It is 5 hours with wireless on. The stewardess won't smile at you when you leave that on. You, however, will have more time to waste your time looking at the screen instead of the stewardess.
Thanks again. Amazingly I believe we get a little closer. A couple of points:
"Not to mention, fraud by the government need not involve just refusing to enter suggestions, but also obscuring them in noise, ignoring them, modifying them (all "anonymously" or via proxies)." Sorry, but whenever you have an argument pro/contra something, it is next to impossible for a civilian to get it inserted in the process. I once came up with the idea to allow people to pay more for their electricity, and that money would be used to generate green electricity. It took a long time and I was getting nowhere, despite various attack (including sending a relevant poem by a somewhat famous poet, signed by the poet). Then the dirty guys in the electricity world started doing it (and I don't kid myself into thinking it was me who made them do it). They did it not to be green, but because they could make money by it). Solid arguments got me nowhere. That would have been different (I hope) if they had been out in the open. So, however pessimistic you may be about the effect, it is glaringly better than the current situation.
"A wiki that anyone can edit will not work well for law editing" That is why the moderators are essential. No removals. If something is wrong, you can find the refutation right below it. And if there is more support for that, you'll find the supporting arguments there, and if one of them is only partially wrong, you can find the argument against that part right there (tree structure).
"You are proposing to change the system of elections, not the system of politician communications. I first showed mathematically that a single vote doesn't carry any weight. I then said, that you could improve this statistical result somewhat (but not really) by using a random subset of the population (being "selected" would give the voter greater responsibility, and the voter would hopefully put some more thought into his vote). Then I said that I didn't really care about this system, as it reduces the (insignificant) vote to a black and white thing. None of my thoughts, arguments, proposals are present in that 1 bit information of the red dot on the voting sheet. And so, yes, what I'm greatly in favour of is a system that allows communication with politicians. To supplement the system where they only talk to us (TV, news paper etc.), but that we can talk back to them. A human being cannot listen to 10 million people. But if you let those people only contribute to what not yet has been said (using the moderated wiki where moderators include the contributions), then the politicians/civil servants aren't innundated with a stream of ramblings and repetitions, but with an overview of a gamut of facts, arguments and suggestions. Subsequently politicians can decide what they think best, extract compromises from the text etc.
As to the Rupert Sheldrake thing: It is bogus. My mind doesn't influence anything. If I ran under a train the morning of the election (so I wouldn't vote anymore), no one else's mind would change because of that. Sheldrake's nonsense has been experimentally tested to be just that.
"Its impossible to sum the goods and bads of an idea that wasn't tried out." It is very well possible to decide on the sum of good and bad without trying. I guess that if I had had the plan to hand out atomic bombs to Palestinians, you would agree that the balance is negative. Or do you insist on a trial first? But even if we cannot predict the sum, we can try it, just once, on a small scale and if society doesn't shatter we could do it again on a somewhat larger scale etc.
"How do you know that everything is out in the open? " Please give trying the idea of comparing a proposal with the current situation another shot. How many of the ideas, facts provided etc. are in the open now? If you send a letter to a politician, you cannot even be sure it goes past his/her secretary. You may receive a response, with an argument that you may or may not be able to refute. If someone else could the likelihood that he would hear about it from you is next to zero.
Everyone can check whether his own contribution made it to the list. If not, they can call the media about fraud. If the contribution is trivial, why would the government stop it? If it is influential, then the media would be all over it if the government had made it vanish. In my country there are multiple parties, you could always write an (opposition) party that would be in favour of your idea and complain that the government suppressed it. Would make the government look very bad.
I live in a relatively civilized country. That means that if something like this would be set up, it would run nicely. In fact, last month I there was some message on teletext that the government is going into this direction of more influence by society on decisions via Internet.
"Everyone knows their ass is on the line, so nobody grows above the law." I don't think that is what we observe in the US.
I'm not able to understand your first response. My point is mathematical. In my country a seat in the house requires about 65000 votes. Only if the vote I bring out causes the number to go from 64999 to 65000 that results in an extra seat for my party. One can vote for the house on average about every 3 years, so it that chance of 1 in 65000 never happens.
