"Oh come on! Remember Florida? People can't operate the current voting system!"
But people do operate it. People give their faith to it, which legitimizes it. Florida was simply what people have wanted all along. People grew tired of voting their conscience, and so, they voted for the types of people who would engage in and support that type of thing.
"If "None of the above" won, then everybody on the ballot would be disqualified for one election cycle, and a new ballot (with new candidates) would have to be offered."
I like that idea. The problem is, which candidate do you think will work for getting that into place? Kerry? Bush?
A national referendum might do it, but then the democrats and republicans would simply rile their sheep and scare them with pictures of costly elections having to be done over and such, and the sheep will stay in the pasture they're fed in, thinking that their lesser of two evils is best.
"I would like to vote my conscience, so I'm voting for less evil. Who is that again?"
If that is what your conscience tells you to do, to vote for less evil, then do so. As for who is less, you are the only person that can answer that, as that is based on your on your own concept of right and wrong. Be true to yourself, and you'll know who to vote for.
"Well, judging from the other responses, everybody hates you."
They don't hate me, they have been programmed to think that way. I bear them no illwill. If anything, this is simply my karma, coming back to me. I accept it, I deserve those responses, because there was a time when I gave those responses.
"Of course, now that I think about it, that didn't work at all. The deficient declined, but that was only because the economy grew at such freakish rates for a while. Spending was barely controlled, and factory jobs have been disappearing for almost a decade. Never mind what I just said - I should have voted for George Bush and Bob Dole!"
If you're not joking, you're only fooling yourself if you think those things would have changed under GB or BD.
Let's look at republicans for a moment, shall we? Under Reagan, you had a democrat dominated congress. Who did the republicans blame for the debt and deficit? The democrats in congress. For years, I was one of them, believing all the lies that they told me, how debts were bad, deficits were bad, and how the republicans would make things right.
Fast forward to now. Republicans control congress, and own the whitehouse, and our debt and deficit has reached record levels under their leadership. If you weren't joking, what makes you think GB or BD would have been any better?
"That type thinking gets the one you are opossed elected "
Except, I have yet to find myself not opposed to both sides. Therefore, if I think as you, I still get someone I'm opposed to, only I ignored my conscience. If I think like me, being true to myself, I still get someone I'm opposed to, but I have not compromised my self. Integrity is more valuable to me, than voting for the lesser of two evils.
"Sometimes seeing who has a chance of beating the oposition and supporting them can keep undesirables out of office."
At the presidential level, all the front runners are undesireables in my eyes. Why would you want me to vote for someone I think is undesireable? I certainly wouldn't want you to vote that way.
"Learn the issues."
Why do I need to learn what I think are issues? I think I'm the best judge of what issues I think are important, and therefore, I do not need to learn anything of the sort.
"Look at the chances. Don't vote for a long shot. They haven't got a chance."
I'll tell you what, I'll take your advice the next time I'm at the track. But for choosing the leader of my nation, I think I'll do things my way. Thanks anyway.
"Right now, the priority for me is to unseat Bush, so I will vote accordingly."
If you can do so and live with yourself, then do so. Please, by all means, Be true to yourself. Truth be told, if your conscience tells you that's what you should do, then I agree with you doing it, even if I may disagree with whoever it is you vote for as a result. Don't let some clown like me, or anyone else, override your conscience.
"In an ideal world this would be true, but our election system does not reward you for voting for the candidate whom you think is the best. Every election is a strategic contest, not just an expression of values or desires. Voting strategically is distasteful - I certainly find it so - but it is necessary in our winner-take-all system. Voters who act otherwise are not acting in their own best interests, no matter how good it might feel."
So you say. All I hear is someone arguing for history to repeat itself. No thanks. I'm voting my conscience, you vote yours. If you think voting the way you advocate is the way, then do so. But I'm not going that path. Making the same choices as you did in the past, gets you the same results as it got you in the past. And it's not about "feeling good", it's about being true to who I am.
"I don't think you are "throwing your vote away" by not voting strategically, rather you are making a legitimate protest."
Ah, good, I was worried you were like the first reply. I'm glad you see things as such.
"But to what end?"
The end of being true to who I am. That is the only thing of lasting value in this life. I've been through hard times and I've been through good times, and when all is said and done, the only times in my life I have peace about is when I've been true to myself.
"When the "other" side wins, you lose."
