If you have a 5 year old system then it is obsolete and you have to watch its workload if you want to run semi modern software.
This is the problem--computers have long been at the point where more power is unnecessary to the average user--software-as-a-sponge. Disciplined programming seems non-existent (unless, perhaps, you are coding Xfce, whose dev looks at a given feature and asks what performance impact it will have before adding or figuring out how to add it without harming performance). The hardware becomes EXPONENTIALLY more powerful in short-order, yet the basic OS sops-up any gains to make a file dialogue (that may even force itself into view, can't be minimized, may be redundant alongside twelve other operational windows whose information instead could better fit inside one) or prettier window appear for "right click".
This is why, when I spoke to a certain high-level exec whose company DOESN'T make software for consumers, but for their logistics and internal operations, he told me that they hire semi-technical communicators just to order their programmers to "make the ***d**n button, only the button, and make it well", whenever they start talking about the thousand other unrelated things they could do, and how shiny it could be, and...reminds you of the interfaces for Gnome and KDE right now.
He wasn't being mean, but he did specifically reference the half-baked crap found throughout open-source repositories, and indicate that they are cautious about those involved in FOSS not because they're against the idea, but because the culture is so puerile or without restraint to do what needs to be done, do it well, and then verify, before moving on.
A few months back, I finally upgraded a box to the latest Ubuntu, and after a lot of tweaking and hammering I am still finding that some ops are faster on a...Samsung Galaxy Player. Granted, this p.c. is ten years old (or may be 7), but it's that with a multi-core 64bit proc with Gigs of Ram, a 1GB GPU, a lot of I/O...and the damn Linux OS still seems to have caught-up with the inefficiency of MS, probably a combination of half-baked plumbing (cause making the pipes, and gears, run smoothly is boring) and a hog of a UI. So I swapped to Xubuntu and...Firefox is discovered to be enough pig (despite blocking all scripts and active content) to still bog things down (haven't found if it's because I use a lot of tabs, or perhaps because it's writing to a lot of files on disk. I note that this machine is actually years newer than another I have which is running an Ubuntu maybe two versions older that hums quite nicely with fewer freezes or issues; it's even running a video card with a woppign 64MB! of memory onboard, yet it's outperforming the other machine!
Besides using FOSS, though, I have a latest-greatest MS Win7 PC and I still find that unresponsible/slow: like it has to think for just basic actions. I hate it. Don't blame uber-powerful hardware and those who use it because they shouldn't have to replace it just to get the same functionality they did ten (or fifteen) years ago at half the speed, blame the undisciplined and (when criticized) monistic culture of development that has developed among coders all over. Or perhaps consumers who put up with this crap and let companies not die that need to.
I was told the same thing all the way back in high school, so don't think I am condemning the error: I did it too!
I have used other layouts like DVORAK, btw...doesn't seem to really speed you up: when I did more computer work I would type at hundreds of WPM too, but I found that once sufficiently acquired, DVORAK vs. QWERTY hardly mattered, and some studies (as indicated by that article) suggest QWERTY's ascendancy was a product of selection vs. competing standards, and is perhaps faster than than the likes of its most often indicating better (DVORAK) BECAUSE OF the space between oft-used keys (because of alternation between the two hands: DVORAK favors the right).
Killer whales like to torture baby seals in training their young to hunt: they are quite capable in reveling in suffering, if what looks like play (serious training, but play nonetheless) by them, when they are training young (just as we train young in "play", and enjoy it) is also "play" to them.
I've always had a problem with counting layers and assuming they correspond with years (whether a single layer, or several layers per year). Events like the eruption in Washington showed that many layers can be deposited in catastrophes, and given that neo-catastrophism is accepted by now, one would think these things would cause us to do a lot of criticism and re-thinking of the standard geology taught. Then again, that's hard work and largely boring correlation of a bunch of observations with how it can be used to criticize theory, then one must do reconciliation... I thought a lot of that work would have been done until I met geologists at university who became friends, and they complained that it's hard to do that sort of thing, given it's like trying to dismantle a mountain and rebuild it, it threatens careers and grants...it sounded just like trying to find bad underpinnings/assumptions in theories of biology and rebuild based on all the evidence: so many fields of knowledge flow into and out of one another, may be 100 years behind in one department and another knows better, or another set of scientists know better, that actual science is very tenuous. Speaking of which, never trust people when they start speaking about "the consensus" and don't heavily qualify. Just a freethinking rant, please bash away (it's how one learns).
Correction and criticism accepted. Though I would have accepted it from AC since disregarding them entirely smells too much like ad hominem: I know it isn't, but still.
I have mod points and I would mod you down because your logic stinks rather than because I disagree, but I think it is worth commenting on:
Google is not making money on their content. Google is making money on the key words entered into their search engine, returning relevant advertisements to...the key words. The people go to the search engine to find content, but Google serves LINKS to others' content (not the content) most relevant to their search terms in order to ancillarily have the chance to serve ads relevant to the users' searches: note that there is an exchange going on here, though intangible and only conceptual: as per the user agreement between users and Google, the user gets to use their search mechanism, and Google gets to serve ads: only the users, therefore, could possibly claim to be owed anything, except they're being provided service, so rather it's they who should be paying (and are with their eyeballs).
What all this means, is exactly what others are saying around here: they just drop the French media, and not do those numbskulls the favor of facilitating contact by other eyeballs with their content: Google provides them with value, not vice versa: I would find poetic a de-listing by Google adding facilities that they may, for a recurring fee, opt-in to the search engine results.
Google only wants the few seconds they get with a visitor to serve ads, and these days they've plenty of their own content (and services, and deals with other content providers e.g. on Youtube) that they don't perhaps need to index and serve results pertaining those other media: I doubt they want to do that because it would make their searches slightly less useful to some, but when people start attacking a big dog to get a cut for something those attackers aren't due any share of, and syndicate with just-as-greedy politicians (who just want more money to spend), then it is time to say "bye bye".
Also, when Google actually puts ads relevant not to keyword searches but content itself, it is by the permission/request of the owner, and the owners are compensated on the click-throughs according to the terms of their agreements. Thus, we see here mere greed, gross ignorance, and unsurprising indignation at sensing a situation unfairness that could only be understood as such by the ignorant.
This is not meant as an insult, but a question of honest curiosity. What is with your writing? A statement begins well enough, then becomes ungrammatical in several places. e.g.
this was an outrageous thing to do and over of the mothers of the crew slew the door shut in her sons face
The "and over of the mothers of the crew" doesn't make sense, neither does "slew" (you mean "slammed", right?); I had a similar question for
I am not reponsible for the actions of others, in my eyes, goes only so far.
until I realized that your punctuation is incorrect (throughout) and that you simply lack quotes around "I am...others", but
Terrorism is not isolated to Muslims but in other parts of the world, what has happened is that the people part of the terrorist group started to protest
also makes no sense.
