They can serve it, I can filter it. What they don't have a right to do is insist that I read the adverts. Newspapers can't insist that I read the adverts. TV can't insist that I watch the adverts. The internet can't force me to download the adverts. By blocking my access to their site all they are doing is losing a potential customer. I hope that their advertising revenue makes up for the lost sale, but see my post earlier for a full discussion of this point.
I'm not an American but why aren't you out there lobbying for just such a change to the US legal system? You are pretty much preaching to the converted by telling fellow/.ers about it. The problem, from my half blind observation point thousands of miles away, is that there is very little chance of anyone being able to persuade those who have the power to change the system to do so. RIAA is simply taking advantage of this fact. Of course I hate what they are doing but within the legal system that they are working they seem to have been having a certain degree of success. I am pleased that they are now having problems but saying 'wouldn't it be better if....' is only the start of getting things changed. You have the good idea, now all you have to do is get it accepted and passed into law. Incidentally, where I live, if an organisation such as the RIAA failed in a prosecution it would be expected to pay all of the costs of the defendant.
Fact is if i own a cd and share it over the internet without the copyright holders permission, i'd be breaking the law. it's pretty cut and dry chaps.
But the files haven't been downloaded, or at least there is no evidence to prove that they were. The RIAA are arguing that they could be downloaded. Its not so cut and dried now, is it?
So? Your fee doesn't pay for the content, but the content is why you have a connection in the first place.
Yes, of course my fee pays for the content, which is precisely why I should be able to chose what that content is. If I do not read the advertisements in a newspaper, nobody tells me that I will not be allowed to buy that newspaper again. Similarly, with television. If I ignore the adverts I am still free to watch the programs (i.e. the content for which I am paying). So why should it be different for the internet?
YOU came to THEIR site. NOT the other way around.
Exactly. I visited site X because I was interested in their specific product. That is what makes their site attractive to me. They are offering something that I want. But I do not need to be informed about products Y and Z which might be loosely related to the product that I am interested in - but often they are not. Site X is free to sell advertising space to Y and Z to make money. Note that they have made their profit by selling the ad space, not by making me read it. But they are certainly not free to dictate that I must read that advertising otherwise I will not be allowed to visit their site. Of course, as in this case, they are able to block my access but the end result is that they have lost a potential customer. I hope that the advertising revenue was sufficient to compensate for whatever I had intended to purchase but now will not do so. And if that is true, then they should stop selling product X but announce that they are selling advertising space - it won't work but that is why I argue that they should go bust. It is product X where their long term future lies and it is that product that should ensure their business survival. The newspaper's business model is based primarily on selling newspapers. The advertising might make a very useful contribution to their income but that is something that they must decide rather than demanding that their readership must read every advert.
The argument that my reading the adverts pays or helps to pay for the site is also irrelevant. I do not get asked to subsidise the cost of advertising in newspapers, magazines or TV. The advertiser takes the risk that sufficient readers will take notice of the adverts but they are unable to force everyone to do so. Ditto, for the internet. The risk of adverts being read or not lies with the advertiser. They have no inherent right to be able to force me to read them.
Are you really under the impression that through the magic of hand waving that somehow free content will continue down YOUR pipeline in perpetuity?
Er, there is no such thing as a magic wand. You've been watching too much Harry Potter. Lets take a real example to see how this works. A motor company has a budget for advertising. They purchase advertising or establish and maintain product awareness in lots of different ways. Adverts, item branding, supporting other events (e.g. motor racing) and so on. They know which media provide the best results. But, in none of these cases, have they the right to force the population to read the adverts or to suddenly become product aware. They fund the advertising out of their profits and, to me, it appears that there is a 'free stream of content' that I can choose to ignore or read at my whim. So it should be for the internet. The risk of advertising being effective rests with the advertiser and not with the target audience. If a company running a website cannot exist by selling its product unless I can be forced to read all of other the promotional material on that site then it has not got a functioning business model. It can go bust. It will benefit the market and the consumer by ensuring that only those products that are good enough to stand by their own merit survive. Those that must have additional funding to prop them up are not good enough and so, like many other items, will disappear over time.
You are still costing the website money by using their bandwidth without giving anything back to pay for it.
No, they are using my bandwidth to display their unwanted junk on my computer screen. I pay for my internet connection, not the advertiser. If they want to display their content on my screen then they may do so for a price. Please let me know where to send the bill, I'm looking forward to seeing the money roll in.
