f



Linux Fails in Munich, Delays, Delays, Delays

The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.

The first big deployment has been full of "snags" and "delays"... just 
like using Linux!

We told everyone this, now the truth is known.

-

Munich announces delay in Linux migration into 2006

9/7/2005 4:55:02 PM, by Jeremy Reimer

The municipal government of Munich, Germany released a statement 
yesterday that the migration of its office PCs to Linux and 
OpenOffice.org, which was scheduled to be completed in 2005, has slipped 
to at least next year.

The original plan, which involved switching all 14,000 of the city's 
desktop PCs from Windows NT 4 and Microsoft Office to Linux and 
OpenOffice.org at a cost of �30 million (US$35 million) was proposed in 
May 2003. Several Linux companies bid for the project, with the 
front-runners being SuSE, with financial backing and hardware support 
from IBM. At the time, SuSE was a German-owned company, and had garnered 
praise for its Linux distribution, which was considered easy to use and 
maintain. The proposed switch generated enough press that Steve Ballmer 
himself made a special visit to Munich to deliver a slightly cheaper 
counter-offer for updated Microsoft software. The trip was in vain, 
however, as the government decided they would stick to their original 
plan.

However, the switch soon ran into unforeseen snags and delays. In 
November 2003 the American software company Novell Inc. announced that 
it was acquiring SuSE for $210 million. While this didn't immediately 
put SuSE out of the running, it did cause the Munich government to start 
considering other Linux options. Concerns about legal ramifications from 
new EU patent laws caused the switch to be temporarily put on hold in 
August 2004. The patent concern issue faded, and after a year-long 
feasibility study, executed with the help of IBM and Novell, Munich was 
almost ready to begin the transition. They announced in April of 2005 
that their new Linux distribution of choice would be Debian, a popular 
distribution among open-source purists. Two German companies, Gonicus 
and Softcon, were contracted to help customize and package the Debian 
distribution to suit the Munich government's needs.

While the decision to pick a particular Linux distribution had been 
settled, the actual details of the transition were still yet to be 
finalized. The first office scheduled for the switch is that of the Lord 
Mayor, although at press time it was not known how many of the Mayor's 
250 computers were expected to be migrated. This first step of the 
transition is expected to start in the middle of 2006, with the rest of 
the government offices to follow.

Part of the reason for the delay is the need, identified by project 
leader Peter Hofmann, for an additional "pilot phase" to be run in the 
first half of 2006, where a single PC running Linux and OpenOffice.org 
will be placed in each department. "It became clear later in the 
planning phase that a pilot was more important than we first thought and 
should last longer," Hofmann said. Once the pilot is completed, 
departments plan to migrate to Open Source Software (OSS) in either one 
or two steps:

 "Some departments will start with OpenOffice on Windows, others will 
start with OpenOffice on Linux," Hofmann said. "It depends on their 
infrastructure, for example, if a department has a small number of 
simple (Office) macros and templates, but a large number of complex 
applications, it is easier to do OpenOffice on Windows first."

This statement begs the question of what the departments with both large 
numbers of Office macros and templates and complex Windows applications 
will do in the face of the transition, but presumably there is a plan to 
migrate these computers as well. Clearly the enthusiasm and eagerness 
displayed when OSS transitions are initially announced must be tempered 
in the face of inevitable migration difficulties. Munich gained a 
considerable amount of press as one of the first major civic governments 
in the world to announce a large-scale transition to OSS, and many other 
cities followed suit. However, as the Munich transition became 
increasingly delayed, many of these cities either scaled down their OSS 
migration plans (Paris) or abandoned them completely (Turku).

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050907-5284.html
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 3:38:03 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

172 Replies
982 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 49

Oxford wrote:

> The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.

Wait a minute.

This story spends paragraphs describing Suse...but Munich didn't choose Suse
-- it choose another distro.

In light of Novell's recent rise in the markets, I would take this article
to be yet another case of Martin Taylor spreading mis-information to try
and discredit competitors.

Sorry Martin -- only the best get to be Linux...guess that's why they hired
you at Microsoft.



