Definitely off course but always fun to mention.;)
You're right, the underlying "OS" is... I was using a broader term, however. Just as one would call "Ubuntu" an OS and "Linux" an OS. I prefer not to try to remember the differences between the kernel, device drivers, filesystems, volume managers, window managers, desktop environments... at least not unless I really have to:(:)
Eh... yeah, Unix, too, I guess. I'm not as much of a fan of Unix, having used solaris/hp-ux/aix.
Apple is a bit different in that they have a proprietary OS that they license only for specific hardware (isn't that still the way it is? or no? I could be behind the times here). I'm not a fan of that.
I also just generally dislike the "I'm cool, I have an Apple. I'm artsy. PC users automatically get -5 points for using a PC even if their [music, art, web design] is great." thing, but that's neither here nor there (not sure where it is, I guess):)
Frankly, it makes sense that a computer system company (HP, Dell, etc) would actively pursue releasing a linux distro that works well/specifically designed to work well with their specific hardware, etc. (I presume this is going to include drivers for all of the included hardware in the mini), and is "easy" to use and looks good...
I'm surprised more companies haven't done this, actually.
It IS in the setup EXE itself. Setup executables, at least Microsoft's.msi ones, check the OS version and CPU architecture to make sure they are compatible.
Ummm. Why was it released, then? People do complain about Vista not being ready until SP1 but MS released it. Why KDE 4.0 if it wasn't ready until 4.2 (or, shall we say, KDE 4 SP 2..:) )
It's hard to say that "less" referred to "time" when the supposed antecedent ("time") doesn't appear... but if I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, which I'm not (I'm biased =D hehe), then yeah, it'd be ok.
asside
Oops.:)
Sorry, I should have rephrased the Java jab. I meant that OO is slow because it uses Java (which would include HOW it is implemented), not necessarily limited to "Java is slow." However, I have run very few Java-implementing programs that run "quickly.":)
Silverlight as a benchmark is silly, but Silverlight as a plugin can be useful and shows up in day-to-day browsing as an average user. So does Windows Media streaming. iPods show up with average users (iTunes isn't on Linux still, I don't think). And Average User is not going to want to use Wine to run iTunes... if it works now? I don't know if it does or not - last time I tried, it didn't, and I ran a Windows VM to use iTunes.:)
Mmm, would still argue that complexity doesn't necessarily mean more likely to fail. Maybe more compatible with more use cases and with more use cases, more likely to fail as it has more options for usage... but I'm not sure the "complexity" is at fault there. It's hard to know what to blame the failure on, though. Linux is very complex and offers a huge range of installation options, whereas Windows does not. Linux is often viewed as more stable. However, depending on what you install/how you configure a Linux install, Linux can be very unstable.
It seems that the stability of the complex code is a culprit, here, not simply the complexity...
Try using them. I've searched, too. I prefer using a [fairly simple] GUI when I do music notation, not command line style things.
I haven't tried NoteEdit or Brahms. I've tried some GUI based ones though, and usually they're kinda clunky, not terribly well designed, and not easy to get used to. Similar, actually, to the response I got when I used Finale. IMO, Sibelius did a very good job with the UI and how the notation inputs worked.
Interesting. I actually do have my family (parents/siblings) using OO.org 3 instead of MS Office, as the $200+ per user is pretty annoying.
That said... has anyone in your office done anything with Impress or the database (I forget what it's called...) program? I've tried, and they... eh. I prefer Powerpoint, definitely, unfortunately. MS Word I can live without, although I actually did like the 2007 version... from the UI to the default fonts/headings, which looked pretty nice.
It's not, but it is something you run into in typical web browsing (e.g., the olympics). Someone not "in the know" with Flash vs. Silverlight, MS vs. Apple vs. Linux, etc., isn't going to care one bit whether or not Microsoft or Adobe made the product. They just want to watch the olympics, and they don't want to have to do a manual install of a plugin for Firefox (whatever that means... yes, I know what it means; many don't:) ) just to do it. Is it a requirement for web browsing? No, neither is a graphical environment, you can do it in Lynx. But arguing that people can use Linux just as easily as Windows and then saying that "just as easily" means not doing this, not doing this, and not doing that because those aren't "requirements" for "using"... that doesn't seem to be the correct way to get Linux more mainstream.
