And it absolutely does not matter that it is ludicrous. Because the person who gains from this will not care for all the things you mention. It could even be the very point of installing that system.
Um... I can't think of any lobbying group that could convince Congress to disable the internet. I'm pretty sure that everyone else in the country - including big businesses - would show up with torches and pitchforks.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this: what did Mac do to allow people to run Windows programs on their machines? Did they emulate a Windows box? Did they dual-boot? What's the experience like of using programs from both operating systems?
All I know is that when I heard you could do that, I thought, "hmmm, that takes most of the risk out of switching." And maybe instead of trying to guess how to run things under WINE, it's wiser to use a solution where "in this little Window in Ubuntu, I've got XP itself running and such-and-such program running in it." Ship Linux boxes with that feature installed.
Yes, Linux needs to compete on its own strengths. But if you want average consumers to switch, they need to perceive that they won't lose anything in the process. "Keep running your Windows programs AND get all this cool stuff for free." Maybe later they'll give up the Windows programs, too.
(If my implementation ideas sound screwy or naiive, I apologize.)
It doesn't matter that much if the software eats up RAM because you can get 4 gigs of it for $50, and that's without any discount or sales or rebates. A two gig stick costs $20.
That's kind of like saying "I can carry 100 pounds so I don't mind if my phone weighs 25 pounds."
Do people that make ~$40k have issues for buying a $40 bottle of whisky?
I'd say it's likely that a $40 bottle of whiskey tastes better than a $20 one, so maybe not. But it's very unlikely that a $40,000 bottle tastes better than a $1,000 bottle or even a $200 bottle. They're paying for imaginary quality to impress people.
Just because you can afford something doesn't mean it's not a waste of money. I can afford to buy a single toothpick for $50, but given that I can buy a whole box of the same toothpicks for $1, the $50 toothpick would be a waste.
And if my only motivation to do that were a need to impress people, then yes, I'd probably have issues. It would be hard to have healthy relationships with that strong a desire to impress people.
If you're going to shovel over a truck full of money for a single bottle of hooch, maybe it's time to consider what kind of ego problems you have and whether the money is better spent on therapy.
I cannot believe that people are interested in playing a GAME where you have to hire land developers and sort out legal contracts. What's next, Virtual Tax Filing and Online Toilet Sanitation?
I personally don't like to idea of hardware manufacturers and service providers getting too cosy with each other. It's too much of an opportunity for them to take the subscribers "for a ride."
I don't like it either. Seems like if you make a good phone or offer good service, you should be able to sell it without cutting "exclusive" deals that limit customer choice.
Now, if you have a problem, chances are slim that somebody not paid for it will be intrinsically motivated to help you, but *if* that happens, then that person is just about the best one in the world you could have ended up with...
This is a great point. And if people *enjoy* giving free tech support, why try to stop them? Don't any of you enjoy answering questions on Stackoverflow?
All the comments about "don't give free labor to a company" make sense if you have a beef against that company. And of course if you don't want to work for free, you don't have to.
But I don't see how you can be offended that others want to volunteer. Unless that somehow becomes the expected way to get a job interview for tech support. Then it's exploitative.
Isn't it strange that people are still surprised that their computers are fast? Computers have gotten ridiculously fast compared during the last 20 years, and still they seem slow to many of us. Is that just the result of crappy programming, or is there more to it?
That's what I want to know, too. If I had known in 1995 what the specs for my 2009 system would be, I would have freaked out and expected it to boot in milliseconds and do everything else instantly.
You won't be able to notice the vast improvement in Ubuntu's desktop experience over the past six months by browsing screenshot galleries of 9.04 or looking at new feature lists. What I'm talking about is that elusive slick-and-speedy feel you get from applications launching fast, windows moving around without jerkiness, and everything simply being where it should be in the user interface.
Do you seriously think that professional journalism is anything more than idiots with training in sensationalism?
Do you seriously think that professional programming is anything more than malicious hackers with day jobs? Oh wait. Not everyone who works in the same profession has the same moral character and goals.
When I worked as a newspaper writer, I did try to write stories that would keep government accountable, point people to good things happening in their community, and generally make the world a better place.
There is a lot of crappy journalism out there. But it's ridiculous to make a blanket statement about everyone who works in the field. You depend on journalists a lot more than you realize.
User: "Aw man, I can only load three apps? Well, I guess I can use Google Docs in my browser... what else can I do online without installing anything?"
And that's how Microsoft plans to simultaneously make people hate their operating system and also not buy their other shrink-wrapped software.
According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there are no inexhaustible energy sources.
Oh yes, and it's a good thing you pointed that out, or we would have been very disappointed to have our solar-powered electricity fail simultaneously with the heat death of the universe.