There are other issues, but I will leave it to these few for now: again, not meaning to insult, just curious: I am working on materials for helping foreigners learn and use English, so I ask these sort of things. If you need more clarification about the problems, let me know (sometimes people realize what they are when notified there is a problem, so I don't waste time to explain all of them initially).
On a related note, I notice that foreign entities like to file DMCA takedowns when material is incorporated into new content meant for criticism and commentary, i.e. 'fair use': this happens quite a lot on Youtube--I noticed a video removed just this morning by a corporation in Tokyo. It's a PITA.
That said, if they're filing subject to U.S. Jurisdiction, they're subjecting themselves to U.S. jurisdiction: with some of the lawyers I know, we could have some fun with this: something along the lines of "they didn't appear so we ask you to barr all activities and products/services of these entities within the U.S., its territories, and all jurisdictions of trade partners who must do same according to treaty obligations". Sometimes the stories I hear from these guys seem like something out of a movie, unbelievable until you see the actual records from court!
If you have a problem with a DMCA takedown notice, get yourself a good lawyer who would be happy to take cases on the basis of getting a large cut: of course, you may have to provide reasonable argumenation/proof as to actual harms caused by the takedown, or lost projected revenues. Also be aware that contacting the lawyer before ANYTHING else is a good idea: they and the judges like process, and dismiss that which violates it--even unintentionally or innocently.
If people everywhere start becoming willing to put up with the procedural BS and headache with the aid of competent lawyers, then large corporations will start thinking twice about screwing with the little guy just because they have a larger legal team: it's one thing to have twenty Harvard-trained grads, another to have them face one guy who can cite the development of legal doctrines and their proper context since Rome or the Magna Carta, why such matters, and "this, my fellow idiots, is why you're screwed." Just beware that such men are often a little scary for most people.
points 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, and 41 support the "loud pipes do *NOT* save lives" argument (again IMHO, mostly by pointing out that rider training/skills and proper safety gear have the greatest correlation to a reduction in accidents and accident severity
Saying "these do not [help] because other factors are even more significant than they are" is quite the disconnect in logic.
I'll decline a legal debate about whether the Interstate Commerce Clause trumps local ordinances, although I will go so far as to state that I suspect you'd better have some solid statistics to bolster the "loud pipes" argument before you attempt to have your lawyer take on a local judge based upon that reasoning.
What happened to declining to debate? I know a Constitutional lawyer btw. : )
I'll point out one more thing: claiming that you only ride with loud pipes on your bike in the interest of safety is rather disingenuous when the motorcyclist making that claim is riding NATGATT ("Not 'All The Gear, All The Time'" for those unfamiliar with the acronym). You're not wearing a helmet, gloves, etc.? You're going to have a tough time convincing me that safety is what you are really interested in, then. Yes, it gets hot in the summer. That's why manufacturers make mesh gear in colors other than black.
???
When did I say any of that? The regular riders I know have full gear PLUS extra (i.e. beyond road gear, they tend to wear racing gear: composites in the jackets to keep above ground, full cover of all limbs with leathers, yada yada). They also tend to wear earplugs due to the noise, just for those worried about their hearing.
do I have any proof to support my position? Not really.
Okay.
Points 1, 6, 7, 9, and arguably 13 and 30 support the "loud pipes" argument (mostly, IMHO, by pointing out that conspicuity helps to prevent accidents).
Let's cut this down to the essential matter, the one I would have thought would have been evident, inarguable, such that there should be no controversy. The thing which a lawyer from the start would have seen and to argue his case have simply said "res ipsum loquitur":
Why are you still arguing? You gave your opinionated ar. ex exper. and I raised you one: simply put, when you are many hundreds to a thousand pounds less weight than the next class of vehicle, you do whatever you possibly can to be noticed: a little flag works great from the side but not always back or front, and the guys I knew did wear bright bright gear like that to ALSO draw the eye: most on the road aren't deaf either, and your use of them like that is insulting: I start sign language next week as my roommate's mother is deaf due to treatment of illness side effects. Ps they tend to feel the vibrations well enough, they just don't perceive it as sound.
Reasoning, rather than rationalizing and adding non-answers to the exchange, is appreciated. Your attempt to leverage non-evidence after arguing experience in spite of contrary experience presented as evidence is silly: you can piss about precautions being useless about idiots all you want, and continue to fuss for what appears to be mere dislike of the sound, but there are still plenty who may get enough notice to not change lanes in their truck right into the cyclist.
And as an aside, defining parameters and 'safer' is quite the can of worms, as well as all the factors and inputs that must be measured and qualitatively assessed to properly understand the numbers, many of which things to be measured and assessed cannot be, or are probably not practically discoverable: I would actually find it fun to go into such a design here and explain, but I am on an Android, it is late, and really it is worthless.
A loud pipe isn't going to keep an idiot driver from cutting you off. I've been cut off by idiot drivers more than once, and generally speaking,
Why is this "5, Insightful": it is one man arguing from experience to absolutely discount another's experience!!! Here is mine: I know a guy down the road by about five miles, same city, who buys those quiet, high quality bikes (http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3153119&cid=41499767) and then puts very expensive pipes with certain sound characteristics, usually that he can tune, so that it makes people around him aware he is there: you just cannot see someone on a small vehicle like a scooter or motorcycle: I even have a scooter and despite being out of the home for years my father insists that if I ever use it regularly I am to come to him and he will buy a motorcycle for the power, and we'll work to make it loud, so people know I am there: he has had music up, or simply just been on the highway with wind blowing, and almost hit the quiet bikes, while the loud ones he is thankful for: he doesn't want to kill someone: there is such a thing as a BLIND SPOT you know.
leading to onerous restrictions about what can and cannot be installed on a bike, where bikes can go
Easy solution for that: "I meet your local statute judge, and raise you one interstate commerce clause: you pulled me over in the process of driving to another state, and I think the Feds want to have a word with you." Of course you don't say it that way, but you talk to your lawyer about it. You could make quite a stink about regulations imposed for reasons of others' comfort when it endangers the lives (and infringes their right to safe transport on the roads) of others. See above again, there may be people who make their bikes loud to be "cool", but I know plenty who do it for the right reasons.
That's just a silly "all truth is relative, so I can just pick the one I like" excuse. Some news agencies tell the truth, others tell lies. Some represent the facts fairly, some misrepresent them.