> 
> The first big deployment has been full of "snags" and "delays"... just
> like using Linux!
> 
> We told everyone this, now the truth is known.
> 
> -
> 
> Munich announces delay in Linux migration into 2006
> 
> 9/7/2005 4:55:02 PM, by Jeremy Reimer
> 
> The municipal government of Munich, Germany released a statement
> yesterday that the migration of its office PCs to Linux and
> OpenOffice.org, which was scheduled to be completed in 2005, has slipped
> to at least next year.
> 
> The original plan, which involved switching all 14,000 of the city's
> desktop PCs from Windows NT 4 and Microsoft Office to Linux and
> OpenOffice.org at a cost of �30 million (US$35 million) was proposed in
> May 2003. Several Linux companies bid for the project, with the
> front-runners being SuSE, with financial backing and hardware support
> from IBM. At the time, SuSE was a German-owned company, and had garnered
> praise for its Linux distribution, which was considered easy to use and
> maintain. The proposed switch generated enough press that Steve Ballmer
> himself made a special visit to Munich to deliver a slightly cheaper
> counter-offer for updated Microsoft software. The trip was in vain,
> however, as the government decided they would stick to their original
> plan.
> 
> However, the switch soon ran into unforeseen snags and delays. In
> November 2003 the American software company Novell Inc. announced that
> it was acquiring SuSE for $210 million. While this didn't immediately
> put SuSE out of the running, it did cause the Munich government to start
> considering other Linux options. Concerns about legal ramifications from
> new EU patent laws caused the switch to be temporarily put on hold in
> August 2004. The patent concern issue faded, and after a year-long
> feasibility study, executed with the help of IBM and Novell, Munich was
> almost ready to begin the transition. They announced in April of 2005
> that their new Linux distribution of choice would be Debian, a popular
> distribution among open-source purists. Two German companies, Gonicus
> and Softcon, were contracted to help customize and package the Debian
> distribution to suit the Munich government's needs.
> 
> While the decision to pick a particular Linux distribution had been
> settled, the actual details of the transition were still yet to be
> finalized. The first office scheduled for the switch is that of the Lord
> Mayor, although at press time it was not known how many of the Mayor's
> 250 computers were expected to be migrated. This first step of the
> transition is expected to start in the middle of 2006, with the rest of
> the government offices to follow.
> 
> Part of the reason for the delay is the need, identified by project
> leader Peter Hofmann, for an additional "pilot phase" to be run in the
> first half of 2006, where a single PC running Linux and OpenOffice.org
> will be placed in each department. "It became clear later in the
> planning phase that a pilot was more important than we first thought and
> should last longer," Hofmann said. Once the pilot is completed,
> departments plan to migrate to Open Source Software (OSS) in either one
> or two steps:
> 
>  "Some departments will start with OpenOffice on Windows, others will
> start with OpenOffice on Linux," Hofmann said. "It depends on their
> infrastructure, for example, if a department has a small number of
> simple (Office) macros and templates, but a large number of complex
> applications, it is easier to do OpenOffice on Windows first."
> 
> This statement begs the question of what the departments with both large
> numbers of Office macros and templates and complex Windows applications
> will do in the face of the transition, but presumably there is a plan to
> migrate these computers as well. Clearly the enthusiasm and eagerness
> displayed when OSS transitions are initially announced must be tempered
> in the face of inevitable migration difficulties. Munich gained a
> considerable amount of press as one of the first major civic governments
> in the world to announce a large-scale transition to OSS, and many other
> cities followed suit. However, as the Munich transition became
> increasingly delayed, many of these cities either scaled down their OSS
> migration plans (Paris) or abandoned them completely (Turku).
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050907-5284.html

-- 
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43


0
jabailo (8241)
9/9/2005 4:02:47 AM
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:38:03 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
> 
> The first big deployment has been full of "snags" and "delays"... just 
> like using Linux!
> 
> We told everyone this, now the truth is known.

None of the reasons for the delays are technical, they are all
beaurocratic.  Linux is more than capable of handling anything that is
requested of it in this context.

However, this is a HUGE migration, and it's not going to just happen
overnight.  This would be the case no matter what platform and apps they
were switching to, including OS X.  There are always going to be wrinkles
that need ironing out in the process. Anyone that has had anything to do
with migrations on any level knows this, and the larger the migration, the
larger the wrinkles are likely to be.

What I find really telling is the way the anti-Linux/OSS factions are
hawking this whole thing, like they are just waiting for any little thing
to pick on so they can say, "I told you so".  What they don't mention is
that any entity making a move from one thing to another is going to
encounter snags along the way.

If Munich had decided to move to OS X instead of Linux, the same problems
would've existed.  I think it says a lot that they didn't choose to go
with OS X, but Linux and OSS.  

-- 
rapskat -  00:27:33 up 2 days, 16:05,  1 user,  load average: 0.48, 0.26, 0.17
	The dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac lay in his bed awake all night
wondering if there is a doG.

0
rapskat2 (2033)
9/9/2005 4:35:44 AM
Oxford wrote the following on 9/8/2005 8:38 PM:
> The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
> 
Liar. They are completing the Linux deployment, just as they are in China.

BTW, did you obtain permission to reprint that story?
Time for you to worry.

-- 
The only easy day was yesterday.
0
itso1 (15)
9/9/2005 4:39:05 AM
Looks to me like nearly all of the delays were not issues of technical
capabilities, but rather issues of political and economic concerns.
Switching to Linux is a bit like getting into the swimming pool.  If
you try to stick just a toe and then a foot and the just a little bit
more at a time it can take a great deal longer than simply diving in.
On the other hand, you don't want to take a swan dive into 3 feet of
water or you could do some serious damage.

I understand why the chose Debian - which has carefully avoided patent
issues and other secondary intellectual properties.  On the other hand,
this does make support more of a challenge.

Right now, it looks like Munich is a bit like the kid who has put their
foot in the water and has made it to the point where they are in it up
to their knees.  They can either suffer through more little increments,
or fall forward and get their whole body wet.

One of the biggest issues was a poorly thought out patent process in
which prior art could be patented simply because there was no archive.
There were so many abuses that they realized that the whole program was
a terrible idea.

