This is the reaction every time I say this. Lets look at the numbers, as your statistics support my original statement, even if you don't want to face it.
Next, lets assume that near 100% of the single income, married couples are man working woman at home. While there are the random stay at home dad, I have yet to meet one, or meet anyone who has met one, so lets assume they are statistically insignificant. Per the census ( http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cp s2005/tabA1-all.csv ) half of all women over 15 are married. That combined with the 40% single income family number shows that 20% of the pool of women have chosen a form of income that is not available to men, and are thus not available for IT. shift the numbers to working aged women, and it is closer to 25%. The fact that some of these women are caring for children has absolutely no baring on whether they should be counted in the pool of available IT workers. They part of the workforce.
So, right off the top, we should see 4 men for every three women. Then we have to figure out the number of women that are not primary bread winners. These are the ones who have a job because they don't want to sit at home, or have a job for extra spending money. Those kinds of things. I think the numbers would be higher, but lets put that at a similar number as those that don't work at all. That takes out another 20% of the women available for IT, as IT is not a part time, casual job. So, now we are looking at 1 woman for every 2 men at best. Now these numbers go across the board for 'career' type jobs. Since everyone is trying to even out the gender numbers, we can expect to loose another 20% of the women who are competent enough for the job to be competent enough for other, better paying, easier jobs. So, we are now at somewhere around 3 men for every woman that is even considering IT.
Also per the census, 32% of all men over 15 have not been married, while only 25% of all women have never been married. That tells something very important. Women are more likely to be interacting socially with the opposite gender. E.G. Dating. Given that more women are dating than men. When someone is dating, they are not sitting in their mothers basement hacking away on their computers. This gives men a noticeable edge in qualifications for IT, and makes classes easier for those that get into IT via schooling. If we wash out another 10% or so of the women due to the fact that they had the potential, but found dating to be more interesting, we have 4 or 5 men for every woman.
We now have to look at what percentage of women simply will not work in an environment that is 4 or 5 men for every woman, often leaving them as the only woman at the company or in the department. Particularly when a good many of the men are the very same ones how got into IT because other women did not see them as fit for dating. This may mean that they are socially awkward, aggressive, passive, ugly, or any combination. And probably more reasons that I haven't thought of. Either way, many of these men are the very men, women don't want to spend time around. I would say you are going to lose another 50% of your women from this alone. We now have almost 10 men for every woman that would be willing to work in IT.
So, to say that other 'opportunities' are a joke is being naive at best, a sexist at worst. I didn't even go into the fact that from a very young age, little girls are very aware that these other 'opportunities' to support themselves exist, and little boys know that it is very unlikely that they are going to get the opportunity to live off of a sugar mama. This knowledge starts people on their paths long before start actively looking for a job.
It is not about being 'wired' differently. The reason there are more men in IT, especially self taught ones, is because men simply don't have the choices that women do when it comes to making a living. Most women know that they can choose to have sex for a living, and most women at some time or another have done so. It is often called 'getting married', or 'dating', but there are far more couples where the men pay the bills, and women stay home, or earn spending money, than the other way around. This takes a huge number of women out of the pool of people who are working in technical fields. When the pool of people from a particular demographic are pulled into other ways of making a living, you are not going to get as many in the field. If the option for men to marry a good provider started becoming common (it is getting better all the time), you would likely see an evening out in technical fields.
As for self taught... The stereo type of the nerd in his mom's basement sitting at a computer, didn't come from looking at guys that just didn't WANT to go out and get laid. They were at home teaching themselves because they didn't have a way with the ladies.
Wrong. CD's have been easily copied, and cheap for a very long time. Napster made p2p easy for the average user. As for the 'rubbish'. You are wrong. The Media Barons are behaving in a manor that has earned them that title. Yes, there are small 1-10 man companies, but it is the Media Barons that are pushing the hardest for DRM, and they are also the most likely to be hurt if DRM become ubiquitous, as it will be the Media Barons that will control the DRM systems. This leaves the small 1-10 man shops in a very bad position.