>> Voting inaccuracies (have you never been surprised that if they do a recount after an election, that they don't end up with the same outcome, but may be hundreds off?). >Hundreds may be a very slight margin of error.
Yes, and my single vote is a fraction of only that. The point is, you are made to believe that your vote counts. But it doesn't. It is even a fraction of the slight margin of error.
>>People who believe in voting suffer as much from delusion as a creationist. An election is just a very expensive poll with a large sample (yet still very often biased). It could be less biased by asking only 1% of the population to vote (computers select the voters randomly). People who "believe in voting" do so empirically. Systems of vote tend to respect their citizens far more than other systems. Also, I "believe in voting" but I believe the purpose of voting to be something entirely different than you seem to be.
>Your idea to sample the population might even work, if it weren't so susceptible to corruption: Of course, we don't have any lobbying in my country. Right? And in my country the situation is better than in e.g. the US, as here the nominees don't need large election funds. I hate it when someone thinks that a new idea must be perfect in every sense before it can be accepted. I love it when I come across people capable of balancing the sum of good and bad of the current situation versus the sum for the proposal. But I don't care for this idea, as it still doesn't take into account the knowledge and problem-solving capabilities in society.
>The "random" choice is made by a computer. This computer's choice may be secretly influenced by interest holders. Or it could not. It is not rocket science. And it could work very simple. Everyone has a social security number. This year, those with a social security number ending with 42 are the ones who get to vote. I hate it when I'm confronted with counter-arguments that really take 5 seconds of thought to brush off.
>Computer networks are not mature enough to be trusted for this purpose at this time. Then use Linux or Mac. Sorry, just a joke. It really has nothing to do with computer security. In fact, everything is in the open. One way of preventing moderators to have too much effect is to let everyone look over their shoulder. Not every entry makes it into the wiki, but every entry makes it into a public log which the moderators cannot modify. Everybody can check the log to see whether the moderators are doing a good job and call their politician/the media if they are not. Being a moderator will be a though job.
>This may be an interesting idea for the future, Not the future. Now. Now everybody has internet.
>but it assumes that it is desirable that people make governing choices. It does not. In fact, I'm totally opposed to letting uneducated masses make majority decisions that influence. You don't make better decisions by averaging the opinion of a population, left alone the opinion of people who didn't have the time to read through all the relevant facts etc. I want politicians to be professionals at decision making. It is too much to ask that they know everything they need to know for good decisions and are better at solving problems than an entire population. There is a lot of knowledge in society, and that knowledge should be used to make better decisions/laws. Now, if I as an individual have an idea (such as debunking fallacies on how this proposal works), then I can have an effect on my life. Something not possible with voting, where every argument and idea I may have never makes it into the 1 bit r
All voting system are bad because they give the voter the idea that by voting he can influence the outcome of the voting process. That is only the case if there is a draw. Even if there are only 2 voters, that chance is only 1/3rd. Voting inaccuracies (have you never been surprised that if they do a recount after an election, that they don't end up with the same outcome, but may be hundreds off?). People who believe in voting suffer as much from delusion as a creationist. An election is just a very expensive poll with a large sample (yet still very often biased). It could be less biased by asking only 1% of the population to vote (computers select the voters randomly).
Also, voting takes away any nuance you may have. For example, I'm a democrat in the sense that I'd want that civilians can influence the outcome of decisions by the government by supplying facts, arguments and ideas, and that the process is transparent. The party that defends democracy in the Netherlands, but they are old hat proponents of chosen mayor etc. More elections doesn't give an individual voter any more effect!! I want someone capable, not someone popular!!
My idea of democracy is a kind of public wiki per topic that the government decides on, but it must be a moderated wiki to keep things organized, and civil. Politicians will be smoked out when they say stupid things that have been proven wrong in the wiki. Media will have a field day. So, politicians will pay attention. And yes, it is possible to do that without the moderators giving too much power.
""The theory of Evolution" is very much different today than what Darwin proposed."
Very different in the same sense as that Newton's laws are very different from what Einstein came up with. Depending on your point of view Einstein's theory is radically different, or - for all practical purposes and effects on daily life - there is hardly any difference between them. Darwin was spot on, but yes, you can debate about the size of the spot.