The irony of course is that many of these abusive patents were
originally developed under public government grants and programs like
NASA, ARPA simtel-20, the Free Software Foundation, and the Andrew
project.  The irony of someone attempting to sue IBM with software that
they directly funded and researched and placed under public licenses
was just too much.

Still, it was a very effective method of putting the breaks on Open
Source adoption.  I don't know if Microsoft was pushing that effort,
but it certainly helped them buy the time they needed to at least get
something to market.

Time will tell whether waiting for Microsoft's next offering will end
up being just another opportunity to empty the wallet for minimal
increases in productivity or some quantim leap comparable to jumpng
from Windows 3.1 to Windows 2000 in a single release.  Personally, I'm
not terribly hopeful of the latter scenario.

The big problem for Microsoft is that once they actually release Vista
and establish pricing and licensing options, they will have to deal
with the consequences of their corner cutting and price gouging.  If
the price is too high, and the features too few, there will be another
chance of getting Linux a very deep cut of the market.

Most responsible CIOs and CTOs have already done the groundwork for
planning the migration to Linux if Microsoft gets to difficult to deal
with.  At the same time, they can use their ability to switch to Linux
as leverage for keeping prices down and terms flexible.

The more likely scenario is coexistance between Linux and Windows.
OEMs will continue to ship PCs licensed for Windows, but the machines
will be configured with virtual machine capabilities such as VMWare,
Concentric (Microsoft's new VM), and BOCHS, running either Linux or
Windows as clients to the core host.  Of course, this will mean that
OEMs will need to make sure that their "Standard Platform" is much more
"Linux Friendly" because a "Linux Hostile" system will have a much more
difficult time in the marketplace of those between age 12 and 30 -
those who were teenagers when Linux and Windows 95 were first released.

We are also seeing more and more people using Red Hat's Cygwin as a
means of aiding the transition.  Many modern applications, especially
newer applications, are using the cygwin libraries and Linux APIs to
create software that runs on numerous platforms.  It's actually quite
profitable because the core functions can be implemented using Open
Source but connected to proprietary graphical user interfaces which use
connections and LGPL libraries.

Even many commercial applications are now starting to provide plugins
which allow the use of Open Source infrastructure.  Other companies are
simply contributing funding and/or resources to non-profit
organizations which release plug-ins and connections to Open Source
utilities.

At this point, I wouldn't be counting on the death of Microsoft, but
Linux and Open Source will be playing a much more significant role all
the way from PDAs, embedded appliances, and Workstations and Laptops,
to servers and even Mainframes.  At the same time, Windows, UNIX
(including Solaris, AIX, and HP_UX), and Mainframe environments (MVS,
IMS, CICS) are not really going away.  The larger organizations are
blending all of these elements, often using Open Source technology for
the "glue", to create systems which are far more powerful than the sum
of their parts.

0
r.e.ballard (1110)
9/9/2005 5:10:52 AM
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:10:52 -0700, r.e.ballard wrote:

> Looks to me like nearly all of the delays were not issues of technical
ore powerful than the sum
> of their parts.

Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than they
anticipated.
Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.

-- 
Stephen Olsen	
Gearslut Extraordinaire
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! 
Dump the numbers to reply. Damm Spam!

0
9/9/2005 5:23:55 AM
rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:

> None of the reasons for the delays are technical, they are all
> beaurocratic.  Linux is more than capable of handling anything that is
> requested of it in this context.

the complication of switching to OpenOffice certainly is technical in 
nature.

> However, this is a HUGE migration, and it's not going to just happen
> overnight.  This would be the case no matter what platform and apps they
> were switching to, including OS X.  There are always going to be wrinkles
> that need ironing out in the process. Anyone that has had anything to do
> with migrations on any level knows this, and the larger the migration, the
> larger the wrinkles are likely to be.

Untrue... 14,000 isn't THAT many machines, sure it's a month long job, 
but a Year? Come on... The weakness of Linux is the problem, not the 
physical migration.

> What I find really telling is the way the anti-Linux/OSS factions are
> hawking this whole thing, like they are just waiting for any little thing
> to pick on so they can say, "I told you so".  What they don't mention is
> that any entity making a move from one thing to another is going to
> encounter snags along the way.
> 
> If Munich had decided to move to OS X instead of Linux, the same problems
> would've existed.  I think it says a lot that they didn't choose to go
> with OS X, but Linux and OSS.  

All wrong... moving that many machines to OSX would be a breeze... first 
of all you wouldn't have the problem of migrating MS Office. Microsoft 
has always designed Office on the Mac first, then port to PC's. So 
migrating the existing PC Office files is as simple as copying them to 
the OSX drive and double clicking. AND you would have little to no 
hardware issues since Apple controls the entire system, thus everything 
works out of the box, not so in the Linux world. So on two major counts, 
OSX wouldn't not have the issues a Linux deployment must hurdle.
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 5:36:02 AM
ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:

> Oxford wrote the following on 9/8/2005 8:38 PM:
> > The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
> > 
> Liar. They are completing the Linux deployment, just as they are in China.

