Because unlike most cartels, they don't have a stranglehold on supply anymore. The music is out there, and despite all their threats and attempts at litigation, P2P will continue forever if there's not a better business model to thwart piracy. It is in their best interest to stop having such a fix on pricing and back down from the hardass stance a little bit, as fixing pricing and being a hardass isn't going to stop people.
The idea of purging public libraries is distasteful. But then they talked about what information was available, and I had to agree some of it should not be public, such as specifically the most damaging place to hit a nuclear power plant with an airplane. It is old information, and that sort of information would probably never be released now. Is that a good or bad thing?
Stick with your instinct. I very highly doubt that the terrorists are even looking through our libraries for this type of knowledge, because it is so widely and vastly known at this point. The point you start purging libraries and telling people what they can and can't say due to what terrorists could possibly learn is the moment you begin sliding down the hill toward complete information control. Controlling speech does not make us safer, as we don't have a monopoly on information. The same type of information would be available at large from other sources.
People pretend as if the terrorists are using our own information against us, or as if they are very sophisticated and rely upon things they'd like to restrict. The truth is that the terrorists took out 3,000 people with a few pilot lessons and a couple boxcutters, and their bombs mostly consist of garbage bin fertilizer recipes. The key to stopping these people isn't in clamping down on information that they probably won't even use to stop their largely unsophisticated (at least in technological terms) attacks. One of the keys to winning the war on terror is to stop being so afraid.
Eh? Not so much. I've had samsung phones, mp3 players and other electronics all of which were poorly designed and failed in one way or another. I avoid the samsung brand altogether as they are very much not in line as far as quality per price point (a phone shouldn't just have the monochrome LCD die within a year of use and an MP3 player shouldn't just shut off randomly after 3 months of use and have the cheapest battery door ever due to bad design). I advise people all the time to steer clear of samsung products, and I've noticed that panasonic products usually beat samsung in reviews. So I believe the parent isn't offtarget.
What compels people that know nothing about technology to keep writing these "Google OS" articles? Do they even understand what an OS is?
Nope, and they don't know what an office suite is either apparently, as they attempted to call a dumbed down version of a word processor and the most basic spreadsheet application imaginable combined with gmail an "office suite." It's all hype about MS vs. Google. In all honesty, I believe the two have fairly distinct offerings, even if MS wishes it had Google's as well as its own to offer.
The difference between "email" and "instant messaging" is a technical one, not a difference of substance.
As is the difference between da Interwebs as a communications medium and the telephone or letters... Which is why "soliciting minors for sex" should be a crime without the stupid "on the Internet" clauses. Lawmakers are like every other group of despicable marketing losers on the planet who think putting "on the Internet" somehow makes something cooler or more hip. They want to be hip, so they write the iMolestation (tm) law, when the original molestation law has you covered, and if it doesn't, that's the one that needs fixing.
Don't punish different for how you conspire to commit a crime. What's next? Plotting murder "on the Googlewebs" is a separate crime from conspiracy to murder? How far do you take it?
Just because the method of communication changed a smidgen doesn't mean we need new laws for old crimes. More laws = more loopholes.
They might not know that a byte is 8 bits, but with a little analysis, it shouldn't be hard to figure out. There are numerous statistical properties that can be exploited to figure this out relatively easily.
If this entire civilization goes bottom up, who knows what will find our stuff and if they will know about "statistical properties" or be able to conduct even a "little analysis." Attempting to leave a hallmark card for the future of everything we "know" is silly. We don't know what's to come when we don't really even know that much of what came before us. It's naive to think this way. If civilization goes bottom up, the cavedwellers that could result from the anarchy could be using our hard drives as hand tools with no idea or care as to what they are or any idea or thought as to how they got there. If it doesn't, well then, the modern information will flow from generation to generation anyway, so they won't have to conduct analysis at all.
