These men died (rightly or wrongly) in service to their country. It is incredibly disrespectful to use them as a public spectacle to promote an agenda of any kind.
Absolutely, 100% agreed. However, I think it is the
hypocrisy of the Bush administration taking such a position that upset people. I mean, they OBVIOUSLY have no problem exploiting emotional, potentially upsetting images to promote THEIR agenda, but cry foul when "the other side" wants to do it?
How would you feel if a new Campaign Finance law came down saying people couldn't donate their time, because the free labor was essentially 'buying' votes.
I think the main difference between this scenario and banning $$ donations is that everyone has the same amount of time in a day. You can't donate 28 hours today, while I am limited to only 24. Now, other factors may mean that you can more easily donate 10 hours a day, whereas I will have to quit my third job and quit sleeping to donate 10 hours a day, but it is at least theoretically possible for us to donate equally.
$$ donations, however, are not limited like this. Speech == money is flawed in that the people with more money get more speech == more say in the process. The basic premise of the elective system (at least in US) is that every person has an equal say, my vote counts just as much as yours. This isn't really true, on anything more than the most simple level, but the ideal is still there. Saying money == speech implicitly states that more money means your opinion carries more weight than mine. I'm not saying money as speech is necessarily wrong; like you say, there are valid arguments for it, but there are also valid arguments against it.
So, is [peaceful civilizatoin] only a thin sugar-coated layer on our 'instinctive' agressive impulses, as you seem to think? Or is it a more profound change in attitude? Only time will tell, but, as yet, things seem to improve steadily, in this respect
I think a huge contributing factor to the current level of civility in society at large is the advancement in technology. Technology has brought unprecedented levels of prosperity to the world. Which means fewer people are desperate, which means they have less motivation to behave aggressively. And for those people that are just naturally aggressive (you know, the typical kind that tends to rise to a position of political/military/economic power), they now have much more to lose by being reckless. Also, the much more dire consequences of war today will give pause to any but the insane.
So, as long as the trend of prosperity continues, so will the trend of peace. However, I suspect that if vital resources (food, water, energy, land) become scarce, we will see a resurgence of violence as people resort to their basic urges in an effort to gain their basic necessities.
Yep. A nice list of executive orders can be found here. I realize the rest of the page is a bit paranoid sounding, but this is a pretty good list to get you started on objective research.
Librarys do it differently; the books cost a hell of a lot more, as you'll know if you've ever lost one.
I used to work in a University library at the circulation desk; we paid the same price as everyone else did for books (we actually ordered a lot from Amazon). The expensive fine we charged for losing a book included:
cost of the book
cost of processing - cataloguing, adding anti-theft measures, adding call #, etc.
big "discourage you from being careless w/ our books" fine
I don't think the argument is between tax cuts vs. no tax cuts, but rather, does it benefit the economy more to give tax cuts to the poor, or the rich (given that tax cuts are gonna happen)?
Rich people investing their money leads to unemployed people getting jobs, as the companies invested in use the money to expand their businesses and purchase goods and services
We both agree that consumption is what drives an economy; I think bottom-up consumption will do more than top-down. Instead of poor people buying food vs. rich people buying yachts, think 50,000 poor people buying TVs, DVD players, name brand clothes, common "luxury" goods vs. 500 rich people buying yachts, gold-topped walking sticks, true "luxury" goods, etc. It seems to me that the greater distribution of the wealth (and thus stronger economy) will come from the greater number of poor people consuming.
As to the investment argument, an increase in consumption will guarantee investment in that market. Look at China. Increasing an affluent person's ability to invest in markets will not guarantee such investment occurs, only increase its likelihood.
There is no fraud going on here; it is not illegal to make a big profit.
Ah, but (in the U.S., at least) it is illegal to make a greater profit during times of war or crisis than you were before the war/crisis. It's called profiteering.
I remember people in Florida during the last big hurricane (Floyd, maybe) that were prosecuted for selling things like generators at inflated prices. If the oil companies are truly making greater* profits now than they were before Katrina or Iraq, how is this different.?
* I don't know what the oil companies' actual profit margins are, I am responding to the GP's assertion.
But they DO give something useful back to society. They get some kids out into the open air doing something physical.
True, that's a good point.
"I think that in the long run, encouraging the sort of person that decides jumping the Great Wall on a skateboard is doable will benefit society in the long run."
yeah, I noticed that after I hit submit. I should learn to type the whole sentence, then go back and cut/paste the URL into the tag, breaking a train of thought in the middle is a good way to make silly mistakes.
