Except for Lindsay Lohan (make that Danielle Panabaker instead, she can both act and look the part), that actually wouldn't be so bad. Yeah, Milo Vengimiglia acts like a stupid jerk, but so did Jin, and Stiffler as the pervert and incredibly arrogant Mugen would be just perfect.
Umm, no. As TFA clearly states, 50% of Debian users use GNOME, which may be significantly less than Ubuntu's 85% but it does mean that, best-case scenario and every single person who doesn't use GNOME uses, say, KDE, by switching to it you'd be right where you started, but any other situation and you'd end up even worse than you previously were.
But an user who can develop those interfaces or provide improvements for other parts of the software by himself *is* more useful than someone who simply encourages you to do so. Plus, half of those will provide good, useful encouragement and ideas, while the other half will simply tell you to copy some shitty, half-assed propietary product they used in Windows.
In summary: so far, making Linux easier for newbies has also make it better for experts. This might sound obvious, but I don't think one necessarily follows from the other.
It doesn't. Take a look at Windows 2K vs XP for instance, setting up a LAN with shared internet connection is, for someone who knows what he's doing, as trivial as it'd be on UNIX/Linux. But try doing the same on XP without all the goddamned tutorials and talking dogs driving you crazy. So it's commendable that Debian's changes have mostly been not only beneficial for the newbies, but also for us experts at the same time.
On Xubuntu 8.10 at least, you drag it into the trash and it's moved there, then you empty the trash and it's gone, just as with a regular file.
Still, even if it didn't let you all you had to do would be to remove the read-only flag from the file before deleting it, just as with Windows, and you don't need a terminal for that. Don't overreact.
If you've got a really good idea it shouldn't be too expensive to patent it, otherwise you're completely defeating the purpose of the patent system.
The current patent system is defeating the purpose of the patent system. What matters now is how to minimize future damages, and reducing the amount of patents being awarded, by *any* means, is a good thing in my book even if most of those that do pass end up on the hands of the Big Guys.
Plus, I ask you: where do you think the patent trolls' portfolios come from? hint: they don't buy them from Microsoft or Intel.
We are OK with patents if you let us use it, mentality, if you don't then you are in the wrong. What about those small companies making software who can get killed with a lawsuit for stepping on an IBM patent accidentally.
Wrong. It's more like "software patents are a huge idiocy, but by letting us use them as we see fit you're minimizing the collateral damage, so you aren't as bad as the rest". And yes, small closed-source software companies *could* have trouble with these patents, but given that they also patent stuff on their own I find it hard to care.
If you are going to be vocal about patents you should say if it is freely and automatically licensed to anyone free or not. The patent is just proof that no one else can sue you.
Say that to IBM et al, the FSF has very little to do with their actions so you're aiming at the wrong place.
And how does that automagically mean that everything else was "virtually useless"? flash-based MP3 players have sold pretty well before, during and after the original iPod.
2. Everything else was either a tiny flash memory player (64 megs) or used a heavy desktop drive.
See above. Plus, given the low bitrates of your average MP3 at the time, it was easy to fit up to two albums in a 128 MB player, and considering that tapes could only hold one I wouldn't call that "virtually useless".
3. Apple used 400 Mbps Firewire when everyone else used 11 Mbps USB 1.1.
Percentage of people at the time of the original iPod's introduction that had firewire connectors on their PCs? percentage of people at the time of the original iPod's introduction which found 11 Mbps to be "so slow it's virtually useless"?
4. They had a good hardware/software interface.
Completely subjective.
In short, you've stated the advantages the iPod had over the competition around the time it was first introduced. You have, however, most definitely not proven that all the other MP3 players were "virtually useless" as you alleged and the GP disputed.
You're making the same mistake somebody else mentioned in another topic: when an application doesn't run on Windows it's the application's fault, but when the application doesn't run on Linux it's Linux's fault.
Linux isn't causing her problems, it's her apps, but more importantly it's both her own ignorance about the computing world, as well as her unwillingness to recognize as such.
My eternal issue with QT has always been that it's tied way too much to C++. I, personally, hate C++ with a passion, and when I last tried the QT bindings to Python (admittedly, a long time ago) it felt more like a whitespace-aware version of C++ rather than the Python I knew and loved, so I switched back to PyGTK and never looked back.