When I visit a website, it is usually to view whatever they are offering, but not necessarily to view whatever their advertisers are offering. If they cannot afford to run the website without support from my funding for their advertisments then they can go bust. If the product that they are offering (be it something for sale, the answer to a query, or even pron) does not make them enough money then they should not be in business. But by visiting their site I have not agreed to be subjected to all of the extraneous crap that adorns their site.
Many countries do honour their international agreements, but they do so by making sure that their national law stipulates that it will act in the same way as the international agreement, thus ensuring that the law can be enforced nationally. Russia is doing this with regard to both IP and copyright but the changes have not yet come into force. If this trial had taken place next year there might well have been a different outcome. But, today, the prosecution could not show that national law has been broken, but only that an international agreement that has not yet come into force has been. Any other reasonable legal system would have reached a similar verdict in a similar situation.
So please let me defecate over any and all international agreements excuses you bring up.
Why should I try to bring up excuses? I'm not Russian, I'm British. I don't live in Russia, although I have worked there in the past for an extended period. The fact that I listen to a radio station in another country does not make me a supporter of that country or of its legal system. However, I do not believe that international law is meaningless, but I do agree that the USA is one country in particular that wants every other country to follow international law when it suits America, but doesn't want to follow international law itself. Nevertheless, that is an discussion for another day and it is irrelevant to this particular thread. I simply raised the points that I had heard to enable others to understand what has taken place, why this particular case was not proven and to counter some of the other comments that seem to believe that the outcome is a result of corruption or simply political bias. In fact, it is neither; it is as the judge said, the result of a poorly presented case.
Well it does in a way. Under common understanding in Russia of existing IP laws it is not at all clear that AllOfMP3 is breaking current law. There are changes planned which will close some loopholes and perhaps bring Russia more into line with some other countries, including America, but currently those changes are not yet in force. However, to obtain a prosecution under existing law the evidence needs to be collected and analysed under the law that is extant, and not the law that some might wish was in place, and which will be from next year. That is where the prosecution seems to have fallen down, according to a radio broadcast that I have listened to. The prosecution is quoting international agreements but the defence is using existing Russian law. As you are probably aware from the Litvinenko case, Russia is keen not to have its own laws be dictated by international agreements (although the Litvinenko is considerably more complicated and not simply a conflict of internal and international law). The judge wished to have the prosecution clearly show that, in this instance, international agreements should take precedence over national law. They failed to do so. This also explains the different claims that are made in the FA.
Ah, such incisive wit! Each word crafted to cause the maximum mirth in the reader. You must be really proud of your contribution to this thread. Your comment has certainly added an invaluable and intelligent insight into the problems that medical science is currently experiencing. Now piss off and let the adults have a discussion.
I fully agree, not many aspects of MS have a humorous element. But we have managed to find laughter from time to time. The best jokes are the ones told by the sufferer about the problems they are experiencing. For example, the sufferer's loss of balance can cause an effect similar to that seen in drunken people. In this case, the sufferer made light of the issue by pointing out that we were all drinking beer at a BBQ to achieve a similar effect, so look how much she was saving in both time and money! OK, it is not a joke that can be told to great effect, but we all laughed - including the sufferer - and it made MS seem, for a moment or two, something less frightening to us all. Another example which brought a smile to many faces was when 2 MS sufferers had a wheel chair race to join the queue to buy an ice-cream. It was obvious that they found life difficult but they both enjoyed the short competition and the existing queue, faces full of smiles, stood aside to allow them to be served first. MS is serious business but, from time to time, a little laughter can perhaps be found.
No, there is no proven genetic link. We have gone back 4 generations and there is no trace of MS in the family history. That hardly makes it look a convincing case for a genetic disease. In fact, no-one actually knows yet what causes it. They can see its effects on the body, and they can view the symptoms that people exhibit, but they are still at a loss as to the cause and cure.
Thank you. As you will have noticed from my posts above, I also cannot see a funny side to this. If this had been an article about CPUs, power supplies or YRO, there would have been a serious discussion. As it is, many seem to think that such diseases are simply a cause for jokes. My family do laugh about MS, otherwise we would not get through some days, but we do not laugh at the sufferer but at the disease's effects. Many comments in the posts seem to think it is a sexually transmitted disease - which shows their ignorance - but they are probably unaware of the myriad of symptoms and their effects upon the sufferer.
