You can't make the argument that linux is hard to install anymore. It's just as visual and easy as Windows. The only difference is linux installation can be more complicated if you go off the beaten path and want some weird custom setup.
Sure I can. Know what it takes to install windows? Plug the computer in and turn it on. That's why MS still does everything it can to keep linux from being sold pre-installed. They don't want anyone to actually have to find out that installing windows is actually pretty tough.
Obviously the difference is that most people don't have to install windows. As for those of us who have actually had to do with it, you don't have to convince me - it's a horrible experience.
Which you KNOW you will get virii and adware/spyware/malware because keeping Windows secure is like keeping Michael Jackson away from little kids.
Which *I* know because it's happened to me before, and I had enough knowledge to realize windows was the problem! That's the point I'm making - it's sort of a "fool me once..." kind of thing. Windows *is* easier to set up, in a way, because you can plug a winbox in the wall and it works. Just don't expect it to keep working. And you have to go through that windows hell to learn your lesson.
If you know you're going to spend money on antivirus clients for workstations, AND server licenses for exchange servers, AND antispyware software, AND the office apps, AND the people to do the implementation, then how can you argue that linux isn't cheaper? pWell, since I haven't voluntarily used windows since sometime maybe around early 2002...I'm not! I'm just describing the mentality of someone who hasn't had a box meltdown on them. Oh, and nice MJ-kidfucking analogy, I might have to steal that one.
If the price difference is large, they will say its too big to match. Sometimes they say that the other store is not a "competitor" or that since the other store doesn't price match, best buy doesn't have to pricematch them (gets used on Target a lot). Anything straw they can grasp will eventually get used. But, if you come back two hours later when the next shift is on, you have just as much chance to get the pricematch accepted with no hassle at all.
Incredible. I'll take a look at the fine print one of these days of their pricematch text. Because if they just try making shit up, I'd say the words "false advertising" and "Attorney General" one of these days if they keep it up.
It's not known if this happened, but at least we have a first-hand if undomumented account. From Snopes:
Did the infamous "$2 bill at Taco Bell" incident really happen as described in Captain Sarcastic's tale? He says it did. But whether it's real, a somewhat embellished account of an actual encounter, or purely the product of a fertile imagination, the story remains a favorite because it's all too plausible, something we can easily imagining happening -- indeed, many of us have already experienced something very much like it (from both sides of the retail counter). Who hasn't had to deal with the tandem of a less-than-brilliant sales associate and a dim-witted manager type whose reaction to actually having to think or acknowledge something beyond his limited experience is to retreat into an officious, unchallengable "I'm the boss, and whatever I say goes" mode?
She's not too far off - Everytime I see a story on Microsoft and Linux - I see the extremists belittle, spread FUD, and incorrect information. I've long maintained that if the best you can do is tell me FUD about Microsoft as a reason to switch - then there's no reason to switch.
You mean like the one after this one where RMS is intent on fundamentally change the GPL?
Heh. The last time I asked whether it was possible to buy a laptop without a pre-installed operating system, I was told that selling one could expose the company to litigation. The reason: knowingly selling a non-functional product.
I'm suing RCA - that piece of shit DVD player they sold me didn't play any movies when I pulled it out of the box, plugged it in, and pressed play.
Except that these so called nanoparticles exhibit very different behaviour to their normal, un-nanoish counterparts.
1. Nanoparticles are only one subset of things that are sometimes called "nanotech." 2. nanoparticles are just kind of small, but that alone doesn't make them unique. We've been dealing with materials that are kind of small for a long time. The difference is that nanotech is supposed to be small and regular. That doesn't make it dangerous.
This means that, although lawksing about how dangerous nanotech is is silly, nanosubstances should be treated as an entirely new chemical compared to the normal version.
They are new or variants of materials, yes, but their size doesn't play an inherent role in their safety.
Bottom line, ANY new material regardless of size should be tested for safety in potential applications before being manufactured for general consumption. So-called "nanotech" is no different. But it's the media spin about how exotic these materials are that's causing unneeded hysteria.
