Thanks for taking the time to field our questions, Dan.
Silicon Valley venture capitalists in the late 1990s turned their money and attentions to bear on creating dozens of companies that never had any hope of turning a profit.
From personal experience I've seen just how powerful VCs are in shaping the development of the IT market through their iron-grip control of individual startups.
Have you noticed any fundamental power shifts or changes in the way startup IT companies are being funded and created in the Valley over the past couple of years?
Remember, he's in the business of suing people, so be sure not to accuse the no-good, rat-bastard, slimy, underhanded, weaseling, gutless scumbag of doing anything improper.
except that this is a Slashdot article, not a job. In terms of overall personal relevance, I'd consider a job to be a *mite* more important.;-)
Besides, as I'm sure you know, my point wasn't that people who submit poor resumes are worthless. My point was that hiring managers have only a limited amount of time to go through a lot of resumes. Unfortunately, if you make errors on your resume, it is quite likely that your resume won't be seriously evaluated.
Keep in mind the purpose of a resume
on
Resume Tips For Jobs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
From the hiring party's point of view, a resume is a way of weeding out applicants. If you've ever hired before, you've likely come across this scenario:
You have 100 applicants for one position. You have limited time to sort through them all. So when you see a resume that has an error in it, or is three pages long, or doesn't speak specifically to the job you're hiring for, you can it immediately, with out even bothering to read it.
If a job applicant can't even take the time to tailor the resume to the job I'm offering them, then why should I bother reading it? If the applicant doesn't take the time to spellcheck something as critical as a job application, then they probably will miss other important details on the job. Sure, not everyone is a good speller. But everyone has the ability to correct their spelling.
If a resume has a generic objective statement, it's going in the circular file. Employers want to know that you've actually taken the time to show them in your resume how your goals and your skills match what the company is looking for. You don't have to lie or exaggerate, you just have to articulate your goals and skills in a way that they can understand, given their own organizational leanings.
One of the best things you can do is to have someone else read your resume. Have a friend who isn't afraid to be critical read it, checking for errors and overall flow. Writing is as much a skill as programming, and if you are a good writer, it's always helpful to have someone check your work.
Electronic methods are great for employers, because they allow for huge keyword-based searches. But the object here is to get your resume noticed, so that it gets read, so that you get called in for an interview. While the resume is a filtering tool for the hiring company, for you it's sole aim is to land you that critical first interview. From there, it's all about your opportunity to sell yourself, and the resume is practically meaningless.
So where possible, send a hard copy of your resume, along with a cover letter tailored exactly to the company you're attempting to get a job with. Research the company, show them that you're actually interested in what they're doing. This shows the hiring party that you don't just see this as another potential job out of 500 that you're applying for.
If you can't send hardcopy, try to use an electronic cover letter (depending on which online resume service you're using, you may or may not be able to do this). The cover letter is helpful because it is seen *before* the resume. In essence, it is your opportunity to intercede and present yourself as a valuable hire, before they even see your qualifications.
Finally, getting a job through want-ads, either online or off, is the worst way to get hired. It's all about connections - if you know someone at the company, even distantly, attempt to use that connection to obtain an informational interview first. Make a personal connection with someone in the department you'd like to be hired for, and your odds of bypassing the "needle in a haystack" hiring process are much higher.
as has been stated in the FAQ and by some posts in this discussion. But I really wonder why Stallman is so keen on calling attention to the fact that he contributed so much to the development of GNU/Linux.
Is it because he wants GNU to become a recognized ideology or name brand? Is he thinking that Ma and Pa consumer give a rat's ass about who is behind The Operating System That Will Take Over The World and Make It A Better Place?
Even if you lower your sights, and say that RMS is just interested in getting the techno-cognicenti to use the Approved Name, surely he must realize that his place in the geek pantheon has been assured? Think about it. Who in the general population knows who Doug Engelbart is? Not many people. Yet his place in the history of technology is assured. His name will be on people's lips a hundred years from now, as will Stallman's.
Saying that people should call it GNU/Linux simply because it's the "right thing to do" is naiive in the extreme. I'm reminded of the ads the good folks at Xerox put in magazines a few years ago, telling us all that we shouldn't use the term "Xerox" when referring to photocopying. "Excuse me, I have to make a photocopy of this document. I am using a Canon copier, rather than a Xerox copying device. Therefore I'm making it absolutely clear, so that you won't mistakenly assume that I'm using a high-quality Xerox product, instead of the crappy Canon product I really am using."