I am sceptical of the discovery but hope that there is something useful in it. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is still nothing on the horizon that holds as much promise as this discovery so this is, for the time being, the best chance for many people.
Another brave AC who hasn't got balls. But I suppose that you think that jokes about other crippling diseases, such as cancer, motor-neurone disease etc, are also funny? It was not a bitch fest - but for those with small brains need to be reminded that what might appear funny to them can be quite painful for others. As I said, I don't begrudge you (or anyone in fact) having a laugh but if you need to hide behind an AC to have a joke at someone else's expense, then perhaps you have already realised that it wasn't as funny as you hoped it would be. I hope that you never suffer from any such illness but, if you do, you will hear my laughter wherever you are....
Your comment has been tagged as Funny. I hope that is how you intended it to be (and the title suggests that you did), because otherwise you are being totally ignorant and offensive. I have a loved one who is suffering from MS. She hasn't done anything to 'deserve it'. It isn't caused by having loose morals. Its effects, however, are devastating. Her life and my own, as well as the lives of many members of our family, have been changed as a result of the disease. Our home has had to be modified so that she can live on a single level, our plans for the future have been destroyed as she is unable to do the everyday things that we had planned to do, and her daily life is very much affected by the limitations that are brought on by the disease. To her, a visit to the local shops is a difficult adventure, to travel further afield might sometimes be impossible, to sit in the garden and look at the flowers can be the most exciting thing to occur in her day, to do some housework presents her with challenges that you and I cannot imagine. Personally, I find it hard to view such things as 'Funny'. Enjoy your laugh, I will not begrudge you that, but I hope that there is some light at the end of our tunnel as a result of the research that is described in the article.
I think 99% of the people who support Linux would disagree with you.
Just picked that figure from somewhere where the sun doesn't shine? Please back it up with a reference. Or is it that you would like it to be around that figure?
Many people have moved to linux over the last year or two and think that it is something new. It isn't. The problems that they (and perhaps you) encountered have been discussed many, many times before. (E.g. http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm, http://www.psychocats.net/essays/winuxinstall, http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxwindowscompa rison) Linux will not suit everybody, just as a 4x4 or a Rolls Royce will not suit everybody. There is no point in trying to pretend otherwise. If people did a little research before trying Linux and then discovering that it is different, they would be a lot less disappointed when they find that it is not what they are used to. People are not born with an inherent knowledge of Windows but they have been exposed to it for many years. They have learnt how it works over time and by experience. So why are they surprised when they encounter something new and cannot master it in 10 minutes?
I haven't got an attitude about Linux. Can you please provide one authoritative source which states that Linux is trying to become as big as Windows? Please don't just give me someone's personal viewpoint, I want something that clearly states that the objective of the Linux community is to beat Microsoft in the market place. Most of those who support Linux by writing code don't give a toss about Microsoft. Those who want to use it because it is better than Windows have already made up their mind. The 99% of people that I think you are referring to are those who have come to Linux recently, find it is free, and would like it to become the new Windows so that there is yet more free software written for it. I have no objection to this viewpoint but I do not think it is representative of the Linux community that I have been part of since 1998.
As many others have pointed out. Installing Linux can be difficult but it is easier than installing Windows on top of Linux and keeping both installations working. But if you want something that is point and click just like Windows, then stick to Windows. I think that your problem is that you are not as skillful at using Linux as you are at using Windows, and you attribute this to something wrong with Linux. Many of us would disagree with you. For those that make the effort to learn Linux (and anything rewarding requires some degree of effort on the part of the individual) then there are rewards aplenty. But please don't change Linux to make it like Windows - many of us don't want it to be like Windows, thank you.
You have quoted 'capturing market share from Windows' in several posts in this thread. I have the following to offer.
Linux is not trying to capture market share. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, stay with Windows. It is not a competition. I don't care what Microsoft does as long as I am free to use the OS of my choice.
There are more Linux users today than ever before. Some of them have ditched Microsoft's offerings completely. I am one of them. Therefore, Linux is 'capturing market share' from Windows. However, a great many users have dual-boot (and so still have a registered copy of Windows) and some have more than one machine (with perhaps different OS on each). The figures are therefore skewed but, as the figures are unimportant, who cares about them? I repeat, it is not a competition. But if every computer was sold with a blank hard drive, which do you think most people would end up installing? Do you think that they would still be content to fork out wads of cash if they have to install Windows from scratch?
