Yeah, I expect a major revolt against this -- like we saw in the past when it came to watch batteries and car batteries. History has shown us that blood will be shed. I feel bad for the Genius Bar pawns who'll die in the name of larger batteries with better charge time that aren't swappable, because Apple is clearly in the wrong. Give me shorter charge times for the sake of swappability that I've never used in my life, or give me death!
Obviously you posted AC because your argument's shit. Laptop batteries *elsewhere* are generally piss-easy trivial to change out. Get some experience and crank up those comprehension skills, or go back to drawing dicks on your comp book.
Yes, because economics is a zero sum equation right? While I concede the insensitiity to the poor, the thought that one person's success necessitates another's failure is a fallacy.
You're looking for another argument. I'm saying, "The assumption that everyone who couldn't afford such a box is a lazy P.O.S. beneath the 'real job' folks is bullshit, and I seriously question how many self-procliamed 'real job' people are themselves working jobs that could be taken by the people in lower-skilled positions, as deciding to ignore unique individual circumstances as to *why* people are in those jobs says fuck all about the actual skills or qualifications of those people."
not so pissed that they don't upgrade to a new powerbook next cycle anyways.
I never suggested they weren't stupid, hypocritical, etc.
not everyone cares whether or not they can change the battery themselves. you think most people swap out the (easily user replaceable) battery in their car when it dies? shit, my mom can barely replace the batteries in her remote control.
Your mom's likely not buying the hotshit new Apple products! We're not talking about her and her fumble-fingers and techno fear, we're talking about people already predisposed to buying a premium laptop or notebook computer. This category ranges from Macbook Pro-needing professionals making informed decisions to clueless dickheads with money to burn looking for a status symbol to wing around the coffee shop or board room (if you don't think there an awful lot of these people, you're walking around with a blindfold on). It's likely these people have had contact with a notebook before and have engaged in the rather simple process of undoing or sliding a latch mechanism and popping out the battery.
the vast majority of users have zero interest in doing any sort of service themselves. when i did HP phone tech support, we'd get users wanting us to send them a tech to open tray one and clear a paper jam. most consumers want to consume, not tinker. apple is betting that their target audience will appreciate the design choice. i'm betting they did their homework. don't like it? don't buy one.
You want to talk about people not being interested in self-service and then you go on about people appreciating design choices? Get a fucking grip. The "clueless rube" category of people who can't fathom one can't wrap their heads around the other, they're just capable of affording teh shiny. And when these people learn that an operation that, in other brand portable computers, requires just as much skill as switching the batteries in their TV remote, they're not going to go, "Oh, well, Steve & Co. made this clever design choice that yields X Y and Z," they're going to go "That's fucking stupid, I could change the battery on my old [brand of choice here] and this expensive bastard doesn't let me at all. I have to sink time into getting someone else to do it for me, which likely means time away from my precious device. What a waste."
Robbed? That doesn't make any sense. This person clearly didn't have the job, so how could I have robbed it from them?
Jobs are earned based on merit, not owed.
They are *sometimes* earned based on merit. Executive existants, for instance, are a often a fine example of low-skill employees who are exalted into "real job" category. Anyone who can afford to look marginally presentable, kiss ass, be decently cordial, and type 60-70wpm can swing it. The only "skill" or "merit" there is decent communications savvy and typing. There are plenty of people who *could* do this job but didn't have the connections or the right set of clothes.
As for "owed" jobs, that's you taking liberty with interpretation and setting up strawmen. You likely damn well know this already. Anonymous and cowardly in the extreme.
You don't have the right to a job. You have a job at the pleasure and expense of the person who made enough money to hire you, and they don't owe you anything.
Again: owed? Fuck off. You're bleeding all over the place here. "[P]leasure and expense" is indeed it. That means needs, whims, and financial considerations. It's not about qualifications per se, but competition. Who sells themself better.
I'm constantly nervous around my boss because it impresses me so much that he built the company at which I work.
If you're constantly nervous, you're either a fraud with suspect qualifications expecting to be axed at any moment, or your boss is an extremist ass-head who makes ill-advised snap judgements, in case you're better off seeking employment in a place run by someone more reasonable and stable. People like that tend to make poor decisions.
Show some respect for your employer for creating an organization with the resources to pay for you and stop acting like an entitled American.
Stop assuming fear and respect are equivalent to each other, quit being such a complete peon about everything, and stop being such an absolutist dipshit. I'm an presently employed by a company started by a person who worked hard, but the company's success has not been contingent solely upon their efforts, it's everyone working there, and my boss would be the first to admit it. I've also worked places whose success had fuck-all to do with my employer's hard work and were completely undeserving of my respect. I was smart enough to get out of those places and look elsewhere.
If you're not up for filing down a few points on a torx driver, you have no business fiddling around inside a laptop anyhow.