I appreciate your work, Mr. Stallman. I appreciate that you have a political agenda as well, and since you put in the years and years of work necessary to bring all of these great GNU tools to the world, I have no qualms about you spouting your views on software licensing or whatever else you want to spout off about.
But if you really want to make friends and influence people - if you really want to make the GNU "philosophy" stick - why don't you stop trying the sledgehammer approach? Get a real mascot that can play alongside the Linux Penguin. Come up with a "Certified GNU" seal of approval. Get friendly. Go guerilla. Subvert the system from within. People simply respond better to honey.
Either way, even if you don't ever convince anyone to use the term GNU/Linux, your place in history is assured. Your years of work have paid off. You've started something great, but you can't control it. Such is the Law of Unintended Consequences. Accept it, and you may find that paradoxically, people will start giving you and the FSF more credit.
I'd be happy seeing Bluetooth on simple things like cell phones and printers and keyboards. Having Bluetooth on steroids would be nice and all, but let's get it on regular ol' devices first, ok?
Some people, self included, simply grok things better when they have a book on the desk. Personally, I hate shifting back and forth between the code I'm trying to write, and online documentation. I don't have acres of screen real estate, and I find that it's easier to read a book for long stretches of text anyway.
I can read a book while I'm sitting on the back balcony, in a relaxed position away from any keyboards (yes, some Slashdot readers do step away from the computing devices from time to time). I can very easily annotate the book with this thing called a highlighter. I can even make notes in it with a special "pen" device.
Don't give me the expense argument either. Forty or fifty bucks for a good computer book is like an investment in your future employability. For most of us, this book will cost less than we'll bill for an hour or two of work.
If you don't like computer reference books, that's fine, but realize that for some of us, they're quite handy and worth the money.
I've always enjoyed using SuSE, and I get the feeling that in Germany people are less interested in how computers are marketed, and more interested in getting things done with them.
I sincerely hope that Germany continues to forge ahead with Linux, and that the rest of Europe follows suit. It would be a helpful wake-up call for the US if Europe showed the US government and big corporations that they don't need to be beholden to the Beast of Redmond.
"If you have used Linux at any time in the past two years...".
Perhaps you missed the part in my original post where I noted that I was talking about the perceptions of normal, non-geek computer users.
We're not talking about the capabilities of Linux as a desktop system, we're talking about how normal consumers perceive Linux desktop possibilities.
While I completely understand that using KDE or Gnome, I can run desktop apps to my heart's content without ever having to go to the command line, I'm not representative of a normal, non-geek computer user. I'd hazard to guess that you don't represent that demographic either.
Are there any websites for "home users" of Linux? Are there any "Linux Home" magazines? Do most Linux user groups consist of a cross-section of people you might find at the local mall? If you sat on the post office steps in your local town and asked any ten random entrants whether they knew what Linux was, how many would give you an affirmative answer?
"Have you ever seen a regular person install Windows?"
Actually I have seen a lot of people struggle through the process of upgrading Windows. But the vast majority of Windows users don't have to install Windows because it's already installed on their machines.
How many PCs are sold for consumers with Linux pre-installed?
I think you're equating my discussion about the perceptions of normal computer users as some sort of attack on Linux, which I'm not. The public at large simply doesn't care about "better" computer solutions. They simply use what they're told to use.
The parent comment is quite insightful, imho. I know people who ABSOLUTELY HATE Microsoft, but when I ask them, "Why don't you use Linux?" they tell me, "Uh, look, I hate Microsoft, but I don't know the first thing about command lines."
I'd love to hear from someone at a company other than the Burlington Coat Factory, from a department other than IT, who is using Linux.
I simply find it hard to believe that there are more Linux desktop users than Mac desktop users. For one thing, what are all those supposed Linux desktop users *doing* with their machines. I'm not saying this as flame bait, but while I love Linux for server and development work, most people simply equate Linux with "geek stuff".
It's hard enough to get most users to even entertain the notion of converting to the Mac, and that is an OS that runs plenty of Microsoft software, is oriented squarely at consumers, and has a reputation for being easy to use.
In any event, I don't buy the argument that Linux and Mac OS X are enemies. To me, they're part of an array of options to Microsoft, and in my book, options are good.
