yes, but theres a difference between SHOULD and do. "Most people" use their computers to read email (often via a web interface) and to shop \ browse online. Do you think they know how to save their Browser Bookmarks \ Outlook.pst files etc.? let alone know what they are. Yes, most people probably know they should backup (pictures etc) but most don't and switching to Linux makes them HAVE to do it.
You were doing well until that GWB comment. But thats not elitist, its snobbish. Its funny, for years we were all told that "Neo Cons" were intolerant of others. Here we have the first real test to see the leftys show us how tolerance should be and Hey Presto! we have hate spewing out of every pore. But thats another topic for another day.
Non-geeks aren't any more or less stupid than geeks. People aren't stupid because they don't use Linux - they are obvious reasons why they don't. Your confusing stupidity with familiarity. People don't have an interest in computers, least of all the time to spend learning how it works. I've no interest in biology, mortgages or publishing. I rely on others that do. It doesn't make me stupid, just uninformed. If we geeks see non-geeks as stupid, then yes, we are elitist, Linux will be the elitist operating system, and Windows will continue to be the operating system of the masses.
no, people don't switch because they don't perceive the need. To most people Windows does all they need to do and so why go to Linux? Why would they go through "all the agony of having to save\transfer data"? What would they gain? These are the questions Linux has to answer.
Now compound that with the notion that Linux is something geeks use, and thats why people aren't switching in great numbers.
no, a small handful of high(ish) profile, OSS oriented, people leaving in a company of tens of thousands isn't even close to being significant enough. The people that buy MS products aren't doing it because of some moral crusade for\against MS - they do it because they need\want the products. What you've got to remember is that the anti-MS movement only covers a fairly small proportion of MS's marketbase.
People have predicited MS downfall for quite a few years and so I'll wait for it to actually happen before I believe it - but MS is a matured company and it has to learn to adapt appropriately, very similar to IBM.
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"
I see you're getting your information from a very balanced website there. I'm sure you have a very non-skewed view of the world.
firstly, can you post the FULL exchange, not just the snippet you picked. So, aside fromt he first comment of O'Reilly's (because you didn't want to show us what he was responding too) OR'Reilly was COMPLETELY civil - did you not read what you typed? O'Reilly kept getting interrupted and then finally decided to finish the interview. Incidently his exchanges can be sharp and to the point but he rarely cuts someones mic.
Quite right (no pun intended). The problem is, to them CNN et al. are center (and thus non biased) because they believe themselves to be center. To them there is no such thing as left wing, only mainstream and far right.
As an aside 10 years ago the BBC was the gold standard of news information but it then got taken over by the political-correctness crowd. It shows incredible signs of bias all the time but here's the problem - many people hark back to the days when they were an information service and so deduce "If the BBC says it true then it must be". Thats re-inforced by with the BBC "non-glitzy" way of delivery, at least compared to the US news cable channels.
At the end of the day ALL media is biased - thats why I get my info from multiple places.
This "attitude" exists because its correct - its called consequences. Whether the prison system is overcrowded, racists or whatever is completely irrelevant to moral of him recieving punishment. All this guy had to do is NOT put effort into creating hell for a group of people. Society demands that we have set of rules to abide by and if you can't manage that then you need to go somewhere else. And yes, part of that is rehabilitation but the onus is ultimately on him - the tools are there for him to recover if thats what he wants to do.
One of the things Katrina highlighted was what happens when a state of lawlessness happens - most people are decent but a rotten few create havoc.
Sure we can put the resources into rebuilding the Apollo rockets but at what cost? Also, look at what we'd get in return if we'd use a new vehicle rather than Apollo. Lastly, how about safety - space exploration is inherently unsafe but that doesn't mean we should not work towards making it as safe as possible.
oh come off it...fab plants, employees, research and development factor WAY more into it than duplication costs let alone probably dozens other things. Lets put at least a tad more thought into it before jump on the price gouging band wagon.
The three party (four if you count "others") system in the UK also produces a majority party.
I should've been more clear - semantics: I meant majority as in > 50%. Here, whilst there is less choice over which party represents you, the party that wins has a clear and uniequivocal mandate.
A vote for Labour was "worth" 3 times a vote for the Liberal Democrats or one of the other small parties.
It's not that fewer people agree with you but that one third can dictate to the remaining two thirds.
Well now you're talking first past the post which is yet another branch of the debate. But the alternative is worse: hung parliaments. This then completely takes democracy out of the electorate and takes it to backroom deals on issues\appointments\bills etc. That way all the parties can blame each other because no one was openly accountable. Further, it would give smaller parties, particular the libdems, a much greater slice of power\control than they deserve because they'll constantly be the deciding vote, meaning lots of favours from Lab or Con to "woo" them.