The GPL gets all its powers from copyright law. Copyright law (for example the cleanflicks case which occured after version 2 of the GPL) considers the copy to carry the license not the source code in the abstract.
So that means each copy is effectively seperately copyrighted, correct? So as long as I license my GPL-derivative work under the GPL, it's effectively a new work?
Bottom line, I'm trying to interpret the actual text of the GPL to determine if PearPC could stop me (for example) from redistributing their work under the GPL to whomever I please, regardless of whether they've rescinded my licensee's contract under same. I don't see anything in the GPL (or anyone's response) that proves otherwise.
Can be, although I will say that "systems" anything is the new somteimes-meaningless catch-all terms that's being used to impress. Kind of like nano is, though that's losing its coolness factor. I guess if you combine "nano" and "systems," then it's like some uber-buzzword that's guaranteed to get your grant approved.
First, please provide a legal definition of nanotech for me.
That's where the stupidity in the proposed falls. Nanotech is a bunch of very disparate materials that have been lumped together 1) by people who don't understand them, and 2) researchers trying to make their work sound more interesting than it might actually be.
Nanotech is pretty much nothing and everything. This is just baseless fear of the unknown. We've been doing nanotech for years, it's called pharmaceuticals. Just like any other material, safety needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
When a license contains a self-reference ("this license"), it means only that specific license, and not every other license with text like this one.
OK, then am I wrong in believing that an 8-year-old could figure out how to get around that clause in the GPL? Seems like the very nature of the GPL prevents it from having any enforcability on that point.
Does this mean that CherryOS has already lost their license to use the source code from PearPC?
OK, but can I get the source for Pear, call it BananaOS, rerelease it, and let Cherry use Banana instead? Seems like an endaround to me. Anything to prevent that?
It keeps the parties more responsive to more of the country than they otherwise would, and it encourages the political climate in each state to be more competitive. I believe that this results in faster evolution of the parties to meet shifting demographics, because it makes it extremely clear why and how one party is losing out.
As an example, the Democrats now. They used to own the south, which finally realized it's extremely conservative and switched. Because losing each of those states was so costly, the Dems can't afford to let it happen again. I guarantee you'll see concessions to change the Dem party before 2008 to make it have any appeal at all outside the coasts.
If it weren't for the college, you'd see them always campaigning in bigger states no matter what the margin trying to get their margin frmo 60-40 to 70-30. That's the real kicker right there - *the electoral college prevents further polarization of the states*. And I think that's a good thing.
Give it a think about what would happen if we switched. I don't mean next year, I mean in 10-20 years. Candidates would actually campaign in fewer states, and the margins of victory in each state would be far higher. Our country would be more polarized than it is now. Personally, with as diverse a country as we have, we can do without further divisiveness.
With all due respect, the electoral system doesn't encourage a thing. Your argument would work if Democarat's in New York decided to turn into Republicans so that they would get more attention in the next election. Of course that would never happen because, it would be a just plain foolish thing to do.
Well, yes and no. Republicans in the NE are more liberal, Dems in SE are more conservative. Both out in the rockies are more libertarian. Point is, the college should encourage more regionalism amongst the parties as they try to capture swing states. Right now both seem to have given up on a lot of states, and that isn't working at all for one party in particular. This is cyclical, and if they decide to reassess the situation, it will change.
As other's have pointed out the electoral system fails to accomplish what it was designed to do because instead of candidates ignoring the least populated states they are now ignoring anything that isn't a swing state. That means many, many states of all sizes get ignored instead of just a few small ones.
To amplify my point, it specifically results in the ignoring of states that don't have political balance. As you say, it would be asinine for someone to start voting for the lower party in their state in the interest of parity. But it would be worth it for the national parties to make concessions that keep more states competitive. in many ways maintains a more healthy, less stagnant political system. If nothing else, since swing states are always changing, the college rotates the pork around instead of having it always go to the biggest states only.
It was a nice experiment, but it failed. Time to ditch it.
As opposed to now, where they go to all states equally instead of focusing on, say, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a couple of other states.