Would US public back intervention in Taiwan?
on
Upcoming Cyberwars
·
· Score: 2
China can either be a friend to the US or an enemy. I believe that as it gains more and more economic and military clout over the years, the tensions between American superpower dominance and Chinese desire to flex their power will become more and more apparent.
American policymakers and pretty much everyone else in the realm of international affairs understands that these tensions will continue to surface. The real issue is how the US and China will handle those tensions.
If China were to hit Taiwain, it would not be in the same category as war in the Israeli-occupied areas or Russian adventures in Chechnya. Those issues are of interest to the US, but are not as pressing, because in neither case is the future security of East Asia being called into doubt.
American foreign policy is becoming more and more oriented around containment of China and protection of the Far East. A prosperous free market regional economy is extremely important to the US, and by allowing China to disrupt it at will, the US would be opening the door to further disruptions later.
The domestic faction in the US that you speak of would likely be opposed to a huge, manpower-intensive war over Taiwan, but it would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue that China's annexation of Taiwan would be anything but an invasion of a neighboring country.
The American public has been fed a diet of "Rising China" stories over the past few years by the media, and my guess is they would be strongly in favor of attacking Chinese forces taking part in any such invasion.
Re:Wrong - China can't get away with it
on
Upcoming Cyberwars
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I agree that using nukes would be unwise, and I doubt that the US would ever have either cause or compunction to use them in defense of Taiwan. As you note, China's military infrastructure is in most aspects rather antiquated. Their unsophisticated C3I capabilities in particular would make them extremely vulnerable as they massed in the attack.
I'm not sure what you mean about the Russians sitting idly by (or not sitting idly by). Remember that their relationship with China over the years has been anything but smooth, and from a geopolitical point of view, they're natural competitors for the bulk of the Asian land mass. Are you implying that if China and the US engaged in a nuclear exchange, China would bring their own nukes into the fray?
Wrong - China can't get away with it
on
Upcoming Cyberwars
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
China will not risk nuclear war with the United States over Taiwan. While China does have nukes, their reliability is untested, their accuracy is questionable, and their arsenal is a small sliver of what the US has. Would they risk getting wiped off the face of the earth in a nuke exchange with the US, when they wouldn't have the capability to completely disable the US? No.
Would the US intervene if China invaded Taiwan? Absolutely. The intervention might not take the form of massive troop deployments, but you could certainly expect massive air and sea-based theater weapons such as cruise missiles, fuel-air bombs, and the like to be brought to bear on massed Chinese forces.
Whether China could defeat Taiwan is certainly open for debate, but the US would not sit idly by and let China launch an unprovoked attack without doing something about it. For the US not to do so would be tantamount to approving of the invasion, which is ludicrous to imagine.
Good points. I'd still say that in general, revenue-sharing leads to a more level playing field. Of course, skilled management and coaching can negate a lot of disadvantages as you pointed out.
Maybe there's more to it with football. I wonder if there are other factors in the NFL that simply make it more difficult to maintain a dynasty. For example, the number of games in a season is far less than either basketball or baseball. Someone somewhere has probably devoted a lot of time and energy to figuring out why the NFL is more competitive than MLB (if in fact, it statistically is more competitive - it could just be my perception).
Pretty soon, we won't have to get up at all. With remote controls for everything, nothing will interrupt our media consumption!
We can get our exercise by playing first-person shooters, and if someone could only invent a really *good* in-sofa bodywashing system, I'm thinking there wouldn't be any real reason for any of us to put feet on the carpet at all.
Oh, there is the whole "bodily needs" issue, but we've already got good online porn, so who needs the real thing. That leaves us with expulsion of bodily wastes. Anyone know of a high-quality integrated sofa-crapper unit?
Not only does the NFL recognize the value of fans much more then MLB does, the NFL also has a system of revenue-sharing that makes pro football much more interesting to watch from season to season.
I love baseball, but MLB has consistently refused to get with the program and shake up the paradigm that they built decades ago. When's the last time the Yankees weren't a contender? When's the last time the Dodgers were so bad that nobody could seriously give them any hope of winning their division? Since Turner came along, Atlanta has always been in the running, season after season. The big market teams have huge amounts of money to lavish on the top players, the little guys don't. It's that simple.
