Don't you think that Apple and Microsoft have invested quite large sums of money figuring out what the users want?
No, not in the way it's being discussed here. The biggest change to Windows occurred in the transition to 95 from 3.1, and even that wasn't much more than standing the Mac desktop on its head. The basics have changed little since. It's hard to believe that MS and Apple nailed everything of importance to the desktop before 1995.
Both companies are vicitims of their own success, any substantial change to the desktop, no matter how logical and beneficial, will alienate users. It's probably the reason neither have a multiple desktops, long standard fare for any X11 WM.
Time and again your police forces - municipal, state and federal - have demonstrated obscene levels of corruption and misuse of power, and yet so many people fall over themselves to grant them yet more. Why? Something has gone fundamentally wrong with mainstream culture that I can't quite pin down, but the symptoms appear to be an almost slavish devotion to authority (ironic for Americans given the history of your country's birth) and a divisive and misguided belief that somehow they'll always be on the right side of this power relationship. You're killing your freedoms and don't seem to care. Why?
The same type of camera came in very useful after the Tiananmen massacres too. The police used them to identify, and later execute, political dissidents who participated. But that could never happen in the U.K. could it? Or America?
It's the height of cultural arrogance to believe that fates which at one time befell wise-ranging cultures - German, Russian, Cambodian, Argentinian, Rwanda - couldn't happen in North America. Being opposed to ubiquitous police surveillance isn't paranoia, it's historical perspective.
This story is difficult to credit seriously. What you're describing is something UNIX sysadmins did for decades. No variation of window manager proved stable, including Ice and FVWM? They found found KDE (or Ice, or FVWM95) too unlike Windows to understand? Please. Vim and emacs considered as text editors (instead of gedit or tknotepad, both a minute away on Tucows?) Now I know your "stretching" the truth.
Running a stable Linux/X desktop is something thousands of 15 year olds do in this country every day. If it's true your company's team of "coders and sysadmins" weren't up to the task, let's just say you're better off lying and saying you made this story up.
Welcome to the politically correct new world order. Soon for the sake of moral sensitivities, we'll be erasing all references to the WTC from literature as well. It's starting to feel like an Orwell book.
A few logical inconsistencies here. Point 1 implies that trends equate to results. This isn't necessarily true. One hundred times more Win than Lin servers could have shipped in the last quarter and Linux could still have a 25% share. What matters is long term trending.
Point 2 is just wrong. I work in an industry in which a not uncommon quip is "those who can do, those who can't become consultants." People who prove themselves incompetent after repeated failures in the workforce incorporate and sell their services to newcomers in the industry. A more familiar example are film 'critics' who make a very good living championing completely forgettable releases as feel good hits of the summer. People and companies willing to whore themselves are not in short supply.
But that's their *job*. Their job is to track down crooks, by any means the law deems acceptable.
Is it? Should the FBI be limited to investigating reported crimes or should they be constantly surveying private citizens for evidence of undiscovered crimes? The latter turns them into keepers of the populace and unfortunately many accept this. "It only affects those who have something to worry about" and "I don't mind because I'm innocent" appear too often in Slashdot postings. Politicians are only too happy to grant these powers and advance their careers and coalitions saving the children.
If left unchecked it will become impossible to police the police. The residents of LA and NY already know what kind of people will be in control of that power. Does anyone really believe that the FBI will stop using thermal imagers? The images are inadmissable evidence, that's all.
Once again 'pirate' is being used in the new post-IP revolution definition. It once meant re-selling music without compensation to the artists. The entertainment industry fought a prolonged propaganda and lobby war to change this, and in is curoiusly quiet about the massive true pirating occurring in the far East. Instead they lobby to see 'pirating' cover fair-use as well. That truly is an ethical problem.
On the assumption the story Nova Scotia story is true, I'll never buy anything they release. I'll never be given the option to buy anything they release because commercial radio will never play any of their music. The only chance of my hearing it is an enthusiast convincing others on P-P sharing or Usenet to try it. The band could put snippets on a web-site, but I'll never visit it because I'll never know who they are. I suspect smaller artists will benefit most from the free distribution because it gives them exposure the music industry never will. Why else would so many bands with prooduct in stores have music on mp3.com? For the $456.27 in mp3 earnings?