Fuck the filing. If the battery were removable, you wouldn't be fiddling around inside a laptop to begin with. Something simple and routine has been made needlessly complex. People can argue "but road warriors are a niche!" and such all they want - 1.5 years out, ordinary people who like using laptop computers as laptop computers suddenly finding themselves having to go to the damned Genius Bar to change out a battery are going to be pissed.
All i can say to that is, i grew up extremely dirt poor living most of the time in an industrial space and sleeping on shelf in my dads workshop, and coincidentally we didn't have a TV for most of my life. amazingly enough i grew up to be very smart and figured out how to be successfull. I don't think its a coincidence that i had no TV, rather i think its the CAUSE of my success. Yes i have the luxury of being lazy now because i didn't have the luxury of TV when i was young.
The absence of a TV did not make you smart or successful - if it was that easy, it would be a simple to raise a person to be smart and succeful by taking away the TV. I came from a fairly poor background myself, but my family went out of their way in my younger days to foster curiousity and interest in learning, I was lucky to have some teachers who gave a damn, and then that's it. The neighboring kids on either side whose parents were beating them and had all varieties of substance abuse problems in their families didn't fare so well because they were coming up through hostile environments that didn't promote learning, did nothing but struggle in school, and their early failures dissuaded them from trying to achieve later in life. Bad hand scenarios do happen, and it's mostly through external intervention that the ones that get straightened out get straightened out. People who pull themselves up are rare, and that still usually involves some outside inspiration or catalyst that has to be damned strong and powerful. So fuck off with the "the absence of a TV made me smart" - that's complete bullshit.
And to answer your first question, No you don't have a real job if all you are doing is flipping burgers, if you are fool enough to think that you can survive your whole life with that kind of mentality then i feel sorry for you. And yes i have taken a job away from another "lazy" person, but every 40 year old, career burger flipper has also taken away a job from the young enterprising teen who should be doing that job to pay his way through college.
You and everyone else who has ever pulled the "real job" tirade refuses to think about circumstance, period. Yes, some people never try. Lots more are sidelined by circumstance and don't manage to move beyond those low-skill jobs. You're neglecting points such as "it's tough to make time for education or career building when you work three shitty jobs" or "regardless of skill and qualifications, it's impossible to go interview for and receive a 'proper' job when not having dental care for your early life has left you with a mouth of rotted and missing teeth" or whatever else could be named. You assume, because you came from a poor background but still somehow managed to have someone tip you in the right direction and nothing catastrophically interrupted your push towards success, that this is the way it goes for everyone, and that everyone's got a fighting chance in they just put their back into it. You're wrong. Just the right sequence of bad events can doom someone to never moving beyond being a sanitation worker, and only getting there if they're fortunate. Suggesting these people just didn't bother is short sighted, irresponsible, and downright fucking stupid.
TV is a distraction from reality and NOT a necessity.
Right, because TV is about sitcoms, not news, and besides, everyone has internet or can read newspapers and can receive vital information about the world around them through these channels. Right? Oh, wrong again.
Here's a wake up call to all those who are watching regular TV and can't afford to get a box. Perhaps they should stop watching so much TV and get a real job.
Because anyone who can't work such a box into a tight budget obviously hasn't got a real job, right? Because your baseless judgement of other people's situations relative to your own just flat out reign supreme? Here's a wake up call to you and every last fake Libertarian shitbag who modded you insightful: yes, we know you've managed to obtain jobs just good enough to afford a few luxuries, not struggle vary hard, and yet, between all that exalted 80+ hours a week "real job" time, find time to bitch about the failings of the poor and lazy on Slashdot, and tip us off to the truth: you just robbed another lazy sad sack of a position, and if not for you, one more person could've bought the box already, or even cable, and done what you've done here.
..... well then it's not a real package manager in the sense that a package manager is being described. Plus, in Windows 7 (and I believe Windows Vista too), it's just called "Uninstall A Program". Windows 7 has a link to the "Windows Marketplace", but that opens in, of all things, a browser.
So let Microsoft fix it and have it work in a sensible, useful fashion and get the EU off their backs while simultaneously providing the sort of functionality enjoyed in many other operating systems.
Dear stuck-up elitist Linux user, how the hell am I going to find a package manager if I don't have a browser installed?
The package manager is a pre-installed application which is used for adding and removing other applications and anything upon which they may be dependent, as well as retrieving said applications and related pieces of information from a remote location (such as out somewhere on the internet; being its own application, it doesn't require a browser. Fuck you, too, and you're welcome.
It's also interesting (I guess this makes #3) to point out that not allowing gay marriage doesn't mean gays can't live together; it means the government doesn't recognize it as a marriage. Which is, by this time, almost a name-only thing. I am guessing it has similar arguments (the non-legalizing it) as not allowing polygamy and bestiality to be legal marriage unions. Except homosexuals can be domestic partners, polygamists cannot be domestic partners with 2+ others, and you can't be a domestic partner of a cat.