Or maybe, this was my subconscious way of saying in the really, really long run:)
I realize you are a troll, but while I wait for our load process to run, I got nothing better to do...
It is true that some people allow obsession w/ sports to dominate their time and minds, essentially "sucking intelligence" out of them. However, I think it is a mistake to say that people that push the boundaries of human endeavor (yes, including skateboarding) contribute nothing to society. This spirit of adventure is a crucial ingredient to the success of our species. I forget who said it, but a Sci-Fi author I once read said something to the effect that many of mankinds most notable achievements have come long after reason should have convinced us to give up.
So, while there might not be any use to society in skateboarding, I think that in the long run, encouraging the sort of person that decides jumping the Great Wall on a skateboard is doable will benefit society in the long run.
Interesting. I think I like that more than my earlier explanation of omniscience, but I will definitely have to think about it a while before reaching (if ever) any conclusions.
Yeah, the contradiction inherent in an omniscient God and us having free-will is as big as the contradiction between omnipotence and omnibenevolence. The most reasonable response I have heard is that (again) there is a common misconception as to what God's omniscience really means. He doesn't exactly know the future the way I know how Die Hard 2 ends. Rather, He knows what you or I will choose to do the same way you or I know what a starving dog will do when you throw a T-Bone in front of it. Of course, God has an infinite intelligence, capable of storing and processing an infinite amount of data about every human being on the planet, along with every molecule and how they are all interacting w/ each other at any given time, so He can make much more subtle judgements and predictions about our behavior than we can about the dog. So, his "knowledge" about me doesn't really extend to whether I am going to mistype the next word or not: he can compute the probability (He's pretty good at statistics:), but not know for certain. Then again, He isn't concerned with mundane trivia, only the stuff that impacts our souls.
So, yeah, I am saying that the traditional view of
God's omniscience and omnipotence are incorrect, mostly BECAUSE they are a) absurd and b) obviously incompatible w/ the idea that God is anything other than a sadistic monster when you look at reality. Of course, if God really were omnipotent, omniscient, and a sadistic bastard, he could come up with something a lot worse than what we've got. So you have a God that is either not sadistic, or not omnipotent and omniscience in the traditional sense. He might not be omnibenevolent in the traditional sense, either. However, the observed reality can be explained by limits on his knowledge and power that must logically exist (b/c if they don't, the world would either be better or worse, depending on His attitude), so the omnibenevolent theory is not demonstrably false, whereas the omniscient and omnipotent theories are.
Of course, none of this postulation addresses the idea of God not existing, or God being completely indifferent to Man, both of which also adequately explain the observed phenomenon. It is simply a framework that provides for the possibility of a benevolent God in the face of undeniable evil on Earth.
The best I have ever heard the idea of an omnibenevolent God explained was by a Jewish religious philosophy professor. It is tied up w/ a misunderstanding a lot of people have about omnipotence. Namely, God CAN NOT do anything. He can only do that which is logically possible.
For instance, He can not make a married bachelor. Just isn't possible, such a thing can not exist, due to the definition of the two words. So, my professor went on to explain, God can't both give Man freewill, and also costantly intefere in Man's life. This inncludes sheltering people from their own (or other's) poor decisions, sheltering people from the world around them, etc.
So, from this we can conclude that God allows bad things to happen to good people b/c otherwise He would not be able to allow us free will. Presumably, free will is a greater good than not being trampled, or drowned, or what have you.
Of course, I'll admit the perceived phenomenon of bad things happening to good people could also be explained by an indifferent or non-existant or even malicious God. However, it is also not completely incompatible w/ the idea of a benevolent God.
In this context, there is essentially no difference between "hardiness" and ability to survive.
Well, that is pretty much the crux of the disagreement. I guess we would have to have the original poster elucidate to be sure, but the way I interpret his statement, he is NOT using "hardiness" as a synonym for "ability to survive". As in my example. I don't think very many people would say that a specimen that can't process vital nutrients out of food is hardier than a specimen that can; quite the opposite. However (and this is what I think the whole point was), this less hardy specimen has a possibly GREATER ability to survive in today's society, due to the somewhat artificial nature of the evolutionary pressures we have created for ourselves.
