Yes, but to get people to use the Linux in preference to Windows, you need both! That's the point!
People like to tell stories about how MS persists because of FUD and monopoly tactics. In reality, the reason is that they're doing all the legwork that the Linux community doesn't want to do. Making software noticabely to the average consumer adds value. Getting hardware makers to write the necessary drivers adds value. Since the Linux community doesn't see the importance of that, they'll forever be perplexed about why Linux doesn't catch on among home users.
Not to miss the point or anything, but RMS's position isn't anything analagous to anti-whaling. The anti-whaler would just say, "Get another job." However, RMS is saying something more like:
"Whaling is great!!! Hunt whales as much as you can! But if you're part of a whaling crew, never demand a share of the proceeds from selling the whale!" [whalers were normally compensated in terms of a fractional share of the sales]
Programmers want to know how to make it their *job*, rather than just a hobby they pursue at their own expense. If they can't make money from programming *as a job*, they'll do something else, bringing less-experienced work to the hobby stuff they do contribute.
You mean, glad you could obfuscate things with straw men and false dichotomies? Really? No one's ever criticized me for steadfastly lighting a small apartment with incandescents, while themselves having a bigger house with CFLs? You sure you want to go with that one?
Yes, there are supposed environmentalists who are hypocritical in their actions. Hypocrisy isn't what bothers me here. What bothers me is policies that impose huge inconveniences for little benefit, instead of policies with greater benefit and less inconvenience, advocated because of ignorance of economics.
That does not mean that, externialities removed, they make the decision that increases their impact. Not that it matters, but compared to me, they're probably worse, despite the fact that I don't consciously try to reduce my impact. The median American environmentalist probably:
-Uses more electricity than me -Takes up more living space than me -Heats their home for most of winter -Has a greater presence among parkland and wildlife, and -Burns more gasoline
If someone is going to own a mansion regardless,... Even if you live in a small apartment... Regardless of distances driven,... Yes, but what you neglect is that the decisions to use more living space, or to drive more also have impacts on the environment. You should be concerned is with someone's net total impact, not whether they do this or that wasteful activity efficiently, and the penalty should be proportional to that total impact, rather than dependent on whether it hits a minefield of bans.
There is already such a policy: it's called a carbon tax. The "problem" of course, is that it allows people to pick the least inconvenient method, or simply pay for a pollution sink. Since it's easy to adapt to, it's DOA.
Why do you take someone's "need" to live in a mansion or drive X miles at face value, but not my need to use incandescents? Because when it comes to justifying control over other people, any arrow is good enough for your quiver.
You mistakenly assume that the Hummer driver only drives it once a year No, I correctly assume that most environmentalists' preferred policies would impose a greater penalty on someone who drove a Hummer once per year (since it would probably be banned), than on someone who unnecessarily drove a prius 100 miles per week, despite the formers lesser environmental impact.
Didn't you get the memo? In modern terminology, "eco-friendly" means being wasteful in the most efficient way possible.
Driving a Hummer once per year --> terrorist. Driving a Prius 100 miles each weekend to bounce between parties --> eco-friendly.
Lighting up a tiny studio apartment with incandescent bulbs --> terrorist. Lighting up a mansion full of empty rooms with CFLs --> eco-friendly.
Running non-eco-friendly computer 8 hrs per day --> terrorist. Running eco-friendly computer non-stop --> eco-friendly.
Suggesting alternate method to contain global warming that requires little effort from most people --> terrorist. Requiring everyone to adhere to a set of rules banning devices deemed inefficient --> eco-friendly.
Yeah, I know what you mean. For example, when I download a large file in Firefox, it basically freezes FF for something like 30 seconds before downloading. With IE it peacefully downloads in the background without slowing the browser.
Yeah, and why doesn't everyone cook their own food, since it's cheaper? And why doesn't everyone build their own house, since it's cheaper? And why doesn't everyone buy a used car, since it's cheaper? And why doesn't everyone use fluorescent lighting, since it's cheaper?
