Go look at the job ads and see what they're looking for as far as experience is concerned. You can't even meet those requirements with internships. You know what is funny about your statement is that I found places never liked hiring interns. I remember having an internship interview in college and being told we want someone with more experience. I seriously gave them the WTF are you saying look. I only had one company say, we aren't worried about your experience, it is our job to give you that. The great thing about interns used to be that you would hire them. Get relatively cheap labor and then upon graduation offer them a job at intro salary and get an already trained employee.
The wages are rising because America's pool of experienced techies is drying up, and fast. There are few to no new tech 'masters' rising in America; they're all coming from Asia, because that is where all the newb jobs are. Doesn't your next statement contradict this? I mean, either wages are going up because there are fewer of us, or they are going down because H-1s are taking our jobs. I think what is happening is places are hiring less people but are replacing less experience with more. Replace two or three people at $15-$20 with one at $25-$30 and you save money or break even if the workload is the same. (More like save, since you only have to give raises and benefits to one instead of two.)
Those H-1 visas are coming here to compete with rock bottom wages, too. And some people are wondering why we are becoming Xenophobic and anti-foreigner? Why we want to restrict H-1s more? This happened before in the early 1900s. An influx of Italian, Polish, and other European immigrants dropped wages and took factory jobs from "established" people and citizens who were already living/working in the US. This created a lot of tension then, and fast-forward 100 years and you will see history is repeating itself. The only difference is where the immigrants are coming from and the job sector they are working in. It is even more ironic for people like me who descended from those Italian immigrants.
If I didn't play PC games that needed Windows I gotta ask, what games? You might be shocked at the list of stuff I have running either natively or through wine. BTW, there are games that have been reported to run faster in wine then in Windows, go figure.
I actually know people from mongolia. You do realize that while Mongolians tend to follow Tibetan Buddhism, they are not really the Tibet we are talking about, right? You do realize the area is question is actually here, right? You also realize that Mongolia is an independent nation over which China has no control?
So I would say knowing someone from Mongolia who practices Tibetan Buddhism, is a far cry from knowing someone who actually, well, lived in Tibet.
No, this is just America, where we go through thisalmostevery 100 years. (Yes, I know REAL ID and PATRIOT are not the same, but they are a part of a new era of "Sedition Acts".)
The worst part is each time people seem to support these acts as a means of protecting the people. They also seem to strip away more freedoms with each one that gets passed. It is scary, but history does repeat itself.
A 'watermark' in audio or printed media is a slight distortion of the audio or image that is unable to be detected by humans but can be deciphered by a computer. You apparently didn't read the full summary or the article did you? Though what should I expect from slashdot.
The technology could serve several purposes including tracking file sharing statistics and inserting advertisements into audio tracks. Here it is, so you don't strain too much. I love you got modded up for not reading. Chalk that one up to slashdot as well.
I finally understand D&D. In D&D the rules are the content. They need to change them frequently because you run out of content. If you're actually interested in stories and "role-playing" (vs. leveling up and trying out new spells and magic items), then D&D's rules get in the way and you play something else... You also prefer your rules not to change constantly. I call bullshit, not only from the D&D perspective, but from all other RPG perspectives. I know people who still play Second Edition World of Darkness, which was replaced by Third Edition (and now the "New World of Darkness"); there are also people who refused to ever change to 3rd Ed D&D. The rules provide a framework, the rest is based on your imagination. If your GM/DM/ST (or whatever you want to call them) is unimaginative, then yes, you might get hindered by what is in the rulebook. The fact is a good GM can create new settings, add new characters, add new creatures, or change the entire outlay of the world.
There are rules and systems in place for a lot of these creations that GMs make. People have created tons of player generated content for various RPGs, which other people will in turn adopt. I have seen where an entirely new game was created within the rules of a larger system, like White Wolf's World of Darkness. You are truly only confined by the rules of these systems if you let yourself be that way.
Dude, it is a simple as that. Eat what you need, not what you want.
There are a few problems with this, and I will now attempt to explain some of them. First, I believe it is a fair to say parents are the root of this entire problem. First, many of them are purchasing more fatty snacks and sugary sodas for their children and not trying to further the notion of a healthy diet. Kids are eating bad foods, and you have to blame the parents for creating this problem. Second, in households where both parents work, you will probably find a lot less cooking, especially healthy cooking. If families are eating out more or eating more pre-packaged meals, this too will result in greater obesity.
At the same time, not many parents are encouraging their children to take on physical activities. Kids are more and more likely to be found in front of a TV or playing video games then ever before. Even I would get out more when I was younger. This extends into many school systems where recess is eliminated by middle school and PE is not a year round activity. You could also probably question the nutritional factors of some school lunches.
Of course, this sort of cycles follows people into adult life. Many single individuals might not necessarily known how to cook for themselves (or at least not cook healthy). They get home from work and want something to eat then not in 30 minutes or an hour. I can cook, but doing it every night is very cost ineffective since I am single. I wind up eating the same thing for almost three days because most items are not sold in proportions that are conducive for cooking for one.
There is another factor to consider: money. You cannot ignore the fact that many healthier foods cost more money. Low-fat items can sometimes run more expensive then their regular counterparts. Even fruits and vegetables (especially fresh) tend to run a bit more. There is a reason why items that are quick to cook and relatively cheap (rice and pasta come to mind) are found in a lot of kitchens. Of course these kinds of carbs are not bad, until you find out in what sort of portions people are eating them.
The parent to your comment is more right than wrong. Fat people need to stop passing the blame for their 'condition'. Hell, most of the time just being overweight is the lead cause of degrading health - e.g. Diabetes.
Passing the blame to whom? I have never once blamed anyone but my own fat ass for my weight issues. I can factor in a few conditions, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a borderline compulsion or addiction. I have tried diets on several occasions, and I will actually lose a fairly good amount of weight for a few weeks, until my metabolism catches up with me. Of course, I could fix this by exercising, but then we get to yet another point, time. Some of us between work, commuting and other responsibilities often have very little time remaining to actually exercise. Some people even lack proper and safe places to exercise, furthering their problem.
You obviously don't like being told it is your fault.
Personally, I do not like people clumping all obese people together. There are several groups, though a few are in the minority. There are those with physical medical conditions, like glandular problems that are a contributing factor in their obesity. There are those with mental medical conditions -- depression and addiction (and others) -- can also contribute. Total, these two groups are probably less than 10-15% of the total obese people. The third groups is the group that needs to just put the fork down. The problem is people do not usually tell them this, so they continue to eat and eat.
This said, I believe people should be more willing to help then to ridicule these people, no matter which group they fall into. I am not going to lay blame here, but I hear far more people who snicker and mock me then people actually offering support. Even when I have made attempts to diet
You can't relate to people talking to each other and discussing things that are important to them. What? I am not the one who goes off on rants of pink unicorns and calling people liars.
You keep making up stupid "what if" scenarios and talking about them as if they actually happened. I am sorry if you think my stories speak of absolutes, but I think history has shown forking isn't always a good thing. I am talking about things that if history repeats (and it often does) will/could happen.