Has that changed? does it have bindings to Java and/or C#? how mature are they? my favorite thing about GTK has always been that, since it's written in C, it's much easier to bind it to any language you can think of, I mean even Pascal for God's sake! something that me and the other five guys who still program in that thing for fun appreciate a lot.
Hopefully, the new-found attention QT is sure to get with this announcement will make it improve in those areas, but GTK still has various strenghts that make it attractive for people like me. Still, it's always nice to see these kind of news so thanks Nokia.
There is too much fragmentation in Linux-land, 10 apps that all try to do the same thing, but each one does certain aspects better, yet none get it all right. Instead consolidate all that effort to 2 or 3 apps.
Define "better". And please provide a list of the three music player apps you'd choose to live on, with reasoning for why (and if you say "mpd", pick at most two interfaces for it. Gotta make it fair).
All the big Unix versions were all doing things their own way whilw MS and Apple were working on more consistent offerings. We all know what happened to the major Unix players.
Yeah, they went on to make nice money selling expensive server to big businesses, while Apple almost went broke and got sold by a negative amount of money to NeXT, a minor Unix vendor. History books may say they bought it, but which company's CEO took control afterwards?;)
Plus the great problem of the UNIX wars was that all different version were not only different but incompatible between themselves. Not so in open-source.
Ubuntu made things a lot better IMO, however it still suffers with a felling of many apps tacked together instead of a more cohesive product. This was the main reason I switched to OS X 2 years ago and have been happy with that choice.
Ohh, it's easy. When using Ubuntu, just tell yourself GTK is Linux's Aqua and QT is its Brushed Metal and voila! instant perfect consistency;)
The willingness to contribute code to a common repository must come about out of a rational choice. Because it's advantageous for me and for you. That's how cooperation comes about - when mutual interests are served.
Exactly. Hence the GPL, it specifies what is an acceptable exchange for the original developer to give up control of his work, in this case the code of all derivative works. Don't think it's enough of an advantage to you, then don't use it, you're perfectly free to do so.
The claims that someone who doesn't contribute to an open source project with a business-friendly license would have done so under the GPL are not provable.
But based on the ratio between contributors to GPL'ed projects and to BSD'ed projects, we can deduce a rough ratio. And things *don't* look good for your argument, from what I've seen.
hat's because the GPL as used in Linux regards the production of software by firms that sell per-seat licenses (Red Hat), or, in fact, hardware manufacturers that use Linux for their own reasons, such as competing with other Unices (e.g., putting Sun Microsystems out of business).
So in other words, they use Linux and promote it because it's advantageous for them to do so?. Fuck, remove your dumb "OMG the GPL is a religion with RMS at the head!" comments, and you'd make a great argument *for* the GPL.
I haven't heard anyone give a good enough reason to prove that the Atheist are right
Let me give you mine then: so far, the existence of "God" (as we currently define it) hasn't been the most likely explanation for any given phenomena. Therefore, God's existence is irrelevant to our current understanding of our universe. Therefore, faced with whether to believe that God exists or not, the explanation that requires the least assumptions should be assumed as true, therefore we must assume for any other purpose that God does not exist. Or as I like to put it, I'm an atheist because I've applied Occam's Razor to the problem of God's uncertainity.
It is, however, a reason not to believe in God rather than the non-existance of God per se, but good enough for me. Though perhaps it's more of an agnostic's belief since if there *is* a phenomena that's best explained as "God did it" it'd automatically go the other way, but I'm not entirely sure.
Lets compromise God exists 1/2 of the time. There is a solution that no one likes so therefor it must be a good compromise.
I believe that surpasses Schrödinger's cat as the best possible use for the blink tag ever;)
Christianity (those who follow Jesus' teachings) != Catholicism (those who follow the Catholic church). And pretty much all Christians know that textual, literal interpretations of the New Testament are foolish, let alone doing so for the whole Bible so you're fighting a straw man.
Disclaimer: I'm an Atheist, but I do know and respect Christianity, though apparently that puts me in a very tiny minority around here.
Independant movies, I can't remember one that *wasn't* encoded in either DivX or XviD (the open source descendant of DivX).
As a matter of fact, DivX (the company in question) hosted many of them on their website until a short time ago, as a way to show the quality of their codec, unfortunately even with a good codec, a DVD-quality short movie is still a significant drain on your resources, but oh well.