And why does anyone bother trying to whack computer geeks with a clue stick, since it's cheaper not to?
Well, if the Linux community had the first clue about how to market Linux to the average mouthbreather, someone would have probably jumped on this opportunity and gotten them to use a Linux distro instead.
Yeah, griping about telemarketers was a national pasttime (sp) long before '03 -- I personally remember it in the 80s, and I'm sure it was big even before that. And then when they passed the law, they exempted politicians and, for all practical purposes, any business that I have ever communicatd with (ongoing business relationship!). So yeah -- not very swift.
Btw, I just love when the presidents of these marketing associations gripe when someone posts their contact information... as if it's a violation of their rights to get all these calls!
This is EXACTLY like how the Ubuntu forums handle problems.
"Hi, I had GRUB error 25 at stage 1.5." "OH! I know! You need to re-install!" "Oh, I know! You must not have the latest version!" "Oh, I know, it must be the Windows OS that never had a chance to load!" "Oh, I know, it must be your faulty hard drive!" "Oh, I know, the CD didn't download properly!" "Oh, I know! The CD didn't burn properly!" "Oh, I know, you must have cluelessly manipulated some ultra-advanced options without knowing what you were doing!" "Oh, I know, you're using a pirated version of Windows!" "Oh, I know, you're making this all up to make Linux look bad!" "Oh, I know, you're making this all up because it's logically impossible to have downloaded the install CD, and yet not have access to a working CD burner."
Yes, but doesn't walking on water introduce a huge inefficiency in itself? From what I remember, the reason that this lizard can walk on water is because of the surface tension, combined with the fact that it weighs so little. Surface tension can only support so much! So yes, you'd be more efficient in one respect, but you'd have to make the robots really small, limiting what they can do.
Isn't there necessarily a question that they *can* answer, though?
"Have you been given a court order to let police spyware in?" --> Must say no because of a gag order. "Have you ever been in a position where the law required you to lie about questions related to your spyware activities?" --> ???
Yeah, but so far it sound like it's just remote controlled robots. I thought to be a true robot, it has to be autonomous? Regardless of the definitional issue, can't they just be defeated by jamming their transmissions? (In fact, I've wondered the same thing about BattleBots. Why not design a robot combatant that has an automated combat algorithm that it performs, all while jamming all radio transmissions and thus disabling the other robot?)
I know I'll get modded down, but I'm legally obligated to say this:
I'm sorry but that's completely unacceptable. This entire idea is completely stupid.... Like you said: if a WAP tanks during a test, all of you are borked. Yeah, and if GRUB has the tiniest error, you're locked out of all operating systems. Might not want to HIGHLY RECOMMEND it on install of a dual boot OS without warning the user of the consequences and alternatives.
Hey -- maybe they had some Ubuntu programmers working on this!
Do you think that at the turn of the century, when this campaign was launched and about 10% of people owned their own homes, that women really wanted men to waste two months salary on a ring?
Yes, yes I do. There's a severe social desirability bias in asking a question like that. Few women will admit that a status symbol is more important to them than their long term financial well-being. Looking at how they actually spend their own time and money (i.e. shopping into debt) and how much they like comparing their rock to their friends', says otherwise.
I gave you an example of reading too much into a survey with a severe social desirability bias. It was not a strawman because I was not attacking that as if it were your position, or saying it *was* your position, just that it was a smiliar claim with the same oversight.
Women *do* like surprises. You wouldn't think I'd have to explain this to the "loverevolutionary", but apparently I do.
You come across as a non-rigorous conspiracy theorist, as usual.
Right: and today spun learns that what women (and men) say they want, is not the same thing as what they really want.
Let me guess: next you're going to tell me that half of all voters are disenfranchised because election poll records show that only half as many people voted, as told survey takers they were going to vote.
I was thinking of a different kind of fix. For example, every time an object "hears" someone, they get a message, "Object XYZ, owned by $Person, has detected your speech and may be passing it on to someone. To see this object, type _____. To turn off these notifications, type ____."