What other side? The other side of the same coin? What do I lose? If I vote your way, I get someone I don't think is the best person for the job, so I lose myself respect. If I do it my way, my candidate likely won't win(at this time in history), but I get to keep my self respect. I'll take self respect any day, over voting for someone I don't think is good for the job.
"Politics requires compromise - we musn't fool ourselves about that."
Yes, but it does not require compromising ourselves. I can compromise a position, I can compromise what I want, but I can not compromise my conscience. I have to live with myself you know.
"If you want to change this situation, support changes in our electoral system."
See, this sounds reasonable, but here's the problem: The system ain't gonna change by electing the very people who benefit from it. Why would you think it would?
"But in the meantime, vote for the guy who can win."
Nope. Sorry, no can do. I used to believe this way, but I'm older now, and I've recognized the loop this thinking puts us in. The only hope for us is for us voting our conscience. I will do so, and continue to hope that others will begin to. If they don't, there is nothing I can do about that. I've had enough of the games, for the rest of my life, I will be true to myself first and foremost. There is nothing else worth having. And don't worry for me, I won't be disapointed. The way I see it, the system loses no matter which 'side' gets elected. I will sleep easy knowing that I did not play a part in continuing the game.
"It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job."
Actually, in the world I live in now, that is exactly what I do.
"However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want."
And voting for the lesser of two evils will?
"We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections."
So? Your argument seems to be that I shouldn't vote my conscience because the person I'd vote for won't win. Therefore, I should vote for someone I don't think is the best person for the job, thereby ensuring that not only will my candidate not win, but the election results will demonstrate that no one voted for them, thus leading these 'leaders' to conclude that what my candidate stood for, nobody agrees with? Sounds like I'm throwing my vote away if you ask me.
"The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards."
With all due respect, I heard this line of crap back in '92. The only difference between now and then, is I won't buy it this time. You think Kerry is going to change things, then you vote for him. Clinton came to power, and what did we have? Wars, wars, and more wars. Scandal, corruption, the DMCA, etc... It was the other side of the same coin, that quite frankly, I'm sick of. You want to continue the cycle that's been going on, vainly imgining that by repeating the mistakes of the past, you're going to get a different result in the future, then you do that.
I'm not buying into that line of thinking anymore. Like I said in my first post on this topic, I'd rather vote my conscience, and the rest of you with your daydreaming grand plans to change things, go along like sheep, believing the owned politicians, that somehow, they are the first step to change. When in reality, they are the very things that need changing.
"we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan."
Our grand plan? Who has the plan? I haven't seen it, no one asked for my input.
"The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates."
I really don't care to waste my vote to appeal to the mob mentality. If the mob wants one of those people, then let them elect them. I have a conscience, and a duty and obligation to my society, to be ruled by that conscience and be true to myself. I will do this, and it won't matter how you try to spin it. I expect nothing less from you. So if you really think that thinking and voting the way you are arguing for is the best, then do so. I bear you no illwill, but in time, you will see the infinite loop that such things trap us in.
"Doing anything else is a waste of your vote."
On the contrary, doing anything other than voting your conscience, is throwing your vote away. I'm not part of your grand plan, like I said before, when did you get my input? I wouldn't vote lieberman either. Probably won't vote any candidate you've heard of. You can say I'm throwing my vote away, but I can look myself in the mirror every morning, and know that I spoke up for what I believe to be right. The rest of you simply chose the lesser of two evils.
"Walk before you run a marathon."
Exactly. The first step to change is refusing to vote along party lines, or for the lesser of two evils, and voting your conscience. If your conscience tells you to do one of the above, then do so. I bear no one any illwill for falling for the delusion I once fell for. But the only way to change things, is to take your stand as an individual, and quit imagining that you're part of some grand plan. You're not. Nobody planned anything with my input, did someone plan something with yours?
"As much as I might like that sentiment, assuming Kerry gets the democratic nomination, who are you going to vote for?"
Howabout whoever your conscience tells you would be the best person for the job?
"There's no one else to vote for who would even stand an outside shot at winning the election."
It's thinking like that that has gotten us into this mess. Voting isn't about voting for the guy you think has the best chance of winning, voting is about voting for who you think is the best person for the job.