The obvious solution here would be for the government to not have these various categories of relationships and have one generic "life partner" heading (for things like hospital visitation rights), and leave the marriage/whatever bit up to whatever ritual house or other sort of whim to define it within their own respective pool.
This would also be great because the whole "tax breaks for the married" bit is ridiculous. What, you pay less because you won the love sweepstakes? You pay more back in when you lose and get divorced? Assinine.
The fact that there's 350 comments debating the issue is another case in point. You may want free software. I may not care as long as it works. The guy next door doesn't seem to mind paying. So having a "unified vision of an ideal" just isn't going to happen.
Unless of course the unified vision is having tons of options, which is the direction it seems to be heading in again. Somehow, though, people tend to get really pissed and reject ideological offerings that don't fit them personally, while simultaneously running at the mouth about how true choice is "not so restrictive" as that with which they disagree --sentiment that itself promotes restriction and choice reduction. And in that case, you absolutely need the hard-liners preaching, because a well-reasoned decision has to be made considering several points of view.
You're free to reject that, of course, but don't suggest anybody who disagrees with you is wacky. They're looking at it from the point of view of different needs.
What with RELFEXIVELY CONTRARIAN TWATS* like yourself out there, it's no wonder they can't see the sense in arbitrarily satiating the whims of a few pissants. Your problem is you're looking for a unified gospel when you're being granted options from which to pick and choose. If you're serious about someone else telling you The Right Way for your desktop, you're looking in the wrong place.
The problem with Stallman's approach is the assumption that most people want the free software ideal. The reality is that most people are not even knowledgeable enough about their computers to even understand what free software is all about, why it matters, and why they should care.
I would imagine that this is why he regularly makes a very vocal big stink about it. Just think: sixty-odd years ago, most people didn't know what a carcinogen was, why it was bad, or that it could be found in ordinary, presumed-to-be-harmless things like lead paint and cigarette smoke. Now of course, people who knew could always go, "Nobody cares about this! People die every day! Don't interrupt people's lives with this scary, annoying information!" Historically speaking, though, I'd wager quite a few people are glad people bothered to speak up and do something about it.
Most people do not care about the legal or technical issues surrounding their software, they just want to get online and do stuff. Stallman insists that when somebody sends you a.doc file, you should refuse to open it and insist that they send you a PDF or ODT file instead. Great when you are dealing with engineers and programmers, but not so great when you are dealing with people who think you need to create a.doc file in order to attach an image to an email.
I doubt many people gave a damn about things like anti-virus software on their Windows machines when the internet started to get popular with the masses. Somehow over time, though, a fair number of these laypeople wound up learning (likely a combination of the hard way and word-of-mouth) that they're probably a decent idea. Sure, lots don't know how they work, or where those little bits of nastiness came from, or that most such problems could be avoided by other means, but they know they're important and do bother with them, slightly.
Really, I get what you're saying, but there's a point where it goes from "not everyone wants to know how the car goes" to "people can't and won't ever change a flat!" Give some people potentially useful information and it *does* stand a chance of getting filed and used somewhere someday.
"So few if any"? You must be forgetting about all the people who do useful stuff like filing bug reports, writing howtos, lending a hand on forums where the software gets talked about, writing and sharing scripts, plugins, modules, and other forms of add-ons, donating cash towards a particular application or documentation project, and hell, even in some cases *gasp* coding applications. Yeah, I know, it's easier to pretend that not one single person actually puts any effort towards anything and that everyone's just a freeloading ingrate unwittingly applauding their own destruction as they vaccuously wave their FOSS pennant and take the willingly-offered fruits of other people's labors, but no matter how many times this gets pitched, the end-times trumpets don't sound.
People keep making stuff and giving it to other people on the terms they decide, because that's how they want to do it. If you want to write and application and charge for X, Y, and Z around it, nobody's stopping you.
Aw heck - you're just looking for a spot to go all sour grapes contrarian on us. If project management on up isn't sharp or otherwise attentive enough to have already clamped down on unauthorized projects for every perceived IP and budgetary nightmare in the bogeyman's sack, they're not about to catch it when it's time to trim overhead in a blind panic. A shitcanning during an economic downturn is more likely to be a good ol' fashion lay-off that takes out Secret Agent FOSS in the same fell stroke as Corporate Drone.
I am hearing impaired. What's the accessibility standard to help me enjoy a podcast? Do we require closed captioning for all podcasts? Require a written transcript to be posted with every podcast?