This troubling side-issue of authority vs. science won't go away. We are in danger of becoming a society where science is the new priesthood, universities are the new temples, and PhDs are the new bishops of a timid and trusting flock. I'd say this corruption of science is almost as alarming as global warming, and far easier to demonstrate. Any true follower of science must reject "consensus" for what it is: argument by authority. It is, fundamentally, the same monstrosity that corrupted organized religion 1,000s of years ago. It must be rejected if science is to escape the fate of those organized religions.
I understand your point, and consensus is something that shouldn't always be taken seriously. However, science is _not_ religion, and I am growing very tired of this analogy.
Science isn't based on belief, consensus or anything else. Back a span of time the people in the medical profession thought that bleeding patients was an effective method of treatment, surely consensus can, and is at times, wrong. However, science doesn't lend itself to be believed, it relies on proof. When you hear scientific consensus, scientists don't concede based on beliefs in most cases (which is just what an overall consensus is, an aggregation of statistics of how many people concede, so most cases works). They concede based on a preponderance of evidence. Surely, there are some wack job scientists out there on the fringe. However, the facts are out there, the theories are available and published. People in the scientific field study based on what is the simplest and most likely explanation. They may want to believe one theory or another due to personal preference, but if the facts don't align and a better theory exists, they are forced to move or become obsolete. But the important part is that the entire thing follows a process and that process is open and public and there's a reason why scientists have the opinions they do. Reasons that are based upon reality, data and experimentation. Religion often deals with the way things "ought to be." Science, by its very nature, is forced to deal with the way things really are. You could go look up all the data yourself, if you have the time, and there's really nothing wrong with that, but the scientists and the experts in their fields are there for a reason. And their consensus _does_ matter and while it may not be 100% right all the time, is usually as close to right as it can be given the current theories and data.
It's like asking a geek their opinion on what OS is the best for you, or what computer you should buy if you are a layperson. Surely, you are conceding some of your belief or trust to that person that they will do the right thing, but you can't be an expert in all fields. Sometimes you get shafted by giving people trust, but given the fact that the scientific community is a worldwide organization that spans people from all walks of life, I find it particularly hard to believe that they are all aligning to deceive us.
If consensus wasn't based on community supplied data, experiments and a mountain of time and research I would be more likely to be skeptical. Unfortunately, I find myself skeptical of the theory that scientists are all involved in some massive conspiracy to make us believe we are warming the Earth. Just as in science, I'm taking the simplest possible explanation: and that's that the consensus of the scientific community and the mountain of data it is based upon is probably correct and not tainted in a significant way.
Made of boxwood; pertaining to, or resembling, the box (Buxus). [R.]
The faded hue of sapless boxen leaves.
Dryden.
I'm not saying that I agree with grammar Nazism, but the man does have a point, and it's more than "some groups" not agreeing with "other groups." It's about making up words, or at very least definitions of words, just like previous posts imply. Which may or may not offend you or others. (Opinions are like assholes, etc.)
What urks me is the fact that these people are probably the ones getting good jobs and becoming managers. While people like myself who actually know a thing or two about computers but don't have a "Information Technology Science" bullshit degree from a major university don't ever get a chance. (I have a BS in Comp Sci from a four year school but it's not Penn State...and for some reason Computer Science doesn't seem to have anything to do with these "technology" jobs who all want BS title degrees and certs).
The importance of both of these projects is that if you can send photons back in time, you can send signals back in time, and send messages. For years people have wondered about temporal paradoxes and how they may be resolved. With a system such as these, paradoxes can be tested. We'll finally have an answer to the Grandfather paradox.
I have a thought pertaining to the Grandfather paradox, which is that if the parallel universes thing is true, and a scientist sends data back to the past, this data then affecting the present somehow, wouldn't this data actually be sent to a parallel universe as well and since the scientist himself isn't actually going back in time, it would be as if the data wasn't sent at all, because to his perception and ours in this universe it would be the same as if the data wasn't received at all?
I'd settle for being able to send myself a short message.
Seriously, imagine how much money you could save yourself on special shampoo if you could just send back that little text message "don't do it, she has crabs."
Just like the current state of programs (yes you can run more Windows programs under Linux than under Windows if you include win 3.11 to xp sp2!).