Look at the NFL, on the other hand. In the last few years in particular, every season has been exciting, because it's anyone's guess as to which teams will be the most powerful. There are dynasties in football, but they're nothing like the dynasties in baseball. The Cowboys of the 70s, the 49ers of the 90s, sure. But compare that to the Yankees of the 20th Century, and you see that competition is alive and well in the NFL, but not in MLB.
Universities operate in a marketplace. They recognize that students are free to choose from any number of competitors. So they attempt, however slowly and clumsily, to offer degrees that fit the needs and in some cases the demands, of students.
I'm not a real proponent of specialized degrees, but the world is becoming a very specialized place. I'd also argue it's also getting tougher and tougher to make a living as a generalist, whether coming from a technical or liberal arts background.
Maybe we ought to take notice of why Auburn offered this degree, and the forces behind it, instead of just running up the, "Back in my day, we all got EE degrees and boy were we thankful!" flag.
Just my two cents. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. After all, I was an International Relations major, so what the fsck do I know about technical degrees?
This is one way Apple can align themselves more closely with users of other *NIX OSes. By helping to improve easier connectivity between various non-MS OSes, Apple is essentially saying: "Look, you can now easily hook into a Windows network on a Mac. But, you can do even more if you're using a network with OS X, Linux, BSD, et. al."
From Apple's point of view, anything that puts Microsoft outside a large pool of functionality is good. Essentially, it's an attempt to conduct a reverse embrace and extend. Take something that was already there, improve it, then give it back.
Apple isn't doing this out of selfless motives. But the fact is, they're doing it. Pretty cool indeed. I've been using 10.2 since the public release, and I'm impressed by Rendezvous, and I can't wait to use it with Linux as well.
The first school district I ever did volunteer work at was in fact Pittsburgh. I was working at a local nonprofit that ran an education-related program in East Liberty. The principal was dynamite - this woman kicked serious butt and got things done. But any time the district got involved, it was a nightmare. Basically we did everything with the school and tried to end-run around the district wherever possible.
I agree with your comments about tiny schools being kept open due to political pressure. Part of the problem there is that schools are these vast, immovable fortresses that have so much sunk cost that nobody wants to "abandon" them to other uses. One of the great things about charter schools is that many of them use extant facilities that have been converted for use as schools, but can be easily re-converted to other purposes if the school shifts location.
1) Teachers suffer from low pay and low respect in most of the country. I blame much of this on the power of the NEA, which is a classic example of a bureaucracy that exists to perpetuate its own existence. If the NEA advocated in favor of more rigorous screening, performance reviews, and salaries based not on seniority but on parent reviews, student reviews, peer reviews, and testing performance, teachers might have a chance. But as it is, the NEA aggressively fights to "protect" teachers. Of course all this does is perpetuate stereotypes about teachers being slackers who want to work 9 months out of the year. Try being a full-time teacher in the US without also being a member of the NEA - it doesn't happen.
2) District-based funding, coupled with per-seat attendance rules mean that schooling is about cramming as many students into the classrooms as possible. School districts, be they rural or urban, rich or poor, almost always suffer from bloated bureaucratic structures and mismanagement. An atmosphere of entitlement ("We dedicate our lives to helping children, so you can forgive our mistakes") permeates these organizations. This of course stems from antiquated concepts of tenure and lifetime employment in the education system. Hell, even the US Government doesn't offer the kind of guaranteed work for life contract that most school districts provide.
3) Ultimately, American K-12 education is more about socialization and keeping children out of trouble than it is about truly educating them. Because family structures have fallen apart, teachers are expected to be caretakers first, and educators second. How on earth can teachers focus on using technology effectively when they barely even get the opportunity to teach?
I've done technology volunteer work for schools in places all over the country, and one consistent trend I see is that charter schools make far better use of the money they have, and leverage technology better than traditional public schools. Too many Americans are content with the status quo, because they figure the NEA and the national political parties know best. They're afraid of changing the system for fear of ruining American K-12 education. The thing is, it's already screwed up, and the time for change is now.
I appreciate your tips. I'll use them. Certainly there will be another rev of this obnoxious document from Hell. I should be able to knock an hour off it just using the Annihilate Auto-Fuck-Up tip you provided.