Or, conversely, make it so objects can't hear people until they opt in.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but to get people to use the Linux in preference to Windows, you need both! That's the point!
People like to tell stories about how MS persists because of FUD and monopoly tactics. In reality, the reason is that they're doing all the legwork that the Linux community doesn't want to do. Making software noticabely to the average consumer adds value. Getting hardware makers to write the necessary drivers adds value. Since the Linux community doesn't see the importance of that, they'll forever be perplexed about why Linux doesn't catch on among home users.
Not to miss the point or anything, but RMS's position isn't anything analagous to anti-whaling. The anti-whaler would just say, "Get another job." However, RMS is saying something more like:
"Whaling is great!!! Hunt whales as much as you can! But if you're part of a whaling crew, never demand a share of the proceeds from selling the whale!" [whalers were normally compensated in terms of a fractional share of the sales]
Programmers want to know how to make it their *job*, rather than just a hobby they pursue at their own expense. If they can't make money from programming *as a job*, they'll do something else, bringing less-experienced work to the hobby stuff they do contribute.
LOL look at this:
u s.cgi?05
http://games.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/cgi-bin/stat
Someone put:
Spectator comments about this game:
Hitler: This kind of reminds me of Poland, in '39.
Well, based on the tone, it probably just means he's leaving AOL. So I believe it ;-)
-Uses more electricity than me
-Takes up more living space than me
-Heats their home for most of winter
-Has a greater presence among parkland and wildlife, and
-Burns more gasoline If someone is going to own a mansion regardless,
There is already such a policy: it's called a carbon tax. The "problem" of course, is that it allows people to pick the least inconvenient method, or simply pay for a pollution sink. Since it's easy to adapt to, it's DOA.
Why do you take someone's "need" to live in a mansion or drive X miles at face value, but not my need to use incandescents? Because when it comes to justifying control over other people, any arrow is good enough for your quiver. You mistakenly assume that the Hummer driver only drives it once a year No, I correctly assume that most environmentalists' preferred policies would impose a greater penalty on someone who drove a Hummer once per year (since it would probably be banned), than on someone who unnecessarily drove a prius 100 miles per week, despite the formers lesser environmental impact.
Wow, someone actually made a design decision that resulted in any user not actively maintaining a subsystem gets significant slowdown?
Didn't you get the memo? In modern terminology, "eco-friendly" means being wasteful in the most efficient way possible.
Driving a Hummer once per year --> terrorist.
Driving a Prius 100 miles each weekend to bounce between parties --> eco-friendly.
Lighting up a tiny studio apartment with incandescent bulbs --> terrorist.
Lighting up a mansion full of empty rooms with CFLs --> eco-friendly.
Running non-eco-friendly computer 8 hrs per day --> terrorist.
Running eco-friendly computer non-stop --> eco-friendly.
Suggesting alternate method to contain global warming that requires little effort from most people --> terrorist.
Requiring everyone to adhere to a set of rules banning devices deemed inefficient --> eco-friendly.
Glad I could clear that up.
Yeah, I know what you mean. For example, when I download a large file in Firefox, it basically freezes FF for something like 30 seconds before downloading. With IE it peacefully downloads in the background without slowing the browser.
Yes, the problem with your post was that you don't seem to understand what a "better deal" means to the average consumer -- who is not like you.
Yeah, and why doesn't everyone cook their own food, since it's cheaper? And why doesn't everyone build their own house, since it's cheaper? And why doesn't everyone buy a used car, since it's cheaper? And why doesn't everyone use fluorescent lighting, since it's cheaper?
And why does anyone bother trying to whack computer geeks with a clue stick, since it's cheaper not to?
Well, if the Linux community had the first clue about how to market Linux to the average mouthbreather, someone would have probably jumped on this opportunity and gotten them to use a Linux distro instead.