If there's a benefit of that, it's to encourage political balance in all states. For example, all New Yorkers would benefit from a stronger Republican presence, and all Georgians would benefit from a stronger Democrat presence. Ohio and Florida are damn near 50/50%, no surprise they get the attention.
Slashdotters are far more likely than the average joe to recognize a good review from a bad one.
Maybe when you first joined, these days it's a bunch of kids who don't know their elbows from their assholes. But they'll tell you why it's fault of the US, RIAA, MPAA, USPTO, DMCA, and FCC that they don't.
Microsoft does not appear to be doing anything to stop the emigrating hoards or doing anything to retain folks on the Windows platform.
I don't think these "hordes" are really materializing. MS is far more worried about linux than Apple. When's the last time MS even mentioned Apple? No real threat to them, Apple's marketshare hasn't really taken a big jump. To disclose: I own a powerbook, so no accusations of being a Wintel zealot, please.
MS's biggest competition - and their biggest problem for non-server machines - continues to be their own old versions. I'm not sure how a forced XP update to SP2 will convince 2K or even '98 users to upgrade from their current versions to XP.
Why do these supposedly smart people Balmer, Gates, Lyons, McBride, Schwartz, etc. of the world always sound so stupid when they attept to attack the GPL? They always make it sould like the GPL stipulation to give back your improvements as a nasty surprise at the bottom of the cracker jack box.
They're spreading FUD that they may or may not believe. Assuming they're particularly calculating and know it's FUD, then they don't care if they sound stupid to you - they had no chance of convincnig you the GPL is bad anyway. But if it doesn't sound stupid to someone on the proverbial GPL fence, then it's effective FUD indeed.
The point of FUD isn't to convince your enemies, it's to defeat them.
Yeah, that would work great. Put kitty litter in a bomb, blow it up, and hope people inhale it. Gee Muhammed, we could blow them up or cause minor respiratory distress. That'll teach those Yankee infidels!
If you think you have rights and safety, then the illusion is working perfectly.
Uh huh. Then perhaps you have some evidence other than your assertions and snide comments? I have never since 9/11 been deterred in anything I attempted to do. You've nicely couched your point in a manner to be impossible to disprove - either I agree with you, or I just don't see why I'm wrong. That stinks of arrogance.
And believe it or not(I don't care), I do feel every bit as safe here as I ever did up there
Illusion's working perfectly.;) You'll feel that way until something causes you to feel otherwise. What would you take as evidence, aside from you getting killed? Crime rates? Higher in Mexico. Murder? Same.
Up there, I have been assaulted, and my apartment has benn robbed(in a very nice part of town).
Wow, sample size of 1. Despite that, the crime rate is higher in Mexico. I'll take stats that cover the entire country over your micro-sample. Testimony is the weakest form of evidence, if that's all you have save your breath (or fingers).
Some of the corruption down here is due to your influence peddling.
Wow, you are good at making your statements completely disprovable. Any disadvantage in Mexico is out fault! Even if I were to grant that, doesn't mean it's a good idea to live there.
We have road side searches so your gov't will provide more "anti-drug" money. We have to put on a show for you also.
And you want to live under such a sellout government? Funny, I have the 4th amendment.
Yeah, the wool is pretty thick. At least it keeps you nice and warm. From the outside we can see a bit more clearly.
Have anything other that mixed metaphors and arrogance to offer as evidence there? Yes, you the enlightened profit see all. Yet you have yet to utter a single provable statement as to why living in Mexico is better than the US. Crime? No. Rights? No. So what do you have there other than weather and the price of weed?
Before you know it, you'll be looking up from the crevice you fell into...if they let you.
If the evidence is that compelling surely you have some?
The part where people give up other people's rights in order to maintain the illusion of safety
So you'd rather be in Mexico, where you don't have the rights or the safety but at least they're honest about it?
We should be expecting the tattoos anytime now.
