Windows piracy is one of the major factors keeping Linux down. Linux doesn't 'work out of the box' in the same way that Windows does, and it's always a bit disheartening to come up across a glitch which there is seemingly no solution for (I couldn't get Minecraft to stop crashing after I got a new ATI card for example) but most of these things would be tolerable if your copy of Windows was £99 (your local currency may vary).
However for a large chunk of the population readily available pirated copies of Windows 7 means that Windows is effectively free too, thus removing pretty much the only benefit that most people would see.
People still using XP are doing so because of legacy software? Likely to be businesses which have some tech minded people behind them.
Most savvy home users have moved onto Windows 7, as Vista was a pile of shit. Those left using Vista are the Moms who send emails full of cats.
'Microsoft Windows is really so much harder to use than Ubuntu. Everything on Ubuntu just works'
This just isn't true though. Sure you might have to do more things to protect your Windows machine than your Ubuntu, but when you do need to do anything, even mundane things, with Ubuntu it's much more complicated for the average user (think the sort of character whose computer spends more time as a botnet than not). Mention to my Dad, or many of my less tech-savy friends the concept of 'sudo' and they'll just glaze over. For most people it's Windows that 'just works' not Ubuntu.
Uhh I'm pretty sure it's the two second rule. So your calculation is out, that said you probably didn't realise you got it wrong due to the rhyming couplet of fool and rule. Could have worked with nine seconds, same thing. Good times.
The argument for indie labels always seems to base itself around the premise that indie=good and good=indie, and also that there is such a thing as music that is good or better. However this snobbery can sometimes blind those involved in music production and distribution to a fairly simple fact, in terms of art, where opinion is subjective, popular = good.
If there really must be a debate about what qualifies as good music, surely that which appeals to the broadest spectrum of people on some level must be the best? Now I appreciate that based on artistic merit and peer review artists like Madonna may come up a bit short, and I very much doubt that anyone is touched deeply and emotionally by any of her songs, but most people like them. That's quantifiable. There could be some Patagonian pipe music which speaks to me on a deep, emotional level, but if to the other 6 billion people on earth it sounds like a guy blowing into some bamboo then who is saying it's better? Only me; and that's the point with indie music - people like indie artists more, but less people like them. That's how it works and for the most part that's why they're indie. If they wanted to become mainstream, they'd have to stop being 'indie'....
Also, I'm never entirely comfortable with this idea that the advertising budgets of big labels can make people buy music that they don't like. The whole argument behind this notion seems to imply that the majority of people are too stupid to realise that they are listening to things that they don't like. When in reality most people probably just don't really care about the finer points of the music they listen to, they don't care about the wonderful drum work, and they certainly don't need their music to 'speak to them'. This is no different to not really caring about fashion, computers, cars or the interior decor of your house. You get afficionados of most aspects of life, but I don't remember the last time I heard someone claiming that someone was forced to paint their bedroom magnolia because of 'big paint'.
Indie music proponents should just be happy that THEY like it, they're in the know and that they have found music that appeals to them. Odds are they are just the sort of people who need their music to do this. Most people just want something to listen to in the car on the way to work, and considering humans are really quite similar, it's hardly surprising that they like a lot of the same music.
Using your logic that any non-smoker harmed by someone who smokes cigarettes is unacceptable - Why should I have to breathe in the polluting fumes that come from the exhaust of the car/bus/train/plane you travel on?
This is another future prediction which focuses heavily on what is technologically possible, whilst ignoring human nature. Why aren't we all eating specially formulated powders to give us our daily calorific and nutritional needs (basically a protein shake, technically possible and offers nutritional values difficult to obtain through eating 'regular' food)? Basically because most people actually enjoy eating, the tastes, textures and aromas of food are enjoyable experiences for most people. I see driver-less cars as suffering a similar fate. Most people do enjoy driving. Not sitting in rush hour traffic perhaps, but getting onto the open road is enjoyable (if you don't believe me why isn't the smallest engine size the most popular of each model). People enjoy putting their foot down, and feeling the car surge forward. It's a bit neanderthal, but very common.
Secondly there is the element of trust. For people to buy these cars they have to trust the software which is driving them. Technically it will probably be far superior to any human driver, however a large section of society wont be comfortable out of control. Personally I would be far happier dying in a car crash which was as a result of my own error than because of a computing error.