For the record, I do set up people with Linux boxes when I can, but I also make myself available to "fix" things when they break. Network printers, "I can't do/watch [something] online," etc. Incidentally, I ran into that problem with my sister and the Olympics/Silverlight.
That's not how I read it. The author didn't seem to be defending Linux with that statement. It was more of a "as we would have expected" statement. He was acknowledging that Linux lost on that metric.
I'd be willing to admit that.. though I do still think it would have been different were the tables turned, as Windows typically takes a lot of heat for long boot times.
And yes, I do grant that install size on certain machines does matter. As part of my work, I install a lot of VMs. It's nice to be able to get 40 VMs and snapshots on one machine without requiring a ton of disk. However, space used is much less interesting to me in a Windows vs. Linux discussion as actual usability. I don't care about my space. For the 5% of people (or whatever) that really do care, that take OS install images, etc., then they may not even be running Windows in the first place.
And, on the other hand, the whole KDE vs. Gnome issue is applicable here, as well - Gnome, if I remember correctly, is significantly smaller than KDE. I prefer KDE or Gnome though, as far as usability and compatibility... so not sure the "less is better" idea of space really goes far, unless you're dealing with 8GB drives.
The more complex the install, the more likely something is to not work correctly.
I disagree. I have been doing a bunch of RedHat and SuSE (SLES) installs. A lot of mouse clicks (or keyboard entries, in my case). They don't tend to work incorrectly though.
Complexity doesn't necessarily mean likely to fail. Simplicity often means no customizing, complexity often means more user interaction/customizing. Yeah, more user interaction may make it more apt to working incorrectly, since users make mistakes. But hey, if you want, I'll give you an OS that doesn't let you do anything and never fails...
Interestingly, by the way - firmware even fails/crashes on occasion.
The title, at least, is troll-ish. Ubuntu WIPES windows 7 in benchmarks? Even the article concluded differently:
Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's good for competition in the long term. However, Linux isn't sitting still: with ext4 now stable we expect it to be adopted into distros fairly quickly.
A lot of stuff is included in Windows. I don't know how much of it is OS and how much of it is extra software. For one thing, there are a ton of administration GUI type things. Ubuntu is pretty good with GUIs, as well as some other Linux distro's. And I realize that a lot of Linux dist's come with server capabilities as well.
I think Windows gives you a bit more than notepad/file manager/casual games, though. It does include a web browser, the aforementioned administration tools/GUIs, a lot of networking administration stuff, drivers, etc. That would be an interesting breakdown, though, it is making me curious and want to go look at my win7 VM:)
I agree that they are way too subjective, but it would make and interesting set of... hmmm, case studies.
It'd be interesting to try it on people that have never used a computer before, actually, as well as people who have, say, only used Linux (do they exist?) or only used Windows and see how the switch goes.
Linux has always been rather slow to boot, but as we understand it reducing boot time is one of the goals of the Ubuntu 9.04 release.
What kind of comment is that? Excusing a "slow boot time" with "Linux has always been rather slow to boot." Of course, then we get other benchmarks where it says that Ubuntu betas Windows in booting. IMO, this just goes to show that benchmarks on something that is so hardware dependent can be really silly. That and the user's bias is coming out in defending Linux by saying it's always been slow to boot. If Windows was the one that was so slow, it probably would have been "Windows has always been infamously slow to boot, and Windows 7 is no change." Or whatever.
Also... measuring mouse clicks on an install process? What?
And... comparing the amount if gigabytes and saying that less space used after a fresh install is necessarily better? Becuase, as we all know, a 6 GB installation of an OS is absolutely horrendously huge, given the exorbitant cost of disk storage these days. Man, 1/166th of my 1TB drive gone because Windows! [/sarcasm]
"Measured in seconds. Less is better." That would be fewer.
Grammar nazis asside, this is not real serious benchmarking. It doesn't even take into account WHAT Windows 7 installs and WHAT Ubuntu installs. Is there more default software in Windows 7? Windows 7 is a DVD, isn't Ubuntu still on a CD? One could argue that just means Windows 7 installation is bloated, but that still invalidates the benchmarking from a real "serious" perspective, other than the fact that Windows installs more. Great, now we'll say that Half-Life 2 is bloated because it takes longer to install than Half-Life?