Wow is that melodramatic. All that because what, border patrol wants to actually make sure you're a citizen? Or because they want to try to make sure you're an idiot before they let you on an airplane? Not a compelling argument. I don't see your slope, let alone it's slipperiness.
I hope somebody marches you in front of all the bodies you've piled up.
Leased hardware isn't yours (by definition), which places certain constraints.
It may place constraints, but it often helps. If you're in a big organization, you often have to jump through massive hoops to acquire new equipment. Leasing often gives you the ability not to have to screw with the assholes from property management who have to tag the shit you buy and who make it hard for you to get rid of old equipment, which in turn makes it hard for you to get new equipment. If all you want to do is use something, leasning makes it easier to avoid dealing with the tards in your organization who keep you from getting things done.
Think about leasing equipment vs. buying as being sort of an "independent contractor" where buying is more like an employee. You can more easily terminate the agreement when the contract is up, and there's less hassle, less paperwork, less crap. On the other hand, it might be more expensive. But there are real benefits.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure I can. Know what it takes to install windows? Plug the computer in and turn it on. That's why MS still does everything it can to keep linux from being sold pre-installed. They don't want anyone to actually have to find out that installing windows is actually pretty tough.
Obviously the difference is that most people don't have to install windows. As for those of us who have actually had to do with it, you don't have to convince me - it's a horrible experience.
Which you KNOW you will get virii and adware/spyware/malware because keeping Windows secure is like keeping Michael Jackson away from little kids.
Which *I* know because it's happened to me before, and I had enough knowledge to realize windows was the problem! That's the point I'm making - it's sort of a "fool me once..." kind of thing. Windows *is* easier to set up, in a way, because you can plug a winbox in the wall and it works. Just don't expect it to keep working. And you have to go through that windows hell to learn your lesson.
If you know you're going to spend money on antivirus clients for workstations, AND server licenses for exchange servers, AND antispyware software, AND the office apps, AND the people to do the implementation, then how can you argue that linux isn't cheaper?
pWell, since I haven't voluntarily used windows since sometime maybe around early 2002...I'm not! I'm just describing the mentality of someone who hasn't had a box meltdown on them. Oh, and nice MJ-kidfucking analogy, I might have to steal that one.
Microsoft now supplies free IT employees with their expensive OS?
No, but it is superficially easier to install and manage until you have some virus-related calamity.
I can understand thinking Windows is cheaper until you have some virus infestation or general system corruption, but after that it's unconscionable.
Incredible. I'll take a look at the fine print one of these days of their pricematch text. Because if they just try making shit up, I'd say the words "false advertising" and "Attorney General" one of these days if they keep it up.
Huh. What do they do, try to tell you the other sale price doesn't count because it's a rebate or something?
It's not known if this happened, but at least we have a first-hand if undomumented account. From Snopes:
Did the infamous "$2 bill at Taco Bell" incident really happen as described in Captain Sarcastic's tale? He says it did. But whether it's real, a somewhat embellished account of an actual encounter, or purely the product of a fertile imagination, the story remains a favorite because it's all too plausible, something we can easily imagining happening -- indeed, many of us have already experienced something very much like it (from both sides of the retail counter). Who hasn't had to deal with the tandem of a less-than-brilliant sales associate and a dim-witted manager type whose reaction to actually having to think or acknowledge something beyond his limited experience is to retreat into an officious, unchallengable "I'm the boss, and whatever I say goes" mode?
You mean like the one after this one where RMS is intent on fundamentally change the GPL?
April fools is over. This is dogshit stupid.
I'm suing RCA - that piece of shit DVD player they sold me didn't play any movies when I pulled it out of the box, plugged it in, and pressed play.
Might as well give off the correct odor.
I thought it was linux hippies that smelled like shit.
1. Nanoparticles are only one subset of things that are sometimes called "nanotech." 2. nanoparticles are just kind of small, but that alone doesn't make them unique. We've been dealing with materials that are kind of small for a long time. The difference is that nanotech is supposed to be small and regular. That doesn't make it dangerous.
This means that, although lawksing about how dangerous nanotech is is silly, nanosubstances should be treated as an entirely new chemical compared to the normal version.