Now do it for arbitrary powers of x, biatch!;) though no, it's not sixth-grade math, my Calculus teacher showed it to us but refused to prove it and frankly, I wouldn't want to try either:D
Personally, I prefer the simpler and way more flexible iterative version, in Python: (take _ as space, freakin' Slashdot)
def f(min,max,interval,function): __sum = 0 __for i in range(min,max+1,interval): ____sum += function(i) __return sum
// Special case using the identity function as argument print f(0,100,1,lambda x: x)
Using range() feels a bit like cheating, but implementing the same functionality with a C-style for loop is quite trivial in any case. And it also works for other stupid things, like calculating the sum of the cosine of all odd integers between 11 and 51;)
Linux might make headway for that cost reason now that we're in economic downturn, but right now Mac has over three times the users.
On the home user desktop. On the business, however, it wouldn't surprise me if even OS/2 had a bigger market share than OSX, Macs simply have never been a factor in the business outside of marketing departments. Linux, however, is a low-cost alternative to UNIX, which doesn't require purchase of new hardware (unlike OSX Server) and works fairly well with Windows (unlike old UNIXen), so it has been very well accepted by enterprises of all sizes.
Sure, it's called C. Since both are Turing-complete languages they're functionally-equivalent, and what's more C-like than C?:)
If you want a C-like higher level language, I'd recommend C# with Mono, though if your country's patent system is broken it may not be entirely safe to use. It support a good part of what makes Python so cool, like lambda functions, being able to pass functions as arguments or even return them, though they aren't as easy as in Python. Still, it's the closest we've got if you want your curly braces.
Quality: bugs per subsystem ratio, lower ratio means higher quality. Secure: bugs allowing priviledge scalation per subsystem ratio, lower ratio means higher security. Stable: numbers of instances where the software fails to accomplish its required task due to programming (as opposed to user or system) error, lower number means higher stability.
Beats me how to translate them to an engineer's cost/benefit ratio, though, and I don't know if that's even possible since it might require the cost of finding/fixing bugs to scale linearly instead of exponentially.
PS: Any student who blames Microsoft will automatically fail the test.
The OP didn't, he blamed consumers who accept subpar software simply because it's shiny, and I'd personally agree with him.
Clever? that's sixth-grade algebra. Me, I'd take the loop, easier to extend to other cases (such as non-zero start, or intervals different than 1) plus it's practically self-documenting.
Still, both are way better than using explicitly-declared arrays. Anyone caught doing that should be promoted to management so they stop interfering with the people doing the actual production;)
Why the *fuck* would paying money for something make you happy? I mean, with indie devs or musicians it's somewhat understandable, but to a company that deals with more money than a small country?
Still, I'll tell you why you would want to switch: OpenOffice et al run on more than one operating system, which means that if Windows 7 ends up sucking worse than Vista did, you aren't completely fucked. You can send the devs a sizeable donation too, if you're happy about giving money away, plus I'm sure they need it more than ol' Bill does.
I read some Atari games would detect they were cracked but play right up to the end. At the last minute final boss would, instead of fighting, give you a lecture about how piracy was killing the industry and then the game would exit.
Funnily enough, piracy didn't kill the '80s videogame industry, it was Atari themselves who did it.
The best possibility would to release false crack, i.e ones that let the program start but then fail in an irritating after it has been played for a long time, like hanging and corrupting saved games. Hell you could put some hard to find bugs back into the cracked version and rely on the fact that the cracking scene doesn't QA effectively.
Except that since the videogame industry *also* doesn't do QA effectively, such an action would only reflect badly on the original developers with most comments on the torrent websites going along the lines of "thanks for this crack, too bad you wasted your effort on this buggy piece of shit though, could you do a decent game next please?". Definitely not good for PR.
Leaving aside the idiocy of comparing copyright infringement with theft or physical assault, I find it interesting that you advocate such vengeful options, given the quote in your sig. Hypocrisy, or simple "left hand/right hand" issue?
A logical definition would be "the mode of the sample data", I guess, but whatever definition you used in your statement I quoted would work as long as you state it beforehand.
And I'll provide my data when you quantify and substantiate your affirmative claim that "There are plenty of regular Joes who donated more than $200 to the Obama campaign."