Be real... they are going to be over a year late!  China may stop 
deployment because of this very public goof... If Munich knew up front 
Linux wasn't up to the task, it's HIGHLY likely they would of never 
attempted such an untested deployment

> BTW, did you obtain permission to reprint that story?
> Time for you to worry.

And why should I? You can repost anything you want... Information yearns 
to be free unless you forgot... here's another story... without so 
called "permission"... see... information flows freely...

It�s like a maddening refrain for IT people, when they hear �it�s not 
the technology holding us back, it�s the politics.� Well in this case, 
it�s the legalities that have forced the city of Munich�s 14,000 desktop 
migration to Linux onto the back burner even before the job went out for 
bid.

The issue involves fears over upcoming European Unio legislation that 
could result in patent issues for the German city. Nearly 50 potential 
patent problems have been pointed out by Munich's pro-Linux, Green Party 
alderman Jens Muehlhaus. The city says it will not waver on its decision 
to migrate to Linux, a move that has sent Microsoft into a defensive 
mode in Europe.

http://www.networkworld.com/weblogs/nos/005924.html
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 5:43:03 AM
Oxford wrote:


> Be real... they are going to be over a year late!  China may stop
> deployment because of this very public goof... If Munich knew up front
> Linux wasn't up to the task, it's HIGHLY likely they would of never
> attempted such an untested deployment

Actually, when they started this project, they mentioned that a lot of the
causes of delay were the translation of custom apps to Linux and getting
their vendors to port them -- specifically they have a lot of VB6 apps.

So, of course, the Microsoft dolts are no doubt dragging their feet (and
arms, which are assuredly long and hair) on the ground.

Meanwhile, real progress occurs and whether Windows or Linux, they will all
be using Open Office, bleeding revenue stream of the bloated giant.


-- 
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43


0
jabailo (8241)
9/9/2005 5:45:19 AM
Stephen Olsen wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:10:52 -0700, r.e.ballard wrote:
> 
>> Looks to me like nearly all of the delays were not issues of technical
> ore powerful than the sum
>> of their parts.
> 
> Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than they
> anticipated.
> Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.
> 


Troll your way to Trollland, have a Troll Sundae, with Troll Sprinkles and a
Troll Tiny Marshmellow on top.



-- 
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43


0
jabailo (8241)
9/9/2005 5:48:14 AM
Stephen Olsen <eastern_ny497235@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Looks to me like nearly all of the delays were not issues of technical
> ore powerful than the sum
> > of their parts.
> 
> Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than they
> anticipated.
> Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.

The core issue is they were attempting to put Linux on the Desktop where 
it is many years away from being feasible. They got tricked into 
thinking OpenOffice could match MS Office on PC's or Macs. The truth is, 
they will have to abandon this project because of this mistake.

The most advanced Office Suite is currently here:

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office2004/office2004.aspx
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 5:49:48 AM
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:48:14 -0700, John Bailo wrote:

> Stephen Olsen wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:10:52 -0700, r.e.ballard wrote:
>> 
>>> Looks to me like nearly all of the delays were not issues of technical
>> ore powerful than the sum
>>> of their parts.
>> 
>> Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than they
>> anticipated.
>> Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.

 
> Troll your way to Trollland, have a Troll Sundae, with Troll Sprinkles and a
> Troll Tiny Marshmellow on top.

Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free has
such as dismal desktop market share?

Why doesn't Dell pre-install Linux?

Why doesn't IBM?

Why doesn't HP?

So why don't these major players install Linux on their desktop systems?

Why?

Maybe lack of demand has something to do with it?

Linux is free, yet,,,,, so where is Linux?
A toy for geeks?
Where is Linux?
Really.

Let's say that GE decided to offer free microwave ovens to everyone.
Do you think LG would sell another Microwave?
I don't think so.

Yet, Linux is free all the time.
So virtually nobody is interested.

Why is that"?

Maybe it's because Linux applications are eternally alpha quality and suck?

How about Wine?

How long has Wine been around?

Years?

So finally they are out of alpha status?
August 30, 2005: Wine 20050830 Released

    In what may possibly be your last chance to get a release of Wine while it's still alpha software, Alexandre dropped Wine-20050830 from the CVS tree. Noted changes include:

        * A lot more theming support.
        * Many improvements to the various crypto dlls.
        * More LDAP support.
        * Beginnings of an MSXML implementation.
        * Better MSHTML support.
        * Emulated version now set to Windows 2000 by default.
        * Direct3D fixes and improvements.
        * Lots of bug fixes.

    Binary packages are in the process of being built, but the source is available now. You can find out more about this release in the announcement. Check out our download page for packages for your favorite distribution.

So I am supposed to trust my business on this crap?

I don't think so...

Linux is all about failure.



-- 
Stephen Olsen	
Gearslut Extraordinaire
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! 
Dump the numbers to reply. Damm Spam!