I literally just got done this evening working on a 53-page documentation project for a client. It had complex formatting with lots of Photoshop graphics, but rather than allow me to use InDesign, they insisted on Word, because it was... (drum roll) The Standard! I tried to explain that there's this thing called desktop publishing, but they wouldn't hear any of it.
So I suffered. Man, did I suffer. I cursed Word up and down as I spent 45 minutes trying to create a two-column, wrap-around index. Word tried to be "helpful" by automagically turning my page numbering into an ordered list. Yay! It did this about 97 times, even after I thought I'd cleared all the formatting. Clear it, reformat it, hit a carriage return or a backspace, or some other innocuous key, and BAM! there goes Word, helping you out, whether you want it or not.
I pined for WordPerfect. Oh, sure, you can reveal formatting in Word, but it's those non-text areas that jump up and MAUL YOUR ASS in Word. I hate Word with the intensity of a thousand white-hot suns. Word is evil. It is the best example I can find of a crappy product winning out over several really good ones (WordPerfect included). WordPerfect is smooth, it's reveal formatting makes formatting simple and straightforward, rather than making you resort to endless menu selections. it's not a page layout app either, but man would my life have been easier with it.
Oh, that reminds me! Tabs! I can't f*#$Y# stand how Word handles tabs. I mean, Jesus Christ, an app as simple as AppleWorks has more capable and far more intuitive handling of tabs. In Word, you have to actually open up a freakin' menu and delve into it in order to use numeric controls to format something you should just be able to format in the ruler bar, but can't because it's such a pain in the ass!
It's semantics. Depending on your interpretation of the word "monopoly", it can apply to either one company, or to a group of companies applying cartel practices.
But regardless of whether it is a monopoly or an oligopoly, or a basketball, the effect is still the same - it blows ass!
Of course we have the right to stop buying their crap, except that...
The music industry is an oligopoly. A handful of players control the market. I'm not really concerned about Sony's offering, per se. But if AOL/TimeWarner, et. al. start using the same technology, there isn't really much chance that "some other" company will come along and seize the opportunity, because there are no other companies.
Plus, if an artist is under Sony distribution, the only alternative means of distribution is P2P, which is under increasing attack both legal and technological, from the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley venture capitalists in the late 1990s turned their money and attentions to bear on creating dozens of companies that never had any hope of turning a profit.
From personal experience I've seen just how powerful VCs are in shaping the development of the IT market through their iron-grip control of individual startups.
Have you noticed any fundamental power shifts or changes in the way startup IT companies are being funded and created in the Valley over the past couple of years?
Besides, as I'm sure you know, my point wasn't that people who submit poor resumes are worthless. My point was that hiring managers have only a limited amount of time to go through a lot of resumes. Unfortunately, if you make errors on your resume, it is quite likely that your resume won't be seriously evaluated.
You have 100 applicants for one position. You have limited time to sort through them all. So when you see a resume that has an error in it, or is three pages long, or doesn't speak specifically to the job you're hiring for, you can it immediately, with out even bothering to read it.
If a job applicant can't even take the time to tailor the resume to the job I'm offering them, then why should I bother reading it? If the applicant doesn't take the time to spellcheck something as critical as a job application, then they probably will miss other important details on the job. Sure, not everyone is a good speller. But everyone has the ability to correct their spelling.
If a resume has a generic objective statement, it's going in the circular file. Employers want to know that you've actually taken the time to show them in your resume how your goals and your skills match what the company is looking for. You don't have to lie or exaggerate, you just have to articulate your goals and skills in a way that they can understand, given their own organizational leanings.
One of the best things you can do is to have someone else read your resume. Have a friend who isn't afraid to be critical read it, checking for errors and overall flow. Writing is as much a skill as programming, and if you are a good writer, it's always helpful to have someone check your work.
Electronic methods are great for employers, because they allow for huge keyword-based searches. But the object here is to get your resume noticed, so that it gets read, so that you get called in for an interview. While the resume is a filtering tool for the hiring company, for you it's sole aim is to land you that critical first interview. From there, it's all about your opportunity to sell yourself, and the resume is practically meaningless.
So where possible, send a hard copy of your resume, along with a cover letter tailored exactly to the company you're attempting to get a job with. Research the company, show them that you're actually interested in what they're doing. This shows the hiring party that you don't just see this as another potential job out of 500 that you're applying for.