No, we have guidelines which suggest providing a text alternative enclosed in a semantically meaningful, standards-compliant markup so anyone browsing with a user agent which deals with things in those terms can make some amount of use of them. In terms of audio content, this can range from full transcripts to a terse single sentence description of the subject of the audio content presented. It's up to the content provider to determine how far it needs to go, or if it's actually necessary considering the target audience; if they leave out people with hearing-related disabilities and are providing podcasts, and it hurts their profits/popularity/whatever, it's their gonads in the vice. Nobody is in fact required to do anything, so steer clear of ye olde fashioned "nanny state" reef before the young and/or impressionable lump it in with reflexive pseudo-libertarian diatribe computery types supposedly all embrace.
Seriously, if there's *anything* to complain about here, it's that the sprawling mess of WCAG 2.0 doesn't stress the practical approach of "consider the message before the medium". That's a very basic principle that every entity hoping for some amount of netly attention needs to consider: is what you're attempting to do suited towards [media type here], or is your message going to leave people out because you're fixating on a podcast/user-submitted video site/Flash game/whatever and the afterthought-like provisions to provide a more limited experience for the differently abled is short-changing those in the target audience? The point to remember here is that most of the solutions suggested are concessions towards smaller segments of a given audience and still provide a limited experience. If that seems like more trouble than it's worth, there are either people who just aren't in your audience that you most likely don't need to account for, or your whole concept of presentation for the subject matter is fucked.
I can't hardly comprehend someone thinking 75k is a "low" salary where you could only live in an apartment and not have extra spending money.
I think you're forgetting that there are people who insist on living in downtown luxury apartments that go for $3000+ a month and the like because they're accustomed to a "certain standard of living" (by which they mean "flauntable status symbols").
No necessarily to the parent, but the GP, there are places in the US where you can live very comfortable on $50-$75k per year. Mostly smaller towns 100-150 miles from major metropolitan areas. I'm thinking Chicago's Rockford, or Elgin. Or any of the various industrialized suburbs of Milwaukee, or Brookfield, WI, or similar towns.
But that's assuming you can live in such a place and still make $50k-75k a year. Rockford, for example, is one economically depressed town and the decent jobs are scarce in the extreme. To make it "comfortably" there, you'd have to get a job in Chicago or one of the more prosperous close-in suburbs and commute 70-100 miles a day each way. Now, maybe you're accustomed to that idea and see that as just how it is, but to me, that's a pretty ludicrous sacrifice to live in a hole but have a bit of money.
You answered yourself with the second sentence; iPods and iPhones aren't targetted at geeks.
to
It's like Nokia did when cellphones became popular a few years ago - deliver a 'must have'
consumer product that feels right.
And the part you forget in the middle is exactly what happened after the cell phone became common place: people got a bit more savvy about what they want in a cell phone. Oh, sure, maybe they didn't pay attention to less-than-immediately-tangible features -people, after all, still go with handsets that aren't GSM- but still, they became picky enough to the point where clunky barebones phones didn't cut it any longer. They wanted something with more features. Every self-important person you might spot on the subway or in the grocery store with a bluetooth earpiece on is proof of that, just as is every 20-something snapping pics of themselves and their friends with their camera phones, and so on and so on.
The iPhone is a game changer in the equation how? Well, suddenly, changeable stuffs on the phone move beyond pop music ringtones, bad games, and currency converters you'll never use. There are applications that look good and (sometimes) do really interesting and (sometimes) useful stuff. Nobody cared about the crappy web browser on their Razr, and nobody who wasn't a geek or a biz person saw much need for a device with a real browser.
Net effect: the smartphone wars start shifting from device to platform, and the platform with the wider array of cool applications wins. Hardware features start becoming less and less relevant providing the phone doesn't run slow as molasses and doesn't crash like mad. Manufacturers will copy successful interface concepts off each other until there's near-enough parity, and then the apps have it.
You're missing it. Clearing HR is easy enough if you meet the bare minimum requirements for a job and your resume isn't riddled with coffee stains. Going into the interview cold, however, is certain death unless you've got exceptional qualifications and can really sell yourself. Having someone hand you their card and all but offer you a job is drastically different, because you've already won them over. If they're not directly involved in the hiring process, you're at least getting a good word to your advantage.
After looking through what she had (and making sure she hadn't lifted it from somewhere) I gave her my card and told her to call me if she ever got tired of fixing PCs.
Note this important difference, folks - the prospective new hire had contact with someone on the inside before they even so much as talked to HR. This is a big deal.
And again, if these PC users are willing to shell out a few hundred bucks on dongles and a copy of the OS to try it out, they can buy a slighly used mac mini, or an older ibook. Or shell out just a little bit more and get an new mini.