That's the effect, but that's not why we should keep copyright going. It's very simple: a person has the right to profit from their work if they choose.
Even as a recording musician, I must disagree. Promoting the creation of works for the public good is EXACTLY the intent of intellectual property law.
The Congress shall have power to... promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
So the logic is: we, the public, want people to create lots of stuff for us to enjoy. Therefore, we will give them an incentive. We will temporarily prevent others from profiting from their work.
The goal of the law is to promote the good of the public, not of the creator. All intellectual property law should be considered by this standard - "how will granting this protection benefit the public?" - not in terms of the "rights" of the creator.
For example, how long should copyright last? The term has been extended several times already. If that temporary monopoly becomes permanent, then the public's resources (for example, the courts) are no longer being used for public good, but for the good of private individuals and corporations.
I am not in favor of piracy. And I believe if you enjoy movies or music or art or literature, you should want to support their creation financially. But we should remember that copyright and patents exist to benefit the people, not the owners of those properties. Which is exactly why they should become public domain after a reasonable time - so the public can fully enjoy the work we have protected and nurtured via our taxpayer-funded legal system.
I prefer knowing how much I pay ahead of time to getting wildly differing phone bills.
I understand your viewpoint - you want one less thing to worry about. But in every other area of your expenses, you just budget for an average amount - gas, food, whatever.
Unless you get unlimited, never-expiring rollover minutes/bandwidth - and good luck with that - the "plan" model ALWAYS favors the provider. It's like this:
Estimate your usage and choose a plan.
Did you use less than that? You paid too much. The carrier wins.
Did you use more than that? You got charged fees. The carrier wins.
The optimal price model for the consumer is where you pay for exactly what you use at a fair per-unit price.
Of course, what's missing from these "metered" plans is to take it the other direction. If I'm going to pay extra for using more than a cap amount, I want to pay zero when I use zero and pennies when I use very little. It's only fair.
The thing is, web design isn't any more complicated than making a good power point presentation.
Really? So there's a drag-and-drop program with nice visual effects that creates a standards-compliant page that works in all browsers, is accessible and resizable, and degrades gracefully when JS/CSS aren't available? Because last time I checked that was kinda hard.
Or were you thinking of crappy pages made in Microsoft FrontPage?
(Note: I sass you hesitantly because I recognize your username and remember you are a smart guy.:) )
Ooops! I was wrong. I was comparing a Windows machine from their "for business" offerings with an Ubuntu machine from their consumer section. When I compare identical specs from the consumer section, the Ubuntu machine is cheaper AND comes with a monitor.
I wouldn't mind building myself a computer - my question is this: how do I make sure that all the parts are Ubuntu-compatible? (I had one machine whose video card apparently was not.)
Slashdot Mirror
Um... I can't think of any lobbying group that could convince Congress to disable the internet. I'm pretty sure that everyone else in the country - including big businesses - would show up with torches and pitchforks.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this: what did Mac do to allow people to run Windows programs on their machines? Did they emulate a Windows box? Did they dual-boot? What's the experience like of using programs from both operating systems?
All I know is that when I heard you could do that, I thought, "hmmm, that takes most of the risk out of switching." And maybe instead of trying to guess how to run things under WINE, it's wiser to use a solution where "in this little Window in Ubuntu, I've got XP itself running and such-and-such program running in it." Ship Linux boxes with that feature installed.
Yes, Linux needs to compete on its own strengths. But if you want average consumers to switch, they need to perceive that they won't lose anything in the process. "Keep running your Windows programs AND get all this cool stuff for free." Maybe later they'll give up the Windows programs, too.
(If my implementation ideas sound screwy or naiive, I apologize.)
That's kind of like saying "I can carry 100 pounds so I don't mind if my phone weighs 25 pounds."
I'd say it's likely that a $40 bottle of whiskey tastes better than a $20 one, so maybe not. But it's very unlikely that a $40,000 bottle tastes better than a $1,000 bottle or even a $200 bottle. They're paying for imaginary quality to impress people.
Just because you can afford something doesn't mean it's not a waste of money. I can afford to buy a single toothpick for $50, but given that I can buy a whole box of the same toothpicks for $1, the $50 toothpick would be a waste.
And if my only motivation to do that were a need to impress people, then yes, I'd probably have issues. It would be hard to have healthy relationships with that strong a desire to impress people.
I've always thought it would be cool to have a sprinkler-like system of laser beams mow the grass once a day.
Downsides:
1) Lawn must be perfectly flat
2) Safety precautions needed
3) Possible fires
But still. Lasers, eh?
If you're going to shovel over a truck full of money for a single bottle of hooch, maybe it's time to consider what kind of ego problems you have and whether the money is better spent on therapy.
I cannot believe that people are interested in playing a GAME where you have to hire land developers and sort out legal contracts. What's next, Virtual Tax Filing and Online Toilet Sanitation?
