Linux appeals to techies who want to try a new OS, but it doesn't universally impress people as being "so cool they need it".
Some don't know that they need it. For example:
1. Do you want to pay $199 for an operating system or you prefer to pay $0? 2. Do you want to have control over your computer or do you want your computer to control you? 3. Do you want to depend on a company (if it goes bankrupt or just is not interested to upgrade the *program: example Internet Exploder)? 4. Do you want a system that doesn't get slower in time if you install and remove programs? 5. Do you want a system that's virtualy virus/worm free?
Yep people might not want "Linux" but they might want these things. The problem is that many people don't even think about these issues -- not that they don't want them.
Apple could offer a choice for people that want to use Windows, of course, they would charge $50 more (or how much the Windows costs) and would direct any support questions to Microsoft. That's nothing bad in that, I'm sure there will be people interested to pay more for a shitty OS, but it's not my job to judge them, nor Apple's.
By the way, Apple doesn't lose money if Microsoft makes more money, if both Apple and Microsoft make more money they would do it.
Dvorak is called idiot by many people around, however I like that he judge things without preconceived ideas -- that's not a bad thing at all.
The man makes a confusion between what something is and what we do about it.
I think we can talk about ideas and qualify them: bad, good, dangerous, etc without bringing into discusion what we do about them: ban, interdict, promote, etc.
If we can't discuss and qualify ideas because we are afraid people or society will start to interdict then we are doing exactly what we are afraid of....
With $24,000 you can buy a nice car or make a basic annual salary in US. The question is why people are not able to get sufficient counseling for that ammount?
I'm not a communist but I would like to believe that people should be able to defend their rights for much less than their all their fortune. Actually what is the use (fairness) of a legal system that allow only rich people win?
You know, I recognize myself in the mirror not because how I look but because I see the mirror image moving like I'm thinking I'm moving.
If you think about it, when you looked first time in the mirror there was no "pattern recognition" since you didn't know how you look but you realize that's you from the movement of the image. I'm pretty much sure the robot if you paint it or you paste some stickers on it, it will not be able to say "hey that's me, that image is doing what I'm doing"
You have to understand though that Time gives the title of "person of the year" not on the ground of merit but on the ground of impact on the World. Widows donating money they can't spare don't really have such a big impact.
I'm curious. How can you know whether the code is clean, if it's closed source?" Actually pretty similar to how we know that Windows code is not clean. You don't always need to see the code to know if a program was well programmed or not (that's what I think he meant)
People are entitled to opinion if only "profesionals" would be allowed to talk than you'd find that you cannot open you mouth to say almost anything. People will say: Hey aren't you a coder? Maybe you should not talk about politics, you have no clue about movies, etc.
But I do agree that this is arrogance (and it's even worse when it comes for somebody who doesn't get the point himself).
So you're saying if this guy were in a car accident and wanted to die you should let him, even with his high chance of recovery and even though he will probably be happy to be alive later?"
It's interesting that you use this impersonal example "a guy who had accident".
I use a clear and personal example exactly because I don't want to take decisions for somebody else life: so, if *I* had a car accident and *I* wanted to die (no matter what chances of healing I would have) or even better example if I didn't had any car accident, but I wanted to die -- I would not appreciate you or anyone else, especially the state, to intervene in my decision in any direction (or Dr. K. for that matter and here we are on the same page, so let's finish with a common point;-)
"I don't know if these people really wanted to die or not. " And yet you have a very clear idea who is guilty and who is not. I don't know either, I'm only saying if they wanted to die than he's not guilty in my eyes, if they didn't than he's guilty (not that I care too much about him, I think we discussed too much the guy).
but I don't think it's right to kill people when there's a good chance that they will get better. The issue is to let people take the decision for their own life. Even if one guy is 99.99% healthy if the guy wants to die I think you have no right to oppose it, it's he's decision to make. You can tell him to think over, you can give him advice, you can tell him nice stories about God and angels and how he's going to get to Hell if he commits suicide, but you have no right to force him to live. Now, how he ends his life, with or without help, or the title of the person who helps him, is a technicality.
The issue is clear, it's a matter of principle: I don't want the state, church or anyone else to take a decision in such a private, personal matter.
But they're dead - I can't ask them. People express their wishes before they die. Only if they are in a comma they cannot but even then in some cases they have a will for that kind of situation.
Maybe you didn't read the whole thing. The whole quote was "If your friend wanted to die, would you hand him a 12-gauge? Would you pull the trigger for him? Or would you try to get him some help through his rough times?
The last line suggests that he will get better So you take the liberty to torture somebody in the hope they would get better? You might be wrong too. Yes, it's sad if people are wrong in this kind of cases (btw, in case you did't know, we all die eventually) but it's THEIR responsibility it's not my, your or state's responsibility.
