Thanks for pointing that out- it's true in a vast section of the population. On the other hand, geeks like myself follow the archetype: a small circle of geeky friends, playing with technology, learning how to program before it's even realistic to do so in schools.
My biggest peeve these days is not the school system itself, but the general mentality of Americans and our kids. We're spoiled rotten, living in a country overflowing with want and waste. People are out to make an easy buck, ignoring the consequences of their actions. Our corporate world is a mirror image of this (I suspect business started the trend), cutting corners, outsourcing, and worst of all, encouraging marketing over production of a good product. It's really a terrible way to run a society, which ends up with nine year-old girls dressing up (or I suppose dressing down) as whores for Halloween, and people who perform "gangster rap" are made into heroes and icons.
I'm all for capitalism and allowing a market to balance itself- it's a terrific theory. But isn't the theory behind it supposed to help a society by enriching the whole society, rather than just the privileged few? When it becomes a large factor in a society's problems: poverty (credit card debt), deterioration of values (see above), decrease in literacy (have you spoken to kids online lately- if not your in fo a suprise no shizzle (sic)), I no longer welcome it and favor a more society-based economy (a less privatized and more regulated industry- a government-run company will not spend millions lobbying politicians to hire foriegners).
Nothing will get done. Bush still has the VETO stamp. Its been sitting in his desk draw barely used for the last 6 years. I am sure it is going to get a major workout in the next two. This is not a bad thing, government is best when it does least.
I believe you are misinterpreting this quote, regardless of whether or not it's idea is philosophically true.
The point a government minimizing its work provides for a simpler system, and a reduction of overhead (thus increasing its efficiency and lowering cost to the taxpayer).
Your suggestion that veto power is equivalent to this is false. When a president issues a veto, rather than participating in the process and coming to a compromise on the bill, he creates a huge amount of waste.
More importantly, there are some serious problems that must be addressed. By not addressing these, we could be much worse off, than even if Congress created a complicated and wasteful law.
I'm a Linux guy so naturally I kind of ignore anything related to Vista. But when I heard that it's going to introduce #5 ("etc..."), I tossed out my Linux right away! Damn shame Vista isn't out yet- I have to go to the library to Slashdot:-(
I need "etc..." - I can't believe I've lived without it all these years.
Finally, the proof I've been waiting for all this time:
People who listen to Christian Rock are murderous pirates!
Let's round 'em up and get them churning out license plates.
That post should be modded funny. I love this idea of regulating music. Sounds almost as simple as letting people own guns, but keeping them out of the hands of criminals. We can require people to purchase a license before they can listen to music and deputize music store owners, granting them the power to revoke the license. I wouldn't mind at all being pulled over every few days and showing a cop my music license. Awesomeness, let's get right on it.
If 1 in 1000 produces an extra kid that would be a benefit correct?
Interesting example. But more offspring doesn't necessarily mean better chances of them living. With greater litters, parents have more mouths to feed, possibly reducing the chance of the others. This wouldn't happen in all species, of course- some have a new child/litter only after the previous one has "left the nest" (especially likely in reptiles and fish, which don't require much parenting, and birds which mature quickly).
Parent post is an example of way oversimplified evolutionary theory
Yeah, parent said something stupid. Gregory Cox has already pointed out the stupid error, that evolution requires the offspring to survive. In humans, it requires that the parent survive.
There is strong evidence to suggest that having grandparents around turned out to be a huge advantage to humans.
I'm not sure about your example's relevance to evolution. Scientists studying evolution generally don't care much about the progress of homo sapiens, but instead focus on how we (and all other species) came to be. I believe humans are unique in demonstrating linear grandparenting (other animals, such as lions and some primates raise children in community), so your saying it is relevant doesn't make sense.
Another thing is that you shouldn't expect users to have to locate a friendly enough "support community", which will not respond with "RTFM stupid!".
FAQs, mailing lists and IRC channels are fine for geeks (though still not my preferred choice of suppport). Anyone else will not be able to use these.
Ubuntu has the right idea, by making the operating system useful to the general public. Still, I think they need to do more, such as provide the same type of tutorial that Windows shows (the one we geeks find annoying and disable). Given a totally new environment, users need guidance - even if it's just a brief introduction to the menu system and where they go to install software and look for help. I find the Mac environment very intimidating, having used it only very briefly several times at my university.