You are first class shill and FUDder. First, I am not a shill, since I am not trying to further someone else's interests. Honestly, I have no problem admitting I hate GPLv3, heck I am not a huge fan of GPLv2. I believe the license is counter-intuitive to a "free software" movement since it places restrictions on developers. Any license is going to place restrictions, but it seems like the GPL keeps growing them with each revision. I have done nothing here to advocate closed source or another license. Honestly, it is a decision to be made by each developer. The problem is that we have seen from discussion boards and mailing lists that GPLv3 has been a divisive topic to ignore this is just stupid.
As for being a spreader of FUD, I would contend this isn't the case. If that were the case, I would be hear screaming the world is coming to an end. Open Source development will cease to be. I am simply trying to point out to you that to ignore that the move to GPLv3 could cause splintering of project developers is stupid.
This is going to be my last reply to you, because I refuse to continue on with someone who has basically refused to have a civilized discussion on this matter. You have repeatedly refused to discuss points (calling me a liar, but how can you lie about possible situations). Heck, you even ignored outright my example of in-fighting and grumbling amongst developers of one project over GPLv3.
Let me give you a word of advice. If you truly believe I am spreading FUD then fight it with arguments and not with name calling and ignorance. You know why FUD from groups like MS works so well? Because they pay millions to spread it and have legions of people writing press releases that are well articulated and thought out. They are not sitting in a forum someone calling people liars and talking about pink unicorns.
You are a liar. Oh? I am? If you read this the summary does state some developers are complaining and talking about a fork. If things have changed, please let me know.
Yes because adults who work in a co-operative matter talk to each other and express their concerns. You are probably not used to that because your boss tells you what to do and doesn't care what you think. First, do not assume to know what my boss does or does not think about my opinions. I work for a small company and my opinions are actually very well received and have led to changes in the way we run things. (And yes, I have been rewarded for this, go figure.) Besides, I am not just talking about nice conversation over problems. Unless you live in a cave, you will know that there have been some high profile arguments between project developers, including those that led to forks. Look at the Xemacs fork for a prime example. There are other examples where people have discussed the problems working with certain developers, including RMS.
You are a liar. How can I be lying when speaking of the hypothetical? I believe that it would cause splintering to fork many large projects. You find people fighting over shit like vi vs. emacs, you think they won't do the same against a successful port of GCC v. GCC-forked (whatever they want to name it)?
Every time a big project has been split it's been for the better. See x.org for the latest example. So, because the x.org split (which is a lot more complext then you give it credit for.) worked, all big project splits work? From whose standpoint are we judging success? The end-user, the original team, or the new team? I wouldn't be surprised if most forks "failed". If so, does anyone really when from that?
And if pink unicorns flew out of my butt.... Wake me up when it happens. You later accuse me of being in grade school, yet you continue to show some obsession about pink unicorns flying out of your butt. Is this the only line for disbelief you possess? Have you considered having your vocabulary expanded? Saying, pink unicorns will fly our of my butt and saying a person is a liar are hardly good ways to win an argument or even hold a civilized discussion.
Think about this. Pink unicorns fly out of my butt. Then a genie comes to me and give me fifteen wishes Seriously, I have no wish to think about your butt or the pink unicorns. If you cannot attempt to show some example of where this hasn't happened or don't want to provide some sort of hypothetical alternative, just leave the discussion before you make yourself look even dumber. You are probably luck you haven't been modded troll by now.
you want me to refute your hypotherical situation with facts? What are you in grade school or something? You cannot show any past example that refutes my position. You have provided no alternative case or hypothetical that makes sense. You have instead focused on name calling, pink unicorns flying out of your butt, and calling people liars. If you have nothing to contribute, go hang out with your kind over at digg.
Why is his Ultra Leftist views hypocritical? I believe he tries to mention a few lines further down that while companies like MS and Novell (because of this deal) are perceived as evil, people like IBM are left alone by most critics, supposedly even IBM. If RMS has done something with regards to IBM that contradicts his attitude towards MS, then I can see where he is trying to come from. Of course, I could be off, I do not read minds.
In this day free software equals free speech. This will be even more more apparent in the next 100 years. I do care if someone is trying to shrink my personal freedoms. Argument from popularity, trying to use, are we? Come again? How is the MS-Novell deal shrinking your personal freedoms? How is free software equal to free speech?
That is not a freedom you have, Sir. It is not the perogative of any user or any developer or any company to remove a piece of FREE (as in speech) software from the free software pool. From a Marxist point of view, while under copyright law, releasing software in any other licence than the GPL, actually removes power from the developer and the user. As do pattents. Come again? I think you are confusing the argument some here. He mentions nothing about removing free software from the pool of free software (which is a misnomer really, free software is priced at $0, we are talking open source and particularly one license). How is it not the right of the developer or company to remove a piece of FREE (open source?) software from the free (open source?) software pool? If they are a lone developer or company in the product, they have all the right in the world to make it a proprietary license when they please, or to charge money for the right to use the software if they so desire. Of course, if the code was originally released under a proper license, a fork of the project could be made when this did happen.
Do you seriously believe that any license other then the GPL removes power from the developer and user? The GPL is hardly the most free license. The GPL inherently places restrictions on the developer and user based on the license. There are other licenses that are considered "more open" and a developer who really wanted to do so could write a copyright license to cover their product in such a way that it would protect their product and still offer more freedom then GPL. The GPL has restrictions and those restrictions have grown from v2 to v3. To say that GPL is FREE and that only GPL is FREE and everything else is BAD, this sounds like RMS rhetoric and not common logic. As for patents, this is another issue, which we will not discuss here.
Hackers of the World, unite. You got nothing to lose. the pattent office, does, though. a lot.:D Come again?
PS1 Anybody care to comment on my hypothesis? "Computer Programmers are the first generation of western proletariats who can and do own their means of production". *cough*marxisthacker*cought* First, if programmers did control their means of production, your whole hypothesis becomes an oxymoron, since Marx's definition of a proletariats was one who does not "own/control their means of production." The classic definition of proletariat is really not applicable either since the programmers are much less of a working class as they are a middle class. (You could argue they are a working middle class, but when I envision the classical definition of proletariat, I envision a working, labor force.) This said, I would say that most programmers have zero control over their production, since most still need to make money to live, they are not getting that by solely developing open source programs. This has been discussed numerous times, but there are a great deal of developers working for large companies and making "paid" contributions to open source programs. IBM, Red Hat, Novell, and others contribute a lot to the code base of open source projects. Other developers will typically have other jobs so they can actually have a life and afford to live. So, on the face, I would have to dismiss your hypothesis, but I could probably do a better write-up with more time.
What does that mean? If you are a developer then you can either write your own code, take code others wrote under the BSD/MIT type license or take code under GPL2 or 3. It's your choice. Except, there is already talk of forking LARGE projects like GCC because of the GPL3 move. There is a lot of in-fighting amongst project developers of other projects concerning the switching of the license, especially where some developers do not want to switch. So, this means they fork a pre-GPLv3 code and guess what, we have splintering. Some kids might be a bit young to remember other big project splits, but they have occurred. Usually these splits occur over other items, but this sort of thing happens when egos collide.
I don't care about your opinion. Your opinion is worthless because it's so misinformed. Excellent way to win an argument. Except, you haven't done much to show his argument is largely misinformed, you have done a good job of name calling.