If you can't send hardcopy, try to use an electronic cover letter (depending on which online resume service you're using, you may or may not be able to do this). The cover letter is helpful because it is seen *before* the resume. In essence, it is your opportunity to intercede and present yourself as a valuable hire, before they even see your qualifications.
Finally, getting a job through want-ads, either online or off, is the worst way to get hired. It's all about connections - if you know someone at the company, even distantly, attempt to use that connection to obtain an informational interview first. Make a personal connection with someone in the department you'd like to be hired for, and your odds of bypassing the "needle in a haystack" hiring process are much higher.
Is it because he wants GNU to become a recognized ideology or name brand? Is he thinking that Ma and Pa consumer give a rat's ass about who is behind The Operating System That Will Take Over The World and Make It A Better Place?
Even if you lower your sights, and say that RMS is just interested in getting the techno-cognicenti to use the Approved Name, surely he must realize that his place in the geek pantheon has been assured? Think about it. Who in the general population knows who Doug Engelbart is? Not many people. Yet his place in the history of technology is assured. His name will be on people's lips a hundred years from now, as will Stallman's.
Saying that people should call it GNU/Linux simply because it's the "right thing to do" is naiive in the extreme. I'm reminded of the ads the good folks at Xerox put in magazines a few years ago, telling us all that we shouldn't use the term "Xerox" when referring to photocopying. "Excuse me, I have to make a photocopy of this document. I am using a Canon copier, rather than a Xerox copying device. Therefore I'm making it absolutely clear, so that you won't mistakenly assume that I'm using a high-quality Xerox product, instead of the crappy Canon product I really am using."
I appreciate your work, Mr. Stallman. I appreciate that you have a political agenda as well, and since you put in the years and years of work necessary to bring all of these great GNU tools to the world, I have no qualms about you spouting your views on software licensing or whatever else you want to spout off about.
But if you really want to make friends and influence people - if you really want to make the GNU "philosophy" stick - why don't you stop trying the sledgehammer approach? Get a real mascot that can play alongside the Linux Penguin. Come up with a "Certified GNU" seal of approval. Get friendly. Go guerilla. Subvert the system from within. People simply respond better to honey.
Either way, even if you don't ever convince anyone to use the term GNU/Linux, your place in history is assured. Your years of work have paid off. You've started something great, but you can't control it. Such is the Law of Unintended Consequences. Accept it, and you may find that paradoxically, people will start giving you and the FSF more credit.
I can read a book while I'm sitting on the back balcony, in a relaxed position away from any keyboards (yes, some Slashdot readers do step away from the computing devices from time to time). I can very easily annotate the book with this thing called a highlighter. I can even make notes in it with a special "pen" device.
Don't give me the expense argument either. Forty or fifty bucks for a good computer book is like an investment in your future employability. For most of us, this book will cost less than we'll bill for an hour or two of work.
If you don't like computer reference books, that's fine, but realize that for some of us, they're quite handy and worth the money.
I've always enjoyed using SuSE, and I get the feeling that in Germany people are less interested in how computers are marketed, and more interested in getting things done with them.
I sincerely hope that Germany continues to forge ahead with Linux, and that the rest of Europe follows suit. It would be a helpful wake-up call for the US if Europe showed the US government and big corporations that they don't need to be beholden to the Beast of Redmond.
Thanks for sharing the info, Obertino.
Perhaps you missed the part in my original post where I noted that I was talking about the perceptions of normal, non-geek computer users.
We're not talking about the capabilities of Linux as a desktop system, we're talking about how normal consumers perceive Linux desktop possibilities.
While I completely understand that using KDE or Gnome, I can run desktop apps to my heart's content without ever having to go to the command line, I'm not representative of a normal, non-geek computer user. I'd hazard to guess that you don't represent that demographic either.
Are there any websites for "home users" of Linux? Are there any "Linux Home" magazines? Do most Linux user groups consist of a cross-section of people you might find at the local mall? If you sat on the post office steps in your local town and asked any ten random entrants whether they knew what Linux was, how many would give you an affirmative answer?
Actually I have seen a lot of people struggle through the process of upgrading Windows. But the vast majority of Windows users don't have to install Windows because it's already installed on their machines.
How many PCs are sold for consumers with Linux pre-installed?
I think you're equating my discussion about the perceptions of normal computer users as some sort of attack on Linux, which I'm not. The public at large simply doesn't care about "better" computer solutions. They simply use what they're told to use.