Physicists or scientists love to say things like "a breakthrough", "all textbooks have to be rewritten", whereas in fact it is only 5 digits after the decimal point we're talking about
The term is limited, to a period of 20 years. As an incentive not to keep the patent in force for any longer than necessary (and to pay for the patent system and bring in some tax money), there is a renewal fee to be paid every year or in odd cases (US) every couple of years. The fee gets higher the longer you want to keep the patent in force.
Patent terms are way more reasonable than copyright terms. And for a patent you have to meet high standards (OK, in some countries they sometimes make a joke out of that) and it is quite costly. Now, compare that to copyright. It doesn't cost anything, doesn't require registration and lasts for all practical purposes forever.
As to the HIV issue you mention. Just about any patent law has an article allowing the government to step in and end the monopoly prematurely. This is not done for trivial reasons, but in case of say - a bird flue epidemic - a patentee cannot hold a country at ransom. Brazil did it recently when some drug company insisted on charging too much.
Bert
Re:well, not effortlessly
on
RTF Vs. OOXML
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"I wouldn't say this is entirely true (effortless) on Microsoft's part. Any user of any Microsoft product is well aware of how difficult it is to work in and out of various new vs. old formats. Yes, even Microsoft has a difficult time being compatible and interoperable with Microsoft"
The problem is mainly caused by trying to develop a convoluted standard to make it difficult to create a standard that is difficult for others to figure out AND then understand your own convoluted standard and how to make it compatible with your previous convoluted standard which others already deciphered for a major part.
There is a good reason for the firewall being as it is. They thought about that but considered you irrelevant. It is there to make customers dependent on certified engineers, who then can further recommend Windows because that is all they know. Ad infinitum until more people switch to Macs and linux developers see the light and start paying more attention to user-friendliness (I use the term as it was meant to be, not its current watered-down meaning).
If this properly describes what Apple's patent application wants to claim, then this book is valid prior art. You may recall a Mythbuster's episode where they raised a sunken ship with pingpong balls. This was in an earlier Donald Duck comic, and the patent got only saved by the specific way of getting the balls down, but the general principle could no longer be claimed.
I'm a patent agent, and this software patent stuff irritates me to no end. So, there is nothing to stop you from sending a copy of the relevant pages of that book, together with details such as when it was published, title etc. to the USPTO together. Don't forget to mention the patent application number and state that it shouldn't be granted in view of the enclosed prior art. I'm a certified Apple fanboi, but any patent that doesn't qualify as Inventive shouldn't be granted, which should make software patents fair game.
Well, living in a society soaked with fear-mongering comes at a price. Realistically, the chances of dying in a car accident are about 1 in 20k. If she wants to reduce that chance significantly, let her take some driving lessons again (that's not age-based discrimination; everybody should do it every couple of years, I believe).
I run a company, and I will be happy to turn away anyone trained by your advice. I need people who understand principles and can adapt to any application I give them (i.e. is best to run my program). Otherwise they are just like the people who think that a computer can't visit the Internet because it doesn't have a blue e-shaped icon. People who know how to handle a specific application are useful until the application changes/another application is introduced. Ever heard of the expense of training people? So, I hire people with the skills to adapt. They'll have that skill once the next application comes along. I hire my staff for the long run.
So, I'd say, give them the open source programs. Better still give them several of the same type. And being open source, they can use them for free on their own computer. My brother's kids use both a Mac and PC at home, and they're way more skilled with computers than their school mates.
Finally, will there never be any opportunity for them to encounter one of the proprietary apps???? Of course, not. Your argument is based on the fact that the app is very often used.
"You NEED to patent everything you have if you don't want to open your pocked every week. Defensive patents are a necesity these days."
No, all you have to do is make your idea public (in a way it can be implemented), and no other person can get a patent on it. Please do it such that it can be found.
Of course he didn't use a Mac. He was a bad guy, and in movies only the good guys use Macs.
It is easier than you describe, though. Just put your stuff in the trash and empty it. Then go to disk utility and ask it under the Erase tab to write all over the free space 7 times. No need to do format-like stuff.