You're missing it. If you tell the truth, and support the truth, you are biased toward the truth; if you do not these things (both), you are against it: that's how that little word "bias" works. One of those "binary" "either...or" situations which the human mind so loves.
As a guy who has known plenty who work in [U.S.] government, I can say (from the mouths of sometimes high officials or people close) that government has as its goal to make as much money as possible with as little competence (in anything) as possible, without respect for consequences or fear of liability (so long as it can make a plausible case that it failed but was not intentionally abrogating duties or being derelict; it often cannot be sued successfully for catastrophe unless it waives the liability in court), and that people on neither side of the political line are very coy about this...among buddies with bear.
The real thing we must do is shrink them back to their limits...and also make them afraid of loss of power (and demand of competent prosecution) when they collude with private actors, directly or otherwise, or fail to hold private actors fully responsible (with full payouts) for gross incompetence, fraud, etc., e.g. like all the money paid by congress for broadband rollout (that was taken and used for else, leaving a program so catastrophically failed that they repeatedly redefined "broadband" to less than their original spec); or as in all the class-action examples we see where some group does nothing when they know they should, harm results, and teensie payouts per victim (whose time, energy, and potential for other actions, not to mention perhaps health, sanity, etc.) result.
There is also the curious phenomenon from NASA's golden era, where private actors, afraid of being scapegoated if anything went wrong, over-built things and told NASA that they were less capable, while still making a lot of money: when Apollo 13 went wrong, it turned out that this extra margin (which the politicians and bean-counters would never have allowed for if they knew they could get away with saving money and didn't think an event where things were going to go bad was imminent), along with the ingenuity of engineers, helped save the butts of the *naughts. Actually NASA is a good example of public-private partnership that isn't too concerning (to guys like me, as they have little to no control over our lives), at least when design-by-committee isn't permitted to rule there, and now I am related (family marriage) to someone from the original Shuttle program: the stories are awesome, and also touch on all the themes generalized above.
Also of note, I get far better service and far lower costs from UPS and FEDEX than USPS on practically anything besides basic letters delivered to a home (which is a service that by law, if it still stands, prohibits the others from providing). The only thing I would worry about if USPS faltered is the other two colluding, given their giant leap forward (their own positions are somewhat artificial as if a bunch of competitors had been permitted to start-up at once they might not have such a lead: I am rooting for DHL and similar, therefore).
You do realize that they prohibit the other carriers from delivering certain kinds of mail, right? There is a reason it is cheaper, but plenty of people have done work to show it could be done far cheaper by ridding ourselves of the current postal service in favor of one modernized and made more efficient: case in point, the mailman recently came to my place complaining "I didn't sign up for this. I came for 8 hour days and they have me doing 12", and he is doing work not half the difficulty, strain, effort, or amount of training that my last position required: AND it was rare not to have a 12-16 hour day (the 16 hour ones being in the peak seasons). I know the pain of not having time besides work (all too well), but many times "government position", in the minds of those who seek them, is though of some kind of sinecure or easy street: a place to go for regular pay, hours, and ease. I know that's not all of them (I work for a guy with quite the job in government, actually), but there is a ton that could be done that even average, ordinary people could submit to make all cheaper tomorrow or next week: the problem is that it would mean JOB cuts, only what government workers in non-essential functions often don't "get" is that Americans not on the direct take don't consider government jobs as "productive" (rather than economically vampiric) jobs: many aren't, some are: some that aren't are necessary, some that are aren't.
See what happens to the USPS when all monopoly privileges partial or total are eliminated: it will likely be crushed. And btw, I don't necessarily blame USPS: it doesn't have the backing of many investors, for instance, to push innovation, the politicians certainly aren't going to bring it, and its own workers would have fought it all the way. I do feel for them: I used to talk to an oddity of a human being who happened to be a mail man, and I worry what will happen to him outside the confines of such a regular, predictable, and merciful set of routines to follow for work (he will probably get alcohol poisoning, actually), but in pure economic terms, or terms of cost, benefits, and values added or gained, the USPS really can be outdone if the barriers are removed (and others aren't erected).
Take a peak here, http://postalemployeenetwork.com/news/2010/03/postal-or-federal-employee-pay/
The author justifies the postal wage by pointing-out that their pay is comparable to other federal workers (note earlier he tries to imply they are not, and the whole really makes no argument). But how is the job of walking door-to-door delivering mail, a very simple assignment, comparable to, say, a programmer, a nuclear auditor, a forensic accountant, a nuclear engineer or station monitor, a water quality analyst? I mean postal worker's pay per year is twice what I made doing heavy work that required a lot of skill, critical thinking, constant-retraining (equipment, tech in use, signalling, etc. was being evolved steadily), technical aptitude, AND customer management: if we fire them all tomorrow and half the work force, cut their benefits, and investigate what back-room deals were made, we could hire twice the force at just under half the cost per worker, or we could just re-hire the workers at half the cost and provide them all with decent healthcare (paying more than other public "servants" do percentage wise, comparable to the people they "serve"), and I would be a LOT of people who are unemployed right now would happily take the deal.
there is no "ban," it is a efficiency requirement that traditional incandescent bulbs do not fit.
I call bullshit. In legal terminology, "substance over form". If the effect of the legislation is known before and purposive to remove the incandescents from the markets, its a ban. Also a silly one given that our power grid is like many water systems: when people use less the prices just rise, and the excess is flushed somehow. There is little to no worthwhile competition and the established players WANT you to use more (this includes the bureaucrats in the truly public water districts, which I may or may not happen to know personally in several jurisdictions). Similarly, there are no savings, in general, when you mandate "water conservation" because of those things: given our power plants are mostly dumb ouputs...
But besides that you are correct. I will also add that with many small adjustments (and forcing more competition into markets for power) there could start to be savings in power consumption if the population remained static, but really it's may be a foolish goal made possible only be politicrats legislating an economy like that of the U.S. into the dirt. Power is largely like computer memory: saving it isn't worth it, and never will be, so long as the tech keeps advancing: something we should all start mocking the environuts for, that is, their ignorance: when you generate energy you shouldn't be seeking not to use it, but to put it to work (or you lose it), and with creative applications actual environmentally beneficial things could be done with the margin generated by many efficiency programs that are actually beneficially rather than generative of problems that people have to work around (e.g. like the damn dishwashers that came-out after compliance with water saving regulations meant most were useless); or saving water in metro areas and just re-filtering and re-using it rather than immediately passing it downstream, such that over time less water would actual be needed from lakes and rivers brought by rains each year.