But even more people didn't want any other party. Thats the flaws in the Parliamentarian style of government. Interestingly most people think the more parties you have in government the more representitive it is. The more parties you have (to fine tune your alignment) the less number of people will agree with you.
The 2 party system here in the US produces a majority party. That means they have a mandate and are thus far more accountable to their actions.
no, its only saved our (NATO) bacon for the last 50 years - MAD.
No, America won't obliterate anyone no matter what. It hasn't EVER done that. It only obliterates them when it is the only way not to get obliterated themselves.
yes, its because they hate the fact that non-islamic, free and democratic countries prosper so much better than their own. Its about power, not about how the west is making them poor. Look at Zimbabwe - once the shining star in Africa, taken over by a dictatorship - watch it reduce itself to nothing.
Fact is, we cannot make peace with these Islamic radicals
Why not? Because you don't want to?
No, because it doesn't work - these days it only takes an increasing small number of fanatics to be able to inflict huge damadge on a populous. I wish it wasn't the case, but extending the olive branch only leads to having your hands bitten off. Chamberlain found that the hard way, or rather millions of British \ US etc did
Either they drop their weapons and live a peacefull life,
Frankly unlikely given the provocation you're dishing out.
It has nothing to do with provocation and everything to do with our way of life. They hate the fact that what they stand for has, on the whole, produce a much lower quality of life than the western, democratic infidels. You see, its eating away at what they believe in.
or we hunt them down in their neighborhood
Great. When does that start? Oh wait...
Yup, thats what we have to do. Its either here or there and the best defence is taking an offensive position. We don't want to fight but if we have to we'll do it on their turf which will protect our citizens better.
Given that plan seems to be a miserable failure I guess you should start thinking "outside the box". Maybe slowing down on the provocation and speeding up on the reconciliation might be helpful. Sure I don't expect Bin Laden to just shake hands and walk away, but he's only one man, and Al Quaeda is just a few. If you get the rest of the Islamic world on your side, they'll be trivially easy to defeat. But your current course of action is doing the exact opposite. It's a war that can never be won.
And thats what the US (and UK) have been doing. The Bush is giving 15bil to aids and you hardly hear about it. For 60 years the US contributes about 1/3 - 1/4 of the UNs budget AND provides (semi-free) peace keeping forces - don't hear much about that. The US gives billions to 3rd world countries - and it rarely makes news.
It would seem the UK is just now starting to realise this at a personal level
What? The UK has been living with terrorism for years (strangely enough, mainly funded out of the US). We know what it is, we know how to continue living our lives without running around like scared kids with machine guns.
It was a different kind of terrorism. Now I hate the IRA with venom but they mostly stood away from soft targets. The IRA were fighting for a way of life (still, it was completely undemocratic and illogical but still). The Islamic fundamentalists hate everything we stand for - its a whole new level of terror. Yes I strongly dislike the whole Noraid thing, but it was more about a since long lost romantism the US has with anything Irish.
And if I say so myself, they executed a response much more quickly and efficiently then our government in the US.
Indeed we did. The police found and arrested those responsible (well, those who didn't blow themselves up), and those who assisted them. They will be subject to criminal trial through the justice system. They will not be sent to a torture camp, the evidence will not be fabricated and we will not invade anywhere. We'll deal with them like we deal with all criminals.
It was very impressive but again, different beasts. Planes crashing into buildings doesn't quite compare to the "non-blown-up" evidence with CCTV footage. There are holes in every country's security agencies.
But tortue camps, I mean really...how about you go over to what Saddams Iraq, Talebans Afganistan, N Korea, Cuba or Iran, tell them you hate their way of life or plot to overthrow their governments - Gatmo will seem like Disneyland.
However the majority of your clients customers do not know about standards compliant - they barely have even heard of HTML. What they will see is a broken Real Estate website in a sea of Real Estate websites that aren't.
You can go on all day talking about how crap IE is, but here's the bottom line - it matters to you, but it doesn't matter to the people that it matters to.
Show me a business that has decided to cut out 85% of its customer base and I'll show you a thousand that have decided not to. The need for standards vary from "not important" to a "must have" depending on their application. To pretend IE doesn't exist, or code as if they don't matter, is business suicide.
Besides, does any browser meet all of the W3C standards flawlessly?
For the VAST majority of the population, time is free.
