I can't help but think this guy got all hyped up because of an Apple conference and just had to gush over it in print. Not to sound flamish or trollish, but what he fails to take into account is that Linux is seldom sold pre-installed.
And that's precisely the point. It comes pre-installed on just about none of the manufacturers that someone's likely to buy a computer from. In order to get Linux on their new system, a user has to take the effort to load it. Most people won't do this, not because they are clueless or stupid, but because they see no reason to.
People generally buy the machine they want and then install linux post purchase. It is short sighted to only take sales into account when comparing OS use.
You're talking about a very specialized group - most people don't change the OS on their computers. I don't have any numbers to support this because the true number of Linux installations is not easily countable, but I would be willing to bet that the overwhelming number of people who buy a computer with a pre-loaded operating system will stick with that operating system throughout the life of the computer (upgrades and newer versions not withstanding). Until a major manufacturer preloads Linux it will remain a niche operating system.
Manufacturers count what OSs are being shipped because that's the only thing that's countable. How are they to know that the operating system has been replaced once it leaves their warehouse? Why should they care? They've sold it. It's out of their warehouse and they've gotten money for it. Yes, the hardware still has to be supported, but that's it as far as they are concerned. Once someone changes their OS, they're on their own...
As for Mac users, I really doubt that most of them give a second thought to what OSX is based upon. Sure, Apple has been touting OSX's Unix base, but why should most users care? The system does what they want, runs software that they either want or are used to using and that is that. Which is really how it should be anyway.
Not anymore. The US stopped being anything close to a democracy sometime last century. It's a neo-fascist state run by corporations.
No, it isn't. It's still a democracy. Decisions are made by those who vote - when only about a third of the population choose to spend the brief time necessary to vote, however, you get what they vote for.
That's the only way I can possibly think of to explain it, that he's never, every used a file cabinet, a computer, or even organized his own fucking sock drawer.
So what you're saying a process that automates something that one can do manually should never allowed to be patented? Does this mean that there should have been no patents issued for sewing machines because they did essentially the same thing as a seamstress did with a needle and thread?
Regardless of company policy, employee handbooks, or other such administrative nonsense, if a company wants to keep you, they will - kill the manager's wife, sleep with his dog, but if you're valuable, it'll be overlooked.
Any company that does this is setting themselves up for, at best, personnel problems or, at worst, a lawsuit.
Regardless of how good a person is differential treatment of employees is always a bad idea. Look at it this way: How would you feel if you and someone else break a company policy and you are written up while they get a "boys will be boys" and the matter obviously ignored? You wouldn't think "Well, if I was a better employee, I would get special treatment too.", would you? No, you'd find another employer and decide whether or not to talk to a lawyer.
"Tallying some votes" is easy. A PDA can do that. Registering peoples' votes is a bit more difficult. For instance:
Can your machine work in all precincts across the country, given that each one has different procedures and requirements for taking votes? Can it work in states that have access requirements? Large text requirements? Will it read the ballots to people who have vision problems? Will it be easy to use by people who have limited knowledge of the English language?
Remembering that the folks that work in the voting stations are volunteers and frequently have little to no previous experience with administering or troubleshooting computers, will your solution be problem free?
Will your solution survive the scrutiny of voters? The press? The courts? Are you willing to stand up in front of a Grand Jury if there is a perceived discrepancy between what your systems tallied and "real vote" based upon exit polls?
If it were only a matter of technology, this would have been solved long ago. Anybody building an election systems has to balance security, privacy, ease of use, ease of administration and, most importantly for the local governments that have to buy them, cost.
I'm not defending Diebold - far from it - you just have to realize that it may not be as easy as you think...
Unless you (we) stop voting for incumbents. Automatic term limits. No more entrenched power brokers, no more career politicians
You may have gotten rid of the career politicians, but you haven't gotten rid of the power. Ever notice how many politicians that are term-limited out of office go to work for political action committees or as consultants for large companies doing business with the government? Is this a surprise? Do you think that they would just go away quietly?
Institutional memory for a governing body has to lie somewhere - if it isn't in the politicians or their staffers, it will be in the people who *used* to be politicians or staffers. Moving it from the governing body by removing long-term members will just move it to people who are far less responsible to the public.