"Are you suggesting that people killed by American soldiers wanted to die? By the way, even though soldiers are trained on how to kill, many of them never kill anyone. They're there to fight, not necessarily to kill. The Army is one of the largest employers in the US - if every soldier killed someone (or even if most of them did) there'd be a lot more people dying in Iraq."
No, I'm not suggesting that, I'm only making a comment on the usage of the word "killer" and its loaded meaning. Executioner in this case is probably better although it doens't completly alude to the fact that the death was asked by the "executed". Probably "suicide expert" as you put it is better.
"I also believe that executioners should be properly labeled. Dr. Kevorkian really wasn't a doctor at all - doctors try to heal their patients. I'd have no problem if he called himself a "suicide expert" or something - if he weren't in the news, how would I know that he kills his patients? What if I were in town and got in a bad car accident?"
So, you have problems with labels... that's like saying that a "cleaning person" cannot help catch a thief because it's not specified in the title. Well, for what is worth I wouldn't mind if there would be "suicide experts" around.
"I have a problem with a doctor killing people because as far as we know, some of these people might not have wanted to die and thought they were going to see a normal doctor."
I agree with you, if that's true. For this discussion I started from the assumption that they did want to die, since I don't know much about the case and facts I allowed myself to use an assumption. So for me it's pretty clear if they wanted to die the guy didn't do anything wrong (in my view, not in the law's view), if they didn't than he is a criminal who deserves to be punished.
I believe that if sucide would be permited and there would be specialized people around the sucide rate would fall down. Also, there would be a clear procedure that would show clearly what is the intent of the person without any reason of doubt.
There are other moral considerents that people don't consider always: why would somebody who doesn't want to live continue to consume resources when there are enough people in the world who die because of hunger or lack of medicines.
Slashdot Mirror
So you see, we get back to square one, if it's harder or not, if drivers work or not, not if "people want Linux".
Linux appeals to techies who want to try a new OS, but it doesn't universally impress people as being "so cool they need it".
Some don't know that they need it. For example:
1. Do you want to pay $199 for an operating system or you prefer to pay $0?
2. Do you want to have control over your computer or do you want your computer to control you?
3. Do you want to depend on a company (if it goes bankrupt or just is not interested to upgrade the *program: example Internet Exploder)?
4. Do you want a system that doesn't get slower in time if you install and remove programs?
5. Do you want a system that's virtualy virus/worm free?
Yep people might not want "Linux" but they might want these things. The problem is that many people don't even think about these issues -- not that they don't want them.
The only question that remains is which version of Windows will Apple switch to?
"The reason why no one writes viruses for Apple is most likely because people like Apple and want them to succeed."
I don't like Apple and I'm sure many other people share my dislike with closed source and proprietary Operating Systems and hardware.
"Microsoft reported earlier today that Windows performs better with your PC shut off."
It's more secure anyway.
I would moderate this post as "insightful" not "funny".
Apple could offer a choice for people that want to use Windows, of course, they would charge $50 more (or how much the Windows costs) and would direct any support questions to Microsoft. That's nothing bad in that, I'm sure there will be people interested to pay more for a shitty OS, but it's not my job to judge them, nor Apple's.
By the way, Apple doesn't lose money if Microsoft makes more money, if both Apple and Microsoft make more money they would do it.
Dvorak is called idiot by many people around, however I like that he judge things without preconceived ideas -- that's not a bad thing at all.
Simple proposal: if that's true let's not use Skype and Intel products. Why should we uses cripled products when we have better choices?
The pessimist says: damn, I hit rock bottom, it can get any worse...
The optimist replies: yes, it can.
"But since Apple wants their store to be the only one truly compatible with their device, Microsoft has no choice."
In other words Apple is just as evil as Microsoft.
The man makes a confusion between what something is and what we do about it.
I think we can talk about ideas and qualify them: bad, good, dangerous, etc without bringing into discusion what we do about them: ban, interdict, promote, etc.
If we can't discuss and qualify ideas because we are afraid people or society will start to interdict then we are doing exactly what we are afraid of....
11) Stop being evil.
That would contradict their mission statement.
Why would people pay so large amounts if they could get the same thing for free...
With $24,000 you can buy a nice car or make a basic annual salary in US. The question is why people are not able to get sufficient counseling for that ammount?
I'm not a communist but I would like to believe that people should be able to defend their rights for much less than their all their fortune. Actually what is the use (fairness) of a legal system that allow only rich people win?
Well I guess I should have read the article before I made the comment.
You know, I recognize myself in the mirror not because how I look but because I see the mirror image moving like I'm thinking I'm moving.