Don't compare Linux with Windows. It is not meant to be the same or even similar. That is one of the main reasons for people changing from Windows to Linux. I do not believe that Windows is any kind of yardstick against which to measure OS. But, if you are incapable of installing Linux (either in single OS mode or dual boot) then you are not ready for Linux. It is not because Linux is not ready - the limitation is your capabilities and not those of the software.
There is room for both Windows and Linux in the world. Make your choice based on what the software offers and your ability to install it and use it.
I am not trolling. Why should I have to obey a system of justice or government that is based upon your religion or its teachings? Might my religion have an alternative view of justice? Government, justice and religion should be entirely separate at all times. Paul might have taken the time to explain that God instituted government but he was wrong. People created governments. Governments existed before Christianity. You are free to believe and practise whatever you wish. You do not have the right to impose it upon others.
I am NOT an American. I do NOT revolve around the USA, nor do I believe that the world does either. Although I have many American friends I do not like the way that the USA is throwing its weight around at the moment. If you care to read my posting history you would learn something of my views.
I do not like the story from Iran, but it does not mean that the USA does nothing wrong. I care quite passionately about human rights which is why I, like many others, do not approve of gitmo, rendition, or the gradual erosion of human rights. I do 'scream bloody murder' about abuses which occur in other countries, but I do not do it on/. because this is not the appropriate forum. I'll make my voice heard where it might have some effect, but not here just to please you.
"Every journey begins with a single step". The fact that the US has taken the first few steps down the road to abusing human rights, but perhaps will go no further, does not mean that I believe that it is already as bad as some other countries. On the other hand, the fact that Iran (as reported in the link that you gave me) has the death penalty is something that both it and the USA have in common. Many civilised countries have abolished the death penalty completely. But, in this instance, I would say that you have probably quoted the wrong article to me because all you have done is convince me that both the USA and Iran are, in some ways, very similar to each other. They both carry out barbaric executions under the guise of 'justice'. Now, tell me again please, how does that help your argument against the original post that you criticised?
Slashdot Mirror
They can serve it, I can filter it. What they don't have a right to do is insist that I read the adverts. Newspapers can't insist that I read the adverts. TV can't insist that I watch the adverts. The internet can't force me to download the adverts. By blocking my access to their site all they are doing is losing a potential customer. I hope that their advertising revenue makes up for the lost sale, but see my post earlier for a full discussion of this point.
I'm not an American but why aren't you out there lobbying for just such a change to the US legal system? You are pretty much preaching to the converted by telling fellow /.ers about it. The problem, from my half blind observation point thousands of miles away, is that there is very little chance of anyone being able to persuade those who have the power to change the system to do so. RIAA is simply taking advantage of this fact. Of course I hate what they are doing but within the legal system that they are working they seem to have been having a certain degree of success. I am pleased that they are now having problems but saying 'wouldn't it be better if ....' is only the start of getting things changed. You have the good idea, now all you have to do is get it accepted and passed into law. Incidentally, where I live, if an organisation such as the RIAA failed in a prosecution it would be expected to pay all of the costs of the defendant.
But the files haven't been downloaded, or at least there is no evidence to prove that they were. The RIAA are arguing that they could be downloaded. Its not so cut and dried now, is it?
So? Your fee doesn't pay for the content, but the content is why you have a connection in the first place.
Yes, of course my fee pays for the content, which is precisely why I should be able to chose what that content is. If I do not read the advertisements in a newspaper, nobody tells me that I will not be allowed to buy that newspaper again. Similarly, with television. If I ignore the adverts I am still free to watch the programs (i.e. the content for which I am paying). So why should it be different for the internet?
YOU came to THEIR site. NOT the other way around.
Exactly. I visited site X because I was interested in their specific product. That is what makes their site attractive to me. They are offering something that I want. But I do not need to be informed about products Y and Z which might be loosely related to the product that I am interested in - but often they are not. Site X is free to sell advertising space to Y and Z to make money. Note that they have made their profit by selling the ad space, not by making me read it. But they are certainly not free to dictate that I must read that advertising otherwise I will not be allowed to visit their site. Of course, as in this case, they are able to block my access but the end result is that they have lost a potential customer. I hope that the advertising revenue was sufficient to compensate for whatever I had intended to purchase but now will not do so. And if that is true, then they should stop selling product X but announce that they are selling advertising space - it won't work but that is why I argue that they should go bust. It is product X where their long term future lies and it is that product that should ensure their business survival. The newspaper's business model is based primarily on selling newspapers. The advertising might make a very useful contribution to their income but that is something that they must decide rather than demanding that their readership must read every advert.