I find this statement hard to believe, especially because Windows has native support going back a long ways and you can still find emulators (which essentially is what Linux is doing to run Windows programs) and other hacks in order to get older stuff (such as DOS games) working in Windows. Just because it doesn't natively support all windows apps, doesn't mean Linux wins in this regard, because Linux doesn't natively support more windows apps either, it also requires addons. If you can do it in Wine in Linux, you better believe someone found a way to do it in Windows.
Your post reminded me of some musings I've indulged in myself sometimes. Though I'm not at the stage in my life where I'm even considering having kids, I'd given some casual musings to how I would intriduce them to certain things, like Star Wars. After giving it much thought, I came up with what I would think is the ideal order for introducing someone to Star Wars.
You haven't had any kids yet, but have thought about how you would introduce them to star wars already? Something tells me that you won't be "at the stage" in your life where you'll have kids for a while. You need a date first. =P
I certainly don't eat it every day - most days, I deep fry my chicken or beef roasting flank my own way. (Note that I also chain smoke, drink six to twelve 355mL bottles of beer a day and bike *eight miles each way* to work except when the weather is crappy - I'm thin, svelte, and my cholesterol is good... but I must be some sort of heretofore unknown medical time bomb.)
I didn't want to have to reply to this, I really didn't, but I read one of the replies that didn't make the point I was after. Smoking causes lung cancer and emphysema, it's proven scientific fact. It's not really a question of bias. Even if your cholesterol is as good as you imply, there's simply no way cigarettes and excess alcohol intake is healthy. Now maybe you offset the cardiovascular effects that cigarette smoking has on your overall health in the short term, but in the end its bad effects will get you. I really don't mind when people smoke heavily or drink heavily as long as they acknowledge the facts that these things are poisons. I used to drink and smoke heavily myself, and I still drink a fair amount. But I don't pretend it's good for me just because I do it without dying or adversely affecting my health statistics. Scientists and doctors don't know everything about health and diet, sure, but they definitely know some things. So don't delude yourself into thinking you are smarter than the entire medical community because you haven't yet experienced any personal repercussions.
The texting champion was beat on late-night television by a ham radio operator using Morse code. I know Morse code, and can key it a hell of a lot faster than punching out T9 on a keypad, especially if I'm using IAMBIC paddles (a 2-key arrangement). Give me a cell phone with IAMBIC paddles, and I'll text circles around you.
Until then, voice will do just fine.
The thing people seem to be missing here is that text messaging is arguably better used because the text _isn't_ vocalized. Most people use text messaging to convey messages in social situations where speaking into a phone is inappropriate. Any kind of speaking defeats half the purpose of texting to begin with. Imagine your girlfriend voicing in "I want your body." while she's at her parent's house having dinner, like she's doing with her text messages.
Mac OS X certainly has vulnerabilities. The people saying it doesn't are morons. But the problem is that any vulnerability discovered in any Apple product gets amplified in the press massively disproportionately.
The truth of this argument is, as inherently insecure as Windows may be, the argument shouldn't be about vulnerabilities. It should be about time from vulnerability acknowledgment until correction. That being said, Mac didn't take this stance. They took the "we don't get viruses" high road. I'll have to admit that right now, they are correct. But it's not a great idea to take such a high road because like you just said, any problem is going to be shown massively disproportionate to the actual threat. But you can't blame that all on the "press", Apple claims it will never get viruses. It's an invitation for knockdown. There's no wonder why they are swiped at given half a chance. To me the "we don't get viruses" statement is a whole lot like Bush's "we are safer now, there hasn't been any attacks since 9/11, see" stance. It's a logical fallacy that the past can always reliably predict the future.
Another point to be made is that when your userbase is 5% of the market, it typically gets 5% of the attention. Hackers aren't that interested in making a small mark. They want an army of bots, and those armies are not only easily exploitable, but available in large numbers on the Windows platform. So why bother with Macs?