You should be careful about what is obvious and what is not. Maybe it is my inferior intellect, but I find the things that are "obvious" are most often simply more complex than I initially thought. But again, I'm sure a smart cookie like you doesn't have to worry about that:)
Wow, someone gets quite cranky when his own words are thrown in his face. If you look at the parts of YOUR comment and HIS comment that I quoted, it is pretty obvious that what YOU paraphrased is NOT what he said, the contextual meaning is slightly different. He makes NO reference to money's impact on a gene's survival, merely on it's lack of impact on a gene's "hardiness". See, in the context of the thread, and the rest of his comment, he is saying that a gene for, say, transmuting lead into gold that also caused the person to be unable to properly break down protein would have, in the past, been contra-survival. You would probably not survive to procreate. Today, however, with the advances in modern medicine, having unlimited wealth overly compensates for a natural inability to break down protein. You can buy drugs that will enable you to live, and the extra wealth will allow for lots of procreation opportunities that a poor person that can break down protein just fine will not have.
But, I'm sure this is all obvious, since you are smarter than me. I mean, you said it twice and all, it must be true.:)
GP:"Whether you have more money or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether your 'genes' are hardy enough to survive, propogate and evolve."
P:How you can claim money "has absolutely nothing" to do genes surviving is really beyond me.
How you got that "money has absolutely nothing to do with genes surviving" from his statement that "money...has absolutely nothing to do with whether your genes are hardy enough to survive..." is really beyond me. In fact, your assertion about money==better resources [for survival] SUPPORTS his implication that more money = survival in the modern age, which means that money has replaced the historical evolutionary criteria for survival.
I suggest you actually know something about computers before you start messing with linux.
And that, Mr. Anonymous Coward, is exactly the "advice" that makes casual computer users think of Linux as "Too hard" and stick with Windows. I hope you don't post to help forums...
Yeah, I had a film professor once that said (paraphrasing) "All the movies we will watch this semester are 'good' movies. I don't want to hear anyone complain about how they didn't 'enjoy' one. That says more about your knowledge and appreciation of film than it does about these movies. If you don't like Picasso's artwork, do you think it is b/c he is a 'bad' painter?"
GP:Just got ditched by your Belgian girlfriend or what did we deserve this statement for?
At least we got good-tasting beer that can help you feel less bad about whatever is bothering you:-)
P:American beer is about the same as the 'yellow water' that comes out of a Republican Elephant when you threaten it with a military draft
I realize that bashing America is fun (hey, I do it, and I'm American!), and I can even appreciate a good non-sequitur, BUT...
Why are you responding to a Belgian's boast about his country's beer with an attack on America's beer?? I'll never understand women...
I admit, most of my knowledge of Taoism comes from The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet, but I have studied Chrisianity ever since I could read. As in, I have read what Christ said in the bible, pondered it in terms of my own inborn morality, inborn logic, and compared the answers I came up with to what I was being taught in the Southern Baptist Church... heh.
Anyway, my point is that I completely agree. To me, Christ' teachings sum up as "Love everybody to the best of your ability" and "Forgive people that fuck up (turn the other cheek)". That sounds a lot like "Be nice and go with the flow", which is my grasp of Taoism.
Nah, I run Suse at home, I set my mom's machine to automatic update (she just uses Outlook and FireFox, so there isn't too much updates are going to break). My work machine I update manually once a week, which is from where I know the details of updating a'la Microsoft. I'm just saying I can understand where some people might be overly suspicious/understandably reluctant to jump through the hoops MS has placed in the way of updating.
My rant is not against MS. It's against people (supposedly people with knowledge) don't take the time to update their systems.
I'm sure that a large # of non-updaters are simply not updating thru laziness, or lack of knowledge. However, Microsoft has to get some of the blame here. You can't download updates/patches in any browser other than IE, which my mom doesn't know how to access, now that I "replaced" it with FF on her machine (yes, I know it is still there, but she doesn't, and I don't want to tell her). In order to download updates, you have to install the Genuine Advantage tool, which explicitly states that once installed, cannot be removed, which throws a red-flag for me (what if it breaks something critical?) If you go the automatic route, Microsoft so conveniently clutters your machine with updates and patches that you don't want/need.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't update their systems, and Microsoft has done a good job of "pushing updates in the users' throats" w/ SP2. I guess my point is that I wouldn't be surprised if sometimes, it is in fact the people with a little* knowledge that hesitate to update their systems.
* Enough to be wary of MS, but not enough to run a different OS;-)
Slashdot Mirror
These men died (rightly or wrongly) in service to their country. It is incredibly disrespectful to use them as a public spectacle to promote an agenda of any kind.