The problem is that if lack of DRM would put the Media Barons out of business, they would already be long gone. 99.999% of all music being sold today can be obtained in a non-DRMed format. This has been the case for over a decade.
And that's why I use the 'two year' rule. The two year rule boils down to "If my two year old can do it, and you cannot be taught with very little effort, then you are not competent, and should probably be institutionalized immediately." If my two year old cannot do it, then we might be in a gray area. Now, I have a very bright two year old, but even the brightest two year old should not be smarter than a very very dumb adult. How did my two year old get his computer skills? I put him in front of one, and let him click on things until he knew what they did.
I also can move back and forth pretty easily, but most Americans cannot. The difference between those who can and those who cannot, seems to be that those who cannot see an inch as something that just exists in the world. If you asked them why an inch is as long as it is, they would tell you that it's because that is how long an inch is. Those who can switch tend to understand that an inch is as long as it is because a bunch of people got together and decided to make a word that defined that particular length. Now if your view of the world is that the units and names of lengths are just a made up system that we all agreed to use, you are probably more willing to switch to a different system than someone who sees their measurement system as the "natural" way to do things.
The comment about "first class degree" seems to be from a different branch, as I didn't remember it, and looking back, I didn't see it, so that is a non-issue.
When I said that it was a compliment, I was sincere. When someone says that my kid is ridiculously bright, I can only grin.
I did not say that he was better than you, as I don't know you, so cannot judge. I also, do not expect every child to keep up with mine. I do believe that most children can use a computer easily between the ages of 1 and 2. It isn't really a matter of rote, or force. It is just a matter of giving them unfettered access, and having something on the computer that they want enough to figure out how to get it. As for you, I don't know how old you are, but if you were a kid before GUIs, you would be talking Apples and Oranges when it comes to most day to day uses.
Either way though, the two year rule still applies. No matter how bright of a child he is, any adult that is safe to have running around in public, should be able to be taught with little effort, any task that my two year old can do.
By the way... Thanks. It's always a compliment when someone thinks your lying because there is no way a person could possibly be as good at something as you really are.
He would turn on his computer, and load the program he wants to use. Sometimes this would be OpenOffice, and he would type on the screen because he liked to see the letters come up on the screen. Other times, he would load his favorite program, gcompris. He started with the game where you learn to use the mouse. It took about 2 weeks for him to gain complete control of the mouse. When that became too easy, he moved on to games like the typing tutor, matching games, color identification games, and such. For a little while now, at two, he has been playing mostly Flash games on Disney and NickJr's Site. Although he does periodically like to spend time playing Klotski and Tetravex. I expect that I will see another shift in game interest soon though, as he is starting to read an write enough for him to play a little more complex of games.
One of the big pluses of the reading and writing is that he now does his own updates. Although, I attribute this more to the simplicity of Linux than I do to any great skill at computers.
Here is a bit of good advice to all the parents out there. Kids don't need to know how to talk to use a computer. They do not need to know how to read. Conan learned how to load his programs on his own by trying each entry in the menu, and seeing what happens. The only instruction he needed was that he needed to be told that the X in the corner would close the programs. After that, it was simply a matter of letting him have at it. When he picked a menu item, if the program wasn't fun, he would close it, and move to the next. Eventually he figured out what icons matched what programs.
Keyboards can be bought for less than $3. Mice the same. For ~$10 you can get a laptop mouse (I highly recommend) that will fit a very small childs hand very well. Both are very durable products. You can generally find someone to just give you a PC powerful enough to run Linux and Gcompris. Of course I expect that most/.'ers will have an older computer laying around that they can just set up for their kids. Let them have at it. If they screw up the OS, just reinstall. If they start smashing the mouse and keyboard, learn to be a good parent and teach them that that behavior is not OK.