" Basically my question boils down to, if their choice wont make or break my vote for them, is there anyway to get politicians to make a stance on something short of having lots of money for campaign contributions?"
yes, vote your conscience. Until everyone votes their conscience, we'll be stuck in this dead end game of "lesser of two evils" every time. You can write letters, have demonstrations, etc... As long as they can get elected because you'll vote for them out of fear of someone else winning, they're not going to listen to you. Why should they? The money comes from their corporate masters, I mean backers, and your vote comes from your fear of the other candidate.
I'd rather vote my conscience and see four years of some guy I think is awful, than legitimize the election of someone I think is less awful by voting for them.
"I can't believe anyone still reads that rag. Let me give you a hint: Tom's was bought and sold about 3 years ago. Since that time, it has descended to the ranks of online propaganda host for Intel and a number of other companies. Tricks with driver versions and other such foolery causes them to get benchmark results drastically different from those of almost every other hardware site."
Case in point. When they compared the Athlon FX to the Pentium4 EE, the initial benchmarks they posted were the Athlon FX not overclocked, and the Penium4 EE overclocked. They did not mention this either in the article, until people on the forums started making a stink.
I still go there for the forums, as there are a few people there who have good insight. You do have to sort through an endless parade of Intel fanboys though(and a good dose of AMD fanboys as well). But the handful of objective people there make it worth it.
I can't, I don't work with Solaris anymore. But it's worth noting that in my 2 1/2 years working with Sun, we never had a critical software problem with their software. And as the guy from the Aus university made me realize, this was back in the 98-01 time span, so things might have completely changed since then.
Also, I did ask if anyone had experience with x86 support, as that would seem more likely to expose someones experience with the software only side of the support(I'm saying this based on me only knowing of people who ran Solaris X86 on systems they built for themselves).
I have to agree with you. Sun support kicks butt, second to none. At the one company I worked at as a Solaris admin, the few times I did call Sun, I was never on hold more than a few minutes, and whatever parts were needed were delivered to us within hours.
Though I always saw that as one of the advantages of having the OS & hardware coming from the same vendor. It seems to keep them from playing the "it must be your hardware" game that so many software vendor support people play whenever the answer isn't easy. Though that doesn't explain your experience with RH.
Anyone out there have experience with their X86 support?
Re:Broadcasting dead...
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Yes, exactly. This will be an excellent way to get aliens to visit us. Once they hear we have penis enlargement pills, breast enlargement pills, and all natural herbal viagra alternatives, they'll be pouring in.
Re:See a doctor
on
Cyberchondria
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"Whilst that's undoubtedly true, a lot of (mostly male) people are reluctant to visit their doctor, for a number of reasons. For men it usually comes down to macho "I'm fine, really" attitudes, whereas for women it's often due to them being uncomfortable discussing certain issues with (perhaps) their male doctor."
My grandfather died needlessly because of this. He was 81, but in great health, still fishing all the time, taking long walks, completely mentally with it(he was a HAM, constantly designing and building new equipment for himself), drove better than most people 1/3 his age, but he stopped getting regular check ups on his ulcer because of this attitude. After 5 years of no check ups, he got sick with respiratory symptoms, and by the time the doctors figured out what was going on, it was too late. He had developed stomach cancer and the growth had begun pushing on the bottom of his lungs. When they figured this out, it was inoperable.
Anyone with an ulcer out there, take note of this. They could have easily caught that cancer very early on and removed it had he not had this pigheaded attitude and gotten the check ups his doctors told him to get. 81 is a decent age to live to, but he could have lived much longer than that based on the condition the rest of his body was in. God knows he loved life.
Honestly, I *personally* haven't seen a Mac on someones desktop in over 5 years. Hell, where I live, there isn't a store that sells them for 80 miles in any direction that I'm aware of. The local PC club offers Linux boxes though.
Just keep that in mind, not everywhere is going to be the same as where you are.
I'd say server software has been here for a while. I know nothing of cad software.
But home software? Most home users of Linux are nerds, and if we're using Linux, we use gimp and can't justify the cost of photoshop(it's quite pricey). Of those that aren't nerds, I'd guess the Lindows type distros would account for the majority of them. And those users, who buy cheap computers from Walmart, likely can't afford photoshop and don't tend to play games(at least, not the latest and greatest fps.
The sad thing is, we Linux users screwed ourselves when we didn't support Loki. Had we, HL2 may well be on Linux right now. Ah, but we didn't...