Absolutely, 100% agreed. However, I think it is the hypocrisy of the Bush administration taking such a position that upset people. I mean, they OBVIOUSLY have no problem exploiting emotional, potentially upsetting images to promote THEIR agenda, but cry foul when "the other side" wants to do it?
How would you feel if a new Campaign Finance law came down saying people couldn't donate their time, because the free labor was essentially 'buying' votes.
I think the main difference between this scenario and banning $$ donations is that everyone has the same amount of time in a day. You can't donate 28 hours today, while I am limited to only 24. Now, other factors may mean that you can more easily donate 10 hours a day, whereas I will have to quit my third job and quit sleeping to donate 10 hours a day, but it is at least theoretically possible for us to donate equally.
$$ donations, however, are not limited like this. Speech == money is flawed in that the people with more money get more speech == more say in the process. The basic premise of the elective system (at least in US) is that every person has an equal say, my vote counts just as much as yours. This isn't really true, on anything more than the most simple level, but the ideal is still there. Saying money == speech implicitly states that more money means your opinion carries more weight than mine. I'm not saying money as speech is necessarily wrong; like you say, there are valid arguments for it, but there are also valid arguments against it.
So, is [peaceful civilizatoin] only a thin sugar-coated layer on our 'instinctive' agressive impulses, as you seem to think? Or is it a more profound change in attitude? Only time will tell, but, as yet, things seem to improve steadily, in this respect
I think a huge contributing factor to the current level of civility in society at large is the advancement in technology. Technology has brought unprecedented levels of prosperity to the world. Which means fewer people are desperate, which means they have less motivation to behave aggressively. And for those people that are just naturally aggressive (you know, the typical kind that tends to rise to a position of political/military/economic power), they now have much more to lose by being reckless. Also, the much more dire consequences of war today will give pause to any but the insane.
So, as long as the trend of prosperity continues, so will the trend of peace. However, I suspect that if vital resources (food, water, energy, land) become scarce, we will see a resurgence of violence as people resort to their basic urges in an effort to gain their basic necessities.
my $0.02
You do realize you can't prove a negative.
Prove it.
Yep. A nice list of executive orders can be found here. I realize the rest of the page is a bit paranoid sounding, but this is a pretty good list to get you started on objective research.
Librarys do it differently; the books cost a hell of a lot more, as you'll know if you've ever lost one.
I used to work in a University library at the circulation desk; we paid the same price as everyone else did for books (we actually ordered a lot from Amazon). The expensive fine we charged for losing a book included:
cost of the book
cost of processing - cataloguing, adding anti-theft measures, adding call #, etc.
big "discourage you from being careless w/ our books" fine
You can't cut taxes for the poor. They don't pay any income taxes in the first place, since by definition they don't have any money
I replied seriously to an earlier post of yours. In my defense, it was a much better Troll than this one.
I don't think the argument is between tax cuts vs. no tax cuts, but rather, does it benefit the economy more to give tax cuts to the poor, or the rich (given that tax cuts are gonna happen)?
Rich people investing their money leads to unemployed people getting jobs, as the companies invested in use the money to expand their businesses and purchase goods and services
We both agree that consumption is what drives an economy; I think bottom-up consumption will do more than top-down. Instead of poor people buying food vs. rich people buying yachts, think 50,000 poor people buying TVs, DVD players, name brand clothes, common "luxury" goods vs. 500 rich people buying yachts, gold-topped walking sticks, true "luxury" goods, etc. It seems to me that the greater distribution of the wealth (and thus stronger economy) will come from the greater number of poor people consuming.
As to the investment argument, an increase in consumption will guarantee investment in that market. Look at China. Increasing an affluent person's ability to invest in markets will not guarantee such investment occurs, only increase its likelihood.
There is no fraud going on here; it is not illegal to make a big profit.
Ah, but (in the U.S., at least) it is illegal to make a greater profit during times of war or crisis than you were before the war/crisis. It's called profiteering. I remember people in Florida during the last big hurricane (Floyd, maybe) that were prosecuted for selling things like generators at inflated prices. If the oil companies are truly making greater* profits now than they were before Katrina or Iraq, how is this different.?
* I don't know what the oil companies' actual profit margins are, I am responding to the GP's assertion.
Yes, they were also behind the fake moon landings, and are really Halliburton's Seattle office.
We should call Congress immediately!!!
But they DO give something useful back to society. They get some kids out into the open air doing something physical.
:)
True, that's a good point.
