A PC gift for Christmas is typically a family gift: Mom and Dad use it for business stuff (or claim to), and kids use it to play games. It's the gift that kids like, and parents can justify purchasing for practical reasons.
Little Timmy won't be very happy with the Linux box when he realizes that it won't run any of the popular new games out there. And all Daddy's explanations that Linux is cheaper, more stable, and more secure, isn't going to stop that terrible temper tantrum he's currently having on the floor in front of the tree.
I suppose a Linux + Wii would make a good gift pair. But the family that afford that is not going to worry about the price of Microsoft anyway.
I've read this comment four times and still can't decide whether the poster is being ironic. My guess is yes, but then why are people modding it as interesting as opposed to funny?
For the record, forgetting about the issues of DRM and stupid software patents, copyright by and large is good for code protection, protecting textbooks which take serious effort to develop, and so on. We can't force everyone to give ideas away. Some people may actually want to negotiate the compensation for their efforts if they specify the right to do so at the time of publication. This silly push by the Canadian government, if true, clearly crosses that line.
Having said that, I'm pretty sure the Marxist post was ironic. In which case: hilarious! Rise up, ye proleteriat, and seize your rightful means of production! With your help we will recreate the glorious days of the Soviet Union, which only needed a few more years to shake the bugs out and acheive political perfection.
We should be stringing Greenspan up on a pole for all to see, but instead he makes $150,000 per speech defending his terrible money supply fraud.
What? Comparing Alan Greenspan to Ken Lay? Alan Greenspan oversaw a period of unprecedented growth in the US at inflation mainly around 3%, just like now - take a look at a 30-year graph. Everyone got richer because of productivity improvements. The 2000 bubble came because investors threw logic out the window, had no basic understanding of macro- or micro-economics, and piled all their money into stocks without asking questions. Remember the phrase, "the new economy"? That meant that Greenspan's interest rates changes were thought to have no impact on stock market prices. Even when he was ratcheting up the prime rate at 50 basis points a pop and warning of irrational exuberance.
And it worked. We had a soft landing in the economy. Alan Greenspan's duty is to the economy, not the naive investors of the stock market. And the economy prevailed, even if naive investors didn't.
The charges against Ken Lay are a massive breach of trust, and are relatively black and white. Greenspan is trusted with the American economy, with subjective, highly argued goals, and he has prevailed in keeping it safe. There is no basis for comparison here.
Slashdot Mirror
Little Timmy won't be very happy with the Linux box when he realizes that it won't run any of the popular new games out there. And all Daddy's explanations that Linux is cheaper, more stable, and more secure, isn't going to stop that terrible temper tantrum he's currently having on the floor in front of the tree.
I suppose a Linux + Wii would make a good gift pair. But the family that afford that is not going to worry about the price of Microsoft anyway.
Having said that, I'm pretty sure the Marxist post was ironic. In which case: hilarious! Rise up, ye proleteriat, and seize your rightful means of production! With your help we will recreate the glorious days of the Soviet Union, which only needed a few more years to shake the bugs out and acheive political perfection.
What? Comparing Alan Greenspan to Ken Lay? Alan Greenspan oversaw a period of unprecedented growth in the US at inflation mainly around 3%, just like now - take a look at a 30-year graph. Everyone got richer because of productivity improvements. The 2000 bubble came because investors threw logic out the window, had no basic understanding of macro- or micro-economics, and piled all their money into stocks without asking questions. Remember the phrase, "the new economy"? That meant that Greenspan's interest rates changes were thought to have no impact on stock market prices. Even when he was ratcheting up the prime rate at 50 basis points a pop and warning of irrational exuberance.
And it worked. We had a soft landing in the economy. Alan Greenspan's duty is to the economy, not the naive investors of the stock market. And the economy prevailed, even if naive investors didn't.
The charges against Ken Lay are a massive breach of trust, and are relatively black and white. Greenspan is trusted with the American economy, with subjective, highly argued goals, and he has prevailed in keeping it safe. There is no basis for comparison here.