Easy, because it is ALL micro-evolution, just for a veerrrrrrryyyyyyy long time.
Who once on youtube saw a christian talk to kids, who were brought there by their parents for indoctrination in this subject. The speaker showed a morph of a man and an ape, and asked the kids whether their grandfather looked like that. Noooo, all the kids said. So, it was clear that apes and man don't have a common ancestor. Seeing a person lying (no evolution biologist contends that 2 generations back people would look like that), made my blood boil. These christians (sorry for the name calling) are absolutely not interested in truth.
Without patent, no pharmaceutical company will take the risk of getting a drug registered. In other words, no patient will enjoy a better life without the drug being patented (first).
The sooner the invention is made, the sooner the patent will expire, and the drug be made by generics companies.
Bert All above pertains to logic to which some nationalities are more impervious to than others.
Bert Who suffered from the Slashdot time limit because he can use 10 fingers to type quickly and now has to spend his time to write this post-script to defeat the time limit. Let's give it another try.
So Windows fan-bois, ask yourself the question: Would Mac-users now want to switch with you when it comes to malware? 1 troyan versus tons of bad stuff? That is a no-brainer except for no-brainers. But is this troyan a problem for Mac-usin', Porn-surfin' slashdotters (now you know why Apple promotes big 30" screens, right? Never seen an add that bigger is better?)? No. When surfing for those pictures that sneakily attempt to promote that breast-milk is best, Safari's Private browsing setting can be used. No stuff is downloaded to the hard disk. That includes no malware.
And as a european/world citizen I'm dreaming of An American President, someone with integrity. Michael Douglass did fit the bill.
Bert Who thinks that the previous time the US had an actor as president he did as well as Bush does now, so why not give Michael a shot? It can't get worse, can it?
Slashdot Mirror
It is 5 hours with wireless on. The stewardess won't smile at you when you leave that on. You, however, will have more time to waste your time looking at the screen instead of the stewardess.
Bert
Thanks again. Amazingly I believe we get a little closer. A couple of points:
"Not to mention, fraud by the government need not involve just refusing to enter suggestions, but also obscuring them in noise, ignoring them, modifying them (all "anonymously" or via proxies)."
Sorry, but whenever you have an argument pro/contra something, it is next to impossible for a civilian to get it inserted in the process. I once came up with the idea to allow people to pay more for their electricity, and that money would be used to generate green electricity. It took a long time and I was getting nowhere, despite various attack (including sending a relevant poem by a somewhat famous poet, signed by the poet). Then the dirty guys in the electricity world started doing it (and I don't kid myself into thinking it was me who made them do it). They did it not to be green, but because they could make money by it). Solid arguments got me nowhere. That would have been different (I hope) if they had been out in the open.
So, however pessimistic you may be about the effect, it is glaringly better than the current situation.
"A wiki that anyone can edit will not work well for law editing"
That is why the moderators are essential. No removals. If something is wrong, you can find the refutation right below it. And if there is more support for that, you'll find the supporting arguments there, and if one of them is only partially wrong, you can find the argument against that part right there (tree structure).
"You are proposing to change the system of elections, not the system of politician communications.
I first showed mathematically that a single vote doesn't carry any weight. I then said, that you could improve this statistical result somewhat (but not really) by using a random subset of the population (being "selected" would give the voter greater responsibility, and the voter would hopefully put some more thought into his vote). Then I said that I didn't really care about this system, as it reduces the (insignificant) vote to a black and white thing. None of my thoughts, arguments, proposals are present in that 1 bit information of the red dot on the voting sheet. And so, yes, what I'm greatly in favour of is a system that allows communication with politicians. To supplement the system where they only talk to us (TV, news paper etc.), but that we can talk back to them. A human being cannot listen to 10 million people. But if you let those people only contribute to what not yet has been said (using the moderated wiki where moderators include the contributions), then the politicians/civil servants aren't innundated with a stream of ramblings and repetitions, but with an overview of a gamut of facts, arguments and suggestions. Subsequently politicians can decide what they think best, extract compromises from the text etc.
Bert
Thank you for your reply. It is appreciated.