Slashdot Mirror
Except for Lindsay Lohan (make that Danielle Panabaker instead, she can both act and look the part), that actually wouldn't be so bad. Yeah, Milo Vengimiglia acts like a stupid jerk, but so did Jin, and Stiffler as the pervert and incredibly arrogant Mugen would be just perfect.
Umm, no. As TFA clearly states, 50% of Debian users use GNOME, which may be significantly less than Ubuntu's 85% but it does mean that, best-case scenario and every single person who doesn't use GNOME uses, say, KDE, by switching to it you'd be right where you started, but any other situation and you'd end up even worse than you previously were.
But hey, any reason to bash Debian, right?
But an user who can develop those interfaces or provide improvements for other parts of the software by himself *is* more useful than someone who simply encourages you to do so. Plus, half of those will provide good, useful encouragement and ideas, while the other half will simply tell you to copy some shitty, half-assed propietary product they used in Windows.
In summary: so far, making Linux easier for newbies has also make it better for experts. This might sound obvious, but I don't think one necessarily follows from the other.
It doesn't. Take a look at Windows 2K vs XP for instance, setting up a LAN with shared internet connection is, for someone who knows what he's doing, as trivial as it'd be on UNIX/Linux. But try doing the same on XP without all the goddamned tutorials and talking dogs driving you crazy. So it's commendable that Debian's changes have mostly been not only beneficial for the newbies, but also for us experts at the same time.
On Xubuntu 8.10 at least, you drag it into the trash and it's moved there, then you empty the trash and it's gone, just as with a regular file.
Still, even if it didn't let you all you had to do would be to remove the read-only flag from the file before deleting it, just as with Windows, and you don't need a terminal for that. Don't overreact.
If you've got a really good idea it shouldn't be too expensive to patent it, otherwise you're completely defeating the purpose of the patent system.
The current patent system is defeating the purpose of the patent system. What matters now is how to minimize future damages, and reducing the amount of patents being awarded, by *any* means, is a good thing in my book even if most of those that do pass end up on the hands of the Big Guys.
Plus, I ask you: where do you think the patent trolls' portfolios come from? hint: they don't buy them from Microsoft or Intel.
We are OK with patents if you let us use it, mentality, if you don't then you are in the wrong. What about those small companies making software who can get killed with a lawsuit for stepping on an IBM patent accidentally.
Wrong. It's more like "software patents are a huge idiocy, but by letting us use them as we see fit you're minimizing the collateral damage, so you aren't as bad as the rest". And yes, small closed-source software companies *could* have trouble with these patents, but given that they also patent stuff on their own I find it hard to care.
If you are going to be vocal about patents you should say if it is freely and automatically licensed to anyone free or not. The patent is just proof that no one else can sue you.
Say that to IBM et al, the FSF has very little to do with their actions so you're aiming at the wrong place.
1. Apple was the first to use a micro hard drive.
And how does that automagically mean that everything else was "virtually useless"? flash-based MP3 players have sold pretty well before, during and after the original iPod.
2. Everything else was either a tiny flash memory player (64 megs) or used a heavy desktop drive.
See above. Plus, given the low bitrates of your average MP3 at the time, it was easy to fit up to two albums in a 128 MB player, and considering that tapes could only hold one I wouldn't call that "virtually useless".
3. Apple used 400 Mbps Firewire when everyone else used 11 Mbps USB 1.1.
Percentage of people at the time of the original iPod's introduction that had firewire connectors on their PCs? percentage of people at the time of the original iPod's introduction which found 11 Mbps to be "so slow it's virtually useless"?
4. They had a good hardware/software interface.
Completely subjective.
In short, you've stated the advantages the iPod had over the competition around the time it was first introduced. You have, however, most definitely not proven that all the other MP3 players were "virtually useless" as you alleged and the GP disputed.
You're making the same mistake somebody else mentioned in another topic: when an application doesn't run on Windows it's the application's fault, but when the application doesn't run on Linux it's Linux's fault.
Linux isn't causing her problems, it's her apps, but more importantly it's both her own ignorance about the computing world, as well as her unwillingness to recognize as such.
My eternal issue with QT has always been that it's tied way too much to C++. I, personally, hate C++ with a passion, and when I last tried the QT bindings to Python (admittedly, a long time ago) it felt more like a whitespace-aware version of C++ rather than the Python I knew and loved, so I switched back to PyGTK and never looked back.