My ancestors grew up without computers or modern technology. They had more basic things such as a functioning society and social values to guide them
What does this mean, other than stating the obvious fact that computers didn't really exist over 70 years ago? Are you implying that the third world are an unsocial lot of savages? Maybe we should save them by sending in missionaries? Or perhaps we can help them by creating "good jobs" allowing them more access to clothing and food (AKA "sweat shops").
I think the people being so negative here fail to see the possible benefits of the program. Eventually, the only way they'll escape the third world is by doing it themselves, and nobody argues that fixing society isn't best done by bettering its children. Kids are very adept at learning, and given a computer and access to information, are likely to become more learned than the rest of their society before they hit puberty. From there, they can help their people build a more modern society.
No, you don't have to give laptops to every single child in every third-world country. That would an amazing accomplishment, but nobody has proposed that as stage one of this program. Say what you will about Negreponte's naivete, but he's putting his money where his mouth is. We're too busy patting ourselves on the back for being modern and smart, sitting here writing stupid shit that really isn't helping anyone.
But I'm sure if you asked those "Firefox fanatics" why they would insult someone who was only trying to help make a better project (which is a mutual goal), they'd complain about the loads of bad bug reporters.
Bug reporting isn't as simple as you might argue. Many people don't know any better and simply say "it doesn't work". They may be reporting a non-bug, running a bug that has already been fixed, or even reporting a bug that belongs to an extension rather than the browser.
Unfortunately, these people probably outnumber the good bug reporters, which would cause the bug fixers to get frustrated and hostile, as you observed.
I'm not condoning their actions, I'm saying bug reporting needs to be looked at. If developers want a broader bug-reporting public, they'll have to find ways to make reporting easier and more efficient. Better web forms, automatic bug reporting, and other methods to make reporting a user's first bug simpler are needed.
Here's the scenario: If I have a problem with an application I rarely use (and can easily find a replacement for), I can't afford to spend more than a minute writing in the bug. In that time, I have to find the reporting mechanism (browsing to a project's Bugzilla server could easily take a user thiry seconds), fill in all required information (which can extend for well over the minute, and would be reduced to almost nothing), and provide the description, which is where the time should be spent. With today's methods, a user cannot be expected to fill out a bug report.
In these fake democracies, it's probably not really a matter of counting votes as much as the combination of opposition suppression and voter intimidation.
The "democratically elected" government (a de facto dictatorship), will outlaw other parties from running for oddball reasons. "Coincidentally", this happens to any party that even begins to show signs of popular support. The easiest way of doing this is by suppressing free speech (hey China! how's it going?), and jailing those who speak up against the government (Egypt has always been great at that, and they're the most democratic Arab country in the region, except perhaps now Turkey).
Incidentally, we have both (though to lesser degrees) right here in the good old USA: * The Democrats actively take the Green party to court to stop them from running. I'm not sure if the Republicans do the same to the Liberatarian party, but I wouldn't be surprised. People are really fed up with both of these corrupt parties, but have no alternative since once a third party seems to be viable, they'll be shot in the head before the people have the chance to hear about it. * Both Democrats but more often Republicans employ advertising intended to scare people into voting for them. In the Republican case, they'll even stoop to veiled religious threats ("if you don't vote for XYZ, you'll go to hell...").
Again, missing the "scientist" thing. Studying science in college does not make one a scientist.
Practicing doctors like the ones you suggest aren't real scientists. They don't discover new medicines and procedures. They merely use science others develop (which includes some, but not all the practicing MDs). You wouldn't call people who install networking equipment for a living "engineers", would you?
You want to have convicted felons get access to and read government email?
Should this be at all levels of government (town, state, national), including the department of defense, intelligence agencies and the military?
Also, who's checking to see if they create false positives? More felons? Guarding, housing and feeding your large spam slave population is starting to sound way more expensive than using a few more servers equipped with half decent filters.
After that bad experience I sold all of my Google stock. I don't think a company can survive long-term making those type of brain-dead decisions. Thank you Google for wasting my time.