As to the Rupert Sheldrake thing: It is bogus. My mind doesn't influence anything. If I ran under a train the morning of the election (so I wouldn't vote anymore), no one else's mind would change because of that. Sheldrake's nonsense has been experimentally tested to be just that.
"Its impossible to sum the goods and bads of an idea that wasn't tried out."
It is very well possible to decide on the sum of good and bad without trying. I guess that if I had had the plan to hand out atomic bombs to Palestinians, you would agree that the balance is negative. Or do you insist on a trial first?
But even if we cannot predict the sum, we can try it, just once, on a small scale and if society doesn't shatter we could do it again on a somewhat larger scale etc.
"How do you know that everything is out in the open? "
Please give trying the idea of comparing a proposal with the current situation another shot. How many of the ideas, facts provided etc. are in the open now? If you send a letter to a politician, you cannot even be sure it goes past his/her secretary. You may receive a response, with an argument that you may or may not be able to refute. If someone else could the likelihood that he would hear about it from you is next to zero.
Everyone can check whether his own contribution made it to the list. If not, they can call the media about fraud. If the contribution is trivial, why would the government stop it? If it is influential, then the media would be all over it if the government had made it vanish. In my country there are multiple parties, you could always write an (opposition) party that would be in favour of your idea and complain that the government suppressed it. Would make the government look very bad.
I live in a relatively civilized country. That means that if something like this would be set up, it would run nicely. In fact, last month I there was some message on teletext that the government is going into this direction of more influence by society on decisions via Internet.
"Everyone knows their ass is on the line, so nobody grows above the law."
I don't think that is what we observe in the US.
Bert
Would patent attorney - client privilege be acknowledged?
Bert
I'm not able to understand your first response. My point is mathematical. In my country a seat in the house requires about 65000 votes. Only if the vote I bring out causes the number to go from 64999 to 65000 that results in an extra seat for my party. One can vote for the house on average about every 3 years, so it that chance of 1 in 65000 never happens.
>> Voting inaccuracies (have you never been surprised that if they do a recount after an election, that they don't end up with the same outcome, but may be hundreds off?).
>Hundreds may be a very slight margin of error.
Yes, and my single vote is a fraction of only that. The point is, you are made to believe that your vote counts. But it doesn't. It is even a fraction of the slight margin of error.
>>People who believe in voting suffer as much from delusion as a creationist. An election is just a very expensive poll with a large sample (yet still very often biased). It could be less biased by asking only 1% of the population to vote (computers select the voters randomly).
People who "believe in voting" do so empirically. Systems of vote tend to respect their citizens far more than other systems. Also, I "believe in voting" but I believe the purpose of voting to be something entirely different than you seem to be.
>Your idea to sample the population might even work, if it weren't so susceptible to corruption:
Of course, we don't have any lobbying in my country. Right? And in my country the situation is better than in e.g. the US, as here the nominees don't need large election funds.
I hate it when someone thinks that a new idea must be perfect in every sense before it can be accepted. I love it when I come across people capable of balancing the sum of good and bad of the current situation versus the sum for the proposal. But I don't care for this idea, as it still doesn't take into account the knowledge and problem-solving capabilities in society.
>The "random" choice is made by a computer. This computer's choice may be secretly influenced by interest holders.
Or it could not. It is not rocket science. And it could work very simple. Everyone has a social security number. This year, those with a social security number ending with 42 are the ones who get to vote.
I hate it when I'm confronted with counter-arguments that really take 5 seconds of thought to brush off.
>Computer networks are not mature enough to be trusted for this purpose at this time.
Then use Linux or Mac. Sorry, just a joke.
It really has nothing to do with computer security. In fact, everything is in the open. One way of preventing moderators to have too much effect is to let everyone look over their shoulder. Not every entry makes it into the wiki, but every entry makes it into a public log which the moderators cannot modify. Everybody can check the log to see whether the moderators are doing a good job and call their politician/the media if they are not. Being a moderator will be a though job.
>This may be an interesting idea for the future,
Not the future. Now. Now everybody has internet.
>but it assumes that it is desirable that people make governing choices.
