, who knows what kind of genuflecting that was toward that Muslim 'nation' (they have been protrayed as being quite sensitive about what religion one belongs to). But, it certainly wasn't the Constitution and I think they goofed on stating that because of any confusion it might have passed to that one group of people, who only cared if you were Muslim or not, a sense that the people of the U.S. were something they were not.
The government's place it to protect people from other people.
Exactly: people in office determine what is moral and what is depravity, they write laws against the depravity, and then use those laws to protect people from other people. I'm not at all concerned about if same-sex marriages pass then what's to stop people from wanting to married some animal. That's rediculous and bad arguement.
You make an interesting point when taken by itself and without the background of this thread:
Judges declare today that having the ten commandments posted in a public place is unconstitutional. Yet, both the Declaration of Independence and The Unite States Constitution make clear references to God and in the case of the Constitution, Christianity:But, I don't mean to dispute your point of discrimination. It's a very good point. But, I believe, in the light of such a quote as John Adams':
there are requirements that make things like democracy and liberty properly work and that those things are based upon that which brings the least amount of harm to the doers of such things and their fellow country men and women.
And that is precisely what is being argued here: right and wrong.
That which is morality and that which is depravity.
Again, I ask:
Well, you can't have a majority without the individual. Without defining the rights of the individual you would not have rights for the majority too. Seeing as how they are individuals also; they too have rights (not that you implied to the contray).
The problem with your arguement still rests on the definition of liberty. What is it freedom from? It's obviously not freedom from the "tyranny of the majority", otherwise the Founding Fathers would never have granted a single vote to the people. They would have continued to make decissions, without accountability, for the people. They would never have established elections for Congress nor for the President.
The advantage of elections (which, by some, seems to lead only to a "tyranny of the majority") is that the people get a chance to think for themselves. This in turns puts responsibility directly on to the individual. And I dare to state that without individual responsibilty there is no individual liberty.
With that said, we might have somewhat of a dicotomy between what the majority asks for (not that that's always correct) and what the individual gets to do (which left unchecked by the majority leads to the harm of others).
Why should the liberty of some be sacrificed for the religious particulars of others?
That brings up an interesting question:
Contextually, you could hardly remove any definition that the Founding Fathers had from the context of religion, specifically Christianity (even in as much as Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin adheared to it precepts).
So, without defining what religion/Christianity means by liberty, let me pose this:
Does it mean:
What do you think?
Man! Why didn't this get posted two weeks ago?
Isn't this patented somewhere by someone already?
It's still not SCIENCE (that which is observable). I doubt it even qualifies for being theory. It's a logical conclusion to something that just must be true because we (sic) belive this, that, or the other about the universe. Dispite it being "logical" it doesn't make it science. Science is that which is observable and I belive, just like you might believe to the contray, that dark matter is but a guess: a stap in the dark (full pun intended).
When I speak of God, it's because of personal experience. And if I go into the history of the earth, from a Christian perspective, I will bring up such measurable pheonmena as the ever decreasing magnetic field around the earth (which if taking at the current rate, an assumption, I know, would be deadly over the supposed length of time that there has been life on the earth) or that the land surrounding the exit of the Grand Canyon is of a higher elevation than the entrance to it: meaning that water could not have flowed up hill to have formed such a great marvel over "millions" of years. I don't claim any period of time over which it was formed. But it was either created similar to its current state, or it was created via a sudden castatrophy, thus being quick and therefore any claims of geomorphic dating of the rocks at the top and the bottom become suspect if they point to a period of time that is extremely long.
I have to admit, I was correctly moded as troll. But, dark matter is still not science.
When I think of Apple I sure don't think about John Lennon, nor Paul, nor Ringo, nor any thing to do with the Beatles or their record company.
I do think about an Apple II computer, which was the first personal computer I ever played on (way back in 1980/1981) and Washington state. Which sometimes makes me think about Redmond and Microsoft.
So, with the help of stupid logic, Apple corps should sue Washington state for making people think about something besides their trademark. Better yet, go ahead and take a pop-shot at Microsoft, you silly lawyers!
Dark matter has got to be the most flimsy piece of science that has come about since the idea of space being full of ether. (How else could light travel from the Sun to the Earth?). It's like inventing truth for the sake of making the world make sense to you or your paradigm.
Dark Matter is a bunch of bull crap invented to make physicists feel better about not believing in God and His creative powers.
HILARIOUS!
Hmmm. Interesting opening comment:
Surely you don't mean to discredit these malcontents' freewill do you? And the suggestion that the have "need" to hurt other people also seems to disown them of their personal responsibility to behave properly dispite if they are malcontent and have antisocial personality "features". I'd rather call the later "choices."Shheesh! What kind system would any lawful country have if they were to punish their criminals because someone else, i.e. "society," made them choose to be evil, malicious, self-serving, or greedy? Sure, society and it's micro-cosmos might promote these things, but everyone is ultimately responsible for their own decisions. Please, let us not even hint at the contrary.