You don't think they can survive long-term because they only hire people who graduate from top schools? This despite being a company which continuously innovates, leads in various markets on the internet, posts very high revenue yet is still adored by its customers, and bitter enemy Microsoft hasn't yet been able to crush? <sarcasm>Yeah, sounds like a loser to me.</sarcasm> Even if they don't make it long term, why sell your stock in the short term, when there's still a potential gain from it?
I think you've taken this rejection very personally, and quite unprofessionally. I don't blame Google here- I wouldn't hire someone who made important decisions based on his poor little hurt emotions either.
I join your call for Google to double check their tool to make sure it "won't be evil". It would really suck to get even more web-squatters and content thieves.
That said, I disagree with your implied premise that people who use Google's search are so completely naive and unsavvy. I also think you're wrong that Google's new tool is as powerful as many would think based on the little they say.
On the first point, people don't just query "mountain bike", to use your example. They'll search for something more specific, like "buying a first mountain bike" or "Cyclemaster TR4 specs". Sure, their first query may not be optimal, but they'll soon either see a lousy site they're not happy with, or the site will be adequate to their needs. I have trust that people already know that the Internet is a mixed bag, and will shop around a little.
One example site that I keep running into at work is experts-exchange.com , which contains years' worth of forums. Google often shows me specific pages from those forums as top results, and I think the same would happen when users make a pointed search on bikes or any other topic. It shows lesser sites once in a while, but as you say- the important sites still reign.
When they find a site they can use, they'll stop using Google to locate it.
The second point is more important. Google does much more than scrape the webpages on your site and calculate your pagerank. That's what happened before they were around and became obsolete soon after. A key part of the algorithm uses links into your site, which Google tried to avoid using in the calculation when you create them yourself. This tool seems to let you improve your score on the first (and less important) part of the process.
I wonder why linux would need a toll free licensing hotline....
I think he meant a toll free free licensing hotline.
And we have one- it's called the GPL, and it is already included with Linux and for the average user can be summed up with "do whatever you want with this and feel free to make copies for your friends."
The other replies bring up lots of reasons we technical people don't like Microsoft. I don't like having to fix other people's computers all the time due to the whole spyware/virus weakness of Windows. Nor do I like it when my rather well taken care of machine at work needs to be restarted for no good reason. No, Linux and its applications aren't bug free. Yes, there's plenty of crappy software in the OSS world. Thankfully, distros like Debian and Ubuntu get rid of a lot of them, so its less often that one finds software that doesn't work right. On these points and more, the Linux crowd is right to complain, and no "free software giveaway"s or donations to various causes is going to change that.
Me, I'd start off by asking for less lying and bullying, which seem to be almost uniquely Microsoft's in the software world: * No more saying "we can't remove the browser from the OS", when they have more than adequate resources to rewrite vast parts of the operating system. * No bullshiting the EU saying they'll create thousands and thousands of jobs by releasing a piece of software which isn't that monumentally different from the one already out there. * No more using the "user error" excuse whenever a user complains. * No more purchasing of false research saying Windows is "cheaper" than Linux. It's not always cheaper. Sometimes it will and part of the time it won't. I know it's "just marketing" to say that you're the "#1 product", but these false studies are well beyond reasonable marketing. * No more pushing businesses out of the market by buying their competitors and dumping their product, by attaching it to Windows for free. Healthy competition, actual innovation, and acquiring other companies is fine. Abuing a monopoly isn't. * No illegaly funding rediculous lawsuits against IBM for Linux. * Since the big builders like Dell are not allowed to sell lower priced computers (and don't tell me they don't want to- Wallmart sure did when Linux became ready for its customers) by not having to pay for a Windows license. Hardware manufacturers have no trouble ignoring Linux because there's no financial incentive to spend the extra few bucks. It's all very convenient for Microsoft, but not for me.
On that last note, when my computer's power supply fails, I get "you need to have the original operating system installed" from my very large warranty provider. On the day I get a different answer, that will be the day when I'll start hating Microsoft.
I don't know much about economic theory, but this idea seems less like encouraging a healthy marketplace and more like rooting for the underdog.
(BTW the argument seems to imply that you should buy Intel too - after all if it's rational to only buy AMD then Intel would disappear and that's not good for competition either).