If pink unicorns flew out my ass then I would build a house made of gold.
Do you have any evidence that the GPL slows down applications development? No? Then shut up. He is saying that if projects splinter, then development could (or would?) slow. Think about this, a large contributor of a project leaves the project over the GPL v3 change. Development grinds to a halt because of this and the developer who left cannot maintain a proper fork on his own (and do to naming and/or trademark issues) and his development is slow or people are unaware of it. This means that the open source project might flounder, because the products from established proprietary vendors are adding more features and correcting bugs faster that their products, they become more attractive.
If that was true then everybody would be using a mac. Since everybody is not using a mac then your argument is useless. Except, most people do not use MACs because of a lack of market penetration, and they can be a bit costly. There is also the fact of compatibility issues with business networks and systems, some of which have been fixed over time. You will find that a lot of people do purchase them for the exact reason the poster mentions; most business people are talked out of it by sensible admins or Microsoft money. But if you think that they are not choosing applications from MS for ease of use and integration with current systems, you are wrong. If open source cannot development in time with proprietary apps, they will cease to exist except in an even smaller niche then they currently maintain. Develop or die, I say. There have been examples of projects that became stagnant or outright died from slow release cycles.
And pink unicorns might fly out of my butt. Seriously, both of us are arguing a hypothetical situation that you really refuse to refute with facts, but instead continually talk about your fetish with pink unicorns and your posterior. May I recommend seeing a psychologist for this problem? This said, if we are proven right in a few years time, can I put some wings and a horn on a horse, paint it pink and make your dreams come true?
That's because commercial software vendors don't tend to distribute any software for Linux in the first place. I'd argue that the lack of a simple way to distribute software for "Linux" (as opposed to some small subset of distributions) is a reason why. I don't know there is some pretty big commercial software on Linux:
Granted, this is largely specialty software, but even some game makers have made relatively painless install procedures. UT2004 gave me no trouble out of the box. RtCW was easily reconcilable trouble. Heck, UT04 even had the installer on the DVD. It was no harder then a Windows install.
The fact is if there were demand for more commercial Linux software, then people would find ways to install it easily. Some already have found ways. The lack of commercial software on Linux is much more about demand then it is about ease of distribution. You could always setup closed repository systems to make distribution easier. CD Installers would be no worse then Windows.
Slow to respond I know...
flexibility != ease of use You accuse me of a straw man argument, but then choose a set of like 10 words that isn't even a complete sentence (Hell, the sentence stands without the phrase.). Thank you for ignoring one part of my attack, choosing a single, semi-related point and beating on it. Oh wait, that IS a straw man!
Anecdotal evidence disagrees with you. Really, because the anecdotal evidence I've heard from people seems to agree with me. My own experience seems to agree with me as well. And this was testing both X and RDP on an internal network where load was consistent for both platforms. Not to mention you can greatly reduce the X load by using single Windows instead of creating a whole desktop. Goes back to my mentioning of flexibility. It gives the appearance of better integration then RDP ever has.
Straw man. His whole argument was praise for MS. I was stating praise for MS is unfounded with regards to RDP since the best work on it was never even done by them. However, it is nice of you to yell this why making some straw men yourself.
And, of course, newly released hardware. And specialty hardware.
(Incidentally, I've had three problems, and how many problems both or either of us have had is irrelevant.) I had zero problem with my very new desktop and the hardware for it. Also, since the only evidence anyone is presenting is anecdotal, it is quite important how many problems you or him may or may not have had. His argument was poor in presenting problems from the 1990s and ignoring the current state of the situation. Tell me, which problem(s) have you had? And what is your definition of "specialty" hardware?
Only for software which is freely available in the repository. There's no sane way for users to install other software. Except that this isn't truly the case. There are package management systems that with take random.dem and.rpm files and properly install them. Most websites containing these softwares offer separate repositories if the distributions do not include their software in them. I would challenge that installing most rpm and deb packages is no hardware on their respective distributions then installing some.exe. There are still programs in Windows that will have prerequisites that are required for a program to be installed. I really do not see (nor have I seen) this great disparity that you speak of.
a) Windows XP remote desktop is easier to deal with than X remoting.
I have to respectfully disagree. Not only does remotely using X offer far more flexibility then RDP, I believe it is a better bandwidth user then RDP. It should be noted we shouldn't praise MS for RDP either, their original TS implementation sucked. Citrix licensed their stuff off to MS so MS could make a better product. Look at old TS and compare it with Citrix of that time period, you will see who was the leader.
b) Both KDE and Gnome borrow u/i design heavily from the Windows 95 Start Bar. The concept of COM based shell extensions was looted by KParts.
Ah, but the glory is we are not limited to those two interfaces. WindowMaker, Enlightenment, XFCE, and others offer more ways to use X and in many cases are less overhead then using Gnome or KDE. Not to mention X has allowed you for ages to have multiple desktops, something that was only possible with third party apps for a long time in Windows. You can also heavily customize the UIs to be less Windows like if you want. Besides, isn't the Win 95 Start Bar essentially a rip-off of the Mac Apple?
e) Although I prefer OpenGL for its ease of entry, a lot of big gaming houses seem to prefer DirectX.
Blame MS for this; however, there are plenty of games that will work just fine in Linux. id seems hell bent on continuing to make their games run on Linux. UT2004 worked (and I pray UT3 does as well). Other games using DirectX will work, though some of them can only do so much in Wine and it is somewhat limited to older DX apps. Honestly, if you play that many games you can always dual boot or just stick with Windows. The gaming argument is weak at best.
f) For a long time, Windows lead in hardware discovery. Linux has closed that gap, I think, but in 1995, I was editing config files to get my X to work with my monitor, and Windows would discover both for me automatically.
This is just a poor argument. Tell me how many issues you've had in 2007? I will also say that there is better legacy support in Linux then Windows. I can still find devices that won't install drivers from the base Windows install but can in Linux, even if only well enough for me to get drivers that work well. The gap is practically closed with the largest problem being the quality of some video drivers.
g) It's -STILL- easier to install a new piece of software on Windows. Too easy, the security people will refrain...:-)
Really? Use apt-get or one of the various front-ends available or yum and then tell me this. Both of these do great at handling dependencies and make installations rather painless. Not to mention I do not need to spend hours installing extra software since most of what I need is installed when I install the OS, including IM clients, web browsers (not owned by MS), office applications, etc.
And, in the applications department, there's really no open source offering that comes remotely close to Visual Studio 2005 and C#, SQL Server 2005, and certainly not even Office 2000, let alone newer versions of Office.
Okay. Visual Studio is great if you are building for Windows. How well can you build on other platforms? Not at all. Go figure. KDevelop is actually fairly good and offers most the items that the average developer will probably ever use. Of course, I still prefer writing makefiles and source by hand. I've never been a huge fan of IDEs. As for Office, I must laugh. First, word processing of 2000 compared to either Abiword or OOo is equivalent in all regards. I see no advantage to either, except for the fact that both Abiword and OOo will still be supported long after 2000 is not. I have seen no major issues with Calc compared to Excel and if you are using Access (or Base) for a database, you should really get your head examined. Most database people will tell you that Access is not a good solution for a database and
In the case of streaming your own music, you have no royalties to collect and technically have signed an agreement with yourself to distribute the music. Now, to stream other artists (and presumably other labels), you would either a) have to use the SEx arrangement and risk some evil STD (sound-transmitted disease *I couldn't resist.*) or b) have to sign agreements with each individual label or artist for different (presumably lower) rates then you would if you just used SEx. The problem with option 'b' is that it can become an administrative nightmare.