Or, providing their existing configuration of hardware is known to work with the dongle and is much more powerful than the lowly Mac Mini, buy the dongle, avoid putting more junk in the house, and have a more powerful machine on which to run OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I expect a major revolt against this -- like we saw in the past when it came to watch batteries and car batteries. History has shown us that blood will be shed. I feel bad for the Genius Bar pawns who'll die in the name of larger batteries with better charge time that aren't swappable, because Apple is clearly in the wrong. Give me shorter charge times for the sake of swappability that I've never used in my life, or give me death!
Obviously you posted AC because your argument's shit. Laptop batteries *elsewhere* are generally piss-easy trivial to change out. Get some experience and crank up those comprehension skills, or go back to drawing dicks on your comp book.
Yes, because economics is a zero sum equation right? While I concede the insensitiity to the poor, the thought that one person's success necessitates another's failure is a fallacy.
You're looking for another argument. I'm saying, "The assumption that everyone who couldn't afford such a box is a lazy P.O.S. beneath the 'real job' folks is bullshit, and I seriously question how many self-procliamed 'real job' people are themselves working jobs that could be taken by the people in lower-skilled positions, as deciding to ignore unique individual circumstances as to *why* people are in those jobs says fuck all about the actual skills or qualifications of those people."
not so pissed that they don't upgrade to a new powerbook next cycle anyways.
I never suggested they weren't stupid, hypocritical, etc.
not everyone cares whether or not they can change the battery themselves. you think most people swap out the (easily user replaceable) battery in their car when it dies? shit, my mom can barely replace the batteries in her remote control.
Your mom's likely not buying the hotshit new Apple products! We're not talking about her and her fumble-fingers and techno fear, we're talking about people already predisposed to buying a premium laptop or notebook computer. This category ranges from Macbook Pro-needing professionals making informed decisions to clueless dickheads with money to burn looking for a status symbol to wing around the coffee shop or board room (if you don't think there an awful lot of these people, you're walking around with a blindfold on). It's likely these people have had contact with a notebook before and have engaged in the rather simple process of undoing or sliding a latch mechanism and popping out the battery.
the vast majority of users have zero interest in doing any sort of service themselves. when i did HP phone tech support, we'd get users wanting us to send them a tech to open tray one and clear a paper jam. most consumers want to consume, not tinker. apple is betting that their target audience will appreciate the design choice. i'm betting they did their homework. don't like it? don't buy one.
You want to talk about people not being interested in self-service and then you go on about people appreciating design choices? Get a fucking grip. The "clueless rube" category of people who can't fathom one can't wrap their heads around the other, they're just capable of affording teh shiny. And when these people learn that an operation that, in other brand portable computers, requires just as much skill as switching the batteries in their TV remote, they're not going to go, "Oh, well, Steve & Co. made this clever design choice that yields X Y and Z," they're going to go "That's fucking stupid, I could change the battery on my old [brand of choice here] and this expensive bastard doesn't let me at all. I have to sink time into getting someone else to do it for me, which likely means time away from my precious device. What a waste."
Robbed? That doesn't make any sense. This person clearly didn't have the job, so how could I have robbed it from them?
Jobs are earned based on merit, not owed.
They are *sometimes* earned based on merit. Executive existants, for instance, are a often a fine example of low-skill employees who are exalted into "real job" category. Anyone who can afford to look marginally presentable, kiss ass, be decently cordial, and type 60-70wpm can swing it. The only "skill" or "merit" there is decent communications savvy and typing. There are plenty of people who *could* do this job but didn't have the connections or the right set of clothes.
As for "owed" jobs, that's you taking liberty with interpretation and setting up strawmen. You likely damn well know this already. Anonymous and cowardly in the extreme.
You don't have the right to a job. You have a job at the pleasure and expense of the person who made enough money to hire you, and they don't owe you anything.
Again: owed? Fuck off. You're bleeding all over the place here. "[P]leasure and expense" is indeed it. That means needs, whims, and financial considerations. It's not about qualifications per se, but competition. Who sells themself better.
I'm constantly nervous around my boss because it impresses me so much that he built the company at which I work.
If you're constantly nervous, you're either a fraud with suspect qualifications expecting to be axed at any moment, or your boss is an extremist ass-head who makes ill-advised snap judgements, in case you're better off seeking employment in a place run by someone more reasonable and stable. People like that tend to make poor decisions.
Show some respect for your employer for creating an organization with the resources to pay for you and stop acting like an entitled American.
Stop assuming fear and respect are equivalent to each other, quit being such a complete peon about everything, and stop being such an absolutist dipshit. I'm an presently employed by a company started by a person who worked hard, but the company's success has not been contingent solely upon their efforts, it's everyone working there, and my boss would be the first to admit it. I've also worked places whose success had fuck-all to do with my employer's hard work and were completely undeserving of my respect. I was smart enough to get out of those places and look elsewhere.
If you're not up for filing down a few points on a torx driver, you have no business fiddling around inside a laptop anyhow.