0
9/9/2005 6:17:54 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr Stephen Olsen (flatfish) wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:48:14 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Olsen wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:10:52 -0700, r.e.ballard wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Looks to me like nearly all of the delays were not issues of technical
>>> ore powerful than the sum
>>>> of their parts.
>>> 
>>> Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than they
>>> anticipated.
>>> Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.
> 
>  
>> Troll your way to Trollland, have a Troll Sundae, with Troll Sprinkles
>> and a Troll Tiny Marshmellow on top.
> 
> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free has
> such as dismal desktop market share?
> 

Because it has been explained several times already, flatfish?

< snip more flatfish droppings >

You lateley posted as

Aftab Singh, allison_hunt1969, Anna Banger, anonymous, Archie Watermann,
Baba Booey, Babu Singh, bill.gates.loves.me, bison, Bjarne Jensen,
BklynBoy, Boyce Mabri, Buster, Charles LeGrand, Charlie, Choppers McGee,
Christine Abernathy, Claire Lynn, Collie Entragion, Connie Hines, Corrie
Titlaand, dbx_boy, Deadpenguin, Elliot Zimmermann, Emmanuel Arias, Fawn
Lebowitz, flatfish+++, foamy, Gary Stewart, George Littlefield, Gilbert
Hochaim, gilligan, Greg Finnigan, Greg Laplante, Hans Kimm, Heather,
Heather69,  Heddy Seafield, hepcat, Ishmeal Hafizi, itchy balls, Ivan
Mctavish, IvanaB, Jeff Szarka, Jose Lopez, juke_joint, kaptain kaput, Karla
Snodgress, kathy_krantz, Kendra, Le Farter, Les Turner, Lilly, Lindy, Lisa
Shavas, long_tong_ling, Lukumi Babalu Aye, Luna Lane, Major Mynor, McSwain,
Moses, narrows_whitefish@yahoo.com, nate_mcspook, okto_pussy, Paddy 
McCrockett, Patricia, Peter Gluckman, Phillip Cornwall, phoung quoak,
pickle_pete, Poopy Pants McGee, Quimby, Richie O'Toole, Robert Strunk,
rothstein_ivan, Sally Vadi, Sammy, Sammy Whalen, Saul Goldblatt, Schlomo
Smykowski, Sharon Cackle, Sharon Hubbasland, Sean, Sean Fitzhenry, Sean
Macpherson, Sewer Rat, sewer_clown, Spammy_Davis, spanny_davis, Stephan
Simonsen, Stephen, Stephen Townshend, SuckyB, SunnyB, Susan Lapinski, Susan
Wong, Suzie Wong, Swampee, The Beaver, Thorsten, Toby Rastus Roosovelt III,
Tomas Bicsak, Tori, Tori Wassermann, Tracee, trailerpark, Trina Swallows,
Vince Fontain, Vladimir Yepifano, Walter Bubniak, Wang Mycock, Whizzer,
Wilbur J, Willy Wong, Winnie Septos,Wobbles and zyklon_C.  
Plus many, many, many more.
-- 
"...Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly)." (By Matt Welsh)

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
9/9/2005 6:31:03 AM
Oxford wrote:


> The core issue is they were attempting to put Linux on the Desktop where

The core issue is that it's as hard to remove 20 years accretion of
Microcrap software as it is to remove barnacles from the hull of a ship.

It takes a lot of sandblasting to get rid of those feeders.


-- 
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43


0
jabailo (8241)
9/9/2005 6:37:01 AM
Stephen Olsen wrote:

 
> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free has
> such as dismal desktop market share?

20 percent worldwide is pretty good.

> Why doesn't Dell pre-install Linux?

They do on their servers.

Of course, you are too stupid to know that the 'big' PC players own only
less than 15 percent of the desktop hardware market.

Why do you think IBM sold its PC business to 'Lenovo' ?
 
> Maybe lack of demand has something to do with it?

Wow -- M$ is spending $2 Billion in advertising and counter-prop to fight
something that has no demand...mmm...

> Linux is free, yet,,,,, so where is Linux?

It's up your ... [ oh yea, sorry ]

> Let's say that GE decided to offer free microwave ovens to everyone.

Then Maytag would start an advertising campaign saying that those microwaves
would explode the minute you try and bake a potato in one.

> How long has Wine been around?

Yeah, exactly.   Could someone cork the bottle and show this gentleman the
door?



-- 
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43


0
jabailo (8241)
9/9/2005 6:41:24 AM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Stephen Olsen <eastern_ny497235@yahoo.com> espoused:
> 
> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free has
> such as dismal desktop market share?
> 

As linux is free, there is no way of reliably establishing its desktop
share that I'm aware of.  All the evidence floating around indicates
that it's share is growing rapidly indeed, however, although probably not
yet close to the phenomenal rise in server and embedded spaces for linux.

Of the reliable information out there, though, it's interesting to note
that Apache remains at approximately 70% of web server deployments, 
with IIS at around 20%.

A quick look at browser stats from 
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
shows:

   IE6 		80% 71% 88% 80% 84% 46%
   Gecko based 9.3% 23% 6.4% 8.4% 8.4% 34%

Over 6 quite separate sites.  Clearly, free software browsers are rising
rapidly in popularity, and free software servers are by far the most
popular.