Basically, SoundExchange collects royalties for everyone, RIAA member or not and no matter what license is used for the song release. So even Creative Commons works get royalties collected. Now, I do not believe they are an RIAA member, but there is a rep from each of the Big 4 on the SEx (I love it already.) board. You have to pay fees to collect your royalties from them, but you can apparently come up with your own deals to bypass them; however, you are still required to inform them I believe.
Now here is my question. If you are not a SEx member, how the hell can they be collecting fees for your copyrighted works if they hold no copyright on your works? Something about this systems seems a bit screwed up.
First Person [Shooter or other] Games teach reflexes, techniques, emotional detachment, etc. All great things if you want to learn to be a psychotic. The simple fact of the matter is this is not true. I know plenty of well adjusted people who play first-person shooters and are not any better reflex wise or anymore emotionally detached because of it. I do not know what techniques you speak of, but if you are talking about shooting a gun or using a weapon, then you are far off base. As a person who has played first-person shooters and has shot a variety of real firearms, let me say that there is almost no correlation between being good at shooting people in the virtual FPS world and shooting anything in the real world. Video games do not usually represent things like re-coil and some even perpetuate stupid techniques like shooting "gangsta" style.
Very few people are 100% effective or even close in compartmentalizing. In stress situations people sometimes don't think, they just act as they have been trained. If they have been heavily trained to do harm in a VR environment, their first reaction might be to respond with training. Except, people playing video games are not in some VR simulation. Most people I know who play video games are more likely to run and hide in a real life shooting incident then they are do respond with gun fire. The fact is at some point people's survival instincts come into play, and if my survival instinct told me it was better to run then to fight, odds are I probably would run. We also need to stop comparing video games to VR for a few reasons, but most importantly, video games are not a truly immersing experience you still have confines to what you see and hear and controls are hardly realistic. There is even a big difference from a Wii controller to using a real life firearm or weapon, including re-coil for firearms and weight and handling for blade weapons.
I suppose one could try to claim that VR training doesn't work or wasn't "real" or that it doesn't work for everyone. However, relying on someone's inability to learn in a VR environment as being the "Green Light" for being "unaffected" by FPS or Violence-practicing VR doesn't seem like it would be good policy. I would love for you to find someone who will say that 100% VR training is all anyone would need. If this were the case, all pilots would just fly in sims and never see a real aircraft until it was time to go up in the air. The same for other types of training. The fact is that there is a big difference between doing something in VR and doing it in real-life, a rather large difference actually. Another point is that video games are not VR any more then TV is. You are a long way from the VR implementations of today when you are playing a video game.
The simple fact is some people are going to be violent with or without video games. For every mass murdered in the world who might have even played Pac-Man as a kid, I could find you twenty who never knew what a video game was. The simple fact is that we as a species have been finding ways to kill and murder each other for a VERY LONG TIME. We had mass murderers and serial killers before we had violent video games, we had them before we had television, and we had them before we electricity. The times may have changed and the methods we use may have changed, but the simple fact is some people are just "crazy" and with or without video games they are probably going to hurt themselves or others without proper treatment.
And incidentally: no, you don't have a sacred right to make a profit at all cost. There's a difference between freedom of speech, which is what the McCarthy era was infringing on, and the right to make a profit by selling ultra-violent games to kids. I mean, what next? The right to open a cocaine stand in a school? The problem is, if the game is effectively banned because Nintendo won't allow an AO rated game, it isn't the kids I would be upset about, but the adults who wanted to play the game. While this doesn't amount to government censorship, it is effectively banning a game from a platform. No one ever said they were marketing this game to kids, and I am sick and tired of everyone saying "only kids play consoles."
That rhetoric is old and bullshit. You now have a fresh generation of adults who grew up on consoles and arcades during the '70s and '80s. You have people who are now in the 18-34 demographic (one of the largest targets for advertisers, especially the male side) that are not only buying consoles for themselves but buying video games to play for themselves. Video games are a new form of entertainment which are gaining a widespread appeal, in large part because consoles like the Wii have made games more enjoyable and are not focusing on the hardcore gaming crowd that MS and the X-Box line have been accused of going after.
You see, the problem with your whole argument is that the console makers have decided they do not want these AO games on their consoles; probably for one of two reasons: 1) the stigma around AO has always been sex, sort of like NC-17 to the movies and/or 2) they do not want their consoles directly attached to these rated games because of the crap they have to put up with from the zealots (and we do not need to name them).
Because the distinct impression I'm left with, is that they want to both make a "duh, it was for adults game" _and_ then sell it to kids anyway. Please explain to me how you came to this conclusion? The game would have gotten an 'M' rating otherwise, which for those keeping score, stands for Mature and mentions for 17+. AO increases that required age by one year to the whopping age of 18+, so what difference does this one year make? If they were ranking it 'T', I could see more anger because that would carry a much lower age. However, it should also be noted that not all 'M' rated games are created equal.
This is slashdot, so let us use an analogy (and one that hopefully isn't too bad). There are many 'R' rated movies that I would not want my children to see (assuming I had any) until they were probably 18 or older. Some of them are movies that I myself cannot even stomach to watch (the Saw series and Hostel come to mind). While other movies are far more acceptable in my eyes because their violence content is much lower and the worst thing some of them have is foul language (Lethal Weapon series comes to mind). Look at another 'R' rated movie, "The Passion of The Christ". People took their kids to this movie (some rather young), despite it being considered somewhat graphic by people. I doubt these same people would be quick to let their children watch other 'R' rated movies. If we are to agree that 'M' most closely related to an 'R' movie rating, then how can a game whose violence level has been compared Saw and Hostel be given a rating that denotes anything worse? In the end, ratings should be only a guide for parents and other consumers in the purchase of a game, whether it be rated 'E', 'T', 'M', or 'AO'.
Okay, assuming a video game store follows ratings for sales (and nothing prohibits them from selling to minors, you remember all those smacked down game laws, also theaters by policy do not sell to minors there is no law preventing them from doing it), WTF is the difference between a 17 year old (M) and an 18 year old (AO)? At some point, we as a society decided to draw this line in the sand and we did a poor damn job at it. A few examples:
You can vote at 18 and die for your country at 18 as well; however, you cannot drink alcohol.
And at what age can you have consensual sex? Well that varies by state, though the minimum appears to be around 16.
Before the 1980s, the drinking age was much of the same and not until threatened with a removal of federal highway funds did states up the age to 21.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to judge an individuals maturity easily. The best thing we apparently have is age, and it is not a good indicator as many people my own age are less mature then some teenagers, and the same goes for people in their 30s or 40s. The other issues around violent games revolve around individuals perceptions of reality and the ability to separate reality and fiction. Some people might not be able to properly separate these well into their later years, while others in their teens easily recognize what is real and what is not. If video games (or movies or music or some other "demonized" media) really caused violence then we would be in far worse shape as a society then we are, but the fact is most studies have failed to show a definitive link between any of those and violence and some of the links they have found were dubious at best.