Close, but may I suggest a minor correction: "In order to promote competition an individual should buy from the viable company holding the least market share."
As long as Intel holds higher market share, the individual's actions, i.e. buying AMD, serves to balance the competition. Since this is an individual player, and not the entire market, the effect is not as drastic as you suggest- to suddenly make Intel file chapter 11. Also note "viable"- nobody should buy a bad product given a good one is available, and the differences between these two are minor for most consumers, as explained by another poster. This is akin to the suggestion that voting for a third party in the United States is like throwing away your vote, since both parties don't really care if someone voted for a minor candidate.
That said, I disagree with the way in which sucha an affect attempted on the market is suggested. I fear Intel returning to being a monopoly as much as I hate that Microsoft is one now. But I didn't just switch to Linux and pat myself on the back- I joined a LUG and even ran it for a little while, helping bring Linux to dozens of people. Granted it's a whole different kind of market, but the point is that personal purchases are minor, whereas personal action yields an actual effect. I agree that you shouldn't buy against your conscience, but you should realize that more often than not, people are unaware of such issues and don't utilize moral judgement when it comes to shopping.
I think my parent is talking about just the thing I was wondering - that there is a legal issue where if one does not protects one's property, certain rights over said property may be lost.
The example I know of happens in the United States. It goes like this: A man owns a piece of land including a private beach. He does not fence, sign or otherwise make public the fact that it is private. His neighbours use the beach to bathe and launch boats off of regularly for several years. The man one day fences off the lot. The neighbours sue. The case is ruled in their favor because he had not, in all those years, defended his property
IANAL, and have no idea what laws this relates to (I suspect this is related to the fact that only the neighbours seen to have incurred an "actual loss", which seems critical in the U.S. legal system).
The point is well made by my parent- by not suing the others, they are showing an ambivalence towards their property rights. I have a reservation to this argument, since they are in fact engaging in the protection of their property (against Google). It could be suggested that winning against Google provides them with a juicy precedent, with which they could cost-effectively sue the remaining websites (as opposed to suing them all at once). If I were one of our overworked judges, I'd appreciate them holding off.
Consider two economic facts: New home sales in America rose by 1.1% in August. New home sales in America rose by 0.9% in September.
Consider the presentation of these two facts:
"More new homes were sold."
"Sales of new homes are slowing." ...
I'm not sure if I agree or not that those "economic facts" are, in fact, facts. You yourself seem to argue that they should not be taken as postulates for developing economic theory.
More importantly, I'd suggest naming the second half of quoted section not as "presentation", but "analysis", which is then presented in order to persuade the public, legislative, executive, etc. The critical piece in the argument here that I believe is underemphasized, is that analysis must never be done on a limited amount of information (and when only partial information is available, analysis should be put on hold, and only hypotheses should be developed).
Economics is a great example of where facts don't really turn up at the end, since most analysis being debated is argued by the various schools of economists. I think it provides one of the greatest arguments against true democracy in an uneducated population, placing the power to define the economic agenda in the hands of people who would buy lottery tickets and live beyond their means using credit cards (and paying for it dearly in the medium- to long term). My puny Bachelor's degree means I'm well educated when compared to the general population, and my understanding of the complexities of economics is still rudimentary at best.
must have stolen your car to do so, despite the fact that your car is still in your garage
No. Cars can't be in two places at the same time the way source code can. That, and the odometer would register the difference.
There really isn't much of an analogy here, since there's nothing quite like source code. Non-physical goods usually involve identifiable use of the original (music sampling, patent violation). In source code, you can use the original, make it look like you didn't, and get rid of the evidence.
Looks like it's time to make more poorly thought-out and ambiguous laws, get Microsoft's security beefed up, or switch to open source. Sadly, the worst case (i.e. the first) is the most likely to happen.
If you had bothered to read the question, you would have known that the knowledge seeker was already watching his meter.
Consuption of power wouldn't be an issue, since the question was not about *tracking* usage, but rather *measuring* usage. Any difference caused by the measurement device could easily be calculated by running it on a known power consumer (light bulb, etc).
So my advice, hold on, sit down and look at what you expect to produce and what you would need to get there... You will probably run into some issues...