Making more power is a GOOD thing, if used correctly: even when we speak of short-term problems like coal release, if the fruits of the burning are put to good use. : )
I just want to point-out that cows evolved to eat pretty much anything that exists on what we refer to as "grassland", which includes more than what we call "grass", and that corn is, essentially, just a super-growing form of grass: the stalk may or may not be edible to cows anymore, but the kernels are just something like wheat-on-steroids (very imperfect analogy, I know). Why in the world are you worried about cows' sakes eating corn when they are being fed sweets like this?
Besides, your thinking is silly: they are bred and raised so that people can consume them: I can't see how that will turn out well for them...The part you and I have to be concerned with is the physiological (i.e. chemical) effects on the meat, and that means many more factors than merely their diets. The diet is just something easy to observe and handle, but I could eat donuts and coffee, and just a little else for protein and nutrients, and be more than fine as long as I moved enough to force the body to use it all well.
Speak for yourself, or for normals: when I go on an exercise binge I eat huge amounts of carbs and beef; I also do some things those two "bad" food words would lead you not to expect: I will wake up and eat ordinary oatmeal, maybe a hard-boiled egg, and a bowl of...mixed veggies, for instance.
But if you are running for hours per day, lifting tons of weights, running some more, swimming, running some more, not only do you want a lot of that "unnecessary" and "harmful" beef and similar foods, but you want it in even larger volumes than the average fatso American eats.
If the average American did approximately what is necessary to maintain good heart health, about 45 minutes of strenuous aerobic exercise a day, another 40 or so of running (which after a point isn't aerobic anymore), perhaps the quantities of flesh stuffed in their pie holes wouldn't be of concern: that steak might be about right for their healing requirements.
Of course, you are right about people doing better by adding to foods: I have a Chinese roommate who stir fries a lot, and you can eat that stuff every meal. She'll make about five or six different stir fries at a time, and even with all that oil, eaten with the running/exercise regime and with plenty of veggies included, it would likely be far better than the average diet, AND you can cut-up that nightly steak and distribute it throughout the day. (Note "stir fry" here is used for more than a few tiny carrots, some broccoli, onions, peppers, mushrooms, + rice, as you would buy in a Chinese restaurant.)
In fact, thanks for the great idea: now switching from excessively meaty stews to excessively meaty stir-fries.;D
p.s. if you are beyond a certain point in development, in decent health, exercise plenty, etc., then I don't know if you should worry TOO much about non-organic meat: perhaps the antibiotics are no good: my background is bio so I would prefer they use less antibiotis on cows (even none, actually) and such too, but the various non-organic methods used in farming and ranching today were all developed not just to keep crops and animals alive, but also prevent problems and contaminations that harm PEOPLE when they eat those products: so they introduce evils for those who consume them, but lesser evils than what came before.
Over time I would expect, so long as there are diligent, careful, pride-of-work types innovating, more holistic, intelligent, surgical implementors of these techniques mixed and substituted by/for other methods found to be as effective, better, or more suitable depending on conditions and need. And when they show it to be economically worthwhile and profitable as those alterations are developed, others will adopt them...unless you keep permitting the politicians and their buyers to permit and uphold idea and method patents.
Honestly, I think there's just a bunch of old timers that just object to everything that isn't GNOME 2 or KDE 3. To them that was the high point in desktop environments.
Perhaps for non-trivial use-cases, where the Desktop Environment was highly configurable/adaptable for thousands of use cases and combinations for preference, and extremely functional with well-though-out features that accumulated over time, they were.
Take XFCE. I use it because it's light: I use Linux where I can because I don't have to wait on the OS for basic tasks when I don't want to buy uber-dooper-super-stupid high-end hardware when we should be able to compute just fine on anything from the last five years. Yet well-considered Gnome features like CTRL+L to move the cursor to the url/address bar, or tabs in the file manager--basics on Open Source and alternative (to Win Explorer) file managers for years, just aren't present: actually, thousands of nifty things which, in DEs that weren't necessarily light, but also weren't nearly as heavy as their modern, less-functional successors, are missing from the otherwise excellent XFCE (which is too young and...which the coders apparently re-write every version).
A big part of MS's success has been that they don't re-invent the wheel to make it easier on their programmers: if it works, they evolve it slowly [enough], and leave things in place needed by programmers of software for their platform, rather than coders of the platform. That is why Linux on the desktop hasn't happened where it is easier to buy with Windows: if the software was available I could sell twenty people on Linux tomorrow, but companies know better than to trust the open source community IN GENERAL. (That is, an individual involved in open source may be hirable, but they're going to check carefully first: and yes, big execs have told me this in person--not stupid, inconsiderate ones who just follow fads, either).
Of course it's different if service is your revenue generator. Then, breaking **** is a very good idea; whether it's actually broken, or it's just that putting-together a solution is hard enough that the expertise of those who made the software is also needed to make it work as desired. That's why this stuff is no problem to Google, IBM, etc.: that's their model. Making Linux viable is not hard: it's just the legal threats that are a problem, and the technical stuff is simply a matter of choosing most-functional/efficient-enough. I convert people to Linux so they can avoid antivirus and firewall costs (no longer a prob with MSSE) and their less-than-stellar computers pausing too much even for simple tasks (still a very big problem with the massively over-coded Windows), and once it is set-up and locked-down (including updates, which can't install without me), they love it: even getting games working on Wine, though at times a PITA, tends to result in better performance due to the greater speed and efficiency of the kernel.
BUT it's not a platform--at all--in the sense of something that is relatively reliably the same system wherever found; it's not an ecosystem of software that outsiders have confidence in: Canonical had the biggest opportunity due to mindshare, but blew it years ago, and keep blowing it. MINT actually seems, despite having one guy, to now be doing it somewhat better EVEN WHEN THEY CHANGE EVERYTHING--BECAUSE THEY GO FOR BEST TEACH/DESIRES OF USERS, NOT THE DEVS! And the XFCE dev/s are a close second if not in the running for first or even slightly ahead. But Ubuntu...no, maybe attractive for enterprise but not the home.
When I was perhaps just 14 I stumbled in to using Linux, and realized the huge edge and potential in Linux for undermining commercial alternatives by its ability to keep perfectly good hardware up-and-running: I had an old machine and I soon learned how to set-up streaming servers and have multiple inbound connections all connecting to a low-end, old, home computer that was encoding and transmitting one file to another format...
Slashdot Mirror
If you have a 5 year old system then it is obsolete and you have to watch its workload if you want to run semi modern software.