Exactly. Why do Linux users have such a hard time understanding that MOST CONSUMERS ARE NOT LIKE THEM ?
That's gross, I can't imagine anyone who'd want makeup to come across their lips.
Yeah, griping about telemarketers was a national pasttime (sp) long before '03 -- I personally remember it in the 80s, and I'm sure it was big even before that. And then when they passed the law, they exempted politicians and, for all practical purposes, any business that I have ever communicatd with (ongoing business relationship!). So yeah -- not very swift.
... as if it's a violation of their rights to get all these calls!
Btw, I just love when the presidents of these marketing associations gripe when someone posts their contact information
This is EXACTLY like how the Ubuntu forums handle problems.
"Hi, I had GRUB error 25 at stage 1.5."
"OH! I know! You need to re-install!" "Oh, I know! You must not have the latest version!" "Oh, I know, it must be the Windows OS that never had a chance to load!" "Oh, I know, it must be your faulty hard drive!" "Oh, I know, the CD didn't download properly!" "Oh, I know! The CD didn't burn properly!" "Oh, I know, you must have cluelessly manipulated some ultra-advanced options without knowing what you were doing!" "Oh, I know, you're using a pirated version of Windows!" "Oh, I know, you're making this all up to make Linux look bad!" "Oh, I know, you're making this all up because it's logically impossible to have downloaded the install CD, and yet not have access to a working CD burner."
Full details plus link to car analagy.
I'll probably hit neutral or negative today. I don't care. It's the truth.
Yes, but doesn't walking on water introduce a huge inefficiency in itself? From what I remember, the reason that this lizard can walk on water is because of the surface tension, combined with the fact that it weighs so little. Surface tension can only support so much! So yes, you'd be more efficient in one respect, but you'd have to make the robots really small, limiting what they can do.
Isn't there necessarily a question that they *can* answer, though?
"Have you been given a court order to let police spyware in?" --> Must say no because of a gag order.
"Have you ever been in a position where the law required you to lie about questions related to your spyware activities?" --> ???
Good idea -- buy from the ones clever enough to lie about whether they'll let police spyware in.
Or just use an open source solution.
Yeah, but so far it sound like it's just remote controlled robots. I thought to be a true robot, it has to be autonomous? Regardless of the definitional issue, can't they just be defeated by jamming their transmissions? (In fact, I've wondered the same thing about BattleBots. Why not design a robot combatant that has an automated combat algorithm that it performs, all while jamming all radio transmissions and thus disabling the other robot?)
If you're from the future, please mod that informative if it's true. Thanks.
-U/D
I work for the Michael Pachter games industry, you insensitive clod!
Hey -- maybe they had some Ubuntu programmers working on this!
Do you think that at the turn of the century, when this campaign was launched and about 10% of people owned their own homes, that women really wanted men to waste two months salary on a ring?
Yes, yes I do. There's a severe social desirability bias in asking a question like that. Few women will admit that a status symbol is more important to them than their long term financial well-being. Looking at how they actually spend their own time and money (i.e. shopping into debt) and how much they like comparing their rock to their friends', says otherwise.
I gave you an example of reading too much into a survey with a severe social desirability bias. It was not a strawman because I was not attacking that as if it were your position, or saying it *was* your position, just that it was a smiliar claim with the same oversight.
Women *do* like surprises. You wouldn't think I'd have to explain this to the "loverevolutionary", but apparently I do.
You come across as a non-rigorous conspiracy theorist, as usual.
Right: and today spun learns that what women (and men) say they want, is not the same thing as what they really want.
Let me guess: next you're going to tell me that half of all voters are disenfranchised because election poll records show that only half as many people voted, as told survey takers they were going to vote.
I was thinking of a different kind of fix. For example, every time an object "hears" someone, they get a message, "Object XYZ, owned by $Person, has detected your speech and may be passing it on to someone. To see this object, type _____. To turn off these notifications, type ____."
Or, conversely, make it so objects can't hear people until they opt in.