The argument that my reading the adverts pays or helps to pay for the site is also irrelevant. I do not get asked to subsidise the cost of advertising in newspapers, magazines or TV. The advertiser takes the risk that sufficient readers will take notice of the adverts but they are unable to force everyone to do so. Ditto, for the internet. The risk of adverts being read or not lies with the advertiser. They have no inherent right to be able to force me to read them.
Are you really under the impression that through the magic of hand waving that somehow free content will continue down YOUR pipeline in perpetuity?
Er, there is no such thing as a magic wand. You've been watching too much Harry Potter. Lets take a real example to see how this works. A motor company has a budget for advertising. They purchase advertising or establish and maintain product awareness in lots of different ways. Adverts, item branding, supporting other events (e.g. motor racing) and so on. They know which media provide the best results. But, in none of these cases, have they the right to force the population to read the adverts or to suddenly become product aware. They fund the advertising out of their profits and, to me, it appears that there is a 'free stream of content' that I can choose to ignore or read at my whim. So it should be for the internet. The risk of advertising being effective rests with the advertiser and not with the target audience. If a company running a website cannot exist by selling its product unless I can be forced to read all of other the promotional material on that site then it has not got a functioning business model. It can go bust. It will benefit the market and the consumer by ensuring that only those products that are good enough to stand by their own merit survive. Those that must have additional funding to prop them up are not good enough and so, like many other items, will disappear over time.
Just
No, they are using my bandwidth to display their unwanted junk on my computer screen. I pay for my internet connection, not the advertiser. If they want to display their content on my screen then they may do so for a price. Please let me know where to send the bill, I'm looking forward to seeing the money roll in.
When I visit a website, it is usually to view whatever they are offering, but not necessarily to view whatever their advertisers are offering. If they cannot afford to run the website without support from my funding for their advertisments then they can go bust. If the product that they are offering (be it something for sale, the answer to a query, or even pron) does not make them enough money then they should not be in business. But by visiting their site I have not agreed to be subjected to all of the extraneous crap that adorns their site.
Its not as clear cut as that.
Many countries do honour their international agreements, but they do so by making sure that their national law stipulates that it will act in the same way as the international agreement, thus ensuring that the law can be enforced nationally. Russia is doing this with regard to both IP and copyright but the changes have not yet come into force. If this trial had taken place next year there might well have been a different outcome. But, today, the prosecution could not show that national law has been broken, but only that an international agreement that has not yet come into force has been. Any other reasonable legal system would have reached a similar verdict in a similar situation.
So please let me defecate over any and all international agreements excuses you bring up.Why should I try to bring up excuses? I'm not Russian, I'm British. I don't live in Russia, although I have worked there in the past for an extended period. The fact that I listen to a radio station in another country does not make me a supporter of that country or of its legal system. However, I do not believe that international law is meaningless, but I do agree that the USA is one country in particular that wants every other country to follow international law when it suits America, but doesn't want to follow international law itself. Nevertheless, that is an discussion for another day and it is irrelevant to this particular thread. I simply raised the points that I had heard to enable others to understand what has taken place, why this particular case was not proven and to counter some of the other comments that seem to believe that the outcome is a result of corruption or simply political bias. In fact, it is neither; it is as the judge said, the result of a poorly presented case.
Yes, really Sherlock.
And that will be the correct verdict if no Russian law has been broken.
I should perhaps have used 'copyright' rather than 'IP' - I'm getting my paperwork confused!
Well it does in a way. Under common understanding in Russia of existing IP laws it is not at all clear that AllOfMP3 is breaking current law. There are changes planned which will close some loopholes and perhaps bring Russia more into line with some other countries, including America, but currently those changes are not yet in force. However, to obtain a prosecution under existing law the evidence needs to be collected and analysed under the law that is extant, and not the law that some might wish was in place, and which will be from next year. That is where the prosecution seems to have fallen down, according to a radio broadcast that I have listened to. The prosecution is quoting international agreements but the defence is using existing Russian law. As you are probably aware from the Litvinenko case, Russia is keen not to have its own laws be dictated by international agreements (although the Litvinenko is considerably more complicated and not simply a conflict of internal and international law). The judge wished to have the prosecution clearly show that, in this instance, international agreements should take precedence over national law. They failed to do so. This also explains the different claims that are made in the FA.