From WebReference.com we have:

FF ALL                        8423                  20.75
IE ALL                       22687                  55.90

Which puts Firefox at a stunning 1/5th of all hits here.  For 
digital web magazine, we have:

Browser    	  	Session %  % Change
Firefox 		51.02%   up 5.94%
Internet Explorer 	21.69% down 6.21%
Mozilla    		18.66%   up 0.68%

Which puts IE as the minority browser, at approx 1/5th.

Clearly, firefox is making huge inroads into the browser market, and
I'm sure that thunderbird is doing the same thing in the mail client
environment.

As open office continues to grow in popularity and usage, there is
unlikely to be much compelling reason to stay with Microsoft Windows
for most users, considering the reliability problems, the difficulties
avoiding malware, and so on.

Microsoft's hard-nosed business tactics clearly do not work when dealing
with the threat of free software to their business, thus it seems highly
likely that there will be a period of genuine competition.  How long
that lasts will depend on whether Microsoft are able to adjust their
business model to a support model, and are able to produce reliable,
secure software.

However, it is clear that the expanding area is linux/free software.

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky!
		-- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/9/2005 7:54:26 AM
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:43:03 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:
> 
>> Oxford wrote the following on 9/8/2005 8:38 PM:
>> > The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
>> > 
>> Liar. They are completing the Linux deployment, just as they are in China.
> 
> Be real... they are going to be over a year late!  China may stop 
> deployment because of this very public goof... If Munich knew up front 
> Linux wasn't up to the task, it's HIGHLY likely they would of never 
> attempted such an untested deployment

Pretty well every government project arrives later than expected. It's the
nature of such things.

I very much doubt if China will be influenced at all by this.

> 
>> BTW, did you obtain permission to reprint that story?
>> Time for you to worry.
> 
> And why should I? You can repost anything you want... Information yearns 
> to be free unless you forgot... here's another story... without so 
> called "permission"... see... information flows freely...
> 
> It¹s like a maddening refrain for IT people, when they hear ³it¹s not 
> the technology holding us back, it¹s the politics.² Well in this case, 
> it¹s the legalities that have forced the city of Munich¹s 14,000 desktop 
> migration to Linux onto the back burner even before the job went out for 
> bid.


So, according to this, the problems are nothing to do with Linux as a
platform. Great way to torpedo your own argument, eh?

> 
> The issue involves fears over upcoming European Unio legislation that 
> could result in patent issues for the German city. Nearly 50 potential 
> patent problems have been pointed out by Munich's pro-Linux, Green Party 
> alderman Jens Muehlhaus. The city says it will not waver on its decision 
> to migrate to Linux, a move that has sent Microsoft into a defensive 
> mode in Europe.
> 
> http://www.networkworld.com/weblogs/nos/005924.html

And it's still going ahead. So what's your point?

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 8:47:56 AM
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:49:48 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Stephen Olsen <eastern_ny497235@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> > Looks to me like nearly all of the delays were not issues of technical
>> ore powerful than the sum
>> > of their parts.
>> 
>> Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than they
>> anticipated.
>> Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.
> 
> The core issue is they were attempting to put Linux on the Desktop where 
> it is many years away from being feasible. They got tricked into 
> thinking OpenOffice could match MS Office on PC's or Macs. The truth is, 
> they will have to abandon this project because of this mistake.

They're not abandoning it, liar. It's not going as quickly as they'd
hoped, but it's still going ahead. And nobody was 'tricked'.

> 
> The most advanced Office Suite is currently here:
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office2004/office2004.aspx

What does this have to do with Linux?

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 8:49:54 AM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 02:17:54 -0400, Stephen Olsen wrote:

> So I am supposed to trust my business on this crap?
> 
> I don't think so...
> 
> Linux is all about failure.

That's really funny, especially considering that the service you are
posting via - Google Groups, is powered by Linux.  Chances are the ISP you
use to connect to the Internet is using Linux in some form.  The router
you probably have to connect all of your systems together is more than
likely Linux powered.  The money in your bank account at some point
probably passes through Linux powered systems.  Your cell phone may be
powered by Linux.  Your job more than likely uses Linux in some fashion
one way or another.

Linux is everywhere.  If all the Linux powered systems in the world were
shut down right now, everything would probably come to a screeching halt.

Morons like you think that just because you don't see Linux on the desktop
that it's not important?  You have no idea how fscking clueless you are.

-- 
rapskat -  04:40:59 up  3:15,  1 user,  load average: 0.84, 0.65, 0.47
	"The people involved in the crypto debate are all intelligent,
honorable, and pro-escrow, but they never possess more than two of these
qualities at once."
	- Kenneth Neil Cukier, in The Code Book, Simon Singh

0
rapskat2 (2033)
9/9/2005 8:50:06 AM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 02:17:54 -0400, Stephen Olsen wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:48:14 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Olsen wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 22:10:52 -0700, r.e.ballard wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Looks to me like nearly all of the delays were not issues of
>>>> technical
>>> ore powerful than the sum
>>>> of their parts.
>>> 
>>> Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than they
>>> anticipated.
>>> Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.
> 
> 
>> Troll your way to Trollland, have a Troll Sundae, with Troll Sprinkles
>> and a Troll Tiny Marshmellow on top.
> 
> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free
> has such as dismal desktop market share?