And, were Ubuntu faster - which I don't actually doubt all that much - it still doesn't get over the usual gripes people have about switching to Linux. This or that application doesn't work on Linux or there isn't a comparable one (my favorite to mention is Sibelius's music notation software, aptly named Sibelius [or Coda Music's Finale, but I hate Finale]), it's not as easy to use, hardware, etc. Some are not quite valid anymore, some are still valid concerns. Either way, simple benchmarking isn't going to convince most "average users." What do they care, as long as it works and is easy to use?
I'd rather see some "average user usage" benchmarks. That is, see how easy someone finds Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu to use for actual normal tasks in an office. See if OpenOffice (all software, not just word processing) actual can compete with Microsoft Office (and see if it's slower, due to Java?). Web browsing, including using Silverlight and installing plugins and everything. That'd be a test that would help the "Linux really IS a good alternative," more than "My Linux machine boots 5 seconds faster - see, you should switch from Windows!" does.
Cookies was an exaggerated and over-simplified example. I assumed people would get the gist of what I was saying. On the other hand, you combat it by saying it apparently is primarily focused on not cutting heads off of children, apparently presuming that I support the "parental right" of decapitating children. Hm.
The main issue is the LACK of limitations. For example:
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
"Best interests." "Best interests" is used all over the place. Well, we already know what they probably think about *gasp* teaching religion or *gasp* teaching abstinence, and other such horrific things. It's in the child's best interest to have sex before marriage!!!... etc.
Or how about homeschooling? Many states already hate homeschooling and think it's horrible for the children, somehow. So, what's in the child's best interests if the parent refuses to let them go to public schools? Hmmm. That alone (government deciding how and what children are taught) is scary, as the education of a child is a HUGE deal.
Or how about section 12?
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
Freely express the views, as long as the child is "capable" of forming "his or her own views." What views? What exactly is a "matter affecting the child" ?
Or section 13:
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Ummm. Basically, parents can't "make" their kid be quiet?
Next.
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
Great. Parents are allowed to "provide direction" (not even "direct" but only "provide direction" consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. Let's say the child doesn't like church. What then? Or let's say you're an atheist and the child DOES like church. Too bad, you can't say he/she can't go to church and let himself be taught all those lies, it's his or her own choice. You can only provide direction, you can't actively direct. Government, on the other hand, can direct (public schools do NOT simply "provide direction," they are DEFINITELY involved in actively directing).
There are a ton of areas that this leaves open. Sex education ("neglect" of it not being allowed) as deemed "necessary" by government; science education as deemed "necessary" by the government, etc. Basically, if a parent disagrees with what th
Lowering tax rates? I completely agree with that. Reduced spending? Also completely agree.
Unfortunately, I disagree with the current administration's and Congress's (which is primarily in the hands of the Democrat party at the moment) ideas about spending and tax cuts... they tend to dislike the latter and really want the former.
Tax cuts and reduced federal spending and reduced pork is something I will support wholeheartedly. Yes, pork comes on both sides, but I have to say that it doesn't look like it's getting better than before... rather, it looks like it is getting worse.
I just heard about the CRC. That is a crazy scary prospect. Basically, let the government teach and raise and instruct (read: brainwash) your child. Great, any child can argue about a parental decision and it can be "overturned" if a GOVERNMENT WORKER agrees? Hmmm. Government worker. Basically, if my seven year old doesn't agree with my decision that he can't eat all the cookies, and a government worker agrees with him, I am forced to let him?
This isn't about the rights of a child, this is about the "rights" of the government to do what they want. And it's been going on for years and years in the public education district.
And the GP as some excellent points as well, especially the part about having the US's reputation be better. I'm not going to excuse any BAD behavior, but since when have all nations loved the US? What exactly are we trying to "regain" here, and at what cost? I don't want the US diplomacy scene to be like Obama's campaign scene... kissing up to a bunch of groups, saying what they want to hear, etc., in order to have a good (fabricated, based on rhetoric) image.
Example: For being so "change"-ish from the typical political scene, from other democrats, etc., he appointed his opponent (Clinton), he has appointed many key democrats, la la la... basically NOTHING has changed except the name went from Republican to Democrat. And I'm not sure, ideologically, I like the Democrat better...
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely off course but always fun to mention. ;)
You're right, the underlying "OS" is ... I was using a broader term, however. Just as one would call "Ubuntu" an OS and "Linux" an OS. I prefer not to try to remember the differences between the kernel, device drivers, filesystems, volume managers, window managers, desktop environments... at least not unless I really have to :( :)
Eh... yeah, Unix, too, I guess. I'm not as much of a fan of Unix, having used solaris/hp-ux/aix.