"I think that in the long run, encouraging the sort of person that decides jumping the Great Wall on a skateboard is doable will benefit society in the long run."
yeah, I noticed that after I hit submit. I should learn to type the whole sentence, then go back and cut/paste the URL into the tag, breaking a train of thought in the middle is a good way to make silly mistakes.
Or maybe, this was my subconscious way of saying in the really, really long run
I think you meant TLD :)
I realize you are a troll, but while I wait for our load process to run, I got nothing better to do...
It is true that some people allow obsession w/ sports to dominate their time and minds, essentially "sucking intelligence" out of them. However, I think it is a mistake to say that people that push the boundaries of human endeavor (yes, including skateboarding) contribute nothing to society. This spirit of adventure is a crucial ingredient to the success of our species. I forget who said it, but a Sci-Fi author I once read said something to the effect that many of mankinds most notable achievements have come long after reason should have convinced us to give up.
So, while there might not be any use to society in skateboarding, I think that in the long run, encouraging the sort of person that decides jumping the Great Wall on a skateboard is doable will benefit society in the long run.
Interesting. I think I like that more than my earlier explanation of omniscience, but I will definitely have to think about it a while before reaching (if ever) any conclusions.
Thanks for the food for thought.
Yeah, the contradiction inherent in an omniscient God and us having free-will is as big as the contradiction between omnipotence and omnibenevolence. The most reasonable response I have heard is that (again) there is a common misconception as to what God's omniscience really means. He doesn't exactly know the future the way I know how Die Hard 2 ends. Rather, He knows what you or I will choose to do the same way you or I know what a starving dog will do when you throw a T-Bone in front of it. Of course, God has an infinite intelligence, capable of storing and processing an infinite amount of data about every human being on the planet, along with every molecule and how they are all interacting w/ each other at any given time, so He can make much more subtle judgements and predictions about our behavior than we can about the dog. So, his "knowledge" about me doesn't really extend to whether I am going to mistype the next word or not: he can compute the probability (He's pretty good at statistics :), but not know for certain. Then again, He isn't concerned with mundane trivia, only the stuff that impacts our souls.
So, yeah, I am saying that the traditional view of God's omniscience and omnipotence are incorrect, mostly BECAUSE they are a) absurd and b) obviously incompatible w/ the idea that God is anything other than a sadistic monster when you look at reality. Of course, if God really were omnipotent, omniscient, and a sadistic bastard, he could come up with something a lot worse than what we've got. So you have a God that is either not sadistic, or not omnipotent and omniscience in the traditional sense. He might not be omnibenevolent in the traditional sense, either. However, the observed reality can be explained by limits on his knowledge and power that must logically exist (b/c if they don't, the world would either be better or worse, depending on His attitude), so the omnibenevolent theory is not demonstrably false, whereas the omniscient and omnipotent theories are.
Of course, none of this postulation addresses the idea of God not existing, or God being completely indifferent to Man, both of which also adequately explain the observed phenomenon. It is simply a framework that provides for the possibility of a benevolent God in the face of undeniable evil on Earth.
The best I have ever heard the idea of an omnibenevolent God explained was by a Jewish religious philosophy professor. It is tied up w/ a misunderstanding a lot of people have about omnipotence. Namely, God CAN NOT do anything. He can only do that which is logically possible.
For instance, He can not make a married bachelor. Just isn't possible, such a thing can not exist, due to the definition of the two words. So, my professor went on to explain, God can't both give Man freewill, and also costantly intefere in Man's life. This inncludes sheltering people from their own (or other's) poor decisions, sheltering people from the world around them, etc.
So, from this we can conclude that God allows bad things to happen to good people b/c otherwise He would not be able to allow us free will. Presumably, free will is a greater good than not being trampled, or drowned, or what have you.
Of course, I'll admit the perceived phenomenon of bad things happening to good people could also be explained by an indifferent or non-existant or even malicious God. However, it is also not completely incompatible w/ the idea of a benevolent God.
In this context, there is essentially no difference between "hardiness" and ability to survive.
:)
Well, that is pretty much the crux of the disagreement. I guess we would have to have the original poster elucidate to be sure, but the way I interpret his statement, he is NOT using "hardiness" as a synonym for "ability to survive". As in my example. I don't think very many people would say that a specimen that can't process vital nutrients out of food is hardier than a specimen that can; quite the opposite. However (and this is what I think the whole point was), this less hardy specimen has a possibly GREATER ability to survive in today's society, due to the somewhat artificial nature of the evolutionary pressures we have created for ourselves.