Kids have far more potential than most people give them credit for. Most kids are taught and forced to be far less intelligent than what they would be if given the proper support. Here is a little trick. Always remember that the age recommendations on toys are the ages that the manufacturer believes the absolutely dumbest kid in the entire country can handle the toy. This is so they don't get sued. If your kid is the dumbest kid in the country, then following the age recommendations is fine. If your kid is much smarter than the dumbest kid in the country, then you are stifling your child when you don't supply toys that are recommended for kids above your child's age. This doesn't mean that you need to take away the toys that are not listed as being for older kids. Just make the more advanced toys available, so that your kid can play with them if they feel they are up to it.
Why would you buy one of these for a six year old? It is severely crippled and dumbed down. Wouldn't a full featured computer for a little more money be a much better investment in your daughter? My two year old has been running Ubuntu for over a year now with no problems. Recently, he has even taken to doing his own updates. Now, I like to think my kid is overly bright, but if you think that your 6 year old daughter can't use a full featured computer on her own, you are probably under estimating her.
a) Most people don't do a bunch of installing anything, and when they do, they are as likely to completely hose their machine by installing malware as something useful.
b) It is very rare that people need to install software that is not installable from apt.
c) Double click to install, and drag and drop, are not easier than pick from a list installs.
So, being able to compile applications from scratch is not something a person has to be able to do on any OS to pass the two year test. Of course I don't know how well most people would do, trying to install MS Office without an installer.
How often do you do installs on Windows without an installer?
I have a little test I use for things like, "Is it easy to use.". The test is simple. If my two year old son can do it, and you (as an adult) cannot learn it with very little effort, you are an unteachable idiot, and you are not smart enough to make a reasonable statement on the subject.
Using that criteria, Linux is absolutely simple. My son could use Ubuntu just fine at the age of 1. Now, being his father, I would love to believe that he is the smartest human being to ever be born, but even if that were somehow true, a full grown adult of below average intelligence should STILL be smarter. So, this brings the question... Just how simple does an OS need to be before the ease of use becomes irrelevant. Not to mention, while I have never set my son in front of a Mac, I have set him in front of Windows, and not only did he have a harder time using it, he had a much easier time breaking it.
That being said, as my two year old approaches the age of three, I might have to find a new test of 'easy'. While I do think it is fair to expect non-institutionalized adults to be smarter than a bright 2 year old, I'm not sure the same can be said for expecting them to be as smart as a three year old.
We are not talking about a target audience that will be doing database work, or working with large data sets. We are talking about very poor people. People who have not had access to computers before, and who find even getting access to books to be difficult. This is supposed to give them first and foremost, access to reading books electronically. Second, it is designed to introduce these people to computers in general. The C64 is more than capable of handling these tasks at a noticeably lower price. We are talking about charity here. If we can supply twice as many people with computers that meet the need than exceed the need, we would be making far more progress.
I don't understand why so many people think that these second/third world countries need to skip the 'introduction to computers' phase of computers.
The C64 is part of why this project never really impressed me much. I can buy a C64 brand new for $15. No, I'm not talking about NOS, I am talking about a C64 manufactured within the last year. Yes, you would need to add a keyboard, Monitor, Wifi, larger case, and foot peddle, but when I went online, I found that I could put together a rugged, human powered computer for ~$90. This was right after the OLPC project was announced, and was single unit, retail pricing. No doubt that if parts were bought in 5 million unit lots wholesale, and bought today, that price could come down to ~$50.
This just makes me ho-hum about this. It is just another business, and they have found a way to get other people to pay for all of the R&D in their new proprietary system.
I would have to agree... I think that games are the current lock in for home PCs. My wife doesn't game. She runs Linux. My 2 year old is happy with Disney's flash games Nick's flash games, and Gcompris. He runs Linux. Every day, I get a little closer to ditching my Windows for my primary machine, and none of my secondary machines run Windows. MS bought up a bunch of the best PC game makers, and has neglected PC gaming since the release of the XBox. If they don't start targeting PC gaming again, they will be in serious trouble. Office may lock in the corporate desktop, but most people running Office at home are doing it because they pirated it.