This is nonsense. Time spent \ education \ actual costs are all part of the TCO equation. If I'm a lawyer I can probaly earn $100 in the same time its cost me an extra $12 to get someone to do it. And relaxation \ downtime \ rejuvination is also part of TCO. For some people its a nightmare to change the oil - for you not so. You don't relax with stupid TV shows - guess what, others do.
as others have said - perhaps theres a company policy in place not to install "extra" applications, perhaps the user is weary of OSS, perhaps they're just familiar with the "blue e". You've got a good impression of Linux BECAUSE you're a SysAdmin. MS are meeting people (the non-tech savvy group) where they're at and delivering what they want, not what you think is the better browser. And lets not forget if FF ever had 90% market share it would be hacked far more.
what an excellent demonstration in words as to why the vast majority of non tech savvy users continue to have a poor impression of Linux et al. If the OSS community is serious about getting market dominance then it will stop underestimating MS and other rivals.
You're statement is baffling in just about every way. A car that costs the same as a Ferarri and looks like a Ferrari IS a Ferrari. Thats what people care about. My wife doesn't like Mercedes because she doesn't like the tail lights. Telling her she is an idiot for liking other cars is not the way to get her to buy a Mercedes.
Slashdot Mirror
ahh....the Linux mantra - blah blah blah _WILL_ \ _ABOUT T0_ \ _IN THE FUTURE_ blah blah blah
yes, but theres a difference between SHOULD and do. "Most people" use their computers to read email (often via a web interface) and to shop \ browse online. Do you think they know how to save their Browser Bookmarks \ Outlook.pst files etc.? let alone know what they are. Yes, most people probably know they should backup (pictures etc) but most don't and switching to Linux makes them HAVE to do it.
Non-geeks aren't any more or less stupid than geeks. People aren't stupid because they don't use Linux - they are obvious reasons why they don't. Your confusing stupidity with familiarity. People don't have an interest in computers, least of all the time to spend learning how it works. I've no interest in biology, mortgages or publishing. I rely on others that do. It doesn't make me stupid, just uninformed. If we geeks see non-geeks as stupid, then yes, we are elitist, Linux will be the elitist operating system, and Windows will continue to be the operating system of the masses.
Now compound that with the notion that Linux is something geeks use, and thats why people aren't switching in great numbers.
People have predicited MS downfall for quite a few years and so I'll wait for it to actually happen before I believe it - but MS is a matured company and it has to learn to adapt appropriately, very similar to IBM.
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"
I see you're getting your information from a very balanced website there. I'm sure you have a very non-skewed view of the world.
firstly, can you post the FULL exchange, not just the snippet you picked. So, aside fromt he first comment of O'Reilly's (because you didn't want to show us what he was responding too) OR'Reilly was COMPLETELY civil - did you not read what you typed? O'Reilly kept getting interrupted and then finally decided to finish the interview. Incidently his exchanges can be sharp and to the point but he rarely cuts someones mic.
As an aside 10 years ago the BBC was the gold standard of news information but it then got taken over by the political-correctness crowd. It shows incredible signs of bias all the time but here's the problem - many people hark back to the days when they were an information service and so deduce "If the BBC says it true then it must be". Thats re-inforced by with the BBC "non-glitzy" way of delivery, at least compared to the US news cable channels.
At the end of the day ALL media is biased - thats why I get my info from multiple places.
One of the things Katrina highlighted was what happens when a state of lawlessness happens - most people are decent but a rotten few create havoc.
Sure we can put the resources into rebuilding the Apollo rockets but at what cost? Also, look at what we'd get in return if we'd use a new vehicle rather than Apollo. Lastly, how about safety - space exploration is inherently unsafe but that doesn't mean we should not work towards making it as safe as possible.
JAlbum looks good
oh come off it...fab plants, employees, research and development factor WAY more into it than duplication costs let alone probably dozens other things. Lets put at least a tad more thought into it before jump on the price gouging band wagon.
First its the fish, now its planets. Watch out Gibraltar!
I should've been more clear - semantics: I meant majority as in > 50%. Here, whilst there is less choice over which party represents you, the party that wins has a clear and uniequivocal mandate.
A vote for Labour was "worth" 3 times a vote for the Liberal Democrats or one of the other small parties.
It's not that fewer people agree with you but that one third can dictate to the remaining two thirds.
Well now you're talking first past the post which is yet another branch of the debate. But the alternative is worse: hung parliaments. This then completely takes democracy out of the electorate and takes it to backroom deals on issues\appointments\bills etc. That way all the parties can blame each other because no one was openly accountable. Further, it would give smaller parties, particular the libdems, a much greater slice of power\control than they deserve because they'll constantly be the deciding vote, meaning lots of favours from Lab or Con to "woo" them.