Apple is a bit different in that they have a proprietary OS that they license only for specific hardware (isn't that still the way it is? or no? I could be behind the times here). I'm not a fan of that.
I also just generally dislike the "I'm cool, I have an Apple. I'm artsy. PC users automatically get -5 points for using a PC even if their [music, art, web design] is great." thing, but that's neither here nor there (not sure where it is, I guess) :)
Frankly, it makes sense that a computer system company (HP, Dell, etc) would actively pursue releasing a linux distro that works well/specifically designed to work well with their specific hardware, etc. (I presume this is going to include drivers for all of the included hardware in the mini), and is "easy" to use and looks good...
I'm surprised more companies haven't done this, actually.
I actually read the entire article. Pretty interesting. I didn't know about the three major LCD technologies, etc.
It's slightly frustrating when companies "decline to comment."
I was just saying that it's not just a good idea, it's implemented. :)
But yes, user-agent detection is definitely the stupid, cheap web-monkey way to do it... hehe
It IS in the setup EXE itself. Setup executables, at least Microsoft's .msi ones, check the OS version and CPU architecture to make sure they are compatible.
Ummm. Why was it released, then? People do complain about Vista not being ready until SP1 but MS released it. Why KDE 4.0 if it wasn't ready until 4.2 (or, shall we say, KDE 4 SP 2 .. :) )
Offtopic I suppose. Oh well :)
In fact, having Yahoo run it sounds like a bad idea, hehe =D
It's hard to say that "less" referred to "time" when the supposed antecedent ("time") doesn't appear... but if I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, which I'm not (I'm biased =D hehe), then yeah, it'd be ok.
asside
Oops. :)
Sorry, I should have rephrased the Java jab. I meant that OO is slow because it uses Java (which would include HOW it is implemented), not necessarily limited to "Java is slow." However, I have run very few Java-implementing programs that run "quickly." :)
Silverlight as a benchmark is silly, but Silverlight as a plugin can be useful and shows up in day-to-day browsing as an average user. So does Windows Media streaming. iPods show up with average users (iTunes isn't on Linux still, I don't think). And Average User is not going to want to use Wine to run iTunes... if it works now? I don't know if it does or not - last time I tried, it didn't, and I ran a Windows VM to use iTunes. :)
Mmm, would still argue that complexity doesn't necessarily mean more likely to fail. Maybe more compatible with more use cases and with more use cases, more likely to fail as it has more options for usage... but I'm not sure the "complexity" is at fault there. It's hard to know what to blame the failure on, though. Linux is very complex and offers a huge range of installation options, whereas Windows does not. Linux is often viewed as more stable. However, depending on what you install/how you configure a Linux install, Linux can be very unstable.
It seems that the stability of the complex code is a culprit, here, not simply the complexity...
Try using them. I've searched, too. I prefer using a [fairly simple] GUI when I do music notation, not command line style things.
I haven't tried NoteEdit or Brahms. I've tried some GUI based ones though, and usually they're kinda clunky, not terribly well designed, and not easy to get used to. Similar, actually, to the response I got when I used Finale. IMO, Sibelius did a very good job with the UI and how the notation inputs worked.
Interesting. I actually do have my family (parents/siblings) using OO.org 3 instead of MS Office, as the $200+ per user is pretty annoying.
That said ... has anyone in your office done anything with Impress or the database (I forget what it's called...) program? I've tried, and they ... eh. I prefer Powerpoint, definitely, unfortunately. MS Word I can live without, although I actually did like the 2007 version... from the UI to the default fonts/headings, which looked pretty nice.
It's not, but it is something you run into in typical web browsing (e.g., the olympics). Someone not "in the know" with Flash vs. Silverlight, MS vs. Apple vs. Linux, etc., isn't going to care one bit whether or not Microsoft or Adobe made the product. They just want to watch the olympics, and they don't want to have to do a manual install of a plugin for Firefox (whatever that means... yes, I know what it means; many don't :) ) just to do it. Is it a requirement for web browsing? No, neither is a graphical environment, you can do it in Lynx. But arguing that people can use Linux just as easily as Windows and then saying that "just as easily" means not doing this, not doing this, and not doing that because those aren't "requirements" for "using" ... that doesn't seem to be the correct way to get Linux more mainstream.