I've often pondered this - doesn't outsourcing only temporarily increase profits? I recently phoned my satellite t.v (Sky) provider and got through to an offshore call centre, when I had cause to do the same a few years previously the call centre was located in the U.K. Presumably the British person I had spoken to some years previously had lost their job, and I'm pretty sure the first thing they would have cut from their budget would have been luxuries like satellite t.v? If all companies followed Sky's lead (which in the main they are) just who do they think will be paying £40/month for satellite t.v?
Oooooohhhhh wonderful! Now all they need to do is work out why my hair gets that lovely little kink in it when I spend a day at the beach and I wont ever need to go again! Hooray!
I know what you mean. Some people just don't GET computers. It's like: LOLZ U MORANS!
I love my computer.
For years I used to fuck the floppy slot on it (lolz floppy slot!), and one day hoped that my computer could fuck me back. Well thankfully with the advent of CD trays, all I had to do was glue a tampon onto the tray, line my ass up, press the open button and feel that sweet sweet pleasure.
Just thought I would share that with you guys.
I get the internet, and I love computers more than most regular people could ever understand.
You can see it now. Kim Jong-il travelling around the People's Republic, seeing the massive food shortages crippling his population, resulting in serious knock on economic and social problems and thinking 'If only we had some REALLY big rabbits...'.
That clock is seriously fucking gay. It takes it's orders from scientists for heavens sake. Not like my wrist watch which makes his own mind up about how close we are to nuclear armageddon.
But hang on, what if I took a picture of someone taking a photograph of someone elses house, but I distributed it accidentally via Bittorrent? Is that infringement?
Alright, don't get your American knickers in a twist, I am sure it was a tongue in cheek comment based loosely around current events as opposed to a prediction of the future.
I think what you mean to say is 'I crashed 3 times after I proved myself unable to give the thought and consideration to driving above the speed limit'.
"Anybody who thinks they can speed safely is fooling themselves."
Surely it would be even safer if the limits were lower? And safest of all when limits were at 0mph? Just because you are unable to drive at speeds in excess of 70mph, don't assume that some, if not the majority, of other people can.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows piracy is one of the major factors keeping Linux down. Linux doesn't 'work out of the box' in the same way that Windows does, and it's always a bit disheartening to come up across a glitch which there is seemingly no solution for (I couldn't get Minecraft to stop crashing after I got a new ATI card for example) but most of these things would be tolerable if your copy of Windows was £99 (your local currency may vary). However for a large chunk of the population readily available pirated copies of Windows 7 means that Windows is effectively free too, thus removing pretty much the only benefit that most people would see.
People still using XP are doing so because of legacy software? Likely to be businesses which have some tech minded people behind them. Most savvy home users have moved onto Windows 7, as Vista was a pile of shit. Those left using Vista are the Moms who send emails full of cats.
'Microsoft Windows is really so much harder to use than Ubuntu. Everything on Ubuntu just works' This just isn't true though. Sure you might have to do more things to protect your Windows machine than your Ubuntu, but when you do need to do anything, even mundane things, with Ubuntu it's much more complicated for the average user (think the sort of character whose computer spends more time as a botnet than not). Mention to my Dad, or many of my less tech-savy friends the concept of 'sudo' and they'll just glaze over. For most people it's Windows that 'just works' not Ubuntu.
Presumably because there isn't anyone driving big cars to smash into them, as per the OP's comment?
Uhh I'm pretty sure it's the two second rule. So your calculation is out, that said you probably didn't realise you got it wrong due to the rhyming couplet of fool and rule. Could have worked with nine seconds, same thing. Good times.
The argument for indie labels always seems to base itself around the premise that indie=good and good=indie, and also that there is such a thing as music that is good or better. However this snobbery can sometimes blind those involved in music production and distribution to a fairly simple fact, in terms of art, where opinion is subjective, popular = good. If there really must be a debate about what qualifies as good music, surely that which appeals to the broadest spectrum of people on some level must be the best? Now I appreciate that based on artistic merit and peer review artists like Madonna may come up a bit short, and I very much doubt that anyone is touched deeply and emotionally by any of her songs, but most people like them. That's quantifiable. There could be some Patagonian pipe music which speaks to me on a deep, emotional level, but if to the other 6 billion people on earth it sounds like a guy blowing into some bamboo then who is saying it's better? Only me; and that's the point with indie music - people like indie artists more, but less people like them. That's how it works and for the most part that's why they're indie. If they wanted to become mainstream, they'd have to stop being 'indie'.... Also, I'm never entirely comfortable with this idea that the advertising budgets of big labels can make people buy music that they don't like. The whole argument behind this notion seems to imply that the majority of people are too stupid to realise that they are listening to things that they don't like. When in reality most people probably just don't really care about the finer points of the music they listen to, they don't care about the wonderful drum work, and they certainly don't need their music to 'speak to them'. This is no different to not really caring about fashion, computers, cars or the interior decor of your house. You get afficionados of most aspects of life, but I don't remember the last time I heard someone claiming that someone was forced to paint their bedroom magnolia because of 'big paint'. Indie music proponents should just be happy that THEY like it, they're in the know and that they have found music that appeals to them. Odds are they are just the sort of people who need their music to do this. Most people just want something to listen to in the car on the way to work, and considering humans are really quite similar, it's hardly surprising that they like a lot of the same music.