Thanks,
William
Not since I started using Gentoo and upgraded to the 2.6 kernel line. (I currently run a 1.4 Celeron with 1GB RAM and with an older Nvidia card with 64MB.)
In fact, I did well with KDE and Gentoo on an Emachiens 600 Celeron with 256MB, before KDE went to 3.2 and before the 2.6 Kernel.
Maybe it's time to at least compile your kernel your self.
Maybe.
Hmmmm. Not in or worked for a school district that has been tight in its buget lately, have you?
Besides, the implication from my source was that they wanted the full version of MS Office for their teachers and ended up with a site licence from Sun.
The Dallas Independent School District, serving Dallas, Texas, has had a site licence for Star Office for more than a year now. [From 1999-2000 stats] there are more than 200 schools in the district servering more than 150,000 students (here and here)
They obtained the licence for the purpose of distributing it on the laptops they supplied their teachers (1,000+). I heard a figure on how much it cost, but it was not from an authoritive source. If the figure is true, then the savings over MS Office was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (read: > $500,000.00+).
Star Office is a wise move for any public institution spending tax-payer monies.
Some surprise that image-based internet traffic beats out that which is mainly text-based traffic.
Perhaps that's why web hosting companies can afford to advertise "unlimited" bandwidth as
long as their fine print requires the greater portion of the customer's traffic be text based and not otherwise.
Being a former Spanish teacher, my experience in my own learning and in the teaching of others of Spanish is that the main key to learning another language well is motivation.
I learned Spanish well one because I could and two it really tickled my fancy to learn another language. Eventually I met hispanics while attending LSU, in Baton Rouge. That really whet my apitite for mastering the new tongue. Finally, throw a hot latina in the mix and that's all she wrote. Just ask my Honduran wife. :P
Yes, that annoying feature of grouping 'similar' tasks that I also disable in my KDE environment.
But, that's not an issue in my work environment, where we only use NT 2000 which, thankfully doesn't group by 'similar' tasks. Also, it is only at work where I extensively use a Windows environment.
A word about browsers (and any thing else that requires change):
People, in general (more than 50% of them), prefer to resist change, and for that matter, extra work and/or thinking. It's just the way they are. It's what explains product loyalty. In this case, the product loyalty is browser based.
In my job, as a web server support admin, I find that 95%, or more, of the people I speak with in support situations are not even aware of the alternatives available to them. In fact, just last Sunday, a friend of mine was showing off his new Power Book to me (by the way, even though I am a complete Linux advocate, you have to give credit where credit is due: Mac has a great GUI). I had to laugh during his enthusiastic demo of Mac OS X's features when my friend opens up Safari and goes, "Check this out. It's a feature called 'tabbed browsing.'" He was a kid in a candy store and had just found new, profound flavor of buble-gum or something. But, how could I not laugh at this previously 100% Windows user's intron to me of something that I began using in Opera, back around 5.x-6.x (I really don't remember if 5.x had tabs or not. I really don't care since that browser drives me crazy. But that's just me.) Translation: it's be around for years. In my work day I begin with 12-13 of them opening in FireFOx (NT 2000 doesn't like that, even with 512MB RAM, but it gets by well enough). The number of tabs only increase from there, unless there's an accident of closing a tab. But no big deal there either, I just open another one and then drag it back between where I normally would have it in my list of tabs. You won't find any thing like that in a browser direct from MS.
Another example: my co-workers, particularly the NT techs. Most, certainly not all (thank God), of our NT techs still use IE for their work. I don't really know what they need for their work, but I've seen their desktops and their taskbars; WHAT A MESS! It's beyond me why they would waste their time with a browser (read: IE) that doesn't organize their open web pages into one taskbar entity, because they DO use other programs on the NT 2000 desktop, which we all must use at my job, regardless of the servers we admin for. (If you haven't guessed yet, I don't admin for NT servers, I get the please and ease of admining for Linux boxes. And a big THANK GOD for that!)
Back to my point: most people are not aware of features in other browsers AND if they are aware of new inovations (read: tab browsing, which is one reason I will never go back to IE) they are not in any hurry to change and think and evaluate something that, however troubling it can be at times: pop-ups, vulnerbilities, "________________" [fill in the blank], lack of inovation, etc.
So what if most of /. visitors are Windows based? There are plenty of better choices to MS products, even on their own OS platform. But, people the world over resist change; they get stuck in a rut, good or bad in it's results, and they either don't like to change, don't "need" to change, or cannot change. Thus, the end result is resistance to change; for the better or for the worst.