It's not supposed to be user friendly. There are dists that try to do it all for you but they generally suck. You gotta love computers and their software to appreciate linux.
This is fine, good stance. But there's two competing factions:
People who just want an alternative to Windows, and are willing to jump through hoops to use it. These are the experts, the gurus, whatever.
People who want Linux to overtake Windows (due to a variety of motivations).
The first faction shouldn't really care about this story, because they already have their alternative to windows, and they can use it free as a bird and feel l33t.
The second faction, however, is at odds with the first faction. Because in order to have Linux conquer Windows, you can't be elitist and win over Windows users. Most Windows users see their computer as an appliance, and when they have questions like "why isn't my sound working", getting back a response like "well you just have to download the latest drivers and compile them then install them" isn't going to be a great response. Especially since these type of users don't even know wtf "compile" means most times.
The good news, however, is that Linux really doesn't need to aim for these users anyway. As long as you have just enough support to run your computers without Windows, why care? These people add nothing to an open source community anyway, they can't code so they aren't gonna fix bugs. They are basically clueless freeloaders which will eat up donated support hours with a sense of entitlement, because even if they paid $0 for it, it should work perfectly!
I'd say Linux is doing just fine as it is, but it's not gonna overtake Windows anytime soon, and with good reason.
My 30 gig iPod video was $250. Right price, and I'll be damned if I'll find a better player for less (or even more). iPods aren't overpriced anymore. iPods are still, by far, the best player out there. iPods remain the logical choice, trendy or not.
I have had hands on dealings with iPods. The ITunes+Ipod thing is a double-edged sword. I'm sure it's great if you want both things and use only those two things together and don't change a thing, but it sucks otherwise. I don't want to have to hack my iPod to have it function as a regular hard drive, and I don't want to use their bloated software package to organize my MP3s. Just about any other player on the market will function as a typical USB HD in addition to "media player mode", I know my archos does.
As far as overpriced, they were, and are, overpriced. The idea of converting my xvid movies to whatever format that is to get them to play on an iPod makes me cringe. Especially when you can get a cheaper player that plays them in standard formats.
The allure of the iPod is basically that everyone has one. Sure, maybe some people are too dumb or too lazy to manage their mp3 players like they manage their MP3s on their hard drive, with regular directory structure... But honestly, some people don't even know about the alternatives. I get asked all the time by older folks if my player is an "iPod thingy." I reply that it isn't, but it shows how much they truly know about it. They will go into a store and ask for one of those "iPod thingies," because it's all they know of it.
I actually know through friends a girl that got an iPod without asking for it, and didn't know how to use it. When she saw the iTunes store with the 99 cent songs she bought one before reasoning, "that's stupid, you have to pay per song." To my knowledge she hasn't used it since. I get anecdotal reports from my mom about her friends and their kids and how they don't know how to use their iPods either. People get them because they are popular.
I don't use iTunes, I have a large collection of music some of which is *gasp* improperly tagged. I hate when a program feels the need to go through my 1000 directories and look for metadata on every file, it's retarded, and when it's finished there's always a nice selection of "unknown artist" and "unknown album" there. But, directory wise, my collection is tight. I can tell by looking through my directory better than metadata will tell me what is in the folders. I don't need iTunes to keep me organized in that way. So if I'm not using iTunes, why should I buy an iPod?
Slashdot Mirror
Because unlike most cartels, they don't have a stranglehold on supply anymore. The music is out there, and despite all their threats and attempts at litigation, P2P will continue forever if there's not a better business model to thwart piracy. It is in their best interest to stop having such a fix on pricing and back down from the hardass stance a little bit, as fixing pricing and being a hardass isn't going to stop people.
For great justice, take back every Zune!
Oh come on, I was already leaning back, don't you remember? Fat Joe told us to do this a couple years ago.
Stick with your instinct. I very highly doubt that the terrorists are even looking through our libraries for this type of knowledge, because it is so widely and vastly known at this point. The point you start purging libraries and telling people what they can and can't say due to what terrorists could possibly learn is the moment you begin sliding down the hill toward complete information control. Controlling speech does not make us safer, as we don't have a monopoly on information. The same type of information would be available at large from other sources.