Like most things before it (movies, rock and roll, comic books, rap music, etc.), video games are being picked on because they are "the new kid". Groups have this narrow-minded view (as they did with the other items), where only kids play video games and this is why they place these pressures on groups like the ESRB and try to pass bad laws written by evangelicals like Jack Thompson. If you think video games and movies are not treated differently in their ratings and content, then you might want to review some of the more recent history on these things.
1. Tech support. Remember it is not about ease but cost. Home service is out-sourced, while business support is not. The simple fact is they probably assumed more Linux machines equals more support and there is less extra cost in that for Home sale then there is for business sales.
2. Hardware support. We can argue about it all we want, but the fact is there are still things that have support issues in Linux. This is especially true for business customers who might have specialty hardware or software. The difference between buying one with Ubuntu and buying the FreeDOS systems is that the FreeDOS systems you are taking your own risk with the OS and will not get much (if any) support from Dell.
3. Licensing Agreements. I wouldn't be surprised if agreements with either Microsoft, Canonical, or other distributors have made with Dell. This could also include support agreements with these companies.
4. Training. It is quite possible that Dell has not trained their business support employees for Ubuntu. If not, it is possible they may not at all. (See #1) If this is the case, then it is possible that they will eventually allow the sell of these to business users and that this issue will be rectified.
Not quite a million, but there is a start for you.
Dell has been selling systems through the business end with FreeDos for a while now. Purchase one of those and install Ubuntu yourself. It really isn't that hard and you can actually customize the install to what components you actually need. Or you could purchase one and install any free distro you want.
I can list the millions of reasons why they only want to sell it as "personal use". Remember, Dell (and any other PC company) is still a business designed to make money and if they cannot please everyone all of the time, oh well.
Take off your aluminum foil hat, and go outside. There's really no one watching you from your neighbors bushes. The State wants their tax money. The laws may not be perfect, but they say that you need to pay money to the state to use fuel in your car. Leading off with insults, always a winner. The state wants their tax money, but why should we give it to them? Please name me some "essential services" provided by the state that could not be provided in much better ways and possibly by much more qualified individuals. The fact is the government is almost run on the intent of losing money. There are plenty of ways to collect money for road usage, in particular highways which seem to get the majority of the funds anyway. You totally ignore the toll road option, which some people dismiss as creating congestion issues. Of course, anyone with EZ-Pass or an equivalent system can tell you there is no real difference in these situations.
This article should be a warning to people to make sure they are within the tax laws when they use bio diesel. But of course, on slashdot, everyone wants to bring up their ideas to change the friggin world! Oh well, that's really why I read it anyways. Yes, but is it not a tad bit ironic that the government and politicians are trying to push for cleaner vehicles and helping the environment, while at the same time enforcing tax laws that are restrictive on individuals and make it nearly impossible for them to achieve these goals. Anything can be a "fuel", the problem is some things are not very good fuels. Natural gas is taxed differently (and supposedly for different purposes) then gasoline, so if you had such a vehicle, would you be in violation of the law for not paying taxes on fuel? And the paying for roads argument holds no weight. As previously stated, if you had an electric vehicle you would not be paying gas taxes and might still be using highways and other roadways. Yet, because they do not use fuel, they are now exempt from this tax?
I love your last part though. You sound like you are espousing the status quo. You are happy in the way things are and don't want anything to change. Maybe it isn't I who should take off the foil hat and move outside, but it is you who should plug in a lamp, blow out that candle, and look to see that the world has changed in the past 200 years and even in the past 100 years since the early days of the automobile.
NO! You are assuming that fairness is that the rich pay more than the poor. That is not true! Fairness would state that the person who uses the roads the most would pay the most in taxes. No if ands or buts about it. This is what toll roads were created for. The tolls pay for the roads. These are still supplemented by taxes, but it makes sense that if more roads were tolled, fewer taxes would be needed on gasoline.
Personally, I feel that gas taxes are one of the fairest taxes the government imposes, as it's an actual usage tax. If you use the infrastructure more, you pay more in taxes. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Except, it isn't. Less fuel economic cars get raped. It isn't just about everyone driving SUVs, but think of the poor family that cannot afford anything then that clunker from the 1980s. They are not getting the same mileage as the rich guy who decided to either "save" money or be more eco-friendly with his Hybrid. The cost of a hybrid is significantly more in some cases then its all fuel counterpart. So, in this case, the poorer are paying for the roads, while the richer are using less fuel and therefore paying less taxes, even if they are driving more.
Also, things other then cars run on fuel. These people are also paying for the roads. Gas powered lawn mowers burn on the same fuel. I don't think there are many mowers that are running down streets, especially if they are the walk-behind kind. Generators can run on fuel. These also do not move down the road, so why are they taxed to pay for roads in the same way as fuel used to power a vehicle? It might not be "fair", but it would be smart to tax the cars. The reason is that gas prices have gotten to a point they are pinching people's budgets. They are not pinching the budget of the well-off (and neither would a car tax), they are pinching the lower (and in some cases even the middle) class. How long before people have to decide between gas to get to work, or food to feed themselves or their children? This sort of decision is also bad for the economy when you consider that the "extremely rich" make up such a small percentage of the US population. (Note: I am not a fan of any taxation, but I think that to say a "fuel tax" is fair is BS.)
The guy was evading taxes (even if he didn't realize it), and must pay the price. End of story. No, he was avoiding paying what is essentially a collective monopoly (after all there is an oil cartel). These are the same people who adjusted the price of E-85, so it would cost the same as (or close to) regular unleaded fuel. These are companies who are fronts for oil producing countries. These taxes and fines only strengthen their potential monopoly by closing out a free market (not a huge fan of that ideal either). It constrains the abilities of the local consumer to come up with an alternate fuel setup and discourages them from using anything that is auto-fuel. BTW, if he was running a 100% electric car, is he dodging taxes because he is using the roadways but is not paying gas taxes? How is this ANY different?
Benjamin and Jefferson had quite a bit to say, and I'm certain it was perfect for their time. I do believe in freedom, as well as civil rights and other rules they fought for. Don't make me out to be a Nazi.
As I recall, I do not think I ever invoked "Godwin's Law" in this discussion. You said that our civil liberties are going to start costing lives. So, how many human lives is freedom x worth? There is the saying, "Freedom isn't free." It is true. People have died for quite some time for our liberties. As I've mentioned, there was the American Revolution. African Americans died for their freedoms during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Being complacent and saying, freedom isn't worth it if it is costing lives is bad. I already fear for a society that cares more about Paris Hilton going to jail then about the foreign and domestic issues facing this nation.
On the other hand, these statements were made before the telephone, cell phones, planes, suicide bombings, school shootings, drug deals, nuclear bombs and other means of instant harm and communication even existed.