This is the problem--computers have long been at the point where more power is unnecessary to the average user--software-as-a-sponge. Disciplined programming seems non-existent (unless, perhaps, you are coding Xfce, whose dev looks at a given feature and asks what performance impact it will have before adding or figuring out how to add it without harming performance). The hardware becomes EXPONENTIALLY more powerful in short-order, yet the basic OS sops-up any gains to make a file dialogue (that may even force itself into view, can't be minimized, may be redundant alongside twelve other operational windows whose information instead could better fit inside one) or prettier window appear for "right click".
This is why, when I spoke to a certain high-level exec whose company DOESN'T make software for consumers, but for their logistics and internal operations, he told me that they hire semi-technical communicators just to order their programmers to "make the ***d**n button, only the button, and make it well", whenever they start talking about the thousand other unrelated things they could do, and how shiny it could be, and...reminds you of the interfaces for Gnome and KDE right now.
He wasn't being mean, but he did specifically reference the half-baked crap found throughout open-source repositories, and indicate that they are cautious about those involved in FOSS not because they're against the idea, but because the culture is so puerile or without restraint to do what needs to be done, do it well, and then verify, before moving on.
A few months back, I finally upgraded a box to the latest Ubuntu, and after a lot of tweaking and hammering I am still finding that some ops are faster on a...Samsung Galaxy Player. Granted, this p.c. is ten years old (or may be 7), but it's that with a multi-core 64bit proc with Gigs of Ram, a 1GB GPU, a lot of I/O...and the damn Linux OS still seems to have caught-up with the inefficiency of MS, probably a combination of half-baked plumbing (cause making the pipes, and gears, run smoothly is boring) and a hog of a UI. So I swapped to Xubuntu and...Firefox is discovered to be enough pig (despite blocking all scripts and active content) to still bog things down (haven't found if it's because I use a lot of tabs, or perhaps because it's writing to a lot of files on disk. I note that this machine is actually years newer than another I have which is running an Ubuntu maybe two versions older that hums quite nicely with fewer freezes or issues; it's even running a video card with a woppign 64MB! of memory onboard, yet it's outperforming the other machine!
Besides using FOSS, though, I have a latest-greatest MS Win7 PC and I still find that unresponsible/slow: like it has to think for just basic actions. I hate it. Don't blame uber-powerful hardware and those who use it because they shouldn't have to replace it just to get the same functionality they did ten (or fifteen) years ago at half the speed, blame the undisciplined and (when criticized) monistic culture of development that has developed among coders all over. Or perhaps consumers who put up with this crap and let companies not die that need to.
You are reproducing and oft-repeated myth, http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/221/was-the-qwerty-keyboard-purposely-designed-to-slow-typists
I was told the same thing all the way back in high school, so don't think I am condemning the error: I did it too!
I have used other layouts like DVORAK, btw...doesn't seem to really speed you up: when I did more computer work I would type at hundreds of WPM too, but I found that once sufficiently acquired, DVORAK vs. QWERTY hardly mattered, and some studies (as indicated by that article) suggest QWERTY's ascendancy was a product of selection vs. competing standards, and is perhaps faster than than the likes of its most often indicating better (DVORAK) BECAUSE OF the space between oft-used keys (because of alternation between the two hands: DVORAK favors the right).
...revel in the suffering of others...
Killer whales like to torture baby seals in training their young to hunt: they are quite capable in reveling in suffering, if what looks like play (serious training, but play nonetheless) by them, when they are training young (just as we train young in "play", and enjoy it) is also "play" to them.
I've always had a problem with counting layers and assuming they correspond with years (whether a single layer, or several layers per year). Events like the eruption in Washington showed that many layers can be deposited in catastrophes, and given that neo-catastrophism is accepted by now, one would think these things would cause us to do a lot of criticism and re-thinking of the standard geology taught. Then again, that's hard work and largely boring correlation of a bunch of observations with how it can be used to criticize theory, then one must do reconciliation... I thought a lot of that work would have been done until I met geologists at university who became friends, and they complained that it's hard to do that sort of thing, given it's like trying to dismantle a mountain and rebuild it, it threatens careers and grants...it sounded just like trying to find bad underpinnings/assumptions in theories of biology and rebuild based on all the evidence: so many fields of knowledge flow into and out of one another, may be 100 years behind in one department and another knows better, or another set of scientists know better, that actual science is very tenuous. Speaking of which, never trust people when they start speaking about "the consensus" and don't heavily qualify. Just a freethinking rant, please bash away (it's how one learns).
Correction and criticism accepted. Though I would have accepted it from AC since disregarding them entirely smells too much like ad hominem: I know it isn't, but still.
Thanks,
[in]link.
I have mod points and I would mod you down because your logic stinks rather than because I disagree, but I think it is worth commenting on:
Google is not making money on their content. Google is making money on the key words entered into their search engine, returning relevant advertisements to...the key words. The people go to the search engine to find content, but Google serves LINKS to others' content (not the content) most relevant to their search terms in order to ancillarily have the chance to serve ads relevant to the users' searches: note that there is an exchange going on here, though intangible and only conceptual: as per the user agreement between users and Google, the user gets to use their search mechanism, and Google gets to serve ads: only the users, therefore, could possibly claim to be owed anything, except they're being provided service, so rather it's they who should be paying (and are with their eyeballs).
What all this means, is exactly what others are saying around here: they just drop the French media, and not do those numbskulls the favor of facilitating contact by other eyeballs with their content: Google provides them with value, not vice versa: I would find poetic a de-listing by Google adding facilities that they may, for a recurring fee, opt-in to the search engine results.
Google only wants the few seconds they get with a visitor to serve ads, and these days they've plenty of their own content (and services, and deals with other content providers e.g. on Youtube) that they don't perhaps need to index and serve results pertaining those other media: I doubt they want to do that because it would make their searches slightly less useful to some, but when people start attacking a big dog to get a cut for something those attackers aren't due any share of, and syndicate with just-as-greedy politicians (who just want more money to spend), then it is time to say "bye bye".
Also, when Google actually puts ads relevant not to keyword searches but content itself, it is by the permission/request of the owner, and the owners are compensated on the click-throughs according to the terms of their agreements. Thus, we see here mere greed, gross ignorance, and unsurprising indignation at sensing a situation unfairness that could only be understood as such by the ignorant.
this was an outrageous thing to do and over of the mothers of the crew slew the door shut in her sons face
The "and over of the mothers of the crew" doesn't make sense, neither does "slew" (you mean "slammed", right?); I had a similar question for
I am not reponsible for the actions of others, in my eyes, goes only so far.
until I realized that your punctuation is incorrect (throughout) and that you simply lack quotes around "I am...others", but
Terrorism is not isolated to Muslims but in other parts of the world, what has happened is that the people part of the terrorist group started to protest
also makes no sense.