For the record, I do set up people with Linux boxes when I can, but I also make myself available to "fix" things when they break. Network printers, "I can't do/watch [something] online," etc. Incidentally, I ran into that problem with my sister and the Olympics/Silverlight.
That's not how I read it. The author didn't seem to be defending Linux with that statement. It was more of a "as we would have expected" statement. He was acknowledging that Linux lost on that metric.
I'd be willing to admit that.. though I do still think it would have been different were the tables turned, as Windows typically takes a lot of heat for long boot times.
And yes, I do grant that install size on certain machines does matter. As part of my work, I install a lot of VMs. It's nice to be able to get 40 VMs and snapshots on one machine without requiring a ton of disk. However, space used is much less interesting to me in a Windows vs. Linux discussion as actual usability. I don't care about my space. For the 5% of people (or whatever) that really do care, that take OS install images, etc., then they may not even be running Windows in the first place.
And, on the other hand, the whole KDE vs. Gnome issue is applicable here, as well - Gnome, if I remember correctly, is significantly smaller than KDE. I prefer KDE or Gnome though, as far as usability and compatibility... so not sure the "less is better" idea of space really goes far, unless you're dealing with 8GB drives.
The more complex the install, the more likely something is to not work correctly.
I disagree. I have been doing a bunch of RedHat and SuSE (SLES) installs. A lot of mouse clicks (or keyboard entries, in my case). They don't tend to work incorrectly though.
Complexity doesn't necessarily mean likely to fail. Simplicity often means no customizing, complexity often means more user interaction/customizing. Yeah, more user interaction may make it more apt to working incorrectly, since users make mistakes. But hey, if you want, I'll give you an OS that doesn't let you do anything and never fails...
Interestingly, by the way - firmware even fails/crashes on occasion.
The title, at least, is troll-ish. Ubuntu WIPES windows 7 in benchmarks? Even the article concluded differently:
Obviously we're Linux users ourselves, but our tests have shown that there are some places where Windows 7 really is making some improvement and that's good for competition in the long term. However, Linux isn't sitting still: with ext4 now stable we expect it to be adopted into distros fairly quickly.
A lot of stuff is included in Windows. I don't know how much of it is OS and how much of it is extra software. For one thing, there are a ton of administration GUI type things. Ubuntu is pretty good with GUIs, as well as some other Linux distro's. And I realize that a lot of Linux dist's come with server capabilities as well.
I think Windows gives you a bit more than notepad/file manager/casual games, though. It does include a web browser, the aforementioned administration tools/GUIs, a lot of networking administration stuff, drivers, etc. That would be an interesting breakdown, though, it is making me curious and want to go look at my win7 VM :)
I agree that they are way too subjective, but it would make and interesting set of ... hmmm, case studies.
It'd be interesting to try it on people that have never used a computer before, actually, as well as people who have, say, only used Linux (do they exist?) or only used Windows and see how the switch goes.
Another note.
Linux has always been rather slow to boot, but as we understand it reducing boot time is one of the goals of the Ubuntu 9.04 release.
What kind of comment is that? Excusing a "slow boot time" with "Linux has always been rather slow to boot." Of course, then we get other benchmarks where it says that Ubuntu betas Windows in booting. IMO, this just goes to show that benchmarks on something that is so hardware dependent can be really silly. That and the user's bias is coming out in defending Linux by saying it's always been slow to boot. If Windows was the one that was so slow, it probably would have been "Windows has always been infamously slow to boot, and Windows 7 is no change." Or whatever.
Also... measuring mouse clicks on an install process? What?
And ... comparing the amount if gigabytes and saying that less space used after a fresh install is necessarily better? Becuase, as we all know, a 6 GB installation of an OS is absolutely horrendously huge, given the exorbitant cost of disk storage these days. Man, 1/166th of my 1TB drive gone because Windows! [/sarcasm]
"Measured in seconds. Less is better." That would be fewer.
Grammar nazis asside, this is not real serious benchmarking. It doesn't even take into account WHAT Windows 7 installs and WHAT Ubuntu installs. Is there more default software in Windows 7? Windows 7 is a DVD, isn't Ubuntu still on a CD? One could argue that just means Windows 7 installation is bloated, but that still invalidates the benchmarking from a real "serious" perspective, other than the fact that Windows installs more. Great, now we'll say that Half-Life 2 is bloated because it takes longer to install than Half-Life?