People pretend as if the terrorists are using our own information against us, or as if they are very sophisticated and rely upon things they'd like to restrict. The truth is that the terrorists took out 3,000 people with a few pilot lessons and a couple boxcutters, and their bombs mostly consist of garbage bin fertilizer recipes. The key to stopping these people isn't in clamping down on information that they probably won't even use to stop their largely unsophisticated (at least in technological terms) attacks. One of the keys to winning the war on terror is to stop being so afraid.
Yeah, because there's never been a good video game based on a movie. Goldeneye for the 64 was just...terrible, right?
Eh? Not so much. I've had samsung phones, mp3 players and other electronics all of which were poorly designed and failed in one way or another. I avoid the samsung brand altogether as they are very much not in line as far as quality per price point (a phone shouldn't just have the monochrome LCD die within a year of use and an MP3 player shouldn't just shut off randomly after 3 months of use and have the cheapest battery door ever due to bad design). I advise people all the time to steer clear of samsung products, and I've noticed that panasonic products usually beat samsung in reviews. So I believe the parent isn't offtarget.
Nope, and they don't know what an office suite is either apparently, as they attempted to call a dumbed down version of a word processor and the most basic spreadsheet application imaginable combined with gmail an "office suite." It's all hype about MS vs. Google. In all honesty, I believe the two have fairly distinct offerings, even if MS wishes it had Google's as well as its own to offer.
As is the difference between da Interwebs as a communications medium and the telephone or letters... Which is why "soliciting minors for sex" should be a crime without the stupid "on the Internet" clauses. Lawmakers are like every other group of despicable marketing losers on the planet who think putting "on the Internet" somehow makes something cooler or more hip. They want to be hip, so they write the iMolestation (tm) law, when the original molestation law has you covered, and if it doesn't, that's the one that needs fixing.
Don't punish different for how you conspire to commit a crime. What's next? Plotting murder "on the Googlewebs" is a separate crime from conspiracy to murder? How far do you take it?
Just because the method of communication changed a smidgen doesn't mean we need new laws for old crimes. More laws = more loopholes.
If this entire civilization goes bottom up, who knows what will find our stuff and if they will know about "statistical properties" or be able to conduct even a "little analysis." Attempting to leave a hallmark card for the future of everything we "know" is silly. We don't know what's to come when we don't really even know that much of what came before us. It's naive to think this way. If civilization goes bottom up, the cavedwellers that could result from the anarchy could be using our hard drives as hand tools with no idea or care as to what they are or any idea or thought as to how they got there. If it doesn't, well then, the modern information will flow from generation to generation anyway, so they won't have to conduct analysis at all.
I understand your point, and consensus is something that shouldn't always be taken seriously. However, science is _not_ religion, and I am growing very tired of this analogy.
Science isn't based on belief, consensus or anything else. Back a span of time the people in the medical profession thought that bleeding patients was an effective method of treatment, surely consensus can, and is at times, wrong. However, science doesn't lend itself to be believed, it relies on proof. When you hear scientific consensus, scientists don't concede based on beliefs in most cases (which is just what an overall consensus is, an aggregation of statistics of how many people concede, so most cases works). They concede based on a preponderance of evidence. Surely, there are some wack job scientists out there on the fringe. However, the facts are out there, the theories are available and published. People in the scientific field study based on what is the simplest and most likely explanation. They may want to believe one theory or another due to personal preference, but if the facts don't align and a better theory exists, they are forced to move or become obsolete. But the important part is that the entire thing follows a process and that process is open and public and there's a reason why scientists have the opinions they do. Reasons that are based upon reality, data and experimentation. Religion often deals with the way things "ought to be." Science, by its very nature, is forced to deal with the way things really are. You could go look up all the data yourself, if you have the time, and there's really nothing wrong with that, but the scientists and the experts in their fields are there for a reason. And their consensus _does_ matter and while it may not be 100% right all the time, is usually as close to right as it can be given the current theories and data.