The power brokers will still be there, just as they've always been. They'll just move down the block to a better office.
My guess would be the fine line that Tivo walks between giving the users the flexibility that Tivo would like to and getting sued into extinction by the content providers. Programatically it would be a whole bunch easier for Tivo to drop the DRM stuff and just add functionality, but if they allowed or even partially supported free distibution of copyrighted material the vultures would be circling in an instant.
I'd like to ask the amatuer lawers here a question: Does the GPL (pick your version) have any standing in law? Lets say that Tivo decides to fully open the code and allow people to write any extensions they like. Someone writes some code that allows file copying beween the Tivo and any other device. Because its far easier to go after Tivo than the person who wrote the code, Tivo gets sued. Can they use adherence to the GPL in their defense?
What technology should I use if I want to make sure my video and photos of today is around for my great-grandchildren?
Since the chances are you're already shooting in a lossy format if you're using a consumer-grade camera anyway, does looking for a service to convert it into a lossless format make any sense?
I would just shoot it and save it as best you can based upon the technology available and what you can afford. The format is probably going to be radically different by the time that they'll be interested in looking at them and there'll always be somebody willing to convert an older format to the latest format.
Burger King, Wendy's and Subway - all make considerable money by offering food that *isn't* handled in a robotic way. Your beliefs are warped by working at McDonalds, which makes its money on absolute conformity and discourages special orders.
I don't have any "beliefs" from working at McDonalds, just a little bit better understanding than most of how the process works. Just because someone allows variation in the ingredients doesn't mean that the process is any less of an assembly line. Burger King doesn't cook the hamburgers when you order it, they assemble and place dressing on an already cooked sandwitch. Watch the way that Subway, works - order, bun, meat, dressing, topping, wrap, present order and take money - that's an assembly line. Why do they do it this way? Efficiency and cost-savings. Just about any high-volume restaurant works the same way. Which is the way that the customers seem to like it.
Actually - thats not quite correct. McDonald's openly solicts *new* menu and system items from the franchises - both the Quarter Pounder and the McFish came from franchisees. (So did the drive-through window.) What you aren't allowed to do is to change existing menu items.
You're correct, but the changes that they do allow are also very restricted and usually are for regional or international differences rather than just allowing experimenting. It would be highly unlikely that you will find two stores on different blocks with even minor differences in their menu.
There should have been little surprise at that outcome - as McDonalds has been 'training' it's customers to behave that way for decades.
This isn't any recent phenomenon - I worked there in the 70's - and it isn't specific to McDonalds. Other fast food restaurants do pretty much the same thing, it's just that the selection is just a bit wider.
Fast food service is nothing but robotic work already, and that's the way the chains like it.
I hate to break it to you, but the reason that it's so robotic isn't because the chains like it that way, it's because customers prefer it that way.
One of the reasons that fast food chains were so popular in the beginning was because the food was prepared the same way no matter where someone went. It might not have been the greatest food on earth, but it was consistent. It's much the same way today - otherwise, why would fast food restaurants stay so popular? There are thousands of places to eat when traveling, so why would people go to Burger King, Wendys, KFC (whatever that means nowdays) or any other fast food place when there are far better places to eat?
When I worked at McDonalds a bunch of years ago, our manager decided to change the menu a little: we would put lettuce on hamburgers, Mac sauce on Filets, anything that the customer wanted. Some customers loved it. McDonalds hated it. Most customers ordered exactly what they were used to. McDonalds eventually heard about it and clamped down (changes to their menu were forbidden in the franchise agreement).
Were customers happer about the change? It didn't seem so. They seemed more confused than anything - they knew what they wanted when they came in and they weren't really thinking about what they wanted on it.
Most Americans have no idea there was a time when politicians were regular old joes and the president walked out of the white house and down the street alone, shaking hands and talking to anyone who bothered to greet him.
Most Americans have no idea that politicians were "regular old joes" because they never were. Populist pretentions aside, people who get into public office above dog catcher aren't "old joes". If they were, they would never have gotten into voted in in the first place.