There are other issues, but I will leave it to these few for now: again, not meaning to insult, just curious: I am working on materials for helping foreigners learn and use English, so I ask these sort of things. If you need more clarification about the problems, let me know (sometimes people realize what they are when notified there is a problem, so I don't waste time to explain all of them initially).
That requirement for cigarettes was not surprisingly shot-down at the high court.
You do realize that "transparency" is so that you can see what they are doing and...complain if they are doing undesirable things, right?
On a related note, I notice that foreign entities like to file DMCA takedowns when material is incorporated into new content meant for criticism and commentary, i.e. 'fair use': this happens quite a lot on Youtube--I noticed a video removed just this morning by a corporation in Tokyo. It's a PITA.
That said, if they're filing subject to U.S. Jurisdiction, they're subjecting themselves to U.S. jurisdiction: with some of the lawyers I know, we could have some fun with this: something along the lines of "they didn't appear so we ask you to barr all activities and products/services of these entities within the U.S., its territories, and all jurisdictions of trade partners who must do same according to treaty obligations". Sometimes the stories I hear from these guys seem like something out of a movie, unbelievable until you see the actual records from court!
If you have a problem with a DMCA takedown notice, get yourself a good lawyer who would be happy to take cases on the basis of getting a large cut: of course, you may have to provide reasonable argumenation/proof as to actual harms caused by the takedown, or lost projected revenues. Also be aware that contacting the lawyer before ANYTHING else is a good idea: they and the judges like process, and dismiss that which violates it--even unintentionally or innocently.
If people everywhere start becoming willing to put up with the procedural BS and headache with the aid of competent lawyers, then large corporations will start thinking twice about screwing with the little guy just because they have a larger legal team: it's one thing to have twenty Harvard-trained grads, another to have them face one guy who can cite the development of legal doctrines and their proper context since Rome or the Magna Carta, why such matters, and "this, my fellow idiots, is why you're screwed." Just beware that such men are often a little scary for most people.
points 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, and 41 support the "loud pipes do *NOT* save lives" argument (again IMHO, mostly by pointing out that rider training/skills and proper safety gear have the greatest correlation to a reduction in accidents and accident severity
Saying "these do not [help] because other factors are even more significant than they are" is quite the disconnect in logic.
I'll decline a legal debate about whether the Interstate Commerce Clause trumps local ordinances, although I will go so far as to state that I suspect you'd better have some solid statistics to bolster the "loud pipes" argument before you attempt to have your lawyer take on a local judge based upon that reasoning.
What happened to declining to debate? I know a Constitutional lawyer btw. : )
I'll point out one more thing: claiming that you only ride with loud pipes on your bike in the interest of safety is rather disingenuous when the motorcyclist making that claim is riding NATGATT ("Not 'All The Gear, All The Time'" for those unfamiliar with the acronym). You're not wearing a helmet, gloves, etc.? You're going to have a tough time convincing me that safety is what you are really interested in, then. Yes, it gets hot in the summer. That's why manufacturers make mesh gear in colors other than black.
???
When did I say any of that? The regular riders I know have full gear PLUS extra (i.e. beyond road gear, they tend to wear racing gear: composites in the jackets to keep above ground, full cover of all limbs with leathers, yada yada). They also tend to wear earplugs due to the noise, just for those worried about their hearing.
do I have any proof to support my position? Not really.
Okay.
Points 1, 6, 7, 9, and arguably 13 and 30 support the "loud pipes" argument (mostly, IMHO, by pointing out that conspicuity helps to prevent accidents).
Let's cut this down to the essential matter, the one I would have thought would have been evident, inarguable, such that there should be no controversy. The thing which a lawyer from the start would have seen and to argue his case have simply said "res ipsum loquitur":
conspicuity helps to prevent accidents.
I hear you on earplugs!
Why are you still arguing? You gave your opinionated ar. ex exper. and I raised you one: simply put, when you are many hundreds to a thousand pounds less weight than the next class of vehicle, you do whatever you possibly can to be noticed: a little flag works great from the side but not always back or front, and the guys I knew did wear bright bright gear like that to ALSO draw the eye: most on the road aren't deaf either, and your use of them like that is insulting: I start sign language next week as my roommate's mother is deaf due to treatment of illness side effects. Ps they tend to feel the vibrations well enough, they just don't perceive it as sound.
Reasoning, rather than rationalizing and adding non-answers to the exchange, is appreciated. Your attempt to leverage non-evidence after arguing experience in spite of contrary experience presented as evidence is silly: you can piss about precautions being useless about idiots all you want, and continue to fuss for what appears to be mere dislike of the sound, but there are still plenty who may get enough notice to not change lanes in their truck right into the cyclist.
And as an aside, defining parameters and 'safer' is quite the can of worms, as well as all the factors and inputs that must be measured and qualitatively assessed to properly understand the numbers, many of which things to be measured and assessed cannot be, or are probably not practically discoverable: I would actually find it fun to go into such a design here and explain, but I am on an Android, it is late, and really it is worthless.
What's your jurisdiction? I may know solutions for the annexation problem.
A loud pipe isn't going to keep an idiot driver from cutting you off. I've been cut off by idiot drivers more than once, and generally speaking,
Why is this "5, Insightful": it is one man arguing from experience to absolutely discount another's experience!!! Here is mine: I know a guy down the road by about five miles, same city, who buys those quiet, high quality bikes (http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3153119&cid=41499767) and then puts very expensive pipes with certain sound characteristics, usually that he can tune, so that it makes people around him aware he is there: you just cannot see someone on a small vehicle like a scooter or motorcycle: I even have a scooter and despite being out of the home for years my father insists that if I ever use it regularly I am to come to him and he will buy a motorcycle for the power, and we'll work to make it loud, so people know I am there: he has had music up, or simply just been on the highway with wind blowing, and almost hit the quiet bikes, while the loud ones he is thankful for: he doesn't want to kill someone: there is such a thing as a BLIND SPOT you know.
leading to onerous restrictions about what can and cannot be installed on a bike, where bikes can go
Easy solution for that: "I meet your local statute judge, and raise you one interstate commerce clause: you pulled me over in the process of driving to another state, and I think the Feds want to have a word with you." Of course you don't say it that way, but you talk to your lawyer about it. You could make quite a stink about regulations imposed for reasons of others' comfort when it endangers the lives (and infringes their right to safe transport on the roads) of others. See above again, there may be people who make their bikes loud to be "cool", but I know plenty who do it for the right reasons.
That's just a silly "all truth is relative, so I can just pick the one I like" excuse. Some news agencies tell the truth, others tell lies. Some represent the facts fairly, some misrepresent them.