Which means that we should as soon as possible, start entangling particles inside of a quantum observed/not-observed telegraph machine. Then send them out in every direction. This would, given time, create a galactic telegraph system that would work outside the laws of physics that limit the transmission of information to the speed of light.
That is a very good analogy, and I would add that it is very common for city official to expect and intentionally ad 'hacky' solutions to city planning.
I am not arguing whether the B&MG Foundation was or was not investing against anything. I was simply arguing that it in fact POSSIBLE to invest against something.
That's not entirely true. Microsoft has been doing it for a very long time. They do it every time the give huge price breaks to companies and governments who wave a Linux conversion at them. They also have traditionally done it when they helped out with the piracy of Windows. I can't remember if it was Ballamer or Gates that said it, but one of them made the comment about massive piracy in Asia, that they would be able to use that to turn them into legitimate customers in the future.
No, the claim that Americans won't do farm labor is a myth. They just won't do it at third world wages. If there were no illegal immigrants to harvest our food, the food corporations would simply pay more for labor, and find that plenty of Americans would take the jobs.
If the first one were a problem, we wouldn't use flashing lights as warnings all over the road now. Flashing or blinking lights are a standard way to indicate that there is danger, or something you should see on our road ways.
The second sounds more like someone who doesn't WANT it to work. People already dig for cell phones and change lanes to get license plates. Of course if someone is weaving around on the road, they might drive for miles, not realizing how obvious it is that they are drunk. If their lights started flashing, they would know right then and there that everyone on the road knows they are drunk. If they are so drunk that they don't recognize that they are broadcasting their condition, then a few people changing lanes is the least of our worries.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the reaction every time I say this. Lets look at the numbers, as your statistics support my original statement, even if you don't want to face it.
n t/us.html )
p s2005/tabA1-all.csv ) half of all women over 15 are married. That combined with the 40% single income family number shows that 20% of the pool of women have chosen a form of income that is not available to men, and are thus not available for IT. shift the numbers to working aged women, and it is closer to 25%. The fact that some of these women are caring for children has absolutely no baring on whether they should be counted in the pool of available IT workers. They part of the workforce.
First lets figure that there are about the same number of working men to working women ( https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/pri
Next, lets assume that near 100% of the single income, married couples are man working woman at home. While there are the random stay at home dad, I have yet to meet one, or meet anyone who has met one, so lets assume they are statistically insignificant. Per the census ( http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/c
So, right off the top, we should see 4 men for every three women. Then we have to figure out the number of women that are not primary bread winners. These are the ones who have a job because they don't want to sit at home, or have a job for extra spending money. Those kinds of things. I think the numbers would be higher, but lets put that at a similar number as those that don't work at all. That takes out another 20% of the women available for IT, as IT is not a part time, casual job. So, now we are looking at 1 woman for every 2 men at best. Now these numbers go across the board for 'career' type jobs. Since everyone is trying to even out the gender numbers, we can expect to loose another 20% of the women who are competent enough for the job to be competent enough for other, better paying, easier jobs. So, we are now at somewhere around 3 men for every woman that is even considering IT.
Also per the census, 32% of all men over 15 have not been married, while only 25% of all women have never been married. That tells something very important. Women are more likely to be interacting socially with the opposite gender. E.G. Dating. Given that more women are dating than men. When someone is dating, they are not sitting in their mothers basement hacking away on their computers. This gives men a noticeable edge in qualifications for IT, and makes classes easier for those that get into IT via schooling. If we wash out another 10% or so of the women due to the fact that they had the potential, but found dating to be more interesting, we have 4 or 5 men for every woman.
