Whenever I did work in union heavy towns, I was required to have a union babysitter to make sure I wasn't trying to take away someones job by plugging a cable into a wall.
Which comes back to the point about American unions being seriously weird. You don't get that sort of thing overseas. Americans are talking about something entirely different to other people when discussing unionism.
Clue: the vast bulk of consumer computers are sold to people who will never read Slashdot.
Well, most cars are sold to people who don't read motoring magazines or websites - yet the average person doesn't buy the cheapest car possible. Same with electrical appliances or clothing. It's probably symptomatic of the immaturity of the computer market.
Also, even though many manufacturers make cheap, crappy computers, is there any evidence that those are bought the most frequently? I'd think most people would go at least a couple of models up from the very cheapest - at least buy more RAM or something. This is also evidenced by the popularity of laptops, which are rapidly overtaking the cheaper option - a clunky desktop.
Their goal is a device "as thin as a Macbook Air". What they have is a laptop screen in a large aluminum box. It's like a kid drawing a screen on a cardboard box and proclaiming it "my first computer".
Why would selling the most of something necessarily be synonymous with having the cheapest of something? Most people don't want to buy the cheapest of something, and only do so if they are forced to by economic means, or if the cheapest is also the best quality product.
Should you have the ability to 'persuade' your larger customers to stay with your product line, why would you not use it?
Because it will come back to bite you in the ass in the long run. Only somebody corrupt and with no sense of perspective would do something like that. Your focus should be on meeting your customers' needs, not dictating to them.
What? I never referred to anything about threatening a wife's dad. I don't know anything about this case - but was responding merely that you wrote that someone being somebody's nephew should make a difference to their treatment by police.
I never harped on about anything about genes. I simply stated that genetic modification is not the same thing as cross-breeding. Which is true. Do you have any factual reason to disagree?
But it's not the same thing at all. You can't directly manipulate the genes by breeding. You can with genetic modification. It's not the same thing at all.
If you were Asian, and fucked your African wife to produce offspring, how is that in any way the same as somebody taking a couple of specific genetic characteristics from the tomato plant and implanting them into an African human host?
No, we haven't been doing GM for 10,000 years. Where do you get such BS talking points? Creating hybrid plants or interbreeding animals is not the same thing as GM at all.
What I meant was (mainly) a situation, where you *have to* wait for a patch (update) to come out for some problem that's stopping or otherwise hurting your business,
So, how is that equivalent to being "owned"? It's a choice I make, and I'm aware of the downsides of proprietary software. It's a matter of weighing costs and benefits.
whereas being on open sourced OS you could just hack the code as a temporary solution (or compile from source)
That's fine if you're capable of making that change. Most users aren't so it's a moot point.
As an example, my line of work is photography and video. I can't just "hack together" something similar in functionality to Photoshop or Final Cut Pro. There are very few programmers in the world capable of that level of output. Or perhaps there are, but they don't have the required project organization that incorporates overall software design goals and professional needs. It's a lot more than just programmers.
Bottom line is, I can't wait for the Open Source community to just magically come together and produce professional-caliber tools. I'd be happy to use it if they did.
I do run Linux, Windows and Mac. Linux is great for hobbyist stuff and tinkering, but it's just not there yet for the professional productivity tools that earn my living. Hacking together my own solution is just not viable - I want to use my computers to get work done, not spend time tinkering with them.
You usually don't switch your OS and migrate all your business' infrastructure in 10 days or 'on demand'.
But the probability that a company like Adobe, that supports vast industries, and has done so for well over a decade, is going to allow everything to just break suddenly, is very unlikely. What's more likely is that if I were using an Open Source solution, some new camera or scanner would come out, and it would take many months or even years for it to be supported under the OSS application.
Like I said, it's a matter of balancing priorities and making informed decisions.
Oh yeah, and got I willingly triggered by a Troll. 1% market share? The fucking Internet runs on Linux.
Well, I certainly don't agree with that troll. It's just that your response came off as rather hysterical, and I see this happen a lot with Free Software arguments. People tend to go off the deep end about things like being "owned" by corporations when even the topic of proprietary software still comes up.