I think it's obvious that not all artists are affected by sharing equally. The absolute top earners may lose some potential sales but ethically I don't give a damn. They already make obscene amounts of money and society has no reason to structure its laws to help them make even more. Given the poverty in which so many live, for me the earnings of a Brooks or a Spears is a larger ethical problem than their not getting paid for every listen.
It's currently an unproven supposition that P-P sharing harms artists, with no unbiased third-party data behind it. In fact, the music industry is doing great right now. Any 'study' (scare quotes intentional) released so far showing negative effects has been commisioned by the entertainment industry. Would you trust studies paid for by the tobacco industry on the effects of smoking? Most would consider it an ethical problem too.
Re:So where does the information come from?
on
A Map to Nowhere?
·
· Score: 1
So where is this extra information located? It is obvious that there must be some other mechanism at work. I would posit that the mechanism is supernatural. There really is no other explanation. The Church has known this for many thousands of years, and now the scientists are realising it too.
Really? The Church, which is less than two thousand years old, has known about genetic complexity for many thousands? Apparently in the supernatural world anything can happen.
Save that thought for the next time you're denied life insurance due to a cubicle slave working in a company you bought a prescription from hitting the wrong key entering your data. Or when twenty years down the road the bank turns down your mortgage for missing a car payment as a teen. Or not landing that dream job because of the disparging remarks made about you by a long-forgotten early employer.
Corporations finding you boring doesn't rule out thier screwing you over. Cuts either way. It could make it more likely.
3 Insightful?! Did the moderators bother to read any of the articles?
When the broadcast companies decided to start collecting additional advertising fees for their Internet rebroadcasts, their lawyers were well aware of the terms of the AFTRA contracts that were in place.
One year. That's how long it's been in place. Moreover, it's a contract between advertising agencies and their independant voice-over talent. Ad agencies are chasing radio stations for money to cover contracts the agencies signed, presumably without broadcasters being a party to the agreement. If a spot comes from an ad agency, it's usually a national using free-lance voice talent and meant to air over many stations and markets. The voice might not work in radio at all.
The entire incident is yet another example of the bizarre consequences of current IP laws. A nation of three-hundred-million loses streaming radio to placate a contractual obligation with what? 1000? 5000? voices used for agency spots.
Therefore it's not totally unreasonable to ask for more money if you're a DJ.
Coming from twenty years experience in the industry, yes, it is unreasonable. As a rule, Sales, not DJ's, are the only ones payed by commercial sold. DJ's get a flat salary, sometimes an additional fee for production work sold outside the market or to other stations and, in rare cases involving major talents, an incentive bonus based on ratings in their day-part. Why would they get a commercial cut? It's not a piecework gig like sales. Why would they be the only ones? In the total amount of labour that goes into programming a radio day, the DJ's have the smallest part. Traffic, production, promotions, programming, engineering, all work obscene hours compared to the typical 4-6 required of an air shift, though it's invisible to the audience.
Something odd happens when the conversation turns to anything remotely considered 'artisitic'. Principles considered ridiculous elsewhere get applied. No one believes line workers should get a cut of every dollar made from the after-sale use of a GM truck, or that a Quicken coder should share in the profits of every business using the software. This appears unique to the entertainment industry, though with their new rent-not-own licensing models the software industry appears to be catching on.
If there's one thing that really stands in the way of widespread adoption of Linux for gaming, it's the lag between the release of new hardware and its support. It took until 4.0.2 before XFree86 had native drivers for the GeForce2 GTS, a very popular card I've owned for months. True, it's NVidia's fault, but it's a fact all the same. Personally, I'd love to play HalfLife online using the wonderfully stable TCP stacks of Linux or FreeBSD.
Hardcore gamers are usually hardware fanatics with the latest and fastest gear. If Linux doesn't have the drivers to support it, not using Windows isn't a choice.
Consumers will opt for devices that meet their requirements, not those of corporate lawyers. If the SDMI implementation is really as strong you say, these devices won't see wide-spread acceptance. But then, that's probably what the music industry wants.