We now have to look at what percentage of women simply will not work in an environment that is 4 or 5 men for every woman, often leaving them as the only woman at the company or in the department. Particularly when a good many of the men are the very same ones how got into IT because other women did not see them as fit for dating. This may mean that they are socially awkward, aggressive, passive, ugly, or any combination. And probably more reasons that I haven't thought of. Either way, many of these men are the very men, women don't want to spend time around. I would say you are going to lose another 50% of your women from this alone. We now have almost 10 men for every woman that would be willing to work in IT.
So, to say that other 'opportunities' are a joke is being naive at best, a sexist at worst. I didn't even go into the fact that from a very young age, little girls are very aware that these other 'opportunities' to support themselves exist, and little boys know that it is very unlikely that they are going to get the opportunity to live off of a sugar mama. This knowledge starts people on their paths long before start actively looking for a job.
It is not about being 'wired' differently. The reason there are more men in IT, especially self taught ones, is because men simply don't have the choices that women do when it comes to making a living. Most women know that they can choose to have sex for a living, and most women at some time or another have done so. It is often called 'getting married', or 'dating', but there are far more couples where the men pay the bills, and women stay home, or earn spending money, than the other way around. This takes a huge number of women out of the pool of people who are working in technical fields. When the pool of people from a particular demographic are pulled into other ways of making a living, you are not going to get as many in the field. If the option for men to marry a good provider started becoming common (it is getting better all the time), you would likely see an evening out in technical fields.
As for self taught... The stereo type of the nerd in his mom's basement sitting at a computer, didn't come from looking at guys that just didn't WANT to go out and get laid. They were at home teaching themselves because they didn't have a way with the ladies.
Wrong. CD's have been easily copied, and cheap for a very long time. Napster made p2p easy for the average user. As for the 'rubbish'. You are wrong. The Media Barons are behaving in a manor that has earned them that title. Yes, there are small 1-10 man companies, but it is the Media Barons that are pushing the hardest for DRM, and they are also the most likely to be hurt if DRM become ubiquitous, as it will be the Media Barons that will control the DRM systems. This leaves the small 1-10 man shops in a very bad position.
The problem is that if lack of DRM would put the Media Barons out of business, they would already be long gone. 99.999% of all music being sold today can be obtained in a non-DRMed format. This has been the case for over a decade.
Funny that people call her stupid for not knowing it. I have on many occasions been call stupid because I said that it could happen.
And out come the trolls...
And that was in insightful post. I vote for +1 Troll and -1 Troll to be added.
And that's why I use the 'two year' rule. The two year rule boils down to "If my two year old can do it, and you cannot be taught with very little effort, then you are not competent, and should probably be institutionalized immediately." If my two year old cannot do it, then we might be in a gray area. Now, I have a very bright two year old, but even the brightest two year old should not be smarter than a very very dumb adult. How did my two year old get his computer skills? I put him in front of one, and let him click on things until he knew what they did.
I also can move back and forth pretty easily, but most Americans cannot. The difference between those who can and those who cannot, seems to be that those who cannot see an inch as something that just exists in the world. If you asked them why an inch is as long as it is, they would tell you that it's because that is how long an inch is. Those who can switch tend to understand that an inch is as long as it is because a bunch of people got together and decided to make a word that defined that particular length. Now if your view of the world is that the units and names of lengths are just a made up system that we all agreed to use, you are probably more willing to switch to a different system than someone who sees their measurement system as the "natural" way to do things.
The comment about "first class degree" seems to be from a different branch, as I didn't remember it, and looking back, I didn't see it, so that is a non-issue.
When I said that it was a compliment, I was sincere. When someone says that my kid is ridiculously bright, I can only grin.
I did not say that he was better than you, as I don't know you, so cannot judge. I also, do not expect every child to keep up with mine. I do believe that most children can use a computer easily between the ages of 1 and 2. It isn't really a matter of rote, or force. It is just a matter of giving them unfettered access, and having something on the computer that they want enough to figure out how to get it. As for you, I don't know how old you are, but if you were a kid before GUIs, you would be talking Apples and Oranges when it comes to most day to day uses.