The weird thing to me, is that the same people who talk about all this corporate "ownage" probably have dozens of hardware gadgets made by proprietary companies. Does this make every user here owned by Intel, or AMD, or IBM or Motorola because of the chip that runs their software? The reality is that we live in a world of proprietary products - you are probably sitting in a room full of them at the moment. And they generally make our lives a lot easier and more interesting.
Why software specifically is considered so evil if it is proprietary, I don't really see. It has its downsides, but it also has its upsides.
You reply seems to be a non-sequitur. What I was asking is why tazing an officer's nephew should be treated any differently than tazing any other member of the public. You didn't say anything about inappropriate tazing - the fact that you referenced the nephew was the only way you distinguished it from any other random tazing. Cops taze a lot of people, you know.
If you are that good as a IT admin (or any other position, for that matter), if you are that good, they will have already done more damage to the company by firing you, that you could do deliberately back to them.
You sir should understand one thing - by using closed source OS software, you are fucking owned by whoever creates that software, and dependent completely on their mercy.
WTF? I most certainly am not. If I was being fucked over by my closed-source OS, I could just change to a different OS, couldn't I?
In what sense am I owned by a company that creates the tools I use? I never signed a contract saying that I must always use that OS, and only that OS> Are you owned by the company that makes the hammers you use? Are you owned by your toaster? I don't think so.
Your comment makes about as much sense as saying that a Linux user is owned by the Linux community.
Slashdot Mirror
The ad is being discussed positively in non-MS hating circles,
Got any evidence of that?
Whenever I did work in union heavy towns, I was required to have a union babysitter to make sure I wasn't trying to take away someones job by plugging a cable into a wall.
Which comes back to the point about American unions being seriously weird. You don't get that sort of thing overseas. Americans are talking about something entirely different to other people when discussing unionism.
You can only get that position if you're an attractive wolf-hunter from Alaska.
No, you must have been the only one who noticed that.
Not quite, because I have what scienticians call a "brain", and I use this to make my own decisions about what products to buy.
That's what they want you to think.
Clue: the vast bulk of consumer computers are sold to people who will never read Slashdot.
Well, most cars are sold to people who don't read motoring magazines or websites - yet the average person doesn't buy the cheapest car possible. Same with electrical appliances or clothing. It's probably symptomatic of the immaturity of the computer market.
Also, even though many manufacturers make cheap, crappy computers, is there any evidence that those are bought the most frequently? I'd think most people would go at least a couple of models up from the very cheapest - at least buy more RAM or something. This is also evidenced by the popularity of laptops, which are rapidly overtaking the cheaper option - a clunky desktop.
It's $98 and runs Linux.
So is your mom.
Their goal is a device "as thin as a Macbook Air". What they have is a laptop screen in a large aluminum box. It's like a kid drawing a screen on a cardboard box and proclaiming it "my first computer".
Why would selling the most of something necessarily be synonymous with having the cheapest of something? Most people don't want to buy the cheapest of something, and only do so if they are forced to by economic means, or if the cheapest is also the best quality product.
Should you have the ability to 'persuade' your larger customers to stay with your product line, why would you not use it?
Because it will come back to bite you in the ass in the long run. Only somebody corrupt and with no sense of perspective would do something like that. Your focus should be on meeting your customers' needs, not dictating to them.
Damn, you're stupid.
I'm pretty sure it could go as far as 01.
What? I never referred to anything about threatening a wife's dad. I don't know anything about this case - but was responding merely that you wrote that someone being somebody's nephew should make a difference to their treatment by police.
I never harped on about anything about genes. I simply stated that genetic modification is not the same thing as cross-breeding. Which is true. Do you have any factual reason to disagree?
But it's not the same thing at all. You can't directly manipulate the genes by breeding. You can with genetic modification. It's not the same thing at all.
If you were Asian, and fucked your African wife to produce offspring, how is that in any way the same as somebody taking a couple of specific genetic characteristics from the tomato plant and implanting them into an African human host?