The only reason that presidents used be able to walk down the street alone was because none of them had been killed yet. The assinations of Presidents McKinley and Kennedy and the attempts on Presidents Truman, Reagan and Ford are a strong argument against any U.S. President walking down the street alone.
Linux adoption has been growing, but very slowly. Why do you think that this is the case? What are, in your point of view, the roadblocks to Linux becoming a serious contender for the desktop at home and in the corporate enviroment and how do you plan to address them?
They're in the same place as $.50/per gallon gas (the price when I started driving), gas wars, a gallon of milk for less than a dollar and penny candy, the US $2.00/hr minimum wage and doctor house calls. They only exist "remember when" chain e-mails.
The USPS didn't make more money because the cost of anything went down. They just got more efficient.
Interesting that you didn't add "or use OpenOffice or another other open source solution" to your hypothetical question. If OpenOffice was really considered a potential option to MS Office, why would someone pirate MS Office when there was something "better"?
In a pure democracy, the populace decides all matters. In a republic or in a representative democracy, voters don't vote directly on matters that affect them - they elect people to represent them in governing bodies. In the US there are some exceptions, such as Propositions in California, but these are state-wide or local issues, not national ones.
It may be too much to ask, but do you think that you could elevate the discussion a bit by presenting information to support your assertion that the GP is incorrect?
But really, we have government regulation to thank for our laughable phone and data networks. By trying to encourage phone companies to lay out phone wire where it would not be profitable in the 40s and 50s, we granted them monopolies, and now they've become as poorly managed as the airlines.
I would say that the telcos are managed quite well. They're maximizing shareholder revenue, just as any non-private corporation should be.
This is the difference between a government-run monopoly and a private-sector monopoly. Governments do things for "the public good" - companies don't have to. Government monopolies already have government backing. Private sector ones have to obtain it. Without guarantees of long-term profitability, do you think that the telcos are going to interested in spending the money and jumping through the regulatory and planning hurdles that will be placed in their way by every municipality that wants a cut of the action?
Besides, Just because slashdotters want high-speed connections that doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the cable/phone/wireless-buying public does nor does it mean that will pay for it even if it is offerred.
stand behind someone with a cartload of things when I just want to buy some break and milk.
If I see someone behind me with just a couple of things, I always wave them forward to go in front of me. I'm very seldom in so much of a hurry that I have to get out first.
I'd rather deal with a computer then a person, especially a rude/dumb person. Doesn't most of Slashdot feel that way?
No, I'd much rather deal with a person than a computer. Which may or may not make me different from most Slashdotters. Computers won't notice that the milk carton is leaking, won't replace fruit because they noticed that it's bruised nor will they find the one cracked egg that you didn't see in the egg carton. They can't commisserate with you when your favorite team lost again, share a laugh about the weather or do anything that is in any way outside of what they're set up to do.
You may get annoyed from time to time with a clerk, but you'll never, ever, get a smile from a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's precisely the point. It comes pre-installed on just about none of the manufacturers that someone's likely to buy a computer from. In order to get Linux on their new system, a user has to take the effort to load it. Most people won't do this, not because they are clueless or stupid, but because they see no reason to.
People generally buy the machine they want and then install linux post purchase. It is short sighted to only take sales into account when comparing OS use.
You're talking about a very specialized group - most people don't change the OS on their computers. I don't have any numbers to support this because the true number of Linux installations is not easily countable, but I would be willing to bet that the overwhelming number of people who buy a computer with a pre-loaded operating system will stick with that operating system throughout the life of the computer (upgrades and newer versions not withstanding). Until a major manufacturer preloads Linux it will remain a niche operating system.
Manufacturers count what OSs are being shipped because that's the only thing that's countable. How are they to know that the operating system has been replaced once it leaves their warehouse? Why should they care? They've sold it. It's out of their warehouse and they've gotten money for it. Yes, the hardware still has to be supported, but that's it as far as they are concerned. Once someone changes their OS, they're on their own...
As for Mac users, I really doubt that most of them give a second thought to what OSX is based upon. Sure, Apple has been touting OSX's Unix base, but why should most users care? The system does what they want, runs software that they either want or are used to using and that is that. Which is really how it should be anyway.