Either way though, the two year rule still applies. No matter how bright of a child he is, any adult that is safe to have running around in public, should be able to be taught with little effort, any task that my two year old can do.
"I find this statement to be fairly ridiculous"
By the way... Thanks. It's always a compliment when someone thinks your lying because there is no way a person could possibly be as good at something as you really are.
He would turn on his computer, and load the program he wants to use. Sometimes this would be OpenOffice, and he would type on the screen because he liked to see the letters come up on the screen. Other times, he would load his favorite program, gcompris. He started with the game where you learn to use the mouse. It took about 2 weeks for him to gain complete control of the mouse. When that became too easy, he moved on to games like the typing tutor, matching games, color identification games, and such. For a little while now, at two, he has been playing mostly Flash games on Disney and NickJr's Site. Although he does periodically like to spend time playing Klotski and Tetravex. I expect that I will see another shift in game interest soon though, as he is starting to read an write enough for him to play a little more complex of games.
/.'ers will have an older computer laying around that they can just set up for their kids. Let them have at it. If they screw up the OS, just reinstall. If they start smashing the mouse and keyboard, learn to be a good parent and teach them that that behavior is not OK.
One of the big pluses of the reading and writing is that he now does his own updates. Although, I attribute this more to the simplicity of Linux than I do to any great skill at computers.
Here is a bit of good advice to all the parents out there. Kids don't need to know how to talk to use a computer. They do not need to know how to read. Conan learned how to load his programs on his own by trying each entry in the menu, and seeing what happens. The only instruction he needed was that he needed to be told that the X in the corner would close the programs. After that, it was simply a matter of letting him have at it. When he picked a menu item, if the program wasn't fun, he would close it, and move to the next. Eventually he figured out what icons matched what programs.
Keyboards can be bought for less than $3. Mice the same. For ~$10 you can get a laptop mouse (I highly recommend) that will fit a very small childs hand very well. Both are very durable products. You can generally find someone to just give you a PC powerful enough to run Linux and Gcompris. Of course I expect that most
Kids have far more potential than most people give them credit for. Most kids are taught and forced to be far less intelligent than what they would be if given the proper support. Here is a little trick. Always remember that the age recommendations on toys are the ages that the manufacturer believes the absolutely dumbest kid in the entire country can handle the toy. This is so they don't get sued. If your kid is the dumbest kid in the country, then following the age recommendations is fine. If your kid is much smarter than the dumbest kid in the country, then you are stifling your child when you don't supply toys that are recommended for kids above your child's age. This doesn't mean that you need to take away the toys that are not listed as being for older kids. Just make the more advanced toys available, so that your kid can play with them if they feel they are up to it.
Why would you buy one of these for a six year old? It is severely crippled and dumbed down. Wouldn't a full featured computer for a little more money be a much better investment in your daughter? My two year old has been running Ubuntu for over a year now with no problems. Recently, he has even taken to doing his own updates. Now, I like to think my kid is overly bright, but if you think that your 6 year old daughter can't use a full featured computer on her own, you are probably under estimating her.
a) Most people don't do a bunch of installing anything, and when they do, they are as likely to completely hose their machine by installing malware as something useful.
b) It is very rare that people need to install software that is not installable from apt.
c) Double click to install, and drag and drop, are not easier than pick from a list installs.
So, being able to compile applications from scratch is not something a person has to be able to do on any OS to pass the two year test. Of course I don't know how well most people would do, trying to install MS Office without an installer.
How often do you do installs on Windows without an installer?
I have a little test I use for things like, "Is it easy to use.". The test is simple. If my two year old son can do it, and you (as an adult) cannot learn it with very little effort, you are an unteachable idiot, and you are not smart enough to make a reasonable statement on the subject.
Using that criteria, Linux is absolutely simple. My son could use Ubuntu just fine at the age of 1. Now, being his father, I would love to believe that he is the smartest human being to ever be born, but even if that were somehow true, a full grown adult of below average intelligence should STILL be smarter. So, this brings the question... Just how simple does an OS need to be before the ease of use becomes irrelevant. Not to mention, while I have never set my son in front of a Mac, I have set him in front of Windows, and not only did he have a harder time using it, he had a much easier time breaking it.