If you think about it, when you looked first time in the mirror there was no "pattern recognition" since you didn't know how you look but you realize that's you from the movement of the image. I'm pretty much sure the robot if you paint it or you paste some stickers on it, it will not be able to say "hey that's me, that image is doing what I'm doing"
You have to understand though that Time gives the title of "person of the year" not on the ground of merit but on the ground of impact on the World. Widows donating money they can't spare don't really have such a big impact.
I'm curious. How can you know whether the code is clean, if it's closed source?"
Actually pretty similar to how we know that Windows code is not clean. You don't always need to see the code to know if a program was well programmed or not (that's what I think he meant)
"When my windows box crashes, I reboot it, without knowing why. I could probably eliminate some steps between boot, crash, and reboot too..."
That's while chimps already switched to Linux.
try http://search.yahoo.com/ if you don't want the whole portal
People are entitled to opinion if only "profesionals" would be allowed to talk than you'd find that you cannot open you mouth to say almost anything. People will say: Hey aren't you a coder? Maybe you should not talk about politics, you have no clue about movies, etc.
But I do agree that this is arrogance (and it's even worse when it comes for somebody who doesn't get the point himself).
So you're saying if this guy were in a car accident and wanted to die you should let him, even with his high chance of recovery and even though he will probably be happy to be alive later?"
;-)
It's interesting that you use this impersonal example "a guy who had accident".
I use a clear and personal example exactly because I don't want to take decisions for somebody else life: so, if *I* had a car accident and *I* wanted to die (no matter what chances of healing I would have) or even better example if I didn't had any car accident, but I wanted to die -- I would not appreciate you or anyone else, especially the state, to intervene in my decision in any direction (or Dr. K. for that matter and here we are on the same page, so let's finish with a common point
"I don't know if these people really wanted to die or not. "
And yet you have a very clear idea who is guilty and who is not. I don't know either, I'm only saying if they wanted to die than he's not guilty in my eyes, if they didn't than he's guilty (not that I care too much about him, I think we discussed too much the guy).
but I don't think it's right to kill people when there's a good chance that they will get better.
The issue is to let people take the decision for their own life. Even if one guy is 99.99% healthy if the guy wants to die I think you have no right to oppose it, it's he's decision to make. You can tell him to think over, you can give him advice, you can tell him nice stories about God and angels and how he's going to get to Hell if he commits suicide, but you have no right to force him to live. Now, how he ends his life, with or without help, or the title of the person who helps him, is a technicality.
The issue is clear, it's a matter of principle: I don't want the state, church or anyone else to take a decision in such a private, personal matter.
But they're dead - I can't ask them.
People express their wishes before they die. Only if they are in a comma they cannot but even then in some cases they have a will for that kind of situation.
Maybe you didn't read the whole thing. The whole quote was "If your friend wanted to die, would you hand him a 12-gauge? Would you pull the trigger for him? Or would you try to get him some help through his rough times?
The last line suggests that he will get better
So you take the liberty to torture somebody in the hope they would get better? You might be wrong too. Yes, it's sad if people are wrong in this kind of cases (btw, in case you did't know, we all die eventually) but it's THEIR responsibility it's not my, your or state's responsibility.
"Are you suggesting that people killed by American soldiers wanted to die?
By the way, even though soldiers are trained on how to kill, many of them never kill anyone. They're there to fight, not necessarily to kill. The Army is one of the largest employers in the US - if every soldier killed someone (or even if most of them did) there'd be a lot more people dying in Iraq."
No, I'm not suggesting that, I'm only making a comment on the usage of the word "killer" and its loaded meaning. Executioner in this case is probably better although it doens't completly alude to the fact that the death was asked by the "executed". Probably "suicide expert" as you put it is better.
"I also believe that executioners should be properly labeled. Dr. Kevorkian really wasn't a doctor at all - doctors try to heal their patients. I'd have no problem if he called himself a "suicide expert" or something - if he weren't in the news, how would I know that he kills his patients? What if I were in town and got in a bad car accident?"
So, you have problems with labels... that's like saying that a "cleaning person" cannot help catch a thief because it's not specified in the title. Well, for what is worth I wouldn't mind if there would be "suicide experts" around.
"I have a problem with a doctor killing people because as far as we know, some of these people might not have wanted to die and thought they were going to see a normal doctor."
I agree with you, if that's true. For this discussion I started from the assumption that they did want to die, since I don't know much about the case and facts I allowed myself to use an assumption. So for me it's pretty clear if they wanted to die the guy didn't do anything wrong (in my view, not in the law's view), if they didn't than he is a criminal who deserves to be punished.
I believe that if sucide would be permited and there would be specialized people around the sucide rate would fall down. Also, there would be a clear procedure that would show clearly what is the intent of the person without any reason of doubt.
There are other moral considerents that people don't consider always: why would somebody who doesn't want to live continue to consume resources when there are enough people in the world who die because of hunger or lack of medicines.