What the hell kind of advice is that?
Why didn't you just say "STFU and RTFM!!!!!!!!1" ('1' intended) and get back to your <sarcasm>thrilling</sarcasm> life? People come here, ask a serious question that's troubling them, and once they make it past the editorial interest filter, they get this bull. This isn't just one more stupid forum, this is Slashdot.
What examples can you provide of these "some issues" you're talking about? The asker is trying to understand the whole process, and you're just telling him to expect trouble? What a worthless comment!
That seems like s a good example: You didn't buy a portion of the license, you paid part of the price it cost so that the school could use it. The EULA doesn't allow you to use the license the school bought while they are using it. It doesn't even let the school use it on two computers if they did not purchase a site license.
But regarding the corporate aspect, Microsoft can't really complain about government's actions, any more than Apple could complain about the government purchasing Wintel boxes. The government writes its own rules of purchasing, including those regarding vendors and price shopping. The private world has little influence on this, as should be- there's just too much opportunity for corruption otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for pointing that out- it's true in a vast section of the population. On the other hand, geeks like myself follow the archetype: a small circle of geeky friends, playing with technology, learning how to program before it's even realistic to do so in schools.
My biggest peeve these days is not the school system itself, but the general mentality of Americans and our kids. We're spoiled rotten, living in a country overflowing with want and waste. People are out to make an easy buck, ignoring the consequences of their actions. Our corporate world is a mirror image of this (I suspect business started the trend), cutting corners, outsourcing, and worst of all, encouraging marketing over production of a good product. It's really a terrible way to run a society, which ends up with nine year-old girls dressing up (or I suppose dressing down) as whores for Halloween, and people who perform "gangster rap" are made into heroes and icons.
I'm all for capitalism and allowing a market to balance itself- it's a terrific theory. But isn't the theory behind it supposed to help a society by enriching the whole society, rather than just the privileged few? When it becomes a large factor in a society's problems: poverty (credit card debt), deterioration of values (see above), decrease in literacy (have you spoken to kids online lately- if not your in fo a suprise no shizzle (sic)), I no longer welcome it and favor a more society-based economy (a less privatized and more regulated industry- a government-run company will not spend millions lobbying politicians to hire foriegners).
I believe you are misinterpreting this quote, regardless of whether or not it's idea is philosophically true.
The point a government minimizing its work provides for a simpler system, and a reduction of overhead (thus increasing its efficiency and lowering cost to the taxpayer).
Your suggestion that veto power is equivalent to this is false. When a president issues a veto, rather than participating in the process and coming to a compromise on the bill, he creates a huge amount of waste.
More importantly, there are some serious problems that must be addressed. By not addressing these, we could be much worse off, than even if Congress created a complicated and wasteful law.
I'm a Linux guy so naturally I kind of ignore anything related to Vista. :-(
But when I heard that it's going to introduce #5 ("etc..."), I tossed out my Linux right away!
Damn shame Vista isn't out yet- I have to go to the library to Slashdot
I need "etc..." - I can't believe I've lived without it all these years.
Finally, the proof I've been waiting for all this time:
People who listen to Christian Rock are murderous pirates!
Let's round 'em up and get them churning out license plates.
That post should be modded funny. I love this idea of regulating music. Sounds almost as simple as letting people own guns, but keeping them out of the hands of criminals. We can require people to purchase a license before they can listen to music and deputize music store owners, granting them the power to revoke the license. I wouldn't mind at all being pulled over every few days and showing a cop my music license. Awesomeness, let's get right on it.
Yeah, parent said something stupid. Gregory Cox has already pointed out the stupid error, that evolution requires the offspring to survive. In humans, it requires that the parent survive.
I'm not sure about your example's relevance to evolution. Scientists studying evolution generally don't care much about the progress of homo sapiens, but instead focus on how we (and all other species) came to be. I believe humans are unique in demonstrating linear grandparenting (other animals, such as lions and some primates raise children in community), so your saying it is relevant doesn't make sense.
Well put.
Another thing is that you shouldn't expect users to have to locate a friendly enough "support community", which will not respond with "RTFM stupid!".
FAQs, mailing lists and IRC channels are fine for geeks (though still not my preferred choice of suppport). Anyone else will not be able to use these.