No kidding! Then, after slamming online distributors in defense of mainstream record companies throughout the length of the article (no online services actually defending themselves, no mention that record companies already bill bands for production costs, or that 98% of MP3.com's roster wouldn't get past their front door), she throws in this ironic twist,
"MP3.com used to be a great way to get attention," says independent musician and MP3.com contributor Karl Rehn. "But now that the record companies have started putting money into MP3.com and the number of artists online has jumped exponentially, it's back to the way it's always been."
In other words, one reason online services are getting worse is because of investment by the very establishment she's defending.
One of the article's authors coordinates drug policy litigation for the ACLU, so I'll trust it's accurate. With that preamble,
I wasn't aware that doctors were breaking the law by making such a recommendation.
According to the article, the federal drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, "is threatening to arrest any doctor who merely mentioned to a patient that marijuana might alleviate the suffering caused by AIDS, cancer, or other serious ailment."
You asked in regards to losing the right to vote after being convicted of a felony,
What does this have to do with the war on drugs?.....That's something that's been on the books forever.
The author was making the point that so many people are being caught up in the 'drug net' that significant percentages of some social groups are losing the right to vote. Only ten states currently banish felons for life. And, yes, if you've done the time I do think you should get the vote back.
unreasonable search and seizure (allowing "agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of crime.")
Again, I wouldn't mind seeing information to back these claims up.
The authors talk about colonial fury at the Crown's use of "writs of assistance" to enter any premises without warning in the search for contraband. It lead to the inclusion of the prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures" in the Bill of Rights. They continue,
"Since the early 1980's the Supreme Court has authorized cascading exceptions to this rule, allowing police helicopters to peer into windows, highway troopers to search the passengers of cars whose drivers appear suspicious, and, most notoriously, state agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of a crime."
The practice is referred to as "dynamic entries" and has reached the point that, in New York City, they had to enact an official policy on replacing the doors of those found innocent.
Properly restated: Property used to commit a crime can be confiscated by the authorities as evidence (and essentially becomes forfeit), where you are not necessarily entitled to get it back.
You missed the point, they don't have to prove anything. Quoting once again:
"Beginning in 1974 the Supreme Court blessed the unholy idea that property could be seized and sold by the government without arrest, conviction, or due process. Under the strange fiction that property itself can be guilty (e.g. United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan), the cops take your property, leaving you to prove that it has no connection to a crime. If you miss the ten-day deadline for challenging the seizure, or can't post bond, you lose."
On facing an accuser in a criminal trail, you asked
I didn't realize this was a right. Where in the Bill of Rights is this "right" protected?
The Sixth Amendment.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Sorry for picking your article, it was the first I came across that made a coherent statement for a "weak" privacy policy. I wanted to raise the question of just how much is actually being sacrificed in the name of security. Couple the above facts with the allegations about the NSA and the price is getting pretty dear.
Finally, I do let my lawmakers know, just not in your country. Unfortunately, mine has a long history of Xeroxing your legislation and enacting it a few years afterwards.
I agree.. it all boils down to how much privacy you're willing to sacrifice for security.
The same justification was given for the KGB. They were highly effective in the national security game. Any guess how many lives were spent, how much suffering there was, in the pursuit of "security" and "saving lives"? You're right, it is a balance between security and freedom, and there'll always be an argument about the finer details.
There's an interesting article in the December Harper's outlining how many freedoms are already forfeit or infringed in fighting the war on drugs. They include:
- more restrictions on free speech (stemming from doctors recommending the medical use of marijuana)
- curtailments to freedom of religion (based on a case of two Native Americans practicing an ancient rite involving peyote)
- the right to vote ("one in three black men in the both Alabama and Florida is permanently barred from voting" because they were incarcerated)
- unreasonable search and seizure (allowing "agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of crime.")
- property rights (property can now be considered guilty of a crime, you have to prove it isn't. If you can't, or miss the ten day deadline for challenging the seizure, it becomes part of next year's police force funding.)
- and facing your accusers (in order to protect 'professional' informants)
Add to this the privacy rights lost in the fight against terrorism and pornography, and the erosion that continues on an almost daily basis (thanks Billy!) Now finally consider how much all this protection has really meant in your own life. Is the balance still a good one?
Is this federal law or personal opinion? On the face of it, if I buy a 7-series, smash the windows out and make a flower pot of the rest I'm not aware of anything BMW can do about it. How can movie studios force someone to buy and use Windows? Would playing frisbee with the disc contravene fair use? Any legal eagles around?