It doesn't. It's growing steadily. It's hardly likely to reach Microsoft
levels overnight. And it wasn't really intended for a desktop system until
relatively recently.


> Why doesn't Dell pre-install Linux?

Why not ask *them*?


> Why doesn't IBM?

I believe it does.


> Why doesn't HP?
> 
> So why don't these major players install Linux on their desktop systems?

Because, sadly, the world has yet to recognise that Windows is not the
only truly capable desktop. 


> Why?
> 
> Maybe lack of demand has something to do with it?

Partly. When consumers aren't aware something exists, they can't demand
it. ANd when they don't demand it, no one will provide it because... wait
for it... there's no demand from consumeers. Its a vicious circle. And
yet, even with this drawback, Linux *is* making significant inroads into
the market. Just not by the conventional means.

> 
> Linux is free, yet,,,,, so where is Linux?

Everywhere. Several years back, while I was still a regular Windows users,
a person I corresponded with via a mailing list was using it. My brother
and many of his friends were and are using it. Another mailing list I was
on ran on it, and the maintainer was always urging other people to go for
a secure system, rather than use Windows.

> A toy for geeks?

No. I'm not a geek. Nor is the bloke from my workplace who I gave a couple
of Live CDs to this week. He's a warehouse operative, and he found out
about Linux all by himself.

> Where is Linux?

All over. In places you couldn't even begin to imagine.

> Really.

Yep, really.


> Let's say that GE decided to offer free microwave ovens to everyone. Do
> you think LG would sell another Microwave? I don't think so.

What has that to do with anything? A microwave is not a computer.


> Yet, Linux is free all the time.
> So virtually nobody is interested.

You're a liar.

> Why is that"?
> 
> Maybe it's because Linux applications are eternally alpha quality and
> suck?

No. Most mainsteam apps, provided by top distros like SUSE, Debian and
Mandriva, are excellent. 


> How about Wine?

How about it?

> 
> How long has Wine been around?

Don't know. I don't use it.


> Years?
> 
> So finally they are out of alpha status? August 30, 2005: Wine 20050830
> Released
> 
>     In what may possibly be your last chance to get a release of Wine
>     while it's still alpha software, Alexandre dropped Wine-20050830
>     from the CVS tree. Noted changes include:
> 
>         * A lot more theming support.
>         * Many improvements to the various crypto dlls. * More LDAP
>         support.
>         * Beginnings of an MSXML implementation. * Better MSHTML
>         support.
>         * Emulated version now set to Windows 2000 by default. *
>         Direct3D fixes and improvements.
>         * Lots of bug fixes.
> 
>     Binary packages are in the process of being built, but the source is
>     available now. You can find out more about this release in the
>     announcement. Check out our download page for packages for your
>     favorite distribution.
> 
> So I am supposed to trust my business on this crap?

Who said you did, idiot? Don't make such stupid statements.

> I don't think so...


Clearly you don't 'think' at all.

> 
> Linux is all about failure.

Funny how you trolls always ignore the fact that Linux is extremely
successful. Outgunned by a huge company like MS, with almost no money,
Linux nevertheless continues to grow and grow - and you call that failure?
You are an idiot.

-- 
Kier
0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 9:06:26 AM
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:36:02 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> None of the reasons for the delays are technical, they are all
>> beaurocratic.  Linux is more than capable of handling anything that is
>> requested of it in this context.
> 
> the complication of switching to OpenOffice certainly is technical in 
> nature.

In my experience, the biggest obstacle when implementing anything
different in a production environment is not the technology, but the
people who will be using it.  When you are dealing with end users, that
adds a whole other level of complication to the equation.

 
>> However, this is a HUGE migration, and it's not going to just happen
>> overnight.  This would be the case no matter what platform and apps they
>> were switching to, including OS X.  There are always going to be wrinkles
>> that need ironing out in the process. Anyone that has had anything to do
>> with migrations on any level knows this, and the larger the migration, the
>> larger the wrinkles are likely to be.
> 
> Untrue... 14,000 isn't THAT many machines, sure it's a month long job, 
> but a Year? Come on... The weakness of Linux is the problem, not the 
> physical migration.

It's nothing to do with any "weakness of Linux", did you even read the
article you posted?


>> What I find really telling is the way the anti-Linux/OSS factions are
>> hawking this whole thing, like they are just waiting for any little thing
>> to pick on so they can say, "I told you so".  What they don't mention is
>> that any entity making a move from one thing to another is going to
>> encounter snags along the way.
>> 
>> If Munich had decided to move to OS X instead of Linux, the same problems
>> would've existed.  I think it says a lot that they didn't choose to go
>> with OS X, but Linux and OSS.  
> 
> All wrong... moving that many machines to OSX would be a breeze... first 
> of all you wouldn't have the problem of migrating MS Office. Microsoft 
> has always designed Office on the Mac first, then port to PC's. So 
> migrating the existing PC Office files is as simple as copying them to 
> the OSX drive and double clicking. AND you would have little to no 
> hardware issues since Apple controls the entire system, thus everything 
> works out of the box, not so in the Linux world. So on two major counts, 
> OSX wouldn't not have the issues a Linux deployment must hurdle.