So, because we have furthered technology, we deserve less freedoms? We found ways to kill each other 250 years ago; the only difference is, today we are more efficient at doing it. You want to invoke our modern society, let me take a quote from the 9/11 commission report: "Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend." And as much as I dislike the thought of invoking Reagan, "# Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Nowadays, anyone will jump the gun at whatever proposition or action is made, is automatically the fault of whatever political side one is against. Though tracing phones or triangulating a cell to find out it's position in an emergency, MAY be good, it just depends on who's trying to use that information. If a law is created by the government, or even a proposition by a different political party... it doesn't matter if it's a good idea. It will be picked apart due to the political side who created it, just to make them look bad.
Oh, I am perfectly willing to accept every political ideology and group is fucked up. I am libertarian and even I cannot fully subscribe to some of the beliefs of the party (but that is for another discussion). Each group has ideal versions of the world and the country, but the fact is we do not live in an ideal world, we are not ideal beings, and we are never going to have these idealistic fantasies. Some people only see things as black-or-white. I have heard people who were hard-lined Republicans blame laws that were enacted and enabled by Republicans blame it on the Democrats. People are stubborn and changing their views is not easy, especially when they are prone to believing everything they see on CNN (or Fox News) and read in their daily paper.
I understand everyone's uncertainty.. and I know it's easy to pick apart a post and find the weak spots and chomp on them like a wounded baby in the herd... but, we need to start thinking about when the line between security measures and civil rights is out-dated.
It will never be out-dated. I challenge someone to find me a state where you can have absolute security and absolute liberty. It does not exist. There is a line, where people will no longer sacrifice their freedom for security; however, maybe if we turn the temperature up slow enough, people will not realize we are being cooked, so by the time they realize what is happening it will be too late.
As someone who has worked with security and works in the computer security f
Slashdot Mirror
So I would say knowing someone from Mongolia who practices Tibetan Buddhism, is a far cry from knowing someone who actually, well, lived in Tibet.
No, this is just America, where we go through this almost every 100 years. (Yes, I know REAL ID and PATRIOT are not the same, but they are a part of a new era of "Sedition Acts".)
The worst part is each time people seem to support these acts as a means of protecting the people. They also seem to strip away more freedoms with each one that gets passed. It is scary, but history does repeat itself.
There are rules and systems in place for a lot of these creations that GMs make. People have created tons of player generated content for various RPGs, which other people will in turn adopt. I have seen where an entirely new game was created within the rules of a larger system, like White Wolf's World of Darkness. You are truly only confined by the rules of these systems if you let yourself be that way.
Dude, it is a simple as that. Eat what you need, not what you want.
There are a few problems with this, and I will now attempt to explain some of them. First, I believe it is a fair to say parents are the root of this entire problem. First, many of them are purchasing more fatty snacks and sugary sodas for their children and not trying to further the notion of a healthy diet. Kids are eating bad foods, and you have to blame the parents for creating this problem. Second, in households where both parents work, you will probably find a lot less cooking, especially healthy cooking. If families are eating out more or eating more pre-packaged meals, this too will result in greater obesity.
At the same time, not many parents are encouraging their children to take on physical activities. Kids are more and more likely to be found in front of a TV or playing video games then ever before. Even I would get out more when I was younger. This extends into many school systems where recess is eliminated by middle school and PE is not a year round activity. You could also probably question the nutritional factors of some school lunches.
Of course, this sort of cycles follows people into adult life. Many single individuals might not necessarily known how to cook for themselves (or at least not cook healthy). They get home from work and want something to eat then not in 30 minutes or an hour. I can cook, but doing it every night is very cost ineffective since I am single. I wind up eating the same thing for almost three days because most items are not sold in proportions that are conducive for cooking for one.
There is another factor to consider: money. You cannot ignore the fact that many healthier foods cost more money. Low-fat items can sometimes run more expensive then their regular counterparts. Even fruits and vegetables (especially fresh) tend to run a bit more. There is a reason why items that are quick to cook and relatively cheap (rice and pasta come to mind) are found in a lot of kitchens. Of course these kinds of carbs are not bad, until you find out in what sort of portions people are eating them.
The parent to your comment is more right than wrong. Fat people need to stop passing the blame for their 'condition'. Hell, most of the time just being overweight is the lead cause of degrading health - e.g. Diabetes.
Passing the blame to whom? I have never once blamed anyone but my own fat ass for my weight issues. I can factor in a few conditions, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a borderline compulsion or addiction. I have tried diets on several occasions, and I will actually lose a fairly good amount of weight for a few weeks, until my metabolism catches up with me. Of course, I could fix this by exercising, but then we get to yet another point, time. Some of us between work, commuting and other responsibilities often have very little time remaining to actually exercise. Some people even lack proper and safe places to exercise, furthering their problem.
You obviously don't like being told it is your fault.
Personally, I do not like people clumping all obese people together. There are several groups, though a few are in the minority. There are those with physical medical conditions, like glandular problems that are a contributing factor in their obesity. There are those with mental medical conditions -- depression and addiction (and others) -- can also contribute. Total, these two groups are probably less than 10-15% of the total obese people. The third groups is the group that needs to just put the fork down. The problem is people do not usually tell them this, so they continue to eat and eat.
This said, I believe people should be more willing to help then to ridicule these people, no matter which group they fall into. I am not going to lay blame here, but I hear far more people who snicker and mock me then people actually offering support. Even when I have made attempts to diet
As for being a spreader of FUD, I would contend this isn't the case. If that were the case, I would be hear screaming the world is coming to an end. Open Source development will cease to be. I am simply trying to point out to you that to ignore that the move to GPLv3 could cause splintering of project developers is stupid.
This is going to be my last reply to you, because I refuse to continue on with someone who has basically refused to have a civilized discussion on this matter. You have repeatedly refused to discuss points (calling me a liar, but how can you lie about possible situations). Heck, you even ignored outright my example of in-fighting and grumbling amongst developers of one project over GPLv3.
Let me give you a word of advice. If you truly believe I am spreading FUD then fight it with arguments and not with name calling and ignorance. You know why FUD from groups like MS works so well? Because they pay millions to spread it and have legions of people writing press releases that are well articulated and thought out. They are not sitting in a forum someone calling people liars and talking about pink unicorns.
Do you seriously believe that any license other then the GPL removes power from the developer and user? The GPL is hardly the most free license. The GPL inherently places restrictions on the developer and user based on the license. There are other licenses that are considered "more open" and a developer who really wanted to do so could write a copyright license to cover their product in such a way that it would protect their product and still offer more freedom then GPL. The GPL has restrictions and those restrictions have grown from v2 to v3. To say that GPL is FREE and that only GPL is FREE and everything else is BAD, this sounds like RMS rhetoric and not common logic. As for patents, this is another issue, which we will not discuss here. Hackers of the World, unite. You got nothing to lose. the pattent office, does, though. a lot.
- Maya
- ModelSim
- MatLab
- MentorGraphics
- Cadence
Granted, this is largely specialty software, but even some game makers have made relatively painless install procedures. UT2004 gave me no trouble out of the box. RtCW was easily reconcilable trouble. Heck, UT04 even had the installer on the DVD. It was no harder then a Windows install.The fact is if there were demand for more commercial Linux software, then people would find ways to install it easily. Some already have found ways. The lack of commercial software on Linux is much more about demand then it is about ease of distribution. You could always setup closed repository systems to make distribution easier. CD Installers would be no worse then Windows.
a) Windows XP remote desktop is easier to deal with than X remoting.