Check the numbers again. The total number of Apache users increased significantly from Sept 1999 (4072056) to Oct 1999 (4348932). However, its total market share did decrease slightly, mostly due to the effect of a single company.
"Much of this came at hosting company Webjump, which offers free web hosting on a system made up of NT machines fronted by a Resonate switch."
NT went from 1627651 to 2018992 servers over the same period.
Sorry for the off-topic, but is it possible for Neoplanet's front end to be more stable than the native IE5? On my admittedly non-stock setup (EVWM on a notebook) it appears to less prone to breaking. Or is this just another example of the the compu-placebo effect?
The problem with both these points is that the judge didn't consider the possibilty of developers releasing commercial applications for a free operating system. He writes as if everything related to Linux must remain free just because the OS is free. If - sorry, when - Linux develops a wide enough user base companies will no doubt start releasing commercial products. Once commercial developers start cranking the apps, their companies can reasonably be expected to lend more support to the OS at the development level to bolster their investment, creating a stronger OS, in turn generating more apps, etc. And since the OS remains free, the applications can't be priced at Microsoft levels. This would be my guess for the future of Linux once it hits critical mass.
Better yet, the jpeg artifacts the first picture claims as a ghost appear to be generated by the crude Paint scrawls outlining 'her' position. The ghost is the message!
Slashdot Mirror
No, not in the way it's being discussed here. The biggest change to Windows occurred in the transition to 95 from 3.1, and even that wasn't much more than standing the Mac desktop on its head. The basics have changed little since. It's hard to believe that MS and Apple nailed everything of importance to the desktop before 1995.
Both companies are vicitims of their own success, any substantial change to the desktop, no matter how logical and beneficial, will alienate users. It's probably the reason neither have a multiple desktops, long standard fare for any X11 WM.
Time and again your police forces - municipal, state and federal - have demonstrated obscene levels of corruption and misuse of power, and yet so many people fall over themselves to grant them yet more. Why? Something has gone fundamentally wrong with mainstream culture that I can't quite pin down, but the symptoms appear to be an almost slavish devotion to authority (ironic for Americans given the history of your country's birth) and a divisive and misguided belief that somehow they'll always be on the right side of this power relationship. You're killing your freedoms and don't seem to care. Why?
It's the height of cultural arrogance to believe that fates which at one time befell wise-ranging cultures - German, Russian, Cambodian, Argentinian, Rwanda - couldn't happen in North America. Being opposed to ubiquitous police surveillance isn't paranoia, it's historical perspective.
Running a stable Linux/X desktop is something thousands of 15 year olds do in this country every day. If it's true your company's team of "coders and sysadmins" weren't up to the task, let's just say you're better off lying and saying you made this story up.
Welcome to the politically correct new world order. Soon for the sake of moral sensitivities, we'll be erasing all references to the WTC from literature as well. It's starting to feel like an Orwell book.
Point 2 is just wrong. I work in an industry in which a not uncommon quip is "those who can do, those who can't become consultants." People who prove themselves incompetent after repeated failures in the workforce incorporate and sell their services to newcomers in the industry. A more familiar example are film 'critics' who make a very good living championing completely forgettable releases as feel good hits of the summer. People and companies willing to whore themselves are not in short supply.
Is it? Should the FBI be limited to investigating reported crimes or should they be constantly surveying private citizens for evidence of undiscovered crimes? The latter turns them into keepers of the populace and unfortunately many accept this. "It only affects those who have something to worry about" and "I don't mind because I'm innocent" appear too often in Slashdot postings. Politicians are only too happy to grant these powers and advance their careers and coalitions saving the children.
If left unchecked it will become impossible to police the police. The residents of LA and NY already know what kind of people will be in control of that power. Does anyone really believe that the FBI will stop using thermal imagers? The images are inadmissable evidence, that's all.
Once again 'pirate' is being used in the new post-IP revolution definition. It once meant re-selling music without compensation to the artists. The entertainment industry fought a prolonged propaganda and lobby war to change this, and in is curoiusly quiet about the massive true pirating occurring in the far East. Instead they lobby to see 'pirating' cover fair-use as well. That truly is an ethical problem.