Slashdot Mirror
"Oh come on! Remember Florida? People can't operate the current voting system!"
But people do operate it. People give their faith to it, which legitimizes it. Florida was simply what people have wanted all along. People grew tired of voting their conscience, and so, they voted for the types of people who would engage in and support that type of thing.
"If "None of the above" won, then everybody on the ballot would be disqualified for one election cycle, and a new ballot (with new candidates) would have to be offered."
I like that idea. The problem is, which candidate do you think will work for getting that into place? Kerry? Bush?
A national referendum might do it, but then the democrats and republicans would simply rile their sheep and scare them with pictures of costly elections having to be done over and such, and the sheep will stay in the pasture they're fed in, thinking that their lesser of two evils is best.
"I would like to vote my conscience, so I'm voting for less evil. Who is that again?"
If that is what your conscience tells you to do, to vote for less evil, then do so. As for who is less, you are the only person that can answer that, as that is based on your on your own concept of right and wrong. Be true to yourself, and you'll know who to vote for.
"Well, judging from the other responses, everybody hates you."
They don't hate me, they have been programmed to think that way. I bear them no illwill. If anything, this is simply my karma, coming back to me. I accept it, I deserve those responses, because there was a time when I gave those responses.
"Of course, now that I think about it, that didn't work at all. The deficient declined, but that was only because the economy grew at such freakish rates for a while. Spending was barely controlled, and factory jobs have been disappearing for almost a decade. Never mind what I just said - I should have voted for George Bush and Bob Dole!"
If you're not joking, you're only fooling yourself if you think those things would have changed under GB or BD.
Let's look at republicans for a moment, shall we? Under Reagan, you had a democrat dominated congress. Who did the republicans blame for the debt and deficit? The democrats in congress. For years, I was one of them, believing all the lies that they told me, how debts were bad, deficits were bad, and how the republicans would make things right.
Fast forward to now. Republicans control congress, and own the whitehouse, and our debt and deficit has reached record levels under their leadership. If you weren't joking, what makes you think GB or BD would have been any better?
"That type thinking gets the one you are opossed elected "
Except, I have yet to find myself not opposed to both sides. Therefore, if I think as you, I still get someone I'm opposed to, only I ignored my conscience. If I think like me, being true to myself, I still get someone I'm opposed to, but I have not compromised my self. Integrity is more valuable to me, than voting for the lesser of two evils.
"Sometimes seeing who has a chance of beating the oposition and supporting them can keep undesirables out of office."
At the presidential level, all the front runners are undesireables in my eyes. Why would you want me to vote for someone I think is undesireable? I certainly wouldn't want you to vote that way.
"Learn the issues."
Why do I need to learn what I think are issues? I think I'm the best judge of what issues I think are important, and therefore, I do not need to learn anything of the sort.
"Look at the chances. Don't vote for a long shot. They haven't got a chance."
I'll tell you what, I'll take your advice the next time I'm at the track. But for choosing the leader of my nation, I think I'll do things my way. Thanks anyway.
"Right now, the priority for me is to unseat Bush, so I will vote accordingly."
If you can do so and live with yourself, then do so. Please, by all means, Be true to yourself. Truth be told, if your conscience tells you that's what you should do, then I agree with you doing it, even if I may disagree with whoever it is you vote for as a result. Don't let some clown like me, or anyone else, override your conscience.
"In an ideal world this would be true, but our election system does not reward you for voting for the candidate whom you think is the best. Every election is a strategic contest, not just an expression of values or desires. Voting strategically is distasteful - I certainly find it so - but it is necessary in our winner-take-all system. Voters who act otherwise are not acting in their own best interests, no matter how good it might feel."
So you say. All I hear is someone arguing for history to repeat itself. No thanks. I'm voting my conscience, you vote yours. If you think voting the way you advocate is the way, then do so. But I'm not going that path. Making the same choices as you did in the past, gets you the same results as it got you in the past. And it's not about "feeling good", it's about being true to who I am.
"I don't think you are "throwing your vote away" by not voting strategically, rather you are making a legitimate protest."
Ah, good, I was worried you were like the first reply. I'm glad you see things as such.
"But to what end?"
The end of being true to who I am. That is the only thing of lasting value in this life. I've been through hard times and I've been through good times, and when all is said and done, the only times in my life I have peace about is when I've been true to myself.