And, were Ubuntu faster - which I don't actually doubt all that much - it still doesn't get over the usual gripes people have about switching to Linux. This or that application doesn't work on Linux or there isn't a comparable one (my favorite to mention is Sibelius's music notation software, aptly named Sibelius [or Coda Music's Finale, but I hate Finale]), it's not as easy to use, hardware, etc. Some are not quite valid anymore, some are still valid concerns. Either way, simple benchmarking isn't going to convince most "average users." What do they care, as long as it works and is easy to use?
I'd rather see some "average user usage" benchmarks. That is, see how easy someone finds Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu to use for actual normal tasks in an office. See if OpenOffice (all software, not just word processing) actual can compete with Microsoft Office (and see if it's slower, due to Java?). Web browsing, including using Silverlight and installing plugins and everything. That'd be a test that would help the "Linux really IS a good alternative," more than "My Linux machine boots 5 seconds faster - see, you should switch from Windows!" does.
For the 15-25Mbps folks, that's ~28hrs of solid downloading at 20Mbps. Hopefully I did the math right.
Cookies was an exaggerated and over-simplified example. I assumed people would get the gist of what I was saying. On the other hand, you combat it by saying it apparently is primarily focused on not cutting heads off of children, apparently presuming that I support the "parental right" of decapitating children. Hm.
The main issue is the LACK of limitations. For example:
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.
"Best interests." "Best interests" is used all over the place. Well, we already know what they probably think about *gasp* teaching religion or *gasp* teaching abstinence, and other such horrific things. It's in the child's best interest to have sex before marriage!!! ... etc.
Or how about homeschooling? Many states already hate homeschooling and think it's horrible for the children, somehow. So, what's in the child's best interests if the parent refuses to let them go to public schools? Hmmm. That alone (government deciding how and what children are taught) is scary, as the education of a child is a HUGE deal.
Or how about section 12?
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
Freely express the views, as long as the child is "capable" of forming "his or her own views." What views? What exactly is a "matter affecting the child" ?
Or section 13:
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice. 2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Ummm. Basically, parents can't "make" their kid be quiet?
Next.
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
Great. Parents are allowed to "provide direction" (not even "direct" but only "provide direction" consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. Let's say the child doesn't like church. What then? Or let's say you're an atheist and the child DOES like church. Too bad, you can't say he/she can't go to church and let himself be taught all those lies, it's his or her own choice. You can only provide direction, you can't actively direct. Government, on the other hand, can direct (public schools do NOT simply "provide direction," they are DEFINITELY involved in actively directing).
There are a ton of areas that this leaves open. Sex education ("neglect" of it not being allowed) as deemed "necessary" by government; science education as deemed "necessary" by the government, etc. Basically, if a parent disagrees with what th
Lowering tax rates? I completely agree with that. Reduced spending? Also completely agree.
Unfortunately, I disagree with the current administration's and Congress's (which is primarily in the hands of the Democrat party at the moment) ideas about spending and tax cuts... they tend to dislike the latter and really want the former.
Tax cuts and reduced federal spending and reduced pork is something I will support wholeheartedly. Yes, pork comes on both sides, but I have to say that it doesn't look like it's getting better than before... rather, it looks like it is getting worse.
giving out money "without preconditions"
Ah yes, the solution to a recession: government giving out "free" money. Wonder who pays for that? France?
I just heard about the CRC. That is a crazy scary prospect. Basically, let the government teach and raise and instruct (read: brainwash) your child. Great, any child can argue about a parental decision and it can be "overturned" if a GOVERNMENT WORKER agrees? Hmmm. Government worker. Basically, if my seven year old doesn't agree with my decision that he can't eat all the cookies, and a government worker agrees with him, I am forced to let him?
This isn't about the rights of a child, this is about the "rights" of the government to do what they want. And it's been going on for years and years in the public education district.
And the GP as some excellent points as well, especially the part about having the US's reputation be better. I'm not going to excuse any BAD behavior, but since when have all nations loved the US? What exactly are we trying to "regain" here, and at what cost? I don't want the US diplomacy scene to be like Obama's campaign scene... kissing up to a bunch of groups, saying what they want to hear, etc., in order to have a good (fabricated, based on rhetoric) image.
Example: For being so "change"-ish from the typical political scene, from other democrats, etc., he appointed his opponent (Clinton), he has appointed many key democrats, la la la ... basically NOTHING has changed except the name went from Republican to Democrat. And I'm not sure, ideologically, I like the Democrat better...