They are new or variants of materials, yes, but their size doesn't play an inherent role in their safety.
Bottom line, ANY new material regardless of size should be tested for safety in potential applications before being manufactured for general consumption. So-called "nanotech" is no different. But it's the media spin about how exotic these materials are that's causing unneeded hysteria.
So that means each copy is effectively seperately copyrighted, correct? So as long as I license my GPL-derivative work under the GPL, it's effectively a new work?
Bottom line, I'm trying to interpret the actual text of the GPL to determine if PearPC could stop me (for example) from redistributing their work under the GPL to whomever I please, regardless of whether they've rescinded my licensee's contract under same. I don't see anything in the GPL (or anyone's response) that proves otherwise.
Am I correctly interpreting what you said?
Can be, although I will say that "systems" anything is the new somteimes-meaningless catch-all terms that's being used to impress. Kind of like nano is, though that's losing its coolness factor. I guess if you combine "nano" and "systems," then it's like some uber-buzzword that's guaranteed to get your grant approved.
That's where the stupidity in the proposed falls. Nanotech is a bunch of very disparate materials that have been lumped together 1) by people who don't understand them, and 2) researchers trying to make their work sound more interesting than it might actually be.
Nanotech is pretty much nothing and everything. This is just baseless fear of the unknown. We've been doing nanotech for years, it's called pharmaceuticals. Just like any other material, safety needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
OK, then am I wrong in believing that an 8-year-old could figure out how to get around that clause in the GPL? Seems like the very nature of the GPL prevents it from having any enforcability on that point.
OK, but can I get the source for Pear, call it BananaOS, rerelease it, and let Cherry use Banana instead? Seems like an endaround to me. Anything to prevent that?
It keeps the parties more responsive to more of the country than they otherwise would, and it encourages the political climate in each state to be more competitive. I believe that this results in faster evolution of the parties to meet shifting demographics, because it makes it extremely clear why and how one party is losing out.
As an example, the Democrats now. They used to own the south, which finally realized it's extremely conservative and switched. Because losing each of those states was so costly, the Dems can't afford to let it happen again. I guarantee you'll see concessions to change the Dem party before 2008 to make it have any appeal at all outside the coasts.
If it weren't for the college, you'd see them always campaigning in bigger states no matter what the margin trying to get their margin frmo 60-40 to 70-30. That's the real kicker right there - *the electoral college prevents further polarization of the states*. And I think that's a good thing.
Give it a think about what would happen if we switched. I don't mean next year, I mean in 10-20 years. Candidates would actually campaign in fewer states, and the margins of victory in each state would be far higher. Our country would be more polarized than it is now. Personally, with as diverse a country as we have, we can do without further divisiveness.
Well, yes and no. Republicans in the NE are more liberal, Dems in SE are more conservative. Both out in the rockies are more libertarian. Point is, the college should encourage more regionalism amongst the parties as they try to capture swing states. Right now both seem to have given up on a lot of states, and that isn't working at all for one party in particular. This is cyclical, and if they decide to reassess the situation, it will change.
As other's have pointed out the electoral system fails to accomplish what it was designed to do because instead of candidates ignoring the least populated states they are now ignoring anything that isn't a swing state. That means many, many states of all sizes get ignored instead of just a few small ones.
To amplify my point, it specifically results in the ignoring of states that don't have political balance. As you say, it would be asinine for someone to start voting for the lower party in their state in the interest of parity. But it would be worth it for the national parties to make concessions that keep more states competitive. in many ways maintains a more healthy, less stagnant political system. If nothing else, since swing states are always changing, the college rotates the pork around instead of having it always go to the biggest states only.
It was a nice experiment, but it failed. Time to ditch it.
Well...what has it failed *at*, specifically?
If there's a benefit of that, it's to encourage political balance in all states. For example, all New Yorkers would benefit from a stronger Republican presence, and all Georgians would benefit from a stronger Democrat presence. Ohio and Florida are damn near 50/50%, no surprise they get the attention.
