It sounds like reasons you list for not recommending Windows won't matter at all to someone who needs an OS recommendation. It's like saying "this lawn mower won't trim your shrubs, you'd better get the other one!" Well y'know what, maybe they just want to mow their lawn.
Stalin was worshipped by the Russian populace, Hitler was hugely popular, and Mao was basically a cult leader. All of these leaders were idolized by the people they ruled, and Mao even had his own bible. Sure, there were some that feared them, but in the minds of the people they were almost like gods.
Nanofabricated animats may be infinitesimally tiny, but their electrons will be exactly the same size as ours -- and their effect on human reality will be as immeasurable as the universe.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I was somehow under the impression that all electrons are the same size:/
> if several other OS's didn't exist which run perfectly fine on tons of hardware (*BSD and Linux).
You must be joking. I have yet to get my WiFi card to work properly with any of the distros I've used, including Slackware and Ubuntu. The thing is, hardware manufacturers actively make sure that their hardware works with Windows, whereas Linux's hardware support is dependent mostly on the devs. The devs probably don't know nearly as much about the hardware as the manufacturers, and most of the time just plain don't care. Honestly, the last time I asked about support for the card in question, the response I got was "Just buy better hardware".
> This simplicity is added to the fact that there is essentially no better MP3 jukebox on Windows, Linux or Mac, at least none that I have found. Songbird may approach it someday (but man, if you want to talk about memory footprints...), and MusikCube is alright but not as simple. WMP is, of course, a joke.
Foobar? Winamp? iTunes is one of the worst music players I've used.
That leaves the musicians with the rest of the songs that are not broadcasted, and available only on their CDs. And sure, your snowman argument works... musicians can charge you for their CD, but can't stop you from performing your own music on the street and letting everyone hear it for free.
I have explained the difference. Consumers must be offered a choice in whether they are WILLING to pay for it. You cannot perform a certain work in public (building a snowman) and demand everyone that passes by pay for it. However, if you make a shack and stick the snowman inside, you can certain charge people to see it. Most probably won't.
Except the musicians aren't broadcasting their works (not all of them, anyway... you don't pay for radio) to the public, they specify a format in which you are supposed to receive them whereby you pay for CDs. On the other hand, people can't help but see your snowman, which is like musicians performing in public and demand people pay for it; people don't have a choice in whether they WANT to receive the musician's works.
A better analogy is a circus; the circusmaster sets up acts to be performed because he expects that people will pay for it. But if everyone sneaks into the tent and nobody pays for the entrance, the circus won't be putting on any more acts.
The difference is the musicians' expectations. Commercial musicians perform the music not out of goodwill, but because they EXPECT TO BE PAID AFTERWARDS. If this was not true they probably would not have performed the music you are refusing to pay for.
Well, when you have THAT much money, it generates a lot of interest. Like the Nobel. So a better analogy would be saving 100 people today, or 10 people a year forever.
Yes, he should improve the lives of people already relative well off by spending millions on issues only rich people worry about, while people in third world countries die of common diseases that can be cured with $0.2's worth of medicine.
If Kildall couldn't have made the business decision that Gates made with that first transaction, then he really doesn't deserve any of the fame or wealth of Microsoft today. If Gates hadn't done what he did, I really doubt Kildall could have taken the opportunity to go as far as Microsoft did, anyway.
All the "proofs" in the comments that show this is a scam so far calculates how many dots can be printed/read from a piece of paper, and then corresponds each dot to a bit of data. Well, guess what. The whole point of this thing is he's NOT USING DOTS. This may very well be bullshit, but the "proofs" against it are meaningless.
Wow, is Sony the new Microsoft or what? Every time Sony makes a tiny slip-up people jump on it like hyenas and start vowing to never buy another piece of Sony product, whilst going on about how Sony USED to mean quality. Well you know what, in a lot of sectors Sony still means quality. Sony is a hugely diverse company that has millions of products; just because some third world factory worker slipped a little on the CCD production line doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a Sony TV. Their production are probably managed by completely different divisions of the company which have nothing to do with each other.
How are you going to review the list if you can't VIEW the sites ON the list? If it's just government officials/telco assigned people doing the reviewing, what good is it?
Incorrect. Atheism, by definition, is the belief that there is no higher power, no "god(s)". Thus it is a belief system, and may even be a religion, since there is no proof that higher powers do NOT exist, which means atheism itself is based on faith. A practitioner of atheism must firmly believe that there are no higher powers; if one concedes that a higher power MAY exist, and will subscribe to it if facts and evidence are presented, then one is agnostic ("does not know" - since there is currently no evidence to support any belief of higher power). In fact, a lot of people mix atheism and agnosticism up, and claim to be atheist (which means they will not believe that say, the Christian God exists even if the second coming of Jesus occurs) while they actually don't think any higher power exists because there is no supporting evidence, which makes them agnostic.