It does not. In fact, I'm totally opposed to letting uneducated masses make majority decisions that influence. You don't make better decisions by averaging the opinion of a population, left alone the opinion of people who didn't have the time to read through all the relevant facts etc. I want politicians to be professionals at decision making. It is too much to ask that they know everything they need to know for good decisions and are better at solving problems than an entire population. There is a lot of knowledge in society, and that knowledge should be used to make better decisions/laws. Now, if I as an individual have an idea (such as debunking fallacies on how this proposal works), then I can have an effect on my life. Something not possible with voting, where every argument and idea I may have never makes it into the 1 bit r
All voting system are bad because they give the voter the idea that by voting he can influence the outcome of the voting process. That is only the case if there is a draw. Even if there are only 2 voters, that chance is only 1/3rd. Voting inaccuracies (have you never been surprised that if they do a recount after an election, that they don't end up with the same outcome, but may be hundreds off?). People who believe in voting suffer as much from delusion as a creationist. An election is just a very expensive poll with a large sample (yet still very often biased). It could be less biased by asking only 1% of the population to vote (computers select the voters randomly).
Also, voting takes away any nuance you may have. For example, I'm a democrat in the sense that I'd want that civilians can influence the outcome of decisions by the government by supplying facts, arguments and ideas, and that the process is transparent. The party that defends democracy in the Netherlands, but they are old hat proponents of chosen mayor etc. More elections doesn't give an individual voter any more effect!! I want someone capable, not someone popular!!
My idea of democracy is a kind of public wiki per topic that the government decides on, but it must be a moderated wiki to keep things organized, and civil. Politicians will be smoked out when they say stupid things that have been proven wrong in the wiki. Media will have a field day. So, politicians will pay attention. And yes, it is possible to do that without the moderators giving too much power.
Bert
""The theory of Evolution" is very much different today than what Darwin proposed."
Very different in the same sense as that Newton's laws are very different from what Einstein came up with. Depending on your point of view Einstein's theory is radically different, or - for all practical purposes and effects on daily life - there is hardly any difference between them. Darwin was spot on, but yes, you can debate about the size of the spot.
Physicists or scientists love to say things like "a breakthrough", "all textbooks have to be rewritten", whereas in fact it is only 5 digits after the decimal point we're talking about
Bert
The term is limited, to a period of 20 years. As an incentive not to keep the patent in force for any longer than necessary (and to pay for the patent system and bring in some tax money), there is a renewal fee to be paid every year or in odd cases (US) every couple of years. The fee gets higher the longer you want to keep the patent in force.
Patent terms are way more reasonable than copyright terms. And for a patent you have to meet high standards (OK, in some countries they sometimes make a joke out of that) and it is quite costly. Now, compare that to copyright. It doesn't cost anything, doesn't require registration and lasts for all practical purposes forever.
As to the HIV issue you mention. Just about any patent law has an article allowing the government to step in and end the monopoly prematurely. This is not done for trivial reasons, but in case of say - a bird flue epidemic - a patentee cannot hold a country at ransom. Brazil did it recently when some drug company insisted on charging too much.
Bert
"I wouldn't say this is entirely true (effortless) on Microsoft's part. Any user of any Microsoft product is well aware of how difficult it is to work in and out of various new vs. old formats. Yes, even Microsoft has a difficult time being compatible and interoperable with Microsoft"
The problem is mainly caused by trying to develop a convoluted standard to make it difficult to create a standard that is difficult for others to figure out AND then understand your own convoluted standard and how to make it compatible with your previous convoluted standard which others already deciphered for a major part.
Bert
There is a good reason for the firewall being as it is. They thought about that but considered you irrelevant. It is there to make customers dependent on certified engineers, who then can further recommend Windows because that is all they know. Ad infinitum until more people switch to Macs and linux developers see the light and start paying more attention to user-friendliness (I use the term as it was meant to be, not its current watered-down meaning).
Bert
If this properly describes what Apple's patent application wants to claim, then this book is valid prior art. You may recall a Mythbuster's episode where they raised a sunken ship with pingpong balls. This was in an earlier Donald Duck comic, and the patent got only saved by the specific way of getting the balls down, but the general principle could no longer be claimed.