It's like asking a geek their opinion on what OS is the best for you, or what computer you should buy if you are a layperson. Surely, you are conceding some of your belief or trust to that person that they will do the right thing, but you can't be an expert in all fields. Sometimes you get shafted by giving people trust, but given the fact that the scientific community is a worldwide organization that spans people from all walks of life, I find it particularly hard to believe that they are all aligning to deceive us.
If consensus wasn't based on community supplied data, experiments and a mountain of time and research I would be more likely to be skeptical. Unfortunately, I find myself skeptical of the theory that scientists are all involved in some massive conspiracy to make us believe we are warming the Earth. Just as in science, I'm taking the simplest possible explanation: and that's that the consensus of the scientific community and the mountain of data it is based upon is probably correct and not tainted in a significant way.
From answers.com:
Also from answers.com:
I'm not saying that I agree with grammar Nazism, but the man does have a point, and it's more than "some groups" not agreeing with "other groups." It's about making up words, or at very least definitions of words, just like previous posts imply. Which may or may not offend you or others. (Opinions are like assholes, etc.)
Don't worry, you are preaching to the choir here, most people here are used to waiting for years and still getting none.
What urks me is the fact that these people are probably the ones getting good jobs and becoming managers. While people like myself who actually know a thing or two about computers but don't have a "Information Technology Science" bullshit degree from a major university don't ever get a chance. (I have a BS in Comp Sci from a four year school but it's not Penn State...and for some reason Computer Science doesn't seem to have anything to do with these "technology" jobs who all want BS title degrees and certs).
I have a thought pertaining to the Grandfather paradox, which is that if the parallel universes thing is true, and a scientist sends data back to the past, this data then affecting the present somehow, wouldn't this data actually be sent to a parallel universe as well and since the scientist himself isn't actually going back in time, it would be as if the data wasn't sent at all, because to his perception and ours in this universe it would be the same as if the data wasn't received at all?
Okay, now time to get some pr0n.
Seriously, imagine how much money you could save yourself on special shampoo if you could just send back that little text message "don't do it, she has crabs."
I find this statement hard to believe, especially because Windows has native support going back a long ways and you can still find emulators (which essentially is what Linux is doing to run Windows programs) and other hacks in order to get older stuff (such as DOS games) working in Windows. Just because it doesn't natively support all windows apps, doesn't mean Linux wins in this regard, because Linux doesn't natively support more windows apps either, it also requires addons. If you can do it in Wine in Linux, you better believe someone found a way to do it in Windows.
You haven't had any kids yet, but have thought about how you would introduce them to star wars already? Something tells me that you won't be "at the stage" in your life where you'll have kids for a while. You need a date first. =P
I didn't want to have to reply to this, I really didn't, but I read one of the replies that didn't make the point I was after. Smoking causes lung cancer and emphysema, it's proven scientific fact. It's not really a question of bias. Even if your cholesterol is as good as you imply, there's simply no way cigarettes and excess alcohol intake is healthy. Now maybe you offset the cardiovascular effects that cigarette smoking has on your overall health in the short term, but in the end its bad effects will get you. I really don't mind when people smoke heavily or drink heavily as long as they acknowledge the facts that these things are poisons. I used to drink and smoke heavily myself, and I still drink a fair amount. But I don't pretend it's good for me just because I do it without dying or adversely affecting my health statistics. Scientists and doctors don't know everything about health and diet, sure, but they definitely know some things. So don't delude yourself into thinking you are smarter than the entire medical community because you haven't yet experienced any personal repercussions.
The thing people seem to be missing here is that text messaging is arguably better used because the text _isn't_ vocalized. Most people use text messaging to convey messages in social situations where speaking into a phone is inappropriate. Any kind of speaking defeats half the purpose of texting to begin with. Imagine your girlfriend voicing in "I want your body." while she's at her parent's house having dinner, like she's doing with her text messages.
One of the highest GDPs per person in Africa, isn't that like saying one of the coolest people on slashdot?