Fuck the filing. If the battery were removable, you wouldn't be fiddling around inside a laptop to begin with. Something simple and routine has been made needlessly complex. People can argue "but road warriors are a niche!" and such all they want - 1.5 years out, ordinary people who like using laptop computers as laptop computers suddenly finding themselves having to go to the damned Genius Bar to change out a battery are going to be pissed.
All i can say to that is, i grew up extremely dirt poor living most of the time in an industrial space and sleeping on shelf in my dads workshop, and coincidentally we didn't have a TV for most of my life. amazingly enough i grew up to be very smart and figured out how to be successfull. I don't think its a coincidence that i had no TV, rather i think its the CAUSE of my success. Yes i have the luxury of being lazy now because i didn't have the luxury of TV when i was young.
The absence of a TV did not make you smart or successful - if it was that easy, it would be a simple to raise a person to be smart and succeful by taking away the TV. I came from a fairly poor background myself, but my family went out of their way in my younger days to foster curiousity and interest in learning, I was lucky to have some teachers who gave a damn, and then that's it. The neighboring kids on either side whose parents were beating them and had all varieties of substance abuse problems in their families didn't fare so well because they were coming up through hostile environments that didn't promote learning, did nothing but struggle in school, and their early failures dissuaded them from trying to achieve later in life. Bad hand scenarios do happen, and it's mostly through external intervention that the ones that get straightened out get straightened out. People who pull themselves up are rare, and that still usually involves some outside inspiration or catalyst that has to be damned strong and powerful. So fuck off with the "the absence of a TV made me smart" - that's complete bullshit.
And to answer your first question, No you don't have a real job if all you are doing is flipping burgers, if you are fool enough to think that you can survive your whole life with that kind of mentality then i feel sorry for you. And yes i have taken a job away from another "lazy" person, but every 40 year old, career burger flipper has also taken away a job from the young enterprising teen who should be doing that job to pay his way through college.
You and everyone else who has ever pulled the "real job" tirade refuses to think about circumstance, period. Yes, some people never try. Lots more are sidelined by circumstance and don't manage to move beyond those low-skill jobs. You're neglecting points such as "it's tough to make time for education or career building when you work three shitty jobs" or "regardless of skill and qualifications, it's impossible to go interview for and receive a 'proper' job when not having dental care for your early life has left you with a mouth of rotted and missing teeth" or whatever else could be named. You assume, because you came from a poor background but still somehow managed to have someone tip you in the right direction and nothing catastrophically interrupted your push towards success, that this is the way it goes for everyone, and that everyone's got a fighting chance in they just put their back into it. You're wrong. Just the right sequence of bad events can doom someone to never moving beyond being a sanitation worker, and only getting there if they're fortunate. Suggesting these people just didn't bother is short sighted, irresponsible, and downright fucking stupid.
TV is a distraction from reality and NOT a necessity.
Right, because TV is about sitcoms, not news, and besides, everyone has internet or can read newspapers and can receive vital information about the world around them through these channels. Right? Oh, wrong again.
Here's a wake up call to all those who are watching regular TV and can't afford to get a box. Perhaps they should stop watching so much TV and get a real job.
Because anyone who can't work such a box into a tight budget obviously hasn't got a real job, right? Because your baseless judgement of other people's situations relative to your own just flat out reign supreme? Here's a wake up call to you and every last fake Libertarian shitbag who modded you insightful: yes, we know you've managed to obtain jobs just good enough to afford a few luxuries, not struggle vary hard, and yet, between all that exalted 80+ hours a week "real job" time, find time to bitch about the failings of the poor and lazy on Slashdot, and tip us off to the truth: you just robbed another lazy sad sack of a position, and if not for you, one more person could've bought the box already, or even cable, and done what you've done here.
Microwaves? Burritos? What happened to cars?
So let Microsoft fix it and have it work in a sensible, useful fashion and get the EU off their backs while simultaneously providing the sort of functionality enjoyed in many other operating systems.
Dear stuck-up elitist Linux user, how the hell am I going to find a package manager if I don't have a browser installed?
The package manager is a pre-installed application which is used for adding and removing other applications and anything upon which they may be dependent, as well as retrieving said applications and related pieces of information from a remote location (such as out somewhere on the internet; being its own application, it doesn't require a browser. Fuck you, too, and you're welcome.
It's also interesting (I guess this makes #3) to point out that not allowing gay marriage doesn't mean gays can't live together; it means the government doesn't recognize it as a marriage. Which is, by this time, almost a name-only thing. I am guessing it has similar arguments (the non-legalizing it) as not allowing polygamy and bestiality to be legal marriage unions. Except homosexuals can be domestic partners, polygamists cannot be domestic partners with 2+ others, and you can't be a domestic partner of a cat.