"When the "other" side wins, you lose."
What other side? The other side of the same coin? What do I lose? If I vote your way, I get someone I don't think is the best person for the job, so I lose myself respect. If I do it my way, my candidate likely won't win(at this time in history), but I get to keep my self respect. I'll take self respect any day, over voting for someone I don't think is good for the job.
"Politics requires compromise - we musn't fool ourselves about that."
Yes, but it does not require compromising ourselves. I can compromise a position, I can compromise what I want, but I can not compromise my conscience. I have to live with myself you know.
"If you want to change this situation, support changes in our electoral system."
See, this sounds reasonable, but here's the problem: The system ain't gonna change by electing the very people who benefit from it. Why would you think it would?
"But in the meantime, vote for the guy who can win."
Nope. Sorry, no can do. I used to believe this way, but I'm older now, and I've recognized the loop this thinking puts us in. The only hope for us is for us voting our conscience. I will do so, and continue to hope that others will begin to. If they don't, there is nothing I can do about that. I've had enough of the games, for the rest of my life, I will be true to myself first and foremost. There is nothing else worth having. And don't worry for me, I won't be disapointed. The way I see it, the system loses no matter which 'side' gets elected. I will sleep easy knowing that I did not play a part in continuing the game.
"It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job."
Actually, in the world I live in now, that is exactly what I do.
"However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want."
And voting for the lesser of two evils will?
"We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections."
So? Your argument seems to be that I shouldn't vote my conscience because the person I'd vote for won't win. Therefore, I should vote for someone I don't think is the best person for the job, thereby ensuring that not only will my candidate not win, but the election results will demonstrate that no one voted for them, thus leading these 'leaders' to conclude that what my candidate stood for, nobody agrees with? Sounds like I'm throwing my vote away if you ask me.
"The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards."
With all due respect, I heard this line of crap back in '92. The only difference between now and then, is I won't buy it this time. You think Kerry is going to change things, then you vote for him. Clinton came to power, and what did we have? Wars, wars, and more wars. Scandal, corruption, the DMCA, etc... It was the other side of the same coin, that quite frankly, I'm sick of. You want to continue the cycle that's been going on, vainly imgining that by repeating the mistakes of the past, you're going to get a different result in the future, then you do that.
I'm not buying into that line of thinking anymore. Like I said in my first post on this topic, I'd rather vote my conscience, and the rest of you with your daydreaming grand plans to change things, go along like sheep, believing the owned politicians, that somehow, they are the first step to change. When in reality, they are the very things that need changing.
"we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan."
Our grand plan? Who has the plan? I haven't seen it, no one asked for my input.
"The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates."
I really don't care to waste my vote to appeal to the mob mentality. If the mob wants one of those people, then let them elect them. I have a conscience, and a duty and obligation to my society, to be ruled by that conscience and be true to myself. I will do this, and it won't matter how you try to spin it. I expect nothing less from you. So if you really think that thinking and voting the way you are arguing for is the best, then do so. I bear you no illwill, but in time, you will see the infinite loop that such things trap us in.
"Doing anything else is a waste of your vote."
On the contrary, doing anything other than voting your conscience, is throwing your vote away. I'm not part of your grand plan, like I said before, when did you get my input? I wouldn't vote lieberman either. Probably won't vote any candidate you've heard of. You can say I'm throwing my vote away, but I can look myself in the mirror every morning, and know that I spoke up for what I believe to be right. The rest of you simply chose the lesser of two evils.
"Walk before you run a marathon."
Exactly. The first step to change is refusing to vote along party lines, or for the lesser of two evils, and voting your conscience. If your conscience tells you to do one of the above, then do so. I bear no one any illwill for falling for the delusion I once fell for. But the only way to change things, is to take your stand as an individual, and quit imagining that you're part of some grand plan. You're not. Nobody planned anything with my input, did someone plan something with yours?
"As much as I might like that sentiment, assuming Kerry gets the democratic nomination, who are you going to vote for?"
Howabout whoever your conscience tells you would be the best person for the job?
"There's no one else to vote for who would even stand an outside shot at winning the election."
It's thinking like that that has gotten us into this mess. Voting isn't about voting for the guy you think has the best chance of winning, voting is about voting for who you think is the best person for the job.