No, it isn't. It's still a democracy. Decisions are made by those who vote - when only about a third of the population choose to spend the brief time necessary to vote, however, you get what they vote for.
Nah, it just gives something to point at and laugh...
So what you're saying a process that automates something that one can do manually should never allowed to be patented? Does this mean that there should have been no patents issued for sewing machines because they did essentially the same thing as a seamstress did with a needle and thread?
Any company that does this is setting themselves up for, at best, personnel problems or, at worst, a lawsuit.
Regardless of how good a person is differential treatment of employees is always a bad idea. Look at it this way: How would you feel if you and someone else break a company policy and you are written up while they get a "boys will be boys" and the matter obviously ignored? You wouldn't think "Well, if I was a better employee, I would get special treatment too.", would you? No, you'd find another employer and decide whether or not to talk to a lawyer.
Can your machine work in all precincts across the country, given that each one has different procedures and requirements for taking votes? Can it work in states that have access requirements? Large text requirements? Will it read the ballots to people who have vision problems? Will it be easy to use by people who have limited knowledge of the English language?
Remembering that the folks that work in the voting stations are volunteers and frequently have little to no previous experience with administering or troubleshooting computers, will your solution be problem free?
Will your solution survive the scrutiny of voters? The press? The courts? Are you willing to stand up in front of a Grand Jury if there is a perceived discrepancy between what your systems tallied and "real vote" based upon exit polls?
If it were only a matter of technology, this would have been solved long ago. Anybody building an election systems has to balance security, privacy, ease of use, ease of administration and, most importantly for the local governments that have to buy them, cost.
I'm not defending Diebold - far from it - you just have to realize that it may not be as easy as you think...
Or maybe that's just what Aurora called the model...
The operative word there is "profit". Profit is the motive - vice is merely the easiest way to achieve it.
If you have problems with that approach, I have a set of insulated wire cutters that are 100% effective in shutting down systems...
You may have gotten rid of the career politicians, but you haven't gotten rid of the power. Ever notice how many politicians that are term-limited out of office go to work for political action committees or as consultants for large companies doing business with the government? Is this a surprise? Do you think that they would just go away quietly?
Institutional memory for a governing body has to lie somewhere - if it isn't in the politicians or their staffers, it will be in the people who *used* to be politicians or staffers. Moving it from the governing body by removing long-term members will just move it to people who are far less responsible to the public.
The power brokers will still be there, just as they've always been. They'll just move down the block to a better office.
I'd like to ask the amatuer lawers here a question: Does the GPL (pick your version) have any standing in law? Lets say that Tivo decides to fully open the code and allow people to write any extensions they like. Someone writes some code that allows file copying beween the Tivo and any other device. Because its far easier to go after Tivo than the person who wrote the code, Tivo gets sued. Can they use adherence to the GPL in their defense?
I don't live in Urbia, you insensitive clod!
Since the chances are you're already shooting in a lossy format if you're using a consumer-grade camera anyway, does looking for a service to convert it into a lossless format make any sense?
I would just shoot it and save it as best you can based upon the technology available and what you can afford. The format is probably going to be radically different by the time that they'll be interested in looking at them and there'll always be somebody willing to convert an older format to the latest format.
I don't have any "beliefs" from working at McDonalds, just a little bit better understanding than most of how the process works. Just because someone allows variation in the ingredients doesn't mean that the process is any less of an assembly line. Burger King doesn't cook the hamburgers when you order it, they assemble and place dressing on an already cooked sandwitch. Watch the way that Subway, works - order, bun, meat, dressing, topping, wrap, present order and take money - that's an assembly line. Why do they do it this way? Efficiency and cost-savings. Just about any high-volume restaurant works the same way. Which is the way that the customers seem to like it.
Actually - thats not quite correct. McDonald's openly solicts *new* menu and system items from the franchises - both the Quarter Pounder and the McFish came from franchisees. (So did the drive-through window.) What you aren't allowed to do is to change existing menu items.