The obvious solution here would be for the government to not have these various categories of relationships and have one generic "life partner" heading (for things like hospital visitation rights), and leave the marriage/whatever bit up to whatever ritual house or other sort of whim to define it within their own respective pool.
This would also be great because the whole "tax breaks for the married" bit is ridiculous. What, you pay less because you won the love sweepstakes? You pay more back in when you lose and get divorced? Assinine.
The fact that there's 350 comments debating the issue is another case in point. You may want free software. I may not care as long as it works. The guy next door doesn't seem to mind paying. So having a "unified vision of an ideal" just isn't going to happen.
Unless of course the unified vision is having tons of options, which is the direction it seems to be heading in again. Somehow, though, people tend to get really pissed and reject ideological offerings that don't fit them personally, while simultaneously running at the mouth about how true choice is "not so restrictive" as that with which they disagree --sentiment that itself promotes restriction and choice reduction. And in that case, you absolutely need the hard-liners preaching, because a well-reasoned decision has to be made considering several points of view.
You're free to reject that, of course, but don't suggest anybody who disagrees with you is wacky. They're looking at it from the point of view of different needs.
What with RELFEXIVELY CONTRARIAN TWATS* like yourself out there, it's no wonder they can't see the sense in arbitrarily satiating the whims of a few pissants. Your problem is you're looking for a unified gospel when you're being granted options from which to pick and choose. If you're serious about someone else telling you The Right Way for your desktop, you're looking in the wrong place.
*see? it's not nice!
The problem with Stallman's approach is the assumption that most people want the free software ideal. The reality is that most people are not even knowledgeable enough about their computers to even understand what free software is all about, why it matters, and why they should care.
I would imagine that this is why he regularly makes a very vocal big stink about it. Just think: sixty-odd years ago, most people didn't know what a carcinogen was, why it was bad, or that it could be found in ordinary, presumed-to-be-harmless things like lead paint and cigarette smoke. Now of course, people who knew could always go, "Nobody cares about this! People die every day! Don't interrupt people's lives with this scary, annoying information!" Historically speaking, though, I'd wager quite a few people are glad people bothered to speak up and do something about it.
Most people do not care about the legal or technical issues surrounding their software, they just want to get online and do stuff. Stallman insists that when somebody sends you a .doc file, you should refuse to open it and insist that they send you a PDF or ODT file instead. Great when you are dealing with engineers and programmers, but not so great when you are dealing with people who think you need to create a .doc file in order to attach an image to an email.
I doubt many people gave a damn about things like anti-virus software on their Windows machines when the internet started to get popular with the masses. Somehow over time, though, a fair number of these laypeople wound up learning (likely a combination of the hard way and word-of-mouth) that they're probably a decent idea. Sure, lots don't know how they work, or where those little bits of nastiness came from, or that most such problems could be avoided by other means, but they know they're important and do bother with them, slightly.
Really, I get what you're saying, but there's a point where it goes from "not everyone wants to know how the car goes" to "people can't and won't ever change a flat!" Give some people potentially useful information and it *does* stand a chance of getting filed and used somewhere someday.
I fear greatly for the future of the show. Please get that man a haircut.
You watch Doctor Who for hair styles?
"So few if any"? You must be forgetting about all the people who do useful stuff like filing bug reports, writing howtos, lending a hand on forums where the software gets talked about, writing and sharing scripts, plugins, modules, and other forms of add-ons, donating cash towards a particular application or documentation project, and hell, even in some cases *gasp* coding applications. Yeah, I know, it's easier to pretend that not one single person actually puts any effort towards anything and that everyone's just a freeloading ingrate unwittingly applauding their own destruction as they vaccuously wave their FOSS pennant and take the willingly-offered fruits of other people's labors, but no matter how many times this gets pitched, the end-times trumpets don't sound.
People keep making stuff and giving it to other people on the terms they decide, because that's how they want to do it. If you want to write and application and charge for X, Y, and Z around it, nobody's stopping you.
Aw heck - you're just looking for a spot to go all sour grapes contrarian on us. If project management on up isn't sharp or otherwise attentive enough to have already clamped down on unauthorized projects for every perceived IP and budgetary nightmare in the bogeyman's sack, they're not about to catch it when it's time to trim overhead in a blind panic. A shitcanning during an economic downturn is more likely to be a good ol' fashion lay-off that takes out Secret Agent FOSS in the same fell stroke as Corporate Drone.
I am hearing impaired. What's the accessibility standard to help me enjoy a podcast? Do we require closed captioning for all podcasts? Require a written transcript to be posted with every podcast?