You're missing it. If you tell the truth, and support the truth, you are biased toward the truth; if you do not these things (both), you are against it: that's how that little word "bias" works. One of those "binary" "either...or" situations which the human mind so loves.
I wish I could mod you to +10.
rev. "bear" to "beer". : (
As a guy who has known plenty who work in [U.S.] government, I can say (from the mouths of sometimes high officials or people close) that government has as its goal to make as much money as possible with as little competence (in anything) as possible, without respect for consequences or fear of liability (so long as it can make a plausible case that it failed but was not intentionally abrogating duties or being derelict; it often cannot be sued successfully for catastrophe unless it waives the liability in court), and that people on neither side of the political line are very coy about this...among buddies with bear.
The real thing we must do is shrink them back to their limits...and also make them afraid of loss of power (and demand of competent prosecution) when they collude with private actors, directly or otherwise, or fail to hold private actors fully responsible (with full payouts) for gross incompetence, fraud, etc., e.g. like all the money paid by congress for broadband rollout (that was taken and used for else, leaving a program so catastrophically failed that they repeatedly redefined "broadband" to less than their original spec); or as in all the class-action examples we see where some group does nothing when they know they should, harm results, and teensie payouts per victim (whose time, energy, and potential for other actions, not to mention perhaps health, sanity, etc.) result.
There is also the curious phenomenon from NASA's golden era, where private actors, afraid of being scapegoated if anything went wrong, over-built things and told NASA that they were less capable, while still making a lot of money: when Apollo 13 went wrong, it turned out that this extra margin (which the politicians and bean-counters would never have allowed for if they knew they could get away with saving money and didn't think an event where things were going to go bad was imminent), along with the ingenuity of engineers, helped save the butts of the *naughts. Actually NASA is a good example of public-private partnership that isn't too concerning (to guys like me, as they have little to no control over our lives), at least when design-by-committee isn't permitted to rule there, and now I am related (family marriage) to someone from the original Shuttle program: the stories are awesome, and also touch on all the themes generalized above.
Also of note, I get far better service and far lower costs from UPS and FEDEX than USPS on practically anything besides basic letters delivered to a home (which is a service that by law, if it still stands, prohibits the others from providing). The only thing I would worry about if USPS faltered is the other two colluding, given their giant leap forward (their own positions are somewhat artificial as if a bunch of competitors had been permitted to start-up at once they might not have such a lead: I am rooting for DHL and similar, therefore).
You do realize that they prohibit the other carriers from delivering certain kinds of mail, right? There is a reason it is cheaper, but plenty of people have done work to show it could be done far cheaper by ridding ourselves of the current postal service in favor of one modernized and made more efficient: case in point, the mailman recently came to my place complaining "I didn't sign up for this. I came for 8 hour days and they have me doing 12", and he is doing work not half the difficulty, strain, effort, or amount of training that my last position required: AND it was rare not to have a 12-16 hour day (the 16 hour ones being in the peak seasons). I know the pain of not having time besides work (all too well), but many times "government position", in the minds of those who seek them, is though of some kind of sinecure or easy street: a place to go for regular pay, hours, and ease. I know that's not all of them (I work for a guy with quite the job in government, actually), but there is a ton that could be done that even average, ordinary people could submit to make all cheaper tomorrow or next week: the problem is that it would mean JOB cuts, only what government workers in non-essential functions often don't "get" is that Americans not on the direct take don't consider government jobs as "productive" (rather than economically vampiric) jobs: many aren't, some are: some that aren't are necessary, some that are aren't.
See what happens to the USPS when all monopoly privileges partial or total are eliminated: it will likely be crushed. And btw, I don't necessarily blame USPS: it doesn't have the backing of many investors, for instance, to push innovation, the politicians certainly aren't going to bring it, and its own workers would have fought it all the way. I do feel for them: I used to talk to an oddity of a human being who happened to be a mail man, and I worry what will happen to him outside the confines of such a regular, predictable, and merciful set of routines to follow for work (he will probably get alcohol poisoning, actually), but in pure economic terms, or terms of cost, benefits, and values added or gained, the USPS really can be outdone if the barriers are removed (and others aren't erected).
Take a peak here, http://postalemployeenetwork.com/news/2010/03/postal-or-federal-employee-pay/ The author justifies the postal wage by pointing-out that their pay is comparable to other federal workers (note earlier he tries to imply they are not, and the whole really makes no argument). But how is the job of walking door-to-door delivering mail, a very simple assignment, comparable to, say, a programmer, a nuclear auditor, a forensic accountant, a nuclear engineer or station monitor, a water quality analyst? I mean postal worker's pay per year is twice what I made doing heavy work that required a lot of skill, critical thinking, constant-retraining (equipment, tech in use, signalling, etc. was being evolved steadily), technical aptitude, AND customer management: if we fire them all tomorrow and half the work force, cut their benefits, and investigate what back-room deals were made, we could hire twice the force at just under half the cost per worker, or we could just re-hire the workers at half the cost and provide them all with decent healthcare (paying more than other public "servants" do percentage wise, comparable to the people they "serve"), and I would be a LOT of people who are unemployed right now would happily take the deal.
p.s., this source,http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/20/ameripac/conservative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/, indicates that substitutes for current incandescents that meet the requirements and use halogen are being produced. My fault for not reading your statement more closely, though the "if the effect..." still stands: of course, it appears it is not, so cool. : )
there is no "ban," it is a efficiency requirement that traditional incandescent bulbs do not fit.
I call bullshit. In legal terminology, "substance over form". If the effect of the legislation is known before and purposive to remove the incandescents from the markets, its a ban. Also a silly one given that our power grid is like many water systems: when people use less the prices just rise, and the excess is flushed somehow. There is little to no worthwhile competition and the established players WANT you to use more (this includes the bureaucrats in the truly public water districts, which I may or may not happen to know personally in several jurisdictions). Similarly, there are no savings, in general, when you mandate "water conservation" because of those things: given our power plants are mostly dumb ouputs...
But besides that you are correct. I will also add that with many small adjustments (and forcing more competition into markets for power) there could start to be savings in power consumption if the population remained static, but really it's may be a foolish goal made possible only be politicrats legislating an economy like that of the U.S. into the dirt. Power is largely like computer memory: saving it isn't worth it, and never will be, so long as the tech keeps advancing: something we should all start mocking the environuts for, that is, their ignorance: when you generate energy you shouldn't be seeking not to use it, but to put it to work (or you lose it), and with creative applications actual environmentally beneficial things could be done with the margin generated by many efficiency programs that are actually beneficially rather than generative of problems that people have to work around (e.g. like the damn dishwashers that came-out after compliance with water saving regulations meant most were useless); or saving water in metro areas and just re-filtering and re-using it rather than immediately passing it downstream, such that over time less water would actual be needed from lakes and rivers brought by rains each year.