Using your logic that any non-smoker harmed by someone who smokes cigarettes is unacceptable - Why should I have to breathe in the polluting fumes that come from the exhaust of the car/bus/train/plane you travel on?
This is another future prediction which focuses heavily on what is technologically possible, whilst ignoring human nature. Why aren't we all eating specially formulated powders to give us our daily calorific and nutritional needs (basically a protein shake, technically possible and offers nutritional values difficult to obtain through eating 'regular' food)? Basically because most people actually enjoy eating, the tastes, textures and aromas of food are enjoyable experiences for most people. I see driver-less cars as suffering a similar fate. Most people do enjoy driving. Not sitting in rush hour traffic perhaps, but getting onto the open road is enjoyable (if you don't believe me why isn't the smallest engine size the most popular of each model). People enjoy putting their foot down, and feeling the car surge forward. It's a bit neanderthal, but very common. Secondly there is the element of trust. For people to buy these cars they have to trust the software which is driving them. Technically it will probably be far superior to any human driver, however a large section of society wont be comfortable out of control. Personally I would be far happier dying in a car crash which was as a result of my own error than because of a computing error.
I've often pondered this - doesn't outsourcing only temporarily increase profits? I recently phoned my satellite t.v (Sky) provider and got through to an offshore call centre, when I had cause to do the same a few years previously the call centre was located in the U.K. Presumably the British person I had spoken to some years previously had lost their job, and I'm pretty sure the first thing they would have cut from their budget would have been luxuries like satellite t.v? If all companies followed Sky's lead (which in the main they are) just who do they think will be paying £40/month for satellite t.v?
Not what I've heard.
What I want to know is, who is this 'Illinois Bill' and why does he have so much power?
I fear this is the end of my "SexualPredator1973" screen name...
Oooooohhhhh wonderful! Now all they need to do is work out why my hair gets that lovely little kink in it when I spend a day at the beach and I wont ever need to go again! Hooray!
Oh great! So these terrorists hate America and try and kill coalition soldiers and we respond by giving them a free suntan. This makes me sick.
Also the U.K http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6293735.stm , and we had two cities in the 'Most Intelligent' list....
Uh the United Kingdom? Dundee and Sunderland?
I know what you mean. Some people just don't GET computers. It's like: LOLZ U MORANS! I love my computer. For years I used to fuck the floppy slot on it (lolz floppy slot!), and one day hoped that my computer could fuck me back. Well thankfully with the advent of CD trays, all I had to do was glue a tampon onto the tray, line my ass up, press the open button and feel that sweet sweet pleasure. Just thought I would share that with you guys. I get the internet, and I love computers more than most regular people could ever understand.
You can see it now. Kim Jong-il travelling around the People's Republic, seeing the massive food shortages crippling his population, resulting in serious knock on economic and social problems and thinking 'If only we had some REALLY big rabbits...'.
I for one am certain that this man genuinely is a millionaire.
That clock is seriously fucking gay. It takes it's orders from scientists for heavens sake. Not like my wrist watch which makes his own mind up about how close we are to nuclear armageddon.
But hang on, what if I took a picture of someone taking a photograph of someone elses house, but I distributed it accidentally via Bittorrent? Is that infringement?
You fucked that one up, huh?
If it wasn't for the immigrant community, my dream of a pair of trousers with an outboard motor attached might be dead forever.
Alright, don't get your American knickers in a twist, I am sure it was a tongue in cheek comment based loosely around current events as opposed to a prediction of the future.
I think what you mean to say is 'I crashed 3 times after I proved myself unable to give the thought and consideration to driving above the speed limit'. "Anybody who thinks they can speed safely is fooling themselves." Surely it would be even safer if the limits were lower? And safest of all when limits were at 0mph? Just because you are unable to drive at speeds in excess of 70mph, don't assume that some, if not the majority, of other people can.