You should be careful about what is obvious and what is not. Maybe it is my inferior intellect, but I find the things that are "obvious" are most often simply more complex than I initially thought. But again, I'm sure a smart cookie like you doesn't have to worry about that
Wow, someone gets quite cranky when his own words are thrown in his face. If you look at the parts of YOUR comment and HIS comment that I quoted, it is pretty obvious that what YOU paraphrased is NOT what he said, the contextual meaning is slightly different. He makes NO reference to money's impact on a gene's survival, merely on it's lack of impact on a gene's "hardiness". See, in the context of the thread, and the rest of his comment, he is saying that a gene for, say, transmuting lead into gold that also caused the person to be unable to properly break down protein would have, in the past, been contra-survival. You would probably not survive to procreate. Today, however, with the advances in modern medicine, having unlimited wealth overly compensates for a natural inability to break down protein. You can buy drugs that will enable you to live, and the extra wealth will allow for lots of procreation opportunities that a poor person that can break down protein just fine will not have. :)
But, I'm sure this is all obvious, since you are smarter than me. I mean, you said it twice and all, it must be true.
GP: "Whether you have more money or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether your 'genes' are hardy enough to survive, propogate and evolve."
P: How you can claim money "has absolutely nothing" to do genes surviving is really beyond me.
How you got that "money has absolutely nothing to do with genes surviving" from his statement that "money...has absolutely nothing to do with whether your genes are hardy enough to survive..." is really beyond me. In fact, your assertion about money==better resources [for survival] SUPPORTS his implication that more money = survival in the modern age, which means that money has replaced the historical evolutionary criteria for survival.
I suggest you actually know something about computers before you start messing with linux .
And that, Mr. Anonymous Coward, is exactly the "advice" that makes casual computer users think of Linux as "Too hard" and stick with Windows. I hope you don't post to help forums...
Yeah, I had a film professor once that said (paraphrasing) "All the movies we will watch this semester are 'good' movies. I don't want to hear anyone complain about how they didn't 'enjoy' one. That says more about your knowledge and appreciation of film than it does about these movies. If you don't like Picasso's artwork, do you think it is b/c he is a 'bad' painter?"
GP: Just got ditched by your Belgian girlfriend or what did we deserve this statement for? At least we got good-tasting beer that can help you feel less bad about whatever is bothering you :-)
P: American beer is about the same as the 'yellow water' that comes out of a Republican Elephant when you threaten it with a military draft
I realize that bashing America is fun (hey, I do it, and I'm American!), and I can even appreciate a good non-sequitur, BUT... Why are you responding to a Belgian's boast about his country's beer with an attack on America's beer?? I'll never understand women...
Christ himself was probabably a Taoist...
I admit, most of my knowledge of Taoism comes from The Tao of Pooh and The Te of Piglet, but I have studied Chrisianity ever since I could read. As in, I have read what Christ said in the bible, pondered it in terms of my own inborn morality, inborn logic, and compared the answers I came up with to what I was being taught in the Southern Baptist Church... heh.
Anyway, my point is that I completely agree. To me, Christ' teachings sum up as "Love everybody to the best of your ability" and "Forgive people that fuck up (turn the other cheek)". That sounds a lot like "Be nice and go with the flow", which is my grasp of Taoism.
Nah, I run Suse at home, I set my mom's machine to automatic update (she just uses Outlook and FireFox, so there isn't too much updates are going to break). My work machine I update manually once a week, which is from where I know the details of updating a'la Microsoft. I'm just saying I can understand where some people might be overly suspicious/understandably reluctant to jump through the hoops MS has placed in the way of updating.
My rant is not against MS. It's against people (supposedly people with knowledge) don't take the time to update their systems.
;-)
I'm sure that a large # of non-updaters are simply not updating thru laziness, or lack of knowledge. However, Microsoft has to get some of the blame here. You can't download updates/patches in any browser other than IE, which my mom doesn't know how to access, now that I "replaced" it with FF on her machine (yes, I know it is still there, but she doesn't, and I don't want to tell her). In order to download updates, you have to install the Genuine Advantage tool, which explicitly states that once installed, cannot be removed, which throws a red-flag for me (what if it breaks something critical?) If you go the automatic route, Microsoft so conveniently clutters your machine with updates and patches that you don't want/need.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't update their systems, and Microsoft has done a good job of "pushing updates in the users' throats" w/ SP2. I guess my point is that I wouldn't be surprised if sometimes, it is in fact the people with a little* knowledge that hesitate to update their systems.
* Enough to be wary of MS, but not enough to run a different OS