" Basically my question boils down to, if their choice wont make or break my vote for them, is there anyway to get politicians to make a stance on something short of having lots of money for campaign contributions?"
yes, vote your conscience. Until everyone votes their conscience, we'll be stuck in this dead end game of "lesser of two evils" every time. You can write letters, have demonstrations, etc... As long as they can get elected because you'll vote for them out of fear of someone else winning, they're not going to listen to you. Why should they? The money comes from their corporate masters, I mean backers, and your vote comes from your fear of the other candidate.
I'd rather vote my conscience and see four years of some guy I think is awful, than legitimize the election of someone I think is less awful by voting for them.
Thanks! I'm looking around now...
"I can't believe anyone still reads that rag. Let me give you a hint: Tom's was bought and sold about 3 years ago. Since that time, it has descended to the ranks of online propaganda host for Intel and a number of other companies. Tricks with driver versions and other such foolery causes them to get benchmark results drastically different from those of almost every other hardware site."
Case in point. When they compared the Athlon FX to the Pentium4 EE, the initial benchmarks they posted were the Athlon FX not overclocked, and the Penium4 EE overclocked. They did not mention this either in the article, until people on the forums started making a stink.
I still go there for the forums, as there are a few people there who have good insight. You do have to sort through an endless parade of Intel fanboys though(and a good dose of AMD fanboys as well). But the handful of objective people there make it worth it.
I can't, I don't work with Solaris anymore. But it's worth noting that in my 2 1/2 years working with Sun, we never had a critical software problem with their software. And as the guy from the Aus university made me realize, this was back in the 98-01 time span, so things might have completely changed since then. Also, I did ask if anyone had experience with x86 support, as that would seem more likely to expose someones experience with the software only side of the support(I'm saying this based on me only knowing of people who ran Solaris X86 on systems they built for themselves).
I have to agree with you. Sun support kicks butt, second to none. At the one company I worked at as a Solaris admin, the few times I did call Sun, I was never on hold more than a few minutes, and whatever parts were needed were delivered to us within hours.
Though I always saw that as one of the advantages of having the OS & hardware coming from the same vendor. It seems to keep them from playing the "it must be your hardware" game that so many software vendor support people play whenever the answer isn't easy. Though that doesn't explain your experience with RH.
Anyone out there have experience with their X86 support?
Yes, exactly. This will be an excellent way to get aliens to visit us. Once they hear we have penis enlargement pills, breast enlargement pills, and all natural herbal viagra alternatives, they'll be pouring in.
"Whilst that's undoubtedly true, a lot of (mostly male) people are reluctant to visit their doctor, for a number of reasons. For men it usually comes down to macho "I'm fine, really" attitudes, whereas for women it's often due to them being uncomfortable discussing certain issues with (perhaps) their male doctor."
My grandfather died needlessly because of this. He was 81, but in great health, still fishing all the time, taking long walks, completely mentally with it(he was a HAM, constantly designing and building new equipment for himself), drove better than most people 1/3 his age, but he stopped getting regular check ups on his ulcer because of this attitude. After 5 years of no check ups, he got sick with respiratory symptoms, and by the time the doctors figured out what was going on, it was too late. He had developed stomach cancer and the growth had begun pushing on the bottom of his lungs. When they figured this out, it was inoperable.
Anyone with an ulcer out there, take note of this. They could have easily caught that cancer very early on and removed it had he not had this pigheaded attitude and gotten the check ups his doctors told him to get. 81 is a decent age to live to, but he could have lived much longer than that based on the condition the rest of his body was in. God knows he loved life.
Honestly, I *personally* haven't seen a Mac on someones desktop in over 5 years. Hell, where I live, there isn't a store that sells them for 80 miles in any direction that I'm aware of. The local PC club offers Linux boxes though. Just keep that in mind, not everywhere is going to be the same as where you are.
I'd say server software has been here for a while. I know nothing of cad software. But home software? Most home users of Linux are nerds, and if we're using Linux, we use gimp and can't justify the cost of photoshop(it's quite pricey). Of those that aren't nerds, I'd guess the Lindows type distros would account for the majority of them. And those users, who buy cheap computers from Walmart, likely can't afford photoshop and don't tend to play games(at least, not the latest and greatest fps. The sad thing is, we Linux users screwed ourselves when we didn't support Loki. Had we, HL2 may well be on Linux right now. Ah, but we didn't...