I don't like it either. Seems like if you make a good phone or offer good service, you should be able to sell it without cutting "exclusive" deals that limit customer choice.
Considering that part of the argument for "Linux is great" is "look, you get an office suite for free," Canonical should be Oo's biggest supporter.
Personally, I use Oo in Linux and Windows, but I think it's got a long way to go to compete with MS Office. I hope it catches up.
(And before you ask, I have neither the skills nor the time to contribute to the code myself.)
Microsoft researchers created a Linux-based device that the RIAA won't like?
Dang... can anybody think of a knee-jerk Slashdot response for this one?
This is a great point. And if people *enjoy* giving free tech support, why try to stop them? Don't any of you enjoy answering questions on Stackoverflow?
All the comments about "don't give free labor to a company" make sense if you have a beef against that company. And of course if you don't want to work for free, you don't have to.
But I don't see how you can be offended that others want to volunteer. Unless that somehow becomes the expected way to get a job interview for tech support. Then it's exploitative.
That's what I want to know, too. If I had known in 1995 what the specs for my 2009 system would be, I would have freaked out and expected it to boot in milliseconds and do everything else instantly.
Well, the author did specify a meaning:
Do you seriously think that professional programming is anything more than malicious hackers with day jobs? Oh wait. Not everyone who works in the same profession has the same moral character and goals.
When I worked as a newspaper writer, I did try to write stories that would keep government accountable, point people to good things happening in their community, and generally make the world a better place.
There is a lot of crappy journalism out there. But it's ridiculous to make a blanket statement about everyone who works in the field. You depend on journalists a lot more than you realize.
...amateur astronomers have just spotted a flaming mass falling towards Skytone headquarters. Initial reports indicate that it is shaped like a chair.
User: "Aw man, I can only load three apps? Well, I guess I can use Google Docs in my browser... what else can I do online without installing anything?"
And that's how Microsoft plans to simultaneously make people hate their operating system and also not buy their other shrink-wrapped software.
"That's a pretty nice computer you got there. Be a shame if someone was to cripple it. By the way, have you seen the shiny upgrades we got nowadays?"
Oh yes, and it's a good thing you pointed that out, or we would have been very disappointed to have our solar-powered electricity fail simultaneously with the heat death of the universe.
Even as a recording musician, I must disagree. Promoting the creation of works for the public good is EXACTLY the intent of intellectual property law.
From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8
:
So the logic is: we, the public, want people to create lots of stuff for us to enjoy. Therefore, we will give them an incentive. We will temporarily prevent others from profiting from their work.
The goal of the law is to promote the good of the public, not of the creator. All intellectual property law should be considered by this standard - "how will granting this protection benefit the public?" - not in terms of the "rights" of the creator.
For example, how long should copyright last? The term has been extended several times already. If that temporary monopoly becomes permanent, then the public's resources (for example, the courts) are no longer being used for public good, but for the good of private individuals and corporations.
I am not in favor of piracy. And I believe if you enjoy movies or music or art or literature, you should want to support their creation financially. But we should remember that copyright and patents exist to benefit the people, not the owners of those properties. Which is exactly why they should become public domain after a reasonable time - so the public can fully enjoy the work we have protected and nurtured via our taxpayer-funded legal system.
Aw, man, I hope he can jump in this one. That was one frustratingly arbitrary limitation.
I understand your viewpoint - you want one less thing to worry about. But in every other area of your expenses, you just budget for an average amount - gas, food, whatever.
Unless you get unlimited, never-expiring rollover minutes/bandwidth - and good luck with that - the "plan" model ALWAYS favors the provider. It's like this:
The optimal price model for the consumer is where you pay for exactly what you use at a fair per-unit price.
Of course, what's missing from these "metered" plans is to take it the other direction. If I'm going to pay extra for using more than a cap amount, I want to pay zero when I use zero and pennies when I use very little. It's only fair.
Really? So there's a drag-and-drop program with nice visual effects that creates a standards-compliant page that works in all browsers, is accessible and resizable, and degrades gracefully when JS/CSS aren't available? Because last time I checked that was kinda hard.
Or were you thinking of crappy pages made in Microsoft FrontPage?
(Note: I sass you hesitantly because I recognize your username and remember you are a smart guy. :) )
Ooops! I was wrong. I was comparing a Windows machine from their "for business" offerings with an Ubuntu machine from their consumer section. When I compare identical specs from the consumer section, the Ubuntu machine is cheaper AND comes with a monitor.
I wouldn't mind building myself a computer - my question is this: how do I make sure that all the parts are Ubuntu-compatible? (I had one machine whose video card apparently was not.)
Man, if you drink 30 or 40 cups of coffee a day, you are a coffee filter.