I'd love to hear from someone at a company other than the Burlington Coat Factory, from a department other than IT, who is using Linux.
I simply find it hard to believe that there are more Linux desktop users than Mac desktop users. For one thing, what are all those supposed Linux desktop users *doing* with their machines. I'm not saying this as flame bait, but while I love Linux for server and development work, most people simply equate Linux with "geek stuff".
It's hard enough to get most users to even entertain the notion of converting to the Mac, and that is an OS that runs plenty of Microsoft software, is oriented squarely at consumers, and has a reputation for being easy to use.
In any event, I don't buy the argument that Linux and Mac OS X are enemies. To me, they're part of an array of options to Microsoft, and in my book, options are good.
American policymakers and pretty much everyone else in the realm of international affairs understands that these tensions will continue to surface. The real issue is how the US and China will handle those tensions.
If China were to hit Taiwain, it would not be in the same category as war in the Israeli-occupied areas or Russian adventures in Chechnya. Those issues are of interest to the US, but are not as pressing, because in neither case is the future security of East Asia being called into doubt.
American foreign policy is becoming more and more oriented around containment of China and protection of the Far East. A prosperous free market regional economy is extremely important to the US, and by allowing China to disrupt it at will, the US would be opening the door to further disruptions later.
The domestic faction in the US that you speak of would likely be opposed to a huge, manpower-intensive war over Taiwan, but it would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue that China's annexation of Taiwan would be anything but an invasion of a neighboring country.
The American public has been fed a diet of "Rising China" stories over the past few years by the media, and my guess is they would be strongly in favor of attacking Chinese forces taking part in any such invasion.
I'm not sure what you mean about the Russians sitting idly by (or not sitting idly by). Remember that their relationship with China over the years has been anything but smooth, and from a geopolitical point of view, they're natural competitors for the bulk of the Asian land mass. Are you implying that if China and the US engaged in a nuclear exchange, China would bring their own nukes into the fray?
Would the US intervene if China invaded Taiwan? Absolutely. The intervention might not take the form of massive troop deployments, but you could certainly expect massive air and sea-based theater weapons such as cruise missiles, fuel-air bombs, and the like to be brought to bear on massed Chinese forces.
Whether China could defeat Taiwan is certainly open for debate, but the US would not sit idly by and let China launch an unprovoked attack without doing something about it. For the US not to do so would be tantamount to approving of the invasion, which is ludicrous to imagine.
Maybe there's more to it with football. I wonder if there are other factors in the NFL that simply make it more difficult to maintain a dynasty. For example, the number of games in a season is far less than either basketball or baseball. Someone somewhere has probably devoted a lot of time and energy to figuring out why the NFL is more competitive than MLB (if in fact, it statistically is more competitive - it could just be my perception).
We can get our exercise by playing first-person shooters, and if someone could only invent a really *good* in-sofa bodywashing system, I'm thinking there wouldn't be any real reason for any of us to put feet on the carpet at all.
Oh, there is the whole "bodily needs" issue, but we've already got good online porn, so who needs the real thing. That leaves us with expulsion of bodily wastes. Anyone know of a high-quality integrated sofa-crapper unit?
I love baseball, but MLB has consistently refused to get with the program and shake up the paradigm that they built decades ago. When's the last time the Yankees weren't a contender? When's the last time the Dodgers were so bad that nobody could seriously give them any hope of winning their division? Since Turner came along, Atlanta has always been in the running, season after season. The big market teams have huge amounts of money to lavish on the top players, the little guys don't. It's that simple.
Look at the NFL, on the other hand. In the last few years in particular, every season has been exciting, because it's anyone's guess as to which teams will be the most powerful. There are dynasties in football, but they're nothing like the dynasties in baseball. The Cowboys of the 70s, the 49ers of the 90s, sure. But compare that to the Yankees of the 20th Century, and you see that competition is alive and well in the NFL, but not in MLB.
I'm not a real proponent of specialized degrees, but the world is becoming a very specialized place. I'd also argue it's also getting tougher and tougher to make a living as a generalist, whether coming from a technical or liberal arts background.
Maybe we ought to take notice of why Auburn offered this degree, and the forces behind it, instead of just running up the, "Back in my day, we all got EE degrees and boy were we thankful!" flag.