Has that changed? does it have bindings to Java and/or C#? how mature are they? my favorite thing about GTK has always been that, since it's written in C, it's much easier to bind it to any language you can think of, I mean even Pascal for God's sake! something that me and the other five guys who still program in that thing for fun appreciate a lot.
Hopefully, the new-found attention QT is sure to get with this announcement will make it improve in those areas, but GTK still has various strenghts that make it attractive for people like me. Still, it's always nice to see these kind of news so thanks Nokia.
There is too much fragmentation in Linux-land, 10 apps that all try to do the same thing, but each one does certain aspects better, yet none get it all right. Instead consolidate all that effort to 2 or 3 apps.
Define "better". And please provide a list of the three music player apps you'd choose to live on, with reasoning for why (and if you say "mpd", pick at most two interfaces for it. Gotta make it fair).
All the big Unix versions were all doing things their own way whilw MS and Apple were working on more consistent offerings. We all know what happened to the major Unix players.
Yeah, they went on to make nice money selling expensive server to big businesses, while Apple almost went broke and got sold by a negative amount of money to NeXT, a minor Unix vendor. History books may say they bought it, but which company's CEO took control afterwards? ;)
Plus the great problem of the UNIX wars was that all different version were not only different but incompatible between themselves. Not so in open-source.
Ubuntu made things a lot better IMO, however it still suffers with a felling of many apps tacked together instead of a more cohesive product. This was the main reason I switched to OS X 2 years ago and have been happy with that choice.
Ohh, it's easy. When using Ubuntu, just tell yourself GTK is Linux's Aqua and QT is its Brushed Metal and voila! instant perfect consistency ;)
The willingness to contribute code to a common repository must come about out of a rational choice. Because it's advantageous for me and for you. That's how cooperation comes about - when mutual interests are served.
Exactly. Hence the GPL, it specifies what is an acceptable exchange for the original developer to give up control of his work, in this case the code of all derivative works. Don't think it's enough of an advantage to you, then don't use it, you're perfectly free to do so.
The claims that someone who doesn't contribute to an open source project with a business-friendly license would have done so under the GPL are not provable.
But based on the ratio between contributors to GPL'ed projects and to BSD'ed projects, we can deduce a rough ratio. And things *don't* look good for your argument, from what I've seen.
hat's because the GPL as used in Linux regards the production of software by firms that sell per-seat licenses (Red Hat), or, in fact, hardware manufacturers that use Linux for their own reasons, such as competing with other Unices (e.g., putting Sun Microsystems out of business).
So in other words, they use Linux and promote it because it's advantageous for them to do so?. Fuck, remove your dumb "OMG the GPL is a religion with RMS at the head!" comments, and you'd make a great argument *for* the GPL.
I haven't heard anyone give a good enough reason to prove that the Atheist are right
Let me give you mine then: so far, the existence of "God" (as we currently define it) hasn't been the most likely explanation for any given phenomena. Therefore, God's existence is irrelevant to our current understanding of our universe. Therefore, faced with whether to believe that God exists or not, the explanation that requires the least assumptions should be assumed as true, therefore we must assume for any other purpose that God does not exist. Or as I like to put it, I'm an atheist because I've applied Occam's Razor to the problem of God's uncertainity.
It is, however, a reason not to believe in God rather than the non-existance of God per se, but good enough for me. Though perhaps it's more of an agnostic's belief since if there *is* a phenomena that's best explained as "God did it" it'd automatically go the other way, but I'm not entirely sure.
Lets compromise God exists 1/2 of the time. There is a solution that no one likes so therefor it must be a good compromise.
I believe that surpasses Schrödinger's cat as the best possible use for the blink tag ever ;)
Christianity (those who follow Jesus' teachings) != Catholicism (those who follow the Catholic church). And pretty much all Christians know that textual, literal interpretations of the New Testament are foolish, let alone doing so for the whole Bible so you're fighting a straw man.
Disclaimer: I'm an Atheist, but I do know and respect Christianity, though apparently that puts me in a very tiny minority around here.
Independant movies, I can't remember one that *wasn't* encoded in either DivX or XviD (the open source descendant of DivX).
As a matter of fact, DivX (the company in question) hosted many of them on their website until a short time ago, as a way to show the quality of their codec, unfortunately even with a good codec, a DVD-quality short movie is still a significant drain on your resources, but oh well.