On the assumption the story Nova Scotia story is true, I'll never buy anything they release. I'll never be given the option to buy anything they release because commercial radio will never play any of their music. The only chance of my hearing it is an enthusiast convincing others on P-P sharing or Usenet to try it. The band could put snippets on a web-site, but I'll never visit it because I'll never know who they are. I suspect smaller artists will benefit most from the free distribution because it gives them exposure the music industry never will. Why else would so many bands with prooduct in stores have music on mp3.com? For the $456.27 in mp3 earnings?
I think it's obvious that not all artists are affected by sharing equally. The absolute top earners may lose some potential sales but ethically I don't give a damn. They already make obscene amounts of money and society has no reason to structure its laws to help them make even more. Given the poverty in which so many live, for me the earnings of a Brooks or a Spears is a larger ethical problem than their not getting paid for every listen.
It's currently an unproven supposition that P-P sharing harms artists, with no unbiased third-party data behind it. In fact, the music industry is doing great right now. Any 'study' (scare quotes intentional) released so far showing negative effects has been commisioned by the entertainment industry. Would you trust studies paid for by the tobacco industry on the effects of smoking? Most would consider it an ethical problem too.
Really? The Church, which is less than two thousand years old, has known about genetic complexity for many thousands? Apparently in the supernatural world anything can happen.
He's a damn good troll. Do a search on Kuro5hin for his posts about Slashdot.
Corporations finding you boring doesn't rule out thier screwing you over. Cuts either way. It could make it more likely.
That was a beautiful, beautiful troll. Artwork. The best part was the +5 Informative. You deserve ten bonus Karma points for that alone.
When the broadcast companies decided to start collecting additional advertising fees for their Internet rebroadcasts, their lawyers were well aware of the terms of the AFTRA contracts that were in place.
One year. That's how long it's been in place. Moreover, it's a contract between advertising agencies and their independant voice-over talent. Ad agencies are chasing radio stations for money to cover contracts the agencies signed, presumably without broadcasters being a party to the agreement. If a spot comes from an ad agency, it's usually a national using free-lance voice talent and meant to air over many stations and markets. The voice might not work in radio at all.
The entire incident is yet another example of the bizarre consequences of current IP laws. A nation of three-hundred-million loses streaming radio to placate a contractual obligation with what? 1000? 5000? voices used for agency spots.
Coming from twenty years experience in the industry, yes, it is unreasonable. As a rule, Sales, not DJ's, are the only ones payed by commercial sold. DJ's get a flat salary, sometimes an additional fee for production work sold outside the market or to other stations and, in rare cases involving major talents, an incentive bonus based on ratings in their day-part. Why would they get a commercial cut? It's not a piecework gig like sales. Why would they be the only ones? In the total amount of labour that goes into programming a radio day, the DJ's have the smallest part. Traffic, production, promotions, programming, engineering, all work obscene hours compared to the typical 4-6 required of an air shift, though it's invisible to the audience.
Something odd happens when the conversation turns to anything remotely considered 'artisitic'. Principles considered ridiculous elsewhere get applied. No one believes line workers should get a cut of every dollar made from the after-sale use of a GM truck, or that a Quicken coder should share in the profits of every business using the software. This appears unique to the entertainment industry, though with their new rent-not-own licensing models the software industry appears to be catching on.
Hardcore gamers are usually hardware fanatics with the latest and fastest gear. If Linux doesn't have the drivers to support it, not using Windows isn't a choice.
Bob?
Consumers will opt for devices that meet their requirements, not those of corporate lawyers. If the SDMI implementation is really as strong you say, these devices won't see wide-spread acceptance. But then, that's probably what the music industry wants.
In other words, one reason online services are getting worse is because of investment by the very establishment she's defending.
I wasn't aware that doctors were breaking the law by making such a recommendation.
According to the article, the federal drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, "is threatening to arrest any doctor who merely mentioned to a patient that marijuana might alleviate the suffering caused by AIDS, cancer, or other serious ailment."
You asked in regards to losing the right to vote after being convicted of a felony,
What does this have to do with the war on drugs? .....That's something that's been on the books forever.
The author was making the point that so many people are being caught up in the 'drug net' that significant percentages of some social groups are losing the right to vote. Only ten states currently banish felons for life. And, yes, if you've done the time I do think you should get the vote back.
unreasonable search and seizure (allowing "agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of crime.")