Maybe when you first joined, these days it's a bunch of kids who don't know their elbows from their assholes. But they'll tell you why it's fault of the US, RIAA, MPAA, USPTO, DMCA, and FCC that they don't.
I don't think these "hordes" are really materializing. MS is far more worried about linux than Apple. When's the last time MS even mentioned Apple? No real threat to them, Apple's marketshare hasn't really taken a big jump. To disclose: I own a powerbook, so no accusations of being a Wintel zealot, please.
MS's biggest competition - and their biggest problem for non-server machines - continues to be their own old versions. I'm not sure how a forced XP update to SP2 will convince 2K or even '98 users to upgrade from their current versions to XP.
They're spreading FUD that they may or may not believe. Assuming they're particularly calculating and know it's FUD, then they don't care if they sound stupid to you - they had no chance of convincnig you the GPL is bad anyway. But if it doesn't sound stupid to someone on the proverbial GPL fence, then it's effective FUD indeed.
The point of FUD isn't to convince your enemies, it's to defeat them.
Yeah, that would work great. Put kitty litter in a bomb, blow it up, and hope people inhale it. Gee Muhammed, we could blow them up or cause minor respiratory distress. That'll teach those Yankee infidels!
Uh huh. Then perhaps you have some evidence other than your assertions and snide comments? I have never since 9/11 been deterred in anything I attempted to do. You've nicely couched your point in a manner to be impossible to disprove - either I agree with you, or I just don't see why I'm wrong. That stinks of arrogance.
And believe it or not(I don't care), I do feel every bit as safe here as I ever did up there
Illusion's working perfectly. ;) You'll feel that way until something causes you to feel otherwise. What would you take as evidence, aside from you getting killed? Crime rates? Higher in Mexico. Murder? Same.
Up there, I have been assaulted, and my apartment has benn robbed(in a very nice part of town).
Wow, sample size of 1. Despite that, the crime rate is higher in Mexico. I'll take stats that cover the entire country over your micro-sample. Testimony is the weakest form of evidence, if that's all you have save your breath (or fingers).
Some of the corruption down here is due to your influence peddling.
Wow, you are good at making your statements completely disprovable. Any disadvantage in Mexico is out fault! Even if I were to grant that, doesn't mean it's a good idea to live there.
We have road side searches so your gov't will provide more "anti-drug" money. We have to put on a show for you also.
And you want to live under such a sellout government? Funny, I have the 4th amendment.
Yeah, the wool is pretty thick. At least it keeps you nice and warm. From the outside we can see a bit more clearly.
Have anything other that mixed metaphors and arrogance to offer as evidence there? Yes, you the enlightened profit see all. Yet you have yet to utter a single provable statement as to why living in Mexico is better than the US. Crime? No. Rights? No. So what do you have there other than weather and the price of weed?
Before you know it, you'll be looking up from the crevice you fell into...if they let you.
If the evidence is that compelling surely you have some?
So you'd rather be in Mexico, where you don't have the rights or the safety but at least they're honest about it?
We should be expecting the tattoos anytime now.
Wow is that melodramatic. All that because what, border patrol wants to actually make sure you're a citizen? Or because they want to try to make sure you're an idiot before they let you on an airplane? Not a compelling argument. I don't see your slope, let alone it's slipperiness.
I hope somebody marches you in front of all the bodies you've piled up.
I ain't piled up shit.
It may place constraints, but it often helps. If you're in a big organization, you often have to jump through massive hoops to acquire new equipment. Leasing often gives you the ability not to have to screw with the assholes from property management who have to tag the shit you buy and who make it hard for you to get rid of old equipment, which in turn makes it hard for you to get new equipment. If all you want to do is use something, leasning makes it easier to avoid dealing with the tards in your organization who keep you from getting things done.
Think about leasing equipment vs. buying as being sort of an "independent contractor" where buying is more like an employee. You can more easily terminate the agreement when the contract is up, and there's less hassle, less paperwork, less crap. On the other hand, it might be more expensive. But there are real benefits.