American moths can eat tinfoil? I'm impressed. Have you tried a steel helmet?
So how do you substantiate your claim that it is a sexually transmitted disease?
Ah, such incisive wit! Each word crafted to cause the maximum mirth in the reader. You must be really proud of your contribution to this thread. Your comment has certainly added an invaluable and intelligent insight into the problems that medical science is currently experiencing. Now piss off and let the adults have a discussion.
I fully agree, not many aspects of MS have a humorous element. But we have managed to find laughter from time to time. The best jokes are the ones told by the sufferer about the problems they are experiencing. For example, the sufferer's loss of balance can cause an effect similar to that seen in drunken people. In this case, the sufferer made light of the issue by pointing out that we were all drinking beer at a BBQ to achieve a similar effect, so look how much she was saving in both time and money! OK, it is not a joke that can be told to great effect, but we all laughed - including the sufferer - and it made MS seem, for a moment or two, something less frightening to us all. Another example which brought a smile to many faces was when 2 MS sufferers had a wheel chair race to join the queue to buy an ice-cream. It was obvious that they found life difficult but they both enjoyed the short competition and the existing queue, faces full of smiles, stood aside to allow them to be served first. MS is serious business but, from time to time, a little laughter can perhaps be found.
No, there is no proven genetic link. We have gone back 4 generations and there is no trace of MS in the family history. That hardly makes it look a convincing case for a genetic disease. In fact, no-one actually knows yet what causes it. They can see its effects on the body, and they can view the symptoms that people exhibit, but they are still at a loss as to the cause and cure.
Thank you. As you will have noticed from my posts above, I also cannot see a funny side to this. If this had been an article about CPUs, power supplies or YRO, there would have been a serious discussion. As it is, many seem to think that such diseases are simply a cause for jokes. My family do laugh about MS, otherwise we would not get through some days, but we do not laugh at the sufferer but at the disease's effects. Many comments in the posts seem to think it is a sexually transmitted disease - which shows their ignorance - but they are probably unaware of the myriad of symptoms and their effects upon the sufferer.
I am sceptical of the discovery but hope that there is something useful in it. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is still nothing on the horizon that holds as much promise as this discovery so this is, for the time being, the best chance for many people.
Another brave AC who hasn't got balls. But I suppose that you think that jokes about other crippling diseases, such as cancer, motor-neurone disease etc, are also funny? It was not a bitch fest - but for those with small brains need to be reminded that what might appear funny to them can be quite painful for others. As I said, I don't begrudge you (or anyone in fact) having a laugh but if you need to hide behind an AC to have a joke at someone else's expense, then perhaps you have already realised that it wasn't as funny as you hoped it would be. I hope that you never suffer from any such illness but, if you do, you will hear my laughter wherever you are....
I'm not in Germany, nor am I German. But thank you for hiding behind your AC when you haven't got the balls to say it as yourself.
Which sentence? There are two in the quotation.....
Your comment has been tagged as Funny. I hope that is how you intended it to be (and the title suggests that you did), because otherwise you are being totally ignorant and offensive. I have a loved one who is suffering from MS. She hasn't done anything to 'deserve it'. It isn't caused by having loose morals. Its effects, however, are devastating. Her life and my own, as well as the lives of many members of our family, have been changed as a result of the disease. Our home has had to be modified so that she can live on a single level, our plans for the future have been destroyed as she is unable to do the everyday things that we had planned to do, and her daily life is very much affected by the limitations that are brought on by the disease. To her, a visit to the local shops is a difficult adventure, to travel further afield might sometimes be impossible, to sit in the garden and look at the flowers can be the most exciting thing to occur in her day, to do some housework presents her with challenges that you and I cannot imagine. Personally, I find it hard to view such things as 'Funny'. Enjoy your laugh, I will not begrudge you that, but I hope that there is some light at the end of our tunnel as a result of the research that is described in the article.
WHOOSH......
Just picked that figure from somewhere where the sun doesn't shine? Please back it up with a reference. Or is it that you would like it to be around that figure?