Again, I wouldn't mind seeing information to back these claims up.
The authors talk about colonial fury at the Crown's use of "writs of assistance" to enter any premises without warning in the search for contraband. It lead to the inclusion of the prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures" in the Bill of Rights. They continue,
"Since the early 1980's the Supreme Court has authorized cascading exceptions to this rule, allowing police helicopters to peer into windows, highway troopers to search the passengers of cars whose drivers appear suspicious, and, most notoriously, state agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of a crime."
The practice is referred to as "dynamic entries" and has reached the point that, in New York City, they had to enact an official policy on replacing the doors of those found innocent.
Properly restated: Property used to commit a crime can be confiscated by the authorities as evidence (and essentially becomes forfeit), where you are not necessarily entitled to get it back.
You missed the point, they don't have to prove anything. Quoting once again:
"Beginning in 1974 the Supreme Court blessed the unholy idea that property could be seized and sold by the government without arrest, conviction, or due process. Under the strange fiction that property itself can be guilty (e.g. United States v. One 1974 Cadillac Eldorado Sedan), the cops take your property, leaving you to prove that it has no connection to a crime. If you miss the ten-day deadline for challenging the seizure, or can't post bond, you lose."
On facing an accuser in a criminal trail, you asked
I didn't realize this was a right. Where in the Bill of Rights is this "right" protected?
The Sixth Amendment.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Sorry for picking your article, it was the first I came across that made a coherent statement for a "weak" privacy policy. I wanted to raise the question of just how much is actually being sacrificed in the name of security. Couple the above facts with the allegations about the NSA and the price is getting pretty dear.
Finally, I do let my lawmakers know, just not in your country. Unfortunately, mine has a long history of Xeroxing your legislation and enacting it a few years afterwards.
The same justification was given for the KGB. They were highly effective in the national security game. Any guess how many lives were spent, how much suffering there was, in the pursuit of "security" and "saving lives"? You're right, it is a balance between security and freedom, and there'll always be an argument about the finer details.
There's an interesting article in the December Harper's outlining how many freedoms are already forfeit or infringed in fighting the war on drugs. They include:
- more restrictions on free speech (stemming from doctors recommending the medical use of marijuana)
- curtailments to freedom of religion (based on a case of two Native Americans practicing an ancient rite involving peyote)
- the right to vote ("one in three black men in the both Alabama and Florida is permanently barred from voting" because they were incarcerated)
- unreasonable search and seizure (allowing "agents to smash down doors without warning and without evidence of crime.")
- property rights (property can now be considered guilty of a crime, you have to prove it isn't. If you can't, or miss the ten day deadline for challenging the seizure, it becomes part of next year's police force funding.)
- and facing your accusers (in order to protect 'professional' informants)
Add to this the privacy rights lost in the fight against terrorism and pornography, and the erosion that continues on an almost daily basis (thanks Billy!) Now finally consider how much all this protection has really meant in your own life. Is the balance still a good one?
Is this federal law or personal opinion? On the face of it, if I buy a 7-series, smash the windows out and make a flower pot of the rest I'm not aware of anything BMW can do about it. How can movie studios force someone to buy and use Windows? Would playing frisbee with the disc contravene fair use? Any legal eagles around?
Sorry for the off-topic, but is it possible for Neoplanet's front end to be more stable than the native IE5? On my admittedly non-stock setup (EVWM on a notebook) it appears to less prone to breaking. Or is this just another example of the the compu-placebo effect?
The problem with both these points is that the judge didn't consider the possibilty of developers releasing commercial applications for a free operating system. He writes as if everything related to Linux must remain free just because the OS is free. If - sorry, when - Linux develops a wide enough user base companies will no doubt start releasing commercial products. Once commercial developers start cranking the apps, their companies can reasonably be expected to lend more support to the OS at the development level to bolster their investment, creating a stronger OS, in turn generating more apps, etc. And since the OS remains free, the applications can't be priced at Microsoft levels. This would be my guess for the future of Linux once it hits critical mass.
Better yet, the jpeg artifacts the first picture claims as a ghost appear to be generated by the crude Paint scrawls outlining 'her' position. The ghost is the message!