I'm a patent agent, and this software patent stuff irritates me to no end. So, there is nothing to stop you from sending a copy of the relevant pages of that book, together with details such as when it was published, title etc. to the USPTO together. Don't forget to mention the patent application number and state that it shouldn't be granted in view of the enclosed prior art. I'm a certified Apple fanboi, but any patent that doesn't qualify as Inventive shouldn't be granted, which should make software patents fair game.
Bert
I must be a company from some alien planet, because there are only 12 months in a year.
Bert
Well, living in a society soaked with fear-mongering comes at a price. Realistically, the chances of dying in a car accident are about 1 in 20k. If she wants to reduce that chance significantly, let her take some driving lessons again (that's not age-based discrimination; everybody should do it every couple of years, I believe).
Bert
I run a company, and I will be happy to turn away anyone trained by your advice. I need people who understand principles and can adapt to any application I give them (i.e. is best to run my program). Otherwise they are just like the people who think that a computer can't visit the Internet because it doesn't have a blue e-shaped icon. People who know how to handle a specific application are useful until the application changes/another application is introduced. Ever heard of the expense of training people? So, I hire people with the skills to adapt. They'll have that skill once the next application comes along. I hire my staff for the long run.
So, I'd say, give them the open source programs. Better still give them several of the same type. And being open source, they can use them for free on their own computer. My brother's kids use both a Mac and PC at home, and they're way more skilled with computers than their school mates.
Finally, will there never be any opportunity for them to encounter one of the proprietary apps???? Of course, not. Your argument is based on the fact that the app is very often used.
Bert
Some people, especially those on jury duty, are even better at giving other people's money away.
Bert
"You NEED to patent everything you have if you don't want to open your pocked every week. Defensive patents are a necesity these days."
No, all you have to do is make your idea public (in a way it can be implemented), and no other person can get a patent on it. Please do it such that it can be found.
Bert
Patent attorney against software patents
Of course he didn't use a Mac. He was a bad guy, and in movies only the good guys use Macs.
It is easier than you describe, though. Just put your stuff in the trash and empty it. Then go to disk utility and ask it under the Erase tab to write all over the free space 7 times. No need to do format-like stuff.
Bert
Easy, because it is ALL micro-evolution, just for a veerrrrrrryyyyyyy long time.
Who once on youtube saw a christian talk to kids, who were brought there by their parents for indoctrination in this subject. The speaker showed a morph of a man and an ape, and asked the kids whether their grandfather looked like that. Noooo, all the kids said. So, it was clear that apes and man don't have a common ancestor. Seeing a person lying (no evolution biologist contends that 2 generations back people would look like that), made my blood boil. These christians (sorry for the name calling) are absolutely not interested in truth.
Bert
1. Sell PC .....
2. Buy Mac
3.
4. Happy and productive
5. Profit!
Coincidence? I think not!
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2007jnaf.php
Bert
Should be big enough for early creationists.
Bert
Without patent, no pharmaceutical company will take the risk of getting a drug registered. In other words, no patient will enjoy a better life without the drug being patented (first).
The sooner the invention is made, the sooner the patent will expire, and the drug be made by generics companies.
Bert
All above pertains to logic to which some nationalities are more impervious to than others.
I thought China had IPv6.
Bert
Who suffered from the Slashdot time limit because he can use 10 fingers to type quickly and now has to spend his time to write this post-script to defeat the time limit. Let's give it another try.
So Windows fan-bois, ask yourself the question: Would Mac-users now want to switch with you when it comes to malware? 1 troyan versus tons of bad stuff? That is a no-brainer except for no-brainers. But is this troyan a problem for Mac-usin', Porn-surfin' slashdotters (now you know why Apple promotes big 30" screens, right? Never seen an add that bigger is better?)? No. When surfing for those pictures that sneakily attempt to promote that breast-milk is best, Safari's Private browsing setting can be used. No stuff is downloaded to the hard disk. That includes no malware.
Bert
And as a european/world citizen I'm dreaming of An American President, someone with integrity. Michael Douglass did fit the bill.
Bert
Who thinks that the previous time the US had an actor as president he did as well as Bush does now, so why not give Michael a shot? It can't get worse, can it?