The 2 party system here in the US produces a majority party. That means they have a mandate and are thus far more accountable to their actions.
and so you DO have power, or a percentage thereof - its just that more people didn't agree with you than voted for him (or their MP).
No, America won't obliterate anyone no matter what. It hasn't EVER done that. It only obliterates them when it is the only way not to get obliterated themselves.
yes, its because they hate the fact that non-islamic, free and democratic countries prosper so much better than their own. Its about power, not about how the west is making them poor. Look at Zimbabwe - once the shining star in Africa, taken over by a dictatorship - watch it reduce itself to nothing.
Why not? Because you don't want to?
No, because it doesn't work - these days it only takes an increasing small number of fanatics to be able to inflict huge damadge on a populous. I wish it wasn't the case, but extending the olive branch only leads to having your hands bitten off. Chamberlain found that the hard way, or rather millions of British \ US etc did
Either they drop their weapons and live a peacefull life,
Frankly unlikely given the provocation you're dishing out.
It has nothing to do with provocation and everything to do with our way of life. They hate the fact that what they stand for has, on the whole, produce a much lower quality of life than the western, democratic infidels. You see, its eating away at what they believe in.
or we hunt them down in their neighborhood
Great. When does that start? Oh wait...
Yup, thats what we have to do. Its either here or there and the best defence is taking an offensive position. We don't want to fight but if we have to we'll do it on their turf which will protect our citizens better.
Given that plan seems to be a miserable failure I guess you should start thinking "outside the box". Maybe slowing down on the provocation and speeding up on the reconciliation might be helpful. Sure I don't expect Bin Laden to just shake hands and walk away, but he's only one man, and Al Quaeda is just a few. If you get the rest of the Islamic world on your side, they'll be trivially easy to defeat. But your current course of action is doing the exact opposite. It's a war that can never be won.
And thats what the US (and UK) have been doing. The Bush is giving 15bil to aids and you hardly hear about it. For 60 years the US contributes about 1/3 - 1/4 of the UNs budget AND provides (semi-free) peace keeping forces - don't hear much about that. The US gives billions to 3rd world countries - and it rarely makes news.
It would seem the UK is just now starting to realise this at a personal level What? The UK has been living with terrorism for years (strangely enough, mainly funded out of the US). We know what it is, we know how to continue living our lives without running around like scared kids with machine guns.
It was a different kind of terrorism. Now I hate the IRA with venom but they mostly stood away from soft targets. The IRA were fighting for a way of life (still, it was completely undemocratic and illogical but still). The Islamic fundamentalists hate everything we stand for - its a whole new level of terror. Yes I strongly dislike the whole Noraid thing, but it was more about a since long lost romantism the US has with anything Irish.
And if I say so myself, they executed a response much more quickly and efficiently then our government in the US. Indeed we did. The police found and arrested those responsible (well, those who didn't blow themselves up), and those who assisted them. They will be subject to criminal trial through the justice system. They will not be sent to a torture camp, the evidence will not be fabricated and we will not invade anywhere. We'll deal with them like we deal with all criminals.
It was very impressive but again, different beasts. Planes crashing into buildings doesn't quite compare to the "non-blown-up" evidence with CCTV footage. There are holes in every country's security agencies.
But tortue camps, I mean really...how about you go over to what Saddams Iraq, Talebans Afganistan, N Korea, Cuba or Iran, tell them you hate their way of life or plot to overthrow their governments - Gatmo will seem like Disneyland.
You can go on all day talking about how crap IE is, but here's the bottom line - it matters to you, but it doesn't matter to the people that it matters to.
Besides, does any browser meet all of the W3C standards flawlessly?
didn't Clinton appoint 2 as well?
This is nonsense. Time spent \ education \ actual costs are all part of the TCO equation. If I'm a lawyer I can probaly earn $100 in the same time its cost me an extra $12 to get someone to do it. And relaxation \ downtime \ rejuvination is also part of TCO. For some people its a nightmare to change the oil - for you not so. You don't relax with stupid TV shows - guess what, others do.
as others have said - perhaps theres a company policy in place not to install "extra" applications, perhaps the user is weary of OSS, perhaps they're just familiar with the "blue e". You've got a good impression of Linux BECAUSE you're a SysAdmin. MS are meeting people (the non-tech savvy group) where they're at and delivering what they want, not what you think is the better browser. And lets not forget if FF ever had 90% market share it would be hacked far more.
You're statement is baffling in just about every way. A car that costs the same as a Ferarri and looks like a Ferrari IS a Ferrari. Thats what people care about. My wife doesn't like Mercedes because she doesn't like the tail lights. Telling her she is an idiot for liking other cars is not the way to get her to buy a Mercedes.