I have to respectfully disagree. Not only does remotely using X offer far more flexibility then RDP, I believe it is a better bandwidth user then RDP. It should be noted we shouldn't praise MS for RDP either, their original TS implementation sucked. Citrix licensed their stuff off to MS so MS could make a better product. Look at old TS and compare it with Citrix of that time period, you will see who was the leader.
b) Both KDE and Gnome borrow u/i design heavily from the Windows 95 Start Bar. The concept of COM based shell extensions was looted by KParts.
Ah, but the glory is we are not limited to those two interfaces. WindowMaker, Enlightenment, XFCE, and others offer more ways to use X and in many cases are less overhead then using Gnome or KDE. Not to mention X has allowed you for ages to have multiple desktops, something that was only possible with third party apps for a long time in Windows. You can also heavily customize the UIs to be less Windows like if you want. Besides, isn't the Win 95 Start Bar essentially a rip-off of the Mac Apple?
e) Although I prefer OpenGL for its ease of entry, a lot of big gaming houses seem to prefer DirectX.
Blame MS for this; however, there are plenty of games that will work just fine in Linux. id seems hell bent on continuing to make their games run on Linux. UT2004 worked (and I pray UT3 does as well). Other games using DirectX will work, though some of them can only do so much in Wine and it is somewhat limited to older DX apps. Honestly, if you play that many games you can always dual boot or just stick with Windows. The gaming argument is weak at best.
f) For a long time, Windows lead in hardware discovery. Linux has closed that gap, I think, but in 1995, I was editing config files to get my X to work with my monitor, and Windows would discover both for me automatically.
This is just a poor argument. Tell me how many issues you've had in 2007? I will also say that there is better legacy support in Linux then Windows. I can still find devices that won't install drivers from the base Windows install but can in Linux, even if only well enough for me to get drivers that work well. The gap is practically closed with the largest problem being the quality of some video drivers.
g) It's -STILL- easier to install a new piece of software on Windows. Too easy, the security people will refrain... :-)
Really? Use apt-get or one of the various front-ends available or yum and then tell me this. Both of these do great at handling dependencies and make installations rather painless. Not to mention I do not need to spend hours installing extra software since most of what I need is installed when I install the OS, including IM clients, web browsers (not owned by MS), office applications, etc.
And, in the applications department, there's really no open source offering that comes remotely close to Visual Studio 2005 and C#, SQL Server 2005, and certainly not even Office 2000, let alone newer versions of Office.
Okay. Visual Studio is great if you are building for Windows. How well can you build on other platforms? Not at all. Go figure. KDevelop is actually fairly good and offers most the items that the average developer will probably ever use. Of course, I still prefer writing makefiles and source by hand. I've never been a huge fan of IDEs. As for Office, I must laugh. First, word processing of 2000 compared to either Abiword or OOo is equivalent in all regards. I see no advantage to either, except for the fact that both Abiword and OOo will still be supported long after 2000 is not. I have seen no major issues with Calc compared to Excel and if you are using Access (or Base) for a database, you should really get your head examined. Most database people will tell you that Access is not a good solution for a database and
Shit
Piss
Fuck
Cunt
Cocksucker
Motherfucker
Tits
These marvelous words brought to you by George Carlin.
In the case of streaming your own music, you have no royalties to collect and technically have signed an agreement with yourself to distribute the music. Now, to stream other artists (and presumably other labels), you would either a) have to use the SEx arrangement and risk some evil STD (sound-transmitted disease *I couldn't resist.*) or b) have to sign agreements with each individual label or artist for different (presumably lower) rates then you would if you just used SEx. The problem with option 'b' is that it can become an administrative nightmare.
Basically, SoundExchange collects royalties for everyone, RIAA member or not and no matter what license is used for the song release. So even Creative Commons works get royalties collected. Now, I do not believe they are an RIAA member, but there is a rep from each of the Big 4 on the SEx (I love it already.) board. You have to pay fees to collect your royalties from them, but you can apparently come up with your own deals to bypass them; however, you are still required to inform them I believe.
Now here is my question. If you are not a SEx member, how the hell can they be collecting fees for your copyrighted works if they hold no copyright on your works? Something about this systems seems a bit screwed up.
The simple fact is some people are going to be violent with or without video games. For every mass murdered in the world who might have even played Pac-Man as a kid, I could find you twenty who never knew what a video game was. The simple fact is that we as a species have been finding ways to kill and murder each other for a VERY LONG TIME. We had mass murderers and serial killers before we had violent video games, we had them before we had television, and we had them before we electricity. The times may have changed and the methods we use may have changed, but the simple fact is some people are just "crazy" and with or without video games they are probably going to hurt themselves or others without proper treatment.
That rhetoric is old and bullshit. You now have a fresh generation of adults who grew up on consoles and arcades during the '70s and '80s. You have people who are now in the 18-34 demographic (one of the largest targets for advertisers, especially the male side) that are not only buying consoles for themselves but buying video games to play for themselves. Video games are a new form of entertainment which are gaining a widespread appeal, in large part because consoles like the Wii have made games more enjoyable and are not focusing on the hardcore gaming crowd that MS and the X-Box line have been accused of going after.
You see, the problem with your whole argument is that the console makers have decided they do not want these AO games on their consoles; probably for one of two reasons: 1) the stigma around AO has always been sex, sort of like NC-17 to the movies and/or 2) they do not want their consoles directly attached to these rated games because of the crap they have to put up with from the zealots (and we do not need to name them). Because the distinct impression I'm left with, is that they want to both make a "duh, it was for adults game" _and_ then sell it to kids anyway. Please explain to me how you came to this conclusion? The game would have gotten an 'M' rating otherwise, which for those keeping score, stands for Mature and mentions for 17+. AO increases that required age by one year to the whopping age of 18+, so what difference does this one year make? If they were ranking it 'T', I could see more anger because that would carry a much lower age. However, it should also be noted that not all 'M' rated games are created equal.
This is slashdot, so let us use an analogy (and one that hopefully isn't too bad). There are many 'R' rated movies that I would not want my children to see (assuming I had any) until they were probably 18 or older. Some of them are movies that I myself cannot even stomach to watch (the Saw series and Hostel come to mind). While other movies are far more acceptable in my eyes because their violence content is much lower and the worst thing some of them have is foul language (Lethal Weapon series comes to mind). Look at another 'R' rated movie, "The Passion of The Christ". People took their kids to this movie (some rather young), despite it being considered somewhat graphic by people. I doubt these same people would be quick to let their children watch other 'R' rated movies. If we are to agree that 'M' most closely related to an 'R' movie rating, then how can a game whose violence level has been compared Saw and Hostel be given a rating that denotes anything worse? In the end, ratings should be only a guide for parents and other consumers in the purchase of a game, whether it be rated 'E', 'T', 'M', or 'AO'.