And of course, it will bear no resemblance to the UK version of Top Gear, just as Iron Chef America bears no resemblance to the Japanese version.
The Constitution is a living document...
Does it want braaaaaaiiinnnssss?
No, we haven't been doing GM for 10,000 years. Where do you get such BS talking points? Creating hybrid plants or interbreeding animals is not the same thing as GM at all.
What I meant was (mainly) a situation, where you *have to* wait for a patch (update) to come out for some problem that's stopping or otherwise hurting your business,
So, how is that equivalent to being "owned"? It's a choice I make, and I'm aware of the downsides of proprietary software. It's a matter of weighing costs and benefits.
whereas being on open sourced OS you could just hack the code as a temporary solution (or compile from source)
That's fine if you're capable of making that change. Most users aren't so it's a moot point.
As an example, my line of work is photography and video. I can't just "hack together" something similar in functionality to Photoshop or Final Cut Pro. There are very few programmers in the world capable of that level of output. Or perhaps there are, but they don't have the required project organization that incorporates overall software design goals and professional needs. It's a lot more than just programmers.
Bottom line is, I can't wait for the Open Source community to just magically come together and produce professional-caliber tools. I'd be happy to use it if they did.
I do run Linux, Windows and Mac. Linux is great for hobbyist stuff and tinkering, but it's just not there yet for the professional productivity tools that earn my living. Hacking together my own solution is just not viable - I want to use my computers to get work done, not spend time tinkering with them.
You usually don't switch your OS and migrate all your business' infrastructure in 10 days or 'on demand'.
But the probability that a company like Adobe, that supports vast industries, and has done so for well over a decade, is going to allow everything to just break suddenly, is very unlikely. What's more likely is that if I were using an Open Source solution, some new camera or scanner would come out, and it would take many months or even years for it to be supported under the OSS application.
Like I said, it's a matter of balancing priorities and making informed decisions.
Oh yeah, and got I willingly triggered by a Troll. 1% market share? The fucking Internet runs on Linux.
Well, I certainly don't agree with that troll. It's just that your response came off as rather hysterical, and I see this happen a lot with Free Software arguments. People tend to go off the deep end about things like being "owned" by corporations when even the topic of proprietary software still comes up.
The weird thing to me, is that the same people who talk about all this corporate "ownage" probably have dozens of hardware gadgets made by proprietary companies. Does this make every user here owned by Intel, or AMD, or IBM or Motorola because of the chip that runs their software? The reality is that we live in a world of proprietary products - you are probably sitting in a room full of them at the moment. And they generally make our lives a lot easier and more interesting.
Why software specifically is considered so evil if it is proprietary, I don't really see. It has its downsides, but it also has its upsides.
You reply seems to be a non-sequitur. What I was asking is why tazing an officer's nephew should be treated any differently than tazing any other member of the public. You didn't say anything about inappropriate tazing - the fact that you referenced the nephew was the only way you distinguished it from any other random tazing. Cops taze a lot of people, you know.
Since when were Republicans libertarian?
Wait, how can someone who is supposedly a libertarian believe in the banning of abortion, unless they aren't actually a libertarian at all?
Are you saying that a cop that tazer's his own nephew
Are you saying that just because somebody is related to a police officer, they should have some sort of immunity or special treatment from the police?
If you are that good as a IT admin (or any other position, for that matter), if you are that good, they will have already done more damage to the company by firing you, that you could do deliberately back to them.
But what if you're not that good?
You sir should understand one thing - by using closed source OS software, you are fucking owned by whoever creates that software, and dependent completely on their mercy.
WTF? I most certainly am not. If I was being fucked over by my closed-source OS, I could just change to a different OS, couldn't I?
In what sense am I owned by a company that creates the tools I use? I never signed a contract saying that I must always use that OS, and only that OS> Are you owned by the company that makes the hammers you use? Are you owned by your toaster? I don't think so.
Your comment makes about as much sense as saying that a Linux user is owned by the Linux community.