I think that's faulty... if you refuse to give a breath test for alcohol, then you can be forcibly kept away from driving even if you haven't been drinking. You're not really arguing whether enforcing a policy is right or wrong, you're arguing against the policy. But like it or not, the policy is there.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like reasons you list for not recommending Windows won't matter at all to someone who needs an OS recommendation. It's like saying "this lawn mower won't trim your shrubs, you'd better get the other one!" Well y'know what, maybe they just want to mow their lawn.
Why, that sounds almost like... sudo!
That's because the governments you are thinking of are authoritarian, not because they are communist.
Stalin was worshipped by the Russian populace, Hitler was hugely popular, and Mao was basically a cult leader. All of these leaders were idolized by the people they ruled, and Mao even had his own bible. Sure, there were some that feared them, but in the minds of the people they were almost like gods.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I was somehow under the impression that all electrons are the same size :/
You must be joking. I have yet to get my WiFi card to work properly with any of the distros I've used, including Slackware and Ubuntu. The thing is, hardware manufacturers actively make sure that their hardware works with Windows, whereas Linux's hardware support is dependent mostly on the devs. The devs probably don't know nearly as much about the hardware as the manufacturers, and most of the time just plain don't care. Honestly, the last time I asked about support for the card in question, the response I got was "Just buy better hardware".
Foobar? Winamp? iTunes is one of the worst music players I've used.
That leaves the musicians with the rest of the songs that are not broadcasted, and available only on their CDs. And sure, your snowman argument works... musicians can charge you for their CD, but can't stop you from performing your own music on the street and letting everyone hear it for free.
I have explained the difference. Consumers must be offered a choice in whether they are WILLING to pay for it. You cannot perform a certain work in public (building a snowman) and demand everyone that passes by pay for it. However, if you make a shack and stick the snowman inside, you can certain charge people to see it. Most probably won't.
A better analogy is a circus; the circusmaster sets up acts to be performed because he expects that people will pay for it. But if everyone sneaks into the tent and nobody pays for the entrance, the circus won't be putting on any more acts.
The difference is the musicians' expectations. Commercial musicians perform the music not out of goodwill, but because they EXPECT TO BE PAID AFTERWARDS. If this was not true they probably would not have performed the music you are refusing to pay for.
Well, when you have THAT much money, it generates a lot of interest. Like the Nobel. So a better analogy would be saving 100 people today, or 10 people a year forever.
Yes, he should improve the lives of people already relative well off by spending millions on issues only rich people worry about, while people in third world countries die of common diseases that can be cured with $0.2's worth of medicine.
You make it sound like some evil scheme to... help them become his "victims" or something. By keeping them from dying from various diseases! Gee.
Isn't that called Ask Slashdot around here?
I always thought that chick from Final Fantasy 7 was a play on Jehova.
...How the HELL is he making all that money, and where can I get in on this?
If Kildall couldn't have made the business decision that Gates made with that first transaction, then he really doesn't deserve any of the fame or wealth of Microsoft today. If Gates hadn't done what he did, I really doubt Kildall could have taken the opportunity to go as far as Microsoft did, anyway.
All the "proofs" in the comments that show this is a scam so far calculates how many dots can be printed/read from a piece of paper, and then corresponds each dot to a bit of data. Well, guess what. The whole point of this thing is he's NOT USING DOTS. This may very well be bullshit, but the "proofs" against it are meaningless.
Until one day, you figure out you're actually just breeding humans!
But I guess fanboys will be fanboys, eh?
How are you going to review the list if you can't VIEW the sites ON the list? If it's just government officials/telco assigned people doing the reviewing, what good is it?
No, atheism is the rejection of all theistic beliefs, period. Notice how it literally means anti-thesim.
Incorrect. Atheism, by definition, is the belief that there is no higher power, no "god(s)". Thus it is a belief system, and may even be a religion, since there is no proof that higher powers do NOT exist, which means atheism itself is based on faith. A practitioner of atheism must firmly believe that there are no higher powers; if one concedes that a higher power MAY exist, and will subscribe to it if facts and evidence are presented, then one is agnostic ("does not know" - since there is currently no evidence to support any belief of higher power). In fact, a lot of people mix atheism and agnosticism up, and claim to be atheist (which means they will not believe that say, the Christian God exists even if the second coming of Jesus occurs) while they actually don't think any higher power exists because there is no supporting evidence, which makes them agnostic.
I think that's faulty... if you refuse to give a breath test for alcohol, then you can be forcibly kept away from driving even if you haven't been drinking. You're not really arguing whether enforcing a policy is right or wrong, you're arguing against the policy. But like it or not, the policy is there.