Now do it for arbitrary powers of x, biatch! ;) though no, it's not sixth-grade math, my Calculus teacher showed it to us but refused to prove it and frankly, I wouldn't want to try either :D
Personally, I prefer the simpler and way more flexible iterative version, in Python: (take _ as space, freakin' Slashdot)
Using range() feels a bit like cheating, but implementing the same functionality with a C-style for loop is quite trivial in any case. And it also works for other stupid things, like calculating the sum of the cosine of all odd integers between 11 and 51 ;)
Linux might make headway for that cost reason now that we're in economic downturn, but right now Mac has over three times the users.
On the home user desktop. On the business, however, it wouldn't surprise me if even OS/2 had a bigger market share than OSX, Macs simply have never been a factor in the business outside of marketing departments. Linux, however, is a low-cost alternative to UNIX, which doesn't require purchase of new hardware (unlike OSX Server) and works fairly well with Windows (unlike old UNIXen), so it has been very well accepted by enterprises of all sizes.
Sure, it's called C. Since both are Turing-complete languages they're functionally-equivalent, and what's more C-like than C? :)
If you want a C-like higher level language, I'd recommend C# with Mono, though if your country's patent system is broken it may not be entirely safe to use. It support a good part of what makes Python so cool, like lambda functions, being able to pass functions as arguments or even return them, though they aren't as easy as in Python. Still, it's the closest we've got if you want your curly braces.
My personal definitions:
Quality: bugs per subsystem ratio, lower ratio means higher quality.
Secure: bugs allowing priviledge scalation per subsystem ratio, lower ratio means higher security.
Stable: numbers of instances where the software fails to accomplish its required task due to programming (as opposed to user or system) error, lower number means higher stability.
Beats me how to translate them to an engineer's cost/benefit ratio, though, and I don't know if that's even possible since it might require the cost of finding/fixing bugs to scale linearly instead of exponentially.
PS: Any student who blames Microsoft will automatically fail the test.
The OP didn't, he blamed consumers who accept subpar software simply because it's shiny, and I'd personally agree with him.
Clever? that's sixth-grade algebra. Me, I'd take the loop, easier to extend to other cases (such as non-zero start, or intervals different than 1) plus it's practically self-documenting.
Still, both are way better than using explicitly-declared arrays. Anyone caught doing that should be promoted to management so they stop interfering with the people doing the actual production ;)
Why the *fuck* would paying money for something make you happy? I mean, with indie devs or musicians it's somewhat understandable, but to a company that deals with more money than a small country?
Still, I'll tell you why you would want to switch: OpenOffice et al run on more than one operating system, which means that if Windows 7 ends up sucking worse than Vista did, you aren't completely fucked. You can send the devs a sizeable donation too, if you're happy about giving money away, plus I'm sure they need it more than ol' Bill does.
I read some Atari games would detect they were cracked but play right up to the end. At the last minute final boss would, instead of fighting, give you a lecture about how piracy was killing the industry and then the game would exit.
Funnily enough, piracy didn't kill the '80s videogame industry, it was Atari themselves who did it.
The best possibility would to release false crack, i.e ones that let the program start but then fail in an irritating after it has been played for a long time, like hanging and corrupting saved games. Hell you could put some hard to find bugs back into the cracked version and rely on the fact that the cracking scene doesn't QA effectively.
Except that since the videogame industry *also* doesn't do QA effectively, such an action would only reflect badly on the original developers with most comments on the torrent websites going along the lines of "thanks for this crack, too bad you wasted your effort on this buggy piece of shit though, could you do a decent game next please?". Definitely not good for PR.
Leaving aside the idiocy of comparing copyright infringement with theft or physical assault, I find it interesting that you advocate such vengeful options, given the quote in your sig. Hypocrisy, or simple "left hand/right hand" issue?
Do you think you can kill someone in the moment between you realize he's pulling the trigger and the one where the bullet hits you?
No, the biggest difference is that with two violent or scared people wielding hammers, the only ones likely to die are they themselves.
Define "regular."
A logical definition would be "the mode of the sample data", I guess, but whatever definition you used in your statement I quoted would work as long as you state it beforehand.
And I'll provide my data when you quantify and substantiate your affirmative claim that "There are plenty of regular Joes who donated more than $200 to the Obama campaign."
I didn't, read the usernames.