No, we have guidelines which suggest providing a text alternative enclosed in a semantically meaningful, standards-compliant markup so anyone browsing with a user agent which deals with things in those terms can make some amount of use of them. In terms of audio content, this can range from full transcripts to a terse single sentence description of the subject of the audio content presented. It's up to the content provider to determine how far it needs to go, or if it's actually necessary considering the target audience; if they leave out people with hearing-related disabilities and are providing podcasts, and it hurts their profits/popularity/whatever, it's their gonads in the vice. Nobody is in fact required to do anything, so steer clear of ye olde fashioned "nanny state" reef before the young and/or impressionable lump it in with reflexive pseudo-libertarian diatribe computery types supposedly all embrace.
Seriously, if there's *anything* to complain about here, it's that the sprawling mess of WCAG 2.0 doesn't stress the practical approach of "consider the message before the medium". That's a very basic principle that every entity hoping for some amount of netly attention needs to consider: is what you're attempting to do suited towards [media type here], or is your message going to leave people out because you're fixating on a podcast/user-submitted video site/Flash game/whatever and the afterthought-like provisions to provide a more limited experience for the differently abled is short-changing those in the target audience? The point to remember here is that most of the solutions suggested are concessions towards smaller segments of a given audience and still provide a limited experience. If that seems like more trouble than it's worth, there are either people who just aren't in your audience that you most likely don't need to account for, or your whole concept of presentation for the subject matter is fucked.
I can't hardly comprehend someone thinking 75k is a "low" salary where you could only live in an apartment and not have extra spending money.
I think you're forgetting that there are people who insist on living in downtown luxury apartments that go for $3000+ a month and the like because they're accustomed to a "certain standard of living" (by which they mean "flauntable status symbols").
No necessarily to the parent, but the GP, there are places in the US where you can live very comfortable on $50-$75k per year. Mostly smaller towns 100-150 miles from major metropolitan areas. I'm thinking Chicago's Rockford, or Elgin. Or any of the various industrialized suburbs of Milwaukee, or Brookfield, WI, or similar towns.
But that's assuming you can live in such a place and still make $50k-75k a year. Rockford, for example, is one economically depressed town and the decent jobs are scarce in the extreme. To make it "comfortably" there, you'd have to get a job in Chicago or one of the more prosperous close-in suburbs and commute 70-100 miles a day each way. Now, maybe you're accustomed to that idea and see that as just how it is, but to me, that's a pretty ludicrous sacrifice to live in a hole but have a bit of money.
From
You answered yourself with the second sentence; iPods and iPhones aren't targetted at geeks.
to
It's like Nokia did when cellphones became popular a few years ago - deliver a 'must have' consumer product that feels right.
And the part you forget in the middle is exactly what happened after the cell phone became common place: people got a bit more savvy about what they want in a cell phone. Oh, sure, maybe they didn't pay attention to less-than-immediately-tangible features -people, after all, still go with handsets that aren't GSM- but still, they became picky enough to the point where clunky barebones phones didn't cut it any longer. They wanted something with more features. Every self-important person you might spot on the subway or in the grocery store with a bluetooth earpiece on is proof of that, just as is every 20-something snapping pics of themselves and their friends with their camera phones, and so on and so on.
The iPhone is a game changer in the equation how? Well, suddenly, changeable stuffs on the phone move beyond pop music ringtones, bad games, and currency converters you'll never use. There are applications that look good and (sometimes) do really interesting and (sometimes) useful stuff. Nobody cared about the crappy web browser on their Razr, and nobody who wasn't a geek or a biz person saw much need for a device with a real browser.
Net effect: the smartphone wars start shifting from device to platform, and the platform with the wider array of cool applications wins. Hardware features start becoming less and less relevant providing the phone doesn't run slow as molasses and doesn't crash like mad. Manufacturers will copy successful interface concepts off each other until there's near-enough parity, and then the apps have it.
You're missing it. Clearing HR is easy enough if you meet the bare minimum requirements for a job and your resume isn't riddled with coffee stains. Going into the interview cold, however, is certain death unless you've got exceptional qualifications and can really sell yourself. Having someone hand you their card and all but offer you a job is drastically different, because you've already won them over. If they're not directly involved in the hiring process, you're at least getting a good word to your advantage.
After looking through what she had (and making sure she hadn't lifted it from somewhere) I gave her my card and told her to call me if she ever got tired of fixing PCs.
Note this important difference, folks - the prospective new hire had contact with someone on the inside before they even so much as talked to HR. This is a big deal.
And again, if these PC users are willing to shell out a few hundred bucks on dongles and a copy of the OS to try it out, they can buy a slighly used mac mini, or an older ibook. Or shell out just a little bit more and get an new mini.
Or, providing their existing configuration of hardware is known to work with the dongle and is much more powerful than the lowly Mac Mini, buy the dongle, avoid putting more junk in the house, and have a more powerful machine on which to run OS X.
A billion Chinese people think China would be a better steward.
That's it exactly. [Nationality] thinks [Nation] is good, because they're the good guys, of course. Awful, empty-headed, hubris-laden reasoning.