Ubuntu has the right idea, by making the operating system useful to the general public. Still, I think they need to do more, such as provide the same type of tutorial that Windows shows (the one we geeks find annoying and disable). Given a totally new environment, users need guidance - even if it's just a brief introduction to the menu system and where they go to install software and look for help. I find the Mac environment very intimidating, having used it only very briefly several times at my university.
ROFLMAO. Well done!
What does this mean, other than stating the obvious fact that computers didn't really exist over 70 years ago? Are you implying that the third world are an unsocial lot of savages? Maybe we should save them by sending in missionaries? Or perhaps we can help them by creating "good jobs" allowing them more access to clothing and food (AKA "sweat shops").
I think the people being so negative here fail to see the possible benefits of the program. Eventually, the only way they'll escape the third world is by doing it themselves, and nobody argues that fixing society isn't best done by bettering its children. Kids are very adept at learning, and given a computer and access to information, are likely to become more learned than the rest of their society before they hit puberty. From there, they can help their people build a more modern society.
No, you don't have to give laptops to every single child in every third-world country. That would an amazing accomplishment, but nobody has proposed that as stage one of this program. Say what you will about Negreponte's naivete, but he's putting his money where his mouth is. We're too busy patting ourselves on the back for being modern and smart, sitting here writing stupid shit that really isn't helping anyone.
Insulting people is bad, mmmkay?
But I'm sure if you asked those "Firefox fanatics" why they would insult someone who was only trying to help make a better project (which is a mutual goal), they'd complain about the loads of bad bug reporters.
Bug reporting isn't as simple as you might argue. Many people don't know any better and simply say "it doesn't work". They may be reporting a non-bug, running a bug that has already been fixed, or even reporting a bug that belongs to an extension rather than the browser.
Unfortunately, these people probably outnumber the good bug reporters, which would cause the bug fixers to get frustrated and hostile, as you observed.
I'm not condoning their actions, I'm saying bug reporting needs to be looked at. If developers want a broader bug-reporting public, they'll have to find ways to make reporting easier and more efficient. Better web forms, automatic bug reporting, and other methods to make reporting a user's first bug simpler are needed.
Here's the scenario: If I have a problem with an application I rarely use (and can easily find a replacement for), I can't afford to spend more than a minute writing in the bug. In that time, I have to find the reporting mechanism (browsing to a project's Bugzilla server could easily take a user thiry seconds), fill in all required information (which can extend for well over the minute, and would be reduced to almost nothing), and provide the description, which is where the time should be spent. With today's methods, a user cannot be expected to fill out a bug report.
In these fake democracies, it's probably not really a matter of counting votes as much as the combination of opposition suppression and voter intimidation.
The "democratically elected" government (a de facto dictatorship), will outlaw other parties from running for oddball reasons. "Coincidentally", this happens to any party that even begins to show signs of popular support. The easiest way of doing this is by suppressing free speech (hey China! how's it going?), and jailing those who speak up against the government (Egypt has always been great at that, and they're the most democratic Arab country in the region, except perhaps now Turkey).
Incidentally, we have both (though to lesser degrees) right here in the good old USA:
* The Democrats actively take the Green party to court to stop them from running. I'm not sure if the Republicans do the same to the Liberatarian party, but I wouldn't be surprised. People are really fed up with both of these corrupt parties, but have no alternative since once a third party seems to be viable, they'll be shot in the head before the people have the chance to hear about it.
* Both Democrats but more often Republicans employ advertising intended to scare people into voting for them. In the Republican case, they'll even stoop to veiled religious threats ("if you don't vote for XYZ, you'll go to hell...").
Again, missing the "scientist" thing. Studying science in college does not make one a scientist.
Practicing doctors like the ones you suggest aren't real scientists. They don't discover new medicines and procedures. They merely use science others develop (which includes some, but not all the practicing MDs). You wouldn't call people who install networking equipment for a living "engineers", would you?
Let me get this straight...
You want to have convicted felons get access to and read government email?
Should this be at all levels of government (town, state, national), including the department of defense, intelligence agencies and the military?
Also, who's checking to see if they create false positives? More felons? Guarding, housing and feeding your large spam slave population is starting to sound way more expensive than using a few more servers equipped with half decent filters.