Many people have moved to linux over the last year or two and think that it is something new. It isn't. The problems that they (and perhaps you) encountered have been discussed many, many times before. (E.g. http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm, http://www.psychocats.net/essays/winuxinstall, http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxwindowscompa rison) Linux will not suit everybody, just as a 4x4 or a Rolls Royce will not suit everybody. There is no point in trying to pretend otherwise. If people did a little research before trying Linux and then discovering that it is different, they would be a lot less disappointed when they find that it is not what they are used to. People are not born with an inherent knowledge of Windows but they have been exposed to it for many years. They have learnt how it works over time and by experience. So why are they surprised when they encounter something new and cannot master it in 10 minutes?
I haven't got an attitude about Linux. Can you please provide one authoritative source which states that Linux is trying to become as big as Windows? Please don't just give me someone's personal viewpoint, I want something that clearly states that the objective of the Linux community is to beat Microsoft in the market place. Most of those who support Linux by writing code don't give a toss about Microsoft. Those who want to use it because it is better than Windows have already made up their mind. The 99% of people that I think you are referring to are those who have come to Linux recently, find it is free, and would like it to become the new Windows so that there is yet more free software written for it. I have no objection to this viewpoint but I do not think it is representative of the Linux community that I have been part of since 1998.
snotty, arrogant, thoughtless, antagonistic attitudeAs many others have pointed out. Installing Linux can be difficult but it is easier than installing Windows on top of Linux and keeping both installations working. But if you want something that is point and click just like Windows, then stick to Windows. I think that your problem is that you are not as skillful at using Linux as you are at using Windows, and you attribute this to something wrong with Linux. Many of us would disagree with you. For those that make the effort to learn Linux (and anything rewarding requires some degree of effort on the part of the individual) then there are rewards aplenty. But please don't change Linux to make it like Windows - many of us don't want it to be like Windows, thank you.
You have quoted 'capturing market share from Windows' in several posts in this thread. I have the following to offer.
Linux is not trying to capture market share. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, stay with Windows. It is not a competition. I don't care what Microsoft does as long as I am free to use the OS of my choice.
There are more Linux users today than ever before. Some of them have ditched Microsoft's offerings completely. I am one of them. Therefore, Linux is 'capturing market share' from Windows. However, a great many users have dual-boot (and so still have a registered copy of Windows) and some have more than one machine (with perhaps different OS on each). The figures are therefore skewed but, as the figures are unimportant, who cares about them? I repeat, it is not a competition. But if every computer was sold with a blank hard drive, which do you think most people would end up installing? Do you think that they would still be content to fork out wads of cash if they have to install Windows from scratch?
Don't compare Linux with Windows. It is not meant to be the same or even similar. That is one of the main reasons for people changing from Windows to Linux. I do not believe that Windows is any kind of yardstick against which to measure OS. But, if you are incapable of installing Linux (either in single OS mode or dual boot) then you are not ready for Linux. It is not because Linux is not ready - the limitation is your capabilities and not those of the software.
There is room for both Windows and Linux in the world. Make your choice based on what the software offers and your ability to install it and use it.
I am not trolling. Why should I have to obey a system of justice or government that is based upon your religion or its teachings? Might my religion have an alternative view of justice? Government, justice and religion should be entirely separate at all times. Paul might have taken the time to explain that God instituted government but he was wrong. People created governments. Governments existed before Christianity. You are free to believe and practise whatever you wish. You do not have the right to impose it upon others.
So, are you saying that justice is only applicable to Christians? If not, then what right have you to impose your beliefs on anyone else?
I am NOT an American. I do NOT revolve around the USA, nor do I believe that the world does either. Although I have many American friends I do not like the way that the USA is throwing its weight around at the moment. If you care to read my posting history you would learn something of my views.
I do not like the story from Iran, but it does not mean that the USA does nothing wrong. I care quite passionately about human rights which is why I, like many others, do not approve of gitmo, rendition, or the gradual erosion of human rights. I do 'scream bloody murder' about abuses which occur in other countries, but I do not do it on /. because this is not the appropriate forum. I'll make my voice heard where it might have some effect, but not here just to please you.
"Every journey begins with a single step". The fact that the US has taken the first few steps down the road to abusing human rights, but perhaps will go no further, does not mean that I believe that it is already as bad as some other countries. On the other hand, the fact that Iran (as reported in the link that you gave me) has the death penalty is something that both it and the USA have in common. Many civilised countries have abolished the death penalty completely. But, in this instance, I would say that you have probably quoted the wrong article to me because all you have done is convince me that both the USA and Iran are, in some ways, very similar to each other. They both carry out barbaric executions under the guise of 'justice'. Now, tell me again please, how does that help your argument against the original post that you criticised?