You're correct, but the changes that they do allow are also very restricted and usually are for regional or international differences rather than just allowing experimenting. It would be highly unlikely that you will find two stores on different blocks with even minor differences in their menu.
There should have been little surprise at that outcome - as McDonalds has been 'training' it's customers to behave that way for decades.
This isn't any recent phenomenon - I worked there in the 70's - and it isn't specific to McDonalds. Other fast food restaurants do pretty much the same thing, it's just that the selection is just a bit wider.
I hate to break it to you, but the reason that it's so robotic isn't because the chains like it that way, it's because customers prefer it that way.
One of the reasons that fast food chains were so popular in the beginning was because the food was prepared the same way no matter where someone went. It might not have been the greatest food on earth, but it was consistent. It's much the same way today - otherwise, why would fast food restaurants stay so popular? There are thousands of places to eat when traveling, so why would people go to Burger King, Wendys, KFC (whatever that means nowdays) or any other fast food place when there are far better places to eat?
When I worked at McDonalds a bunch of years ago, our manager decided to change the menu a little: we would put lettuce on hamburgers, Mac sauce on Filets, anything that the customer wanted. Some customers loved it. McDonalds hated it. Most customers ordered exactly what they were used to. McDonalds eventually heard about it and clamped down (changes to their menu were forbidden in the franchise agreement).
Were customers happer about the change? It didn't seem so. They seemed more confused than anything - they knew what they wanted when they came in and they weren't really thinking about what they wanted on it.
5. Explain to them why none of the applications that they are used to using work any more (but the newer ones that you installed are so much better.)
6. Run Away!
Most Americans have no idea that politicians were "regular old joes" because they never were. Populist pretentions aside, people who get into public office above dog catcher aren't "old joes". If they were, they would never have gotten into voted in in the first place.
The only reason that presidents used be able to walk down the street alone was because none of them had been killed yet. The assinations of Presidents McKinley and Kennedy and the attempts on Presidents Truman, Reagan and Ford are a strong argument against any U.S. President walking down the street alone.
Linux adoption has been growing, but very slowly. Why do you think that this is the case? What are, in your point of view, the roadblocks to Linux becoming a serious contender for the desktop at home and in the corporate enviroment and how do you plan to address them?
The USPS didn't make more money because the cost of anything went down. They just got more efficient.
Or would they rather just "stick it to the man"?
In a pure democracy, the populace decides all matters. In a republic or in a representative democracy, voters don't vote directly on matters that affect them - they elect people to represent them in governing bodies. In the US there are some exceptions, such as Propositions in California, but these are state-wide or local issues, not national ones.
It may be too much to ask, but do you think that you could elevate the discussion a bit by presenting information to support your assertion that the GP is incorrect?
I would say that the telcos are managed quite well. They're maximizing shareholder revenue, just as any non-private corporation should be.
This is the difference between a government-run monopoly and a private-sector monopoly. Governments do things for "the public good" - companies don't have to. Government monopolies already have government backing. Private sector ones have to obtain it. Without guarantees of long-term profitability, do you think that the telcos are going to interested in spending the money and jumping through the regulatory and planning hurdles that will be placed in their way by every municipality that wants a cut of the action?
Besides, Just because slashdotters want high-speed connections that doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the cable/phone/wireless-buying public does nor does it mean that will pay for it even if it is offerred.
If I see someone behind me with just a couple of things, I always wave them forward to go in front of me. I'm very seldom in so much of a hurry that I have to get out first.
I'd rather deal with a computer then a person, especially a rude/dumb person. Doesn't most of Slashdot feel that way?
No, I'd much rather deal with a person than a computer. Which may or may not make me different from most Slashdotters. Computers won't notice that the milk carton is leaking, won't replace fruit because they noticed that it's bruised nor will they find the one cracked egg that you didn't see in the egg carton. They can't commisserate with you when your favorite team lost again, share a laugh about the weather or do anything that is in any way outside of what they're set up to do.
You may get annoyed from time to time with a clerk, but you'll never, ever, get a smile from a computer.
Oh, sorry, I forgot where I was. Nintendo can do no wrong. Everything Nintendo says is true. Ignorance is strength.