I think you've taken this rejection very personally, and quite unprofessionally. I don't blame Google here- I wouldn't hire someone who made important decisions based on his poor little hurt emotions either.
I join your call for Google to double check their tool to make sure it "won't be evil". It would really suck to get even more web-squatters and content thieves.
That said, I disagree with your implied premise that people who use Google's search are so completely naive and unsavvy. I also think you're wrong that Google's new tool is as powerful as many would think based on the little they say.
On the first point, people don't just query "mountain bike", to use your example. They'll search for something more specific, like "buying a first mountain bike" or "Cyclemaster TR4 specs". Sure, their first query may not be optimal, but they'll soon either see a lousy site they're not happy with, or the site will be adequate to their needs. I have trust that people already know that the Internet is a mixed bag, and will shop around a little.
One example site that I keep running into at work is experts-exchange.com , which contains years' worth of forums. Google often shows me specific pages from those forums as top results, and I think the same would happen when users make a pointed search on bikes or any other topic. It shows lesser sites once in a while, but as you say- the important sites still reign.
When they find a site they can use, they'll stop using Google to locate it.
The second point is more important. Google does much more than scrape the webpages on your site and calculate your pagerank. That's what happened before they were around and became obsolete soon after. A key part of the algorithm uses links into your site, which Google tried to avoid using in the calculation when you create them yourself. This tool seems to let you improve your score on the first (and less important) part of the process.
And we have one- it's called the GPL, and it is already included with Linux and for the average user can be summed up with "do whatever you want with this and feel free to make copies for your friends."
The other replies bring up lots of reasons we technical people don't like Microsoft. I don't like having to fix other people's computers all the time due to the whole spyware/virus weakness of Windows. Nor do I like it when my rather well taken care of machine at work needs to be restarted for no good reason. No, Linux and its applications aren't bug free. Yes, there's plenty of crappy software in the OSS world. Thankfully, distros like Debian and Ubuntu get rid of a lot of them, so its less often that one finds software that doesn't work right. On these points and more, the Linux crowd is right to complain, and no "free software giveaway"s or donations to various causes is going to change that.
Me, I'd start off by asking for less lying and bullying, which seem to be almost uniquely Microsoft's in the software world:
* No more saying "we can't remove the browser from the OS", when they have more than adequate resources to rewrite vast parts of the operating system.
* No bullshiting the EU saying they'll create thousands and thousands of jobs by releasing a piece of software which isn't that monumentally different from the one already out there.
* No more using the "user error" excuse whenever a user complains.
* No more purchasing of false research saying Windows is "cheaper" than Linux. It's not always cheaper. Sometimes it will and part of the time it won't. I know it's "just marketing" to say that you're the "#1 product", but these false studies are well beyond reasonable marketing.
* No more pushing businesses out of the market by buying their competitors and dumping their product, by attaching it to Windows for free. Healthy competition, actual innovation, and acquiring other companies is fine. Abuing a monopoly isn't.
* No illegaly funding rediculous lawsuits against IBM for Linux.
* Since the big builders like Dell are not allowed to sell lower priced computers (and don't tell me they don't want to- Wallmart sure did when Linux became ready for its customers) by not having to pay for a Windows license. Hardware manufacturers have no trouble ignoring Linux because there's no financial incentive to spend the extra few bucks. It's all very convenient for Microsoft, but not for me.
On that last note, when my computer's power supply fails, I get "you need to have the original operating system installed" from my very large warranty provider. On the day I get a different answer, that will be the day when I'll start hating Microsoft.
Close, but may I suggest a minor correction: "In order to promote competition an individual should buy from the viable company holding the least market share."
As long as Intel holds higher market share, the individual's actions, i.e. buying AMD, serves to balance the competition. Since this is an individual player, and not the entire market, the effect is not as drastic as you suggest- to suddenly make Intel file chapter 11. Also note "viable"- nobody should buy a bad product given a good one is available, and the differences between these two are minor for most consumers, as explained by another poster. This is akin to the suggestion that voting for a third party in the United States is like throwing away your vote, since both parties don't really care if someone voted for a minor candidate.