That being said, as my two year old approaches the age of three, I might have to find a new test of 'easy'. While I do think it is fair to expect non-institutionalized adults to be smarter than a bright 2 year old, I'm not sure the same can be said for expecting them to be as smart as a three year old.
We are not talking about a target audience that will be doing database work, or working with large data sets. We are talking about very poor people. People who have not had access to computers before, and who find even getting access to books to be difficult. This is supposed to give them first and foremost, access to reading books electronically. Second, it is designed to introduce these people to computers in general. The C64 is more than capable of handling these tasks at a noticeably lower price. We are talking about charity here. If we can supply twice as many people with computers that meet the need than exceed the need, we would be making far more progress.
I don't understand why so many people think that these second/third world countries need to skip the 'introduction to computers' phase of computers.
The C64 is part of why this project never really impressed me much. I can buy a C64 brand new for $15. No, I'm not talking about NOS, I am talking about a C64 manufactured within the last year. Yes, you would need to add a keyboard, Monitor, Wifi, larger case, and foot peddle, but when I went online, I found that I could put together a rugged, human powered computer for ~$90. This was right after the OLPC project was announced, and was single unit, retail pricing. No doubt that if parts were bought in 5 million unit lots wholesale, and bought today, that price could come down to ~$50.
This just makes me ho-hum about this. It is just another business, and they have found a way to get other people to pay for all of the R&D in their new proprietary system.
I would have to agree... I think that games are the current lock in for home PCs. My wife doesn't game. She runs Linux. My 2 year old is happy with Disney's flash games Nick's flash games, and Gcompris. He runs Linux. Every day, I get a little closer to ditching my Windows for my primary machine, and none of my secondary machines run Windows. MS bought up a bunch of the best PC game makers, and has neglected PC gaming since the release of the XBox. If they don't start targeting PC gaming again, they will be in serious trouble. Office may lock in the corporate desktop, but most people running Office at home are doing it because they pirated it.
The 360 has been cracked for a while now. They cracked the drive's bios instead of the main system bios.
Which means that we should as soon as possible, start entangling particles inside of a quantum observed/not-observed telegraph machine. Then send them out in every direction. This would, given time, create a galactic telegraph system that would work outside the laws of physics that limit the transmission of information to the speed of light.
That is a very good analogy, and I would add that it is very common for city official to expect and intentionally ad 'hacky' solutions to city planning.
I am not arguing whether the B&MG Foundation was or was not investing against anything. I was simply arguing that it in fact POSSIBLE to invest against something.
"you can't invest against something"
That's not entirely true. Microsoft has been doing it for a very long time. They do it every time the give huge price breaks to companies and governments who wave a Linux conversion at them. They also have traditionally done it when they helped out with the piracy of Windows. I can't remember if it was Ballamer or Gates that said it, but one of them made the comment about massive piracy in Asia, that they would be able to use that to turn them into legitimate customers in the future.
Obviously MS isn't the only company to do this.
No, the claim that Americans won't do farm labor is a myth. They just won't do it at third world wages. If there were no illegal immigrants to harvest our food, the food corporations would simply pay more for labor, and find that plenty of Americans would take the jobs.
If the first one were a problem, we wouldn't use flashing lights as warnings all over the road now. Flashing or blinking lights are a standard way to indicate that there is danger, or something you should see on our road ways.
The second sounds more like someone who doesn't WANT it to work. People already dig for cell phones and change lanes to get license plates. Of course if someone is weaving around on the road, they might drive for miles, not realizing how obvious it is that they are drunk. If their lights started flashing, they would know right then and there that everyone on the road knows they are drunk. If they are so drunk that they don't recognize that they are broadcasting their condition, then a few people changing lanes is the least of our worries.