At least he's not attacking New Orleans again with his hurricane conjuring powers. What did he have against cajun cooking anyway?
Whose pots are still black? I know mine are silver or gray in color...as are most...so is the kettle. WTF is with this analogy.
The truth of this argument is, as inherently insecure as Windows may be, the argument shouldn't be about vulnerabilities. It should be about time from vulnerability acknowledgment until correction. That being said, Mac didn't take this stance. They took the "we don't get viruses" high road. I'll have to admit that right now, they are correct. But it's not a great idea to take such a high road because like you just said, any problem is going to be shown massively disproportionate to the actual threat. But you can't blame that all on the "press", Apple claims it will never get viruses. It's an invitation for knockdown. There's no wonder why they are swiped at given half a chance. To me the "we don't get viruses" statement is a whole lot like Bush's "we are safer now, there hasn't been any attacks since 9/11, see" stance. It's a logical fallacy that the past can always reliably predict the future.
Another point to be made is that when your userbase is 5% of the market, it typically gets 5% of the attention. Hackers aren't that interested in making a small mark. They want an army of bots, and those armies are not only easily exploitable, but available in large numbers on the Windows platform. So why bother with Macs?
This is fine, good stance. But there's two competing factions:
The first faction shouldn't really care about this story, because they already have their alternative to windows, and they can use it free as a bird and feel l33t.
The second faction, however, is at odds with the first faction. Because in order to have Linux conquer Windows, you can't be elitist and win over Windows users. Most Windows users see their computer as an appliance, and when they have questions like "why isn't my sound working", getting back a response like "well you just have to download the latest drivers and compile them then install them" isn't going to be a great response. Especially since these type of users don't even know wtf "compile" means most times.
The good news, however, is that Linux really doesn't need to aim for these users anyway. As long as you have just enough support to run your computers without Windows, why care? These people add nothing to an open source community anyway, they can't code so they aren't gonna fix bugs. They are basically clueless freeloaders which will eat up donated support hours with a sense of entitlement, because even if they paid $0 for it, it should work perfectly!
I'd say Linux is doing just fine as it is, but it's not gonna overtake Windows anytime soon, and with good reason.
I have had hands on dealings with iPods. The ITunes+Ipod thing is a double-edged sword. I'm sure it's great if you want both things and use only those two things together and don't change a thing, but it sucks otherwise. I don't want to have to hack my iPod to have it function as a regular hard drive, and I don't want to use their bloated software package to organize my MP3s. Just about any other player on the market will function as a typical USB HD in addition to "media player mode", I know my archos does.
As far as overpriced, they were, and are, overpriced. The idea of converting my xvid movies to whatever format that is to get them to play on an iPod makes me cringe. Especially when you can get a cheaper player that plays them in standard formats.
The allure of the iPod is basically that everyone has one. Sure, maybe some people are too dumb or too lazy to manage their mp3 players like they manage their MP3s on their hard drive, with regular directory structure... But honestly, some people don't even know about the alternatives. I get asked all the time by older folks if my player is an "iPod thingy." I reply that it isn't, but it shows how much they truly know about it. They will go into a store and ask for one of those "iPod thingies," because it's all they know of it.
I actually know through friends a girl that got an iPod without asking for it, and didn't know how to use it. When she saw the iTunes store with the 99 cent songs she bought one before reasoning, "that's stupid, you have to pay per song." To my knowledge she hasn't used it since. I get anecdotal reports from my mom about her friends and their kids and how they don't know how to use their iPods either. People get them because they are popular.
I don't use iTunes, I have a large collection of music some of which is *gasp* improperly tagged. I hate when a program feels the need to go through my 1000 directories and look for metadata on every file, it's retarded, and when it's finished there's always a nice selection of "unknown artist" and "unknown album" there. But, directory wise, my collection is tight. I can tell by looking through my directory better than metadata will tell me what is in the folders. I don't need iTunes to keep me organized in that way. So if I'm not using iTunes, why should I buy an iPod?