That said, I disagree with the way in which sucha an affect attempted on the market is suggested. I fear Intel returning to being a monopoly as much as I hate that Microsoft is one now. But I didn't just switch to Linux and pat myself on the back- I joined a LUG and even ran it for a little while, helping bring Linux to dozens of people. Granted it's a whole different kind of market, but the point is that personal purchases are minor, whereas personal action yields an actual effect. I agree that you shouldn't buy against your conscience, but you should realize that more often than not, people are unaware of such issues and don't utilize moral judgement when it comes to shopping.
I think my parent is talking about just the thing I was wondering - that there is a legal issue where if one does not protects one's property, certain rights over said property may be lost.
The example I know of happens in the United States. It goes like this: A man owns a piece of land including a private beach. He does not fence, sign or otherwise make public the fact that it is private. His neighbours use the beach to bathe and launch boats off of regularly for several years. The man one day fences off the lot. The neighbours sue. The case is ruled in their favor because he had not, in all those years, defended his property
IANAL, and have no idea what laws this relates to (I suspect this is related to the fact that only the neighbours seen to have incurred an "actual loss", which seems critical in the U.S. legal system).
The point is well made by my parent- by not suing the others, they are showing an ambivalence towards their property rights. I have a reservation to this argument, since they are in fact engaging in the protection of their property (against Google). It could be suggested that winning against Google provides them with a juicy precedent, with which they could cost-effectively sue the remaining websites (as opposed to suing them all at once). If I were one of our overworked judges, I'd appreciate them holding off.
I'm not sure if I agree or not that those "economic facts" are, in fact, facts. You yourself seem to argue that they should not be taken as postulates for developing economic theory.
More importantly, I'd suggest naming the second half of quoted section not as "presentation", but "analysis", which is then presented in order to persuade the public, legislative, executive, etc. The critical piece in the argument here that I believe is underemphasized, is that analysis must never be done on a limited amount of information (and when only partial information is available, analysis should be put on hold, and only hypotheses should be developed).
Economics is a great example of where facts don't really turn up at the end, since most analysis being debated is argued by the various schools of economists. I think it provides one of the greatest arguments against true democracy in an uneducated population, placing the power to define the economic agenda in the hands of people who would buy lottery tickets and live beyond their means using credit cards (and paying for it dearly in the medium- to long term). My puny Bachelor's degree means I'm well educated when compared to the general population, and my understanding of the complexities of economics is still rudimentary at best.
Moral of the story: pick your targets carefully.
No. Cars can't be in two places at the same time the way source code can. That, and the odometer would register the difference.
There really isn't much of an analogy here, since there's nothing quite like source code. Non-physical goods usually involve identifiable use of the original (music sampling, patent violation). In source code, you can use the original, make it look like you didn't, and get rid of the evidence.
Looks like it's time to make more poorly thought-out and ambiguous laws, get Microsoft's security beefed up, or switch to open source. Sadly, the worst case (i.e. the first) is the most likely to happen.
If you had bothered to read the question, you would have known that the knowledge seeker was already watching his meter.
Consuption of power wouldn't be an issue, since the question was not about *tracking* usage, but rather *measuring* usage. Any difference caused by the measurement device could easily be calculated by running it on a known power consumer (light bulb, etc).
Why didn't you just say "STFU and RTFM!!!!!!!!1" ('1' intended) and get back to your <sarcasm>thrilling</sarcasm> life? People come here, ask a serious question that's troubling them, and once they make it past the editorial interest filter, they get this bull. This isn't just one more stupid forum, this is Slashdot.
What examples can you provide of these "some issues" you're talking about? The asker is trying to understand the whole process, and you're just telling him to expect trouble? What a worthless comment!
That seems like s a good example: You didn't buy a portion of the license, you paid part of the price it cost so that the school could use it. The EULA doesn't allow you to use the license the school bought while they are using it. It doesn't even let the school use it on two computers if they did not purchase a site license.
But regarding the corporate aspect, Microsoft can't really complain about government's actions, any more than Apple could complain about the government purchasing Wintel boxes. The government writes its own rules of purchasing, including those regarding vendors and price shopping. The private world has little influence on this, as should be- there's just too much opportunity for corruption otherwise.