Okay, assuming a video game store follows ratings for sales (and nothing prohibits them from selling to minors, you remember all those smacked down game laws, also theaters by policy do not sell to minors there is no law preventing them from doing it), WTF is the difference between a 17 year old (M) and an 18 year old (AO)? At some point, we as a society decided to draw this line in the sand and we did a poor damn job at it. A few examples:
You can vote at 18 and die for your country at 18 as well; however, you cannot drink alcohol.
And at what age can you have consensual sex? Well that varies by state, though the minimum appears to be around 16.
Before the 1980s, the drinking age was much of the same and not until threatened with a removal of federal highway funds did states up the age to 21.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to judge an individuals maturity easily. The best thing we apparently have is age, and it is not a good indicator as many people my own age are less mature then some teenagers, and the same goes for people in their 30s or 40s. The other issues around violent games revolve around individuals perceptions of reality and the ability to separate reality and fiction. Some people might not be able to properly separate these well into their later years, while others in their teens easily recognize what is real and what is not. If video games (or movies or music or some other "demonized" media) really caused violence then we would be in far worse shape as a society then we are, but the fact is most studies have failed to show a definitive link between any of those and violence and some of the links they have found were dubious at best.
Like most things before it (movies, rock and roll, comic books, rap music, etc.), video games are being picked on because they are "the new kid". Groups have this narrow-minded view (as they did with the other items), where only kids play video games and this is why they place these pressures on groups like the ESRB and try to pass bad laws written by evangelicals like Jack Thompson. If you think video games and movies are not treated differently in their ratings and content, then you might want to review some of the more recent history on these things.
1. Tech support. Remember it is not about ease but cost. Home service is out-sourced, while business support is not. The simple fact is they probably assumed more Linux machines equals more support and there is less extra cost in that for Home sale then there is for business sales.
2. Hardware support. We can argue about it all we want, but the fact is there are still things that have support issues in Linux. This is especially true for business customers who might have specialty hardware or software. The difference between buying one with Ubuntu and buying the FreeDOS systems is that the FreeDOS systems you are taking your own risk with the OS and will not get much (if any) support from Dell.
3. Licensing Agreements. I wouldn't be surprised if agreements with either Microsoft, Canonical, or other distributors have made with Dell. This could also include support agreements with these companies.
4. Training. It is quite possible that Dell has not trained their business support employees for Ubuntu. If not, it is possible they may not at all. (See #1) If this is the case, then it is possible that they will eventually allow the sell of these to business users and that this issue will be rectified.
Not quite a million, but there is a start for you.
Dell has been selling systems through the business end with FreeDos for a while now. Purchase one of those and install Ubuntu yourself. It really isn't that hard and you can actually customize the install to what components you actually need. Or you could purchase one and install any free distro you want.
I can list the millions of reasons why they only want to sell it as "personal use". Remember, Dell (and any other PC company) is still a business designed to make money and if they cannot please everyone all of the time, oh well.
I love your last part though. You sound like you are espousing the status quo. You are happy in the way things are and don't want anything to change. Maybe it isn't I who should take off the foil hat and move outside, but it is you who should plug in a lamp, blow out that candle, and look to see that the world has changed in the past 200 years and even in the past 100 years since the early days of the automobile.
Also, things other then cars run on fuel. These people are also paying for the roads. Gas powered lawn mowers burn on the same fuel. I don't think there are many mowers that are running down streets, especially if they are the walk-behind kind. Generators can run on fuel. These also do not move down the road, so why are they taxed to pay for roads in the same way as fuel used to power a vehicle? It might not be "fair", but it would be smart to tax the cars. The reason is that gas prices have gotten to a point they are pinching people's budgets. They are not pinching the budget of the well-off (and neither would a car tax), they are pinching the lower (and in some cases even the middle) class. How long before people have to decide between gas to get to work, or food to feed themselves or their children? This sort of decision is also bad for the economy when you consider that the "extremely rich" make up such a small percentage of the US population. (Note: I am not a fan of any taxation, but I think that to say a "fuel tax" is fair is BS.) The guy was evading taxes (even if he didn't realize it), and must pay the price. End of story. No, he was avoiding paying what is essentially a collective monopoly (after all there is an oil cartel). These are the same people who adjusted the price of E-85, so it would cost the same as (or close to) regular unleaded fuel. These are companies who are fronts for oil producing countries. These taxes and fines only strengthen their potential monopoly by closing out a free market (not a huge fan of that ideal either). It constrains the abilities of the local consumer to come up with an alternate fuel setup and discourages them from using anything that is auto-fuel. BTW, if he was running a 100% electric car, is he dodging taxes because he is using the roadways but is not paying gas taxes? How is this ANY different?
Benjamin and Jefferson had quite a bit to say, and I'm certain it was perfect for their time. I do believe in freedom, as well as civil rights and other rules they fought for. Don't make me out to be a Nazi.
As I recall, I do not think I ever invoked "Godwin's Law" in this discussion. You said that our civil liberties are going to start costing lives. So, how many human lives is freedom x worth? There is the saying, "Freedom isn't free." It is true. People have died for quite some time for our liberties. As I've mentioned, there was the American Revolution. African Americans died for their freedoms during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Being complacent and saying, freedom isn't worth it if it is costing lives is bad. I already fear for a society that cares more about Paris Hilton going to jail then about the foreign and domestic issues facing this nation.
On the other hand, these statements were made before the telephone, cell phones, planes, suicide bombings, school shootings, drug deals, nuclear bombs and other means of instant harm and communication even existed.
So, because we have furthered technology, we deserve less freedoms? We found ways to kill each other 250 years ago; the only difference is, today we are more efficient at doing it. You want to invoke our modern society, let me take a quote from the 9/11 commission report: "Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend." And as much as I dislike the thought of invoking Reagan, "# Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
Nowadays, anyone will jump the gun at whatever proposition or action is made, is automatically the fault of whatever political side one is against. Though tracing phones or triangulating a cell to find out it's position in an emergency, MAY be good, it just depends on who's trying to use that information. If a law is created by the government, or even a proposition by a different political party... it doesn't matter if it's a good idea. It will be picked apart due to the political side who created it, just to make them look bad.
Oh, I am perfectly willing to accept every political ideology and group is fucked up. I am libertarian and even I cannot fully subscribe to some of the beliefs of the party (but that is for another discussion). Each group has ideal versions of the world and the country, but the fact is we do not live in an ideal world, we are not ideal beings, and we are never going to have these idealistic fantasies. Some people only see things as black-or-white. I have heard people who were hard-lined Republicans blame laws that were enacted and enabled by Republicans blame it on the Democrats. People are stubborn and changing their views is not easy, especially when they are prone to believing everything they see on CNN (or Fox News) and read in their daily paper.
I understand everyone's uncertainty.. and I know it's easy to pick apart a post and find the weak spots and chomp on them like a wounded baby in the herd... but, we need to start thinking about when the line between security measures and civil rights is out-dated.
It will never be out-dated. I challenge someone to find me a state where you can have absolute security and absolute liberty. It does not exist. There is a line, where people will no longer sacrifice their freedom for security; however, maybe if we turn the temperature up slow enough, people will not realize we are being cooked, so by the time they realize what is happening it will be too late.
As someone who has worked with security and works in the computer security f