Just my two cents. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. After all, I was an International Relations major, so what the fsck do I know about technical degrees?
From Apple's point of view, anything that puts Microsoft outside a large pool of functionality is good. Essentially, it's an attempt to conduct a reverse embrace and extend. Take something that was already there, improve it, then give it back.
Apple isn't doing this out of selfless motives. But the fact is, they're doing it. Pretty cool indeed. I've been using 10.2 since the public release, and I'm impressed by Rendezvous, and I can't wait to use it with Linux as well.
I agree with your comments about tiny schools being kept open due to political pressure. Part of the problem there is that schools are these vast, immovable fortresses that have so much sunk cost that nobody wants to "abandon" them to other uses. One of the great things about charter schools is that many of them use extant facilities that have been converted for use as schools, but can be easily re-converted to other purposes if the school shifts location.
1) Teachers suffer from low pay and low respect in most of the country. I blame much of this on the power of the NEA, which is a classic example of a bureaucracy that exists to perpetuate its own existence. If the NEA advocated in favor of more rigorous screening, performance reviews, and salaries based not on seniority but on parent reviews, student reviews, peer reviews, and testing performance, teachers might have a chance. But as it is, the NEA aggressively fights to "protect" teachers. Of course all this does is perpetuate stereotypes about teachers being slackers who want to work 9 months out of the year. Try being a full-time teacher in the US without also being a member of the NEA - it doesn't happen.
2) District-based funding, coupled with per-seat attendance rules mean that schooling is about cramming as many students into the classrooms as possible. School districts, be they rural or urban, rich or poor, almost always suffer from bloated bureaucratic structures and mismanagement. An atmosphere of entitlement ("We dedicate our lives to helping children, so you can forgive our mistakes") permeates these organizations. This of course stems from antiquated concepts of tenure and lifetime employment in the education system. Hell, even the US Government doesn't offer the kind of guaranteed work for life contract that most school districts provide.
3) Ultimately, American K-12 education is more about socialization and keeping children out of trouble than it is about truly educating them. Because family structures have fallen apart, teachers are expected to be caretakers first, and educators second. How on earth can teachers focus on using technology effectively when they barely even get the opportunity to teach?
I've done technology volunteer work for schools in places all over the country, and one consistent trend I see is that charter schools make far better use of the money they have, and leverage technology better than traditional public schools. Too many Americans are content with the status quo, because they figure the NEA and the national political parties know best. They're afraid of changing the system for fear of ruining American K-12 education. The thing is, it's already screwed up, and the time for change is now.
So I suffered. Man, did I suffer. I cursed Word up and down as I spent 45 minutes trying to create a two-column, wrap-around index. Word tried to be "helpful" by automagically turning my page numbering into an ordered list. Yay! It did this about 97 times, even after I thought I'd cleared all the formatting. Clear it, reformat it, hit a carriage return or a backspace, or some other innocuous key, and BAM! there goes Word, helping you out, whether you want it or not.
I pined for WordPerfect. Oh, sure, you can reveal formatting in Word, but it's those non-text areas that jump up and MAUL YOUR ASS in Word. I hate Word with the intensity of a thousand white-hot suns. Word is evil. It is the best example I can find of a crappy product winning out over several really good ones (WordPerfect included). WordPerfect is smooth, it's reveal formatting makes formatting simple and straightforward, rather than making you resort to endless menu selections. it's not a page layout app either, but man would my life have been easier with it.
Oh, that reminds me! Tabs! I can't f*#$Y# stand how Word handles tabs. I mean, Jesus Christ, an app as simple as AppleWorks has more capable and far more intuitive handling of tabs. In Word, you have to actually open up a freakin' menu and delve into it in order to use numeric controls to format something you should just be able to format in the ruler bar, but can't because it's such a pain in the ass!
And another thing...!
But regardless of whether it is a monopoly or an oligopoly, or a basketball, the effect is still the same - it blows ass!
The music industry is an oligopoly. A handful of players control the market. I'm not really concerned about Sony's offering, per se. But if AOL/TimeWarner, et. al. start using the same technology, there isn't really much chance that "some other" company will come along and seize the opportunity, because there are no other companies.
Plus, if an artist is under Sony distribution, the only alternative means of distribution is P2P, which is under increasing attack both legal and technological, from the RIAA.
This ain't a free market, boyo.