Making more power is a GOOD thing, if used correctly: even when we speak of short-term problems like coal release, if the fruits of the burning are put to good use. : )
I just want to point-out that cows evolved to eat pretty much anything that exists on what we refer to as "grassland", which includes more than what we call "grass", and that corn is, essentially, just a super-growing form of grass: the stalk may or may not be edible to cows anymore, but the kernels are just something like wheat-on-steroids (very imperfect analogy, I know). Why in the world are you worried about cows' sakes eating corn when they are being fed sweets like this?
Besides, your thinking is silly: they are bred and raised so that people can consume them: I can't see how that will turn out well for them...The part you and I have to be concerned with is the physiological (i.e. chemical) effects on the meat, and that means many more factors than merely their diets. The diet is just something easy to observe and handle, but I could eat donuts and coffee, and just a little else for protein and nutrients, and be more than fine as long as I moved enough to force the body to use it all well.
Speak for yourself, or for normals: when I go on an exercise binge I eat huge amounts of carbs and beef; I also do some things those two "bad" food words would lead you not to expect: I will wake up and eat ordinary oatmeal, maybe a hard-boiled egg, and a bowl of...mixed veggies, for instance. But if you are running for hours per day, lifting tons of weights, running some more, swimming, running some more, not only do you want a lot of that "unnecessary" and "harmful" beef and similar foods, but you want it in even larger volumes than the average fatso American eats. If the average American did approximately what is necessary to maintain good heart health, about 45 minutes of strenuous aerobic exercise a day, another 40 or so of running (which after a point isn't aerobic anymore), perhaps the quantities of flesh stuffed in their pie holes wouldn't be of concern: that steak might be about right for their healing requirements. Of course, you are right about people doing better by adding to foods: I have a Chinese roommate who stir fries a lot, and you can eat that stuff every meal. She'll make about five or six different stir fries at a time, and even with all that oil, eaten with the running/exercise regime and with plenty of veggies included, it would likely be far better than the average diet, AND you can cut-up that nightly steak and distribute it throughout the day. (Note "stir fry" here is used for more than a few tiny carrots, some broccoli, onions, peppers, mushrooms, + rice, as you would buy in a Chinese restaurant.) In fact, thanks for the great idea: now switching from excessively meaty stews to excessively meaty stir-fries. ;D
p.s. if you are beyond a certain point in development, in decent health, exercise plenty, etc., then I don't know if you should worry TOO much about non-organic meat: perhaps the antibiotics are no good: my background is bio so I would prefer they use less antibiotis on cows (even none, actually) and such too, but the various non-organic methods used in farming and ranching today were all developed not just to keep crops and animals alive, but also prevent problems and contaminations that harm PEOPLE when they eat those products: so they introduce evils for those who consume them, but lesser evils than what came before.
Over time I would expect, so long as there are diligent, careful, pride-of-work types innovating, more holistic, intelligent, surgical implementors of these techniques mixed and substituted by/for other methods found to be as effective, better, or more suitable depending on conditions and need. And when they show it to be economically worthwhile and profitable as those alterations are developed, others will adopt them...unless you keep permitting the politicians and their buyers to permit and uphold idea and method patents.
Honestly, I think there's just a bunch of old timers that just object to everything that isn't GNOME 2 or KDE 3. To them that was the high point in desktop environments.
Perhaps for non-trivial use-cases, where the Desktop Environment was highly configurable/adaptable for thousands of use cases and combinations for preference, and extremely functional with well-though-out features that accumulated over time, they were.
Take XFCE. I use it because it's light: I use Linux where I can because I don't have to wait on the OS for basic tasks when I don't want to buy uber-dooper-super-stupid high-end hardware when we should be able to compute just fine on anything from the last five years. Yet well-considered Gnome features like CTRL+L to move the cursor to the url/address bar, or tabs in the file manager--basics on Open Source and alternative (to Win Explorer) file managers for years, just aren't present: actually, thousands of nifty things which, in DEs that weren't necessarily light, but also weren't nearly as heavy as their modern, less-functional successors, are missing from the otherwise excellent XFCE (which is too young and...which the coders apparently re-write every version).
A big part of MS's success has been that they don't re-invent the wheel to make it easier on their programmers: if it works, they evolve it slowly [enough], and leave things in place needed by programmers of software for their platform, rather than coders of the platform. That is why Linux on the desktop hasn't happened where it is easier to buy with Windows: if the software was available I could sell twenty people on Linux tomorrow, but companies know better than to trust the open source community IN GENERAL. (That is, an individual involved in open source may be hirable, but they're going to check carefully first: and yes, big execs have told me this in person--not stupid, inconsiderate ones who just follow fads, either).
Of course it's different if service is your revenue generator. Then, breaking **** is a very good idea; whether it's actually broken, or it's just that putting-together a solution is hard enough that the expertise of those who made the software is also needed to make it work as desired. That's why this stuff is no problem to Google, IBM, etc.: that's their model. Making Linux viable is not hard: it's just the legal threats that are a problem, and the technical stuff is simply a matter of choosing most-functional/efficient-enough. I convert people to Linux so they can avoid antivirus and firewall costs (no longer a prob with MSSE) and their less-than-stellar computers pausing too much even for simple tasks (still a very big problem with the massively over-coded Windows), and once it is set-up and locked-down (including updates, which can't install without me), they love it: even getting games working on Wine, though at times a PITA, tends to result in better performance due to the greater speed and efficiency of the kernel.
BUT it's not a platform--at all--in the sense of something that is relatively reliably the same system wherever found; it's not an ecosystem of software that outsiders have confidence in: Canonical had the biggest opportunity due to mindshare, but blew it years ago, and keep blowing it. MINT actually seems, despite having one guy, to now be doing it somewhat better EVEN WHEN THEY CHANGE EVERYTHING--BECAUSE THEY GO FOR BEST TEACH/DESIRES OF USERS, NOT THE DEVS! And the XFCE dev/s are a close second if not in the running for first or even slightly ahead. But Ubuntu...no, maybe attractive for enterprise but not the home.
When I was perhaps just 14 I stumbled in to using Linux, and realized the huge edge and potential in Linux for undermining commercial alternatives by its ability to keep perfectly good hardware up-and-running: I had an old machine and I soon learned how to set-up streaming servers and have multiple inbound connections all connecting to a low-end, old, home computer that was encoding and transmitting one file to another format...