And yet none of this was mentioned as being the cause for the delays. 
Everything is related to beurocratic issues, nothing to do with
technological problems.  You are making up strawmen and FUD to try and
support your invalid argument.  In short, you are lying.

All one has to do is read and understand the article you posted to see
what is causing the holdups.  Nice effort, but no cigar.

-- 
rapskat -  05:04:34 up  3:39,  1 user,  load average: 0.29, 0.49, 0.50
	"A computer without a Microsoft operating system is like a dog
without bricks tied to its head."
	-- Steve on slashdot

0
rapskat2 (2033)
9/9/2005 9:10:51 AM
On 2005-09-09, Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> posted something concerning:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:43:03 -0600, Oxford wrote:

>> Be real... they are going to be over a year late!  China may stop 
>> deployment because of this very public goof... If Munich knew up front 
>> Linux wasn't up to the task, it's HIGHLY likely they would of never 
>> attempted such an untested deployment
>
> Pretty well every government project arrives later than expected. It's the
> nature of such things.
>
> I very much doubt if China will be influenced at all by this.

I wonder if Steve knows Oxturd is posting about things other than
what's included on Apple-approved press releases.

Better knock it off, Oxxie, or your number will be removed from Steve's
fax machine!

-- 
Wayphiser: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
0
sinister656 (2009)
9/9/2005 9:12:03 AM
Oxford <csma@mac.com> did eloquently scribble:
> The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
> 
> The first big deployment has been full of "snags" and "delays"... just 
> like using Linux!

Tsk, never satisfied some people.
They complain (and make up fake stories) about it when linux is deployed
instantly with no testing or acclimitisation time for the users...

They complain when the organisation does things right by extensive testing
and weaning the users onto a new system in stages...

Typical troll material.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
spike1 (8171)
9/9/2005 9:26:07 AM
Oxford <csma@mac.com> did eloquently scribble:
> Untrue... 14,000 isn't THAT many machines, sure it's a month long job, 
> but a Year? 

So... you're now claiming it takes 14,000 users only one month to get used
to a totally new system and application set and the organisation should've
just dumped it on all of them, all in one go???

No wonder they call you oxtard.

-- 
|                          |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|  spike1@freenet.co.uk    |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
|                          |can't move, with no hope of rescue.             |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been   |
|           in             |good to you so far...                           |
|    Computer Science      |   -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
0
spike1 (8171)
9/9/2005 9:26:07 AM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 09:12:03 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
<snip>
> 
> I wonder if Steve knows Oxturd is posting about things other than
> what's included on Apple-approved press releases.
> 
> Better knock it off, Oxxie, or your number will be removed from Steve's
> fax machine!


;-)

A little tale, related to Oxford's cheerleading habits in COLA: 

I was out last week's Bank Holiday and we went into  big Curry's
(electrical retailers) store. While strolling around, I saw a whole
display cabinet of mp3 players - several of them iPods of various types,
but just as many if not more were Rio, Creative Zen, iRiver, and
all-sorts. Some kids were discussing relative merits of various players,
and they seemed no more impressed by Apple's offerings than with a number
of others.

Don't get me wrong, those Pods are stylish, and some have great storage
capacity, but they also cost a fair chunk of dosh. Other players can be
better and cheaper for a person's needs. 

I didn't see anyone drooling over the iPods to the exclusion of all else,
so perhaps our pal Oxford is not so well-informed as he thinks. It's not
*just* about style in the end, however good.

-- 
Kier 

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 9:38:29 AM
On 2005-09-09, Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> posted something concerning:

> A little tale, related to Oxford's cheerleading habits in COLA: 
>
> I was out last week's Bank Holiday and we went into  big Curry's
> (electrical retailers) store. While strolling around, I saw a whole
> display cabinet of mp3 players - several of them iPods of various types,
> but just as many if not more were Rio, Creative Zen, iRiver, and
> all-sorts. Some kids were discussing relative merits of various players,
> and they seemed no more impressed by Apple's offerings than with a number
> of others.
>
> Don't get me wrong, those Pods are stylish, and some have great storage
> capacity, but they also cost a fair chunk of dosh. Other players can be
> better and cheaper for a person's needs. 
>
> I didn't see anyone drooling over the iPods to the exclusion of all else,
> so perhaps our pal Oxford is not so well-informed as he thinks. It's not
> *just* about style in the end, however good.

I'd take an iPod if the price was right. So far it hasn't been. Not
when I can get as much capability for less. And alternatives aren't
usually as easy to spot by thieves because they aren't as readily
identifiable at a glance.

-- 
The Microsoft motto: We're the leaders....wait for us!
0
sinister656 (2009)
9/9/2005 10:15:09 AM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:15:09 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:

> On 2005-09-09, Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> posted something concerning:
> 
>> A little tale, related to Oxford's cheerleading habits in COLA: 
>>
>> I was out last week's Bank Holiday and we went into  big Curry's
>> (electrical retailers) store. While strolling around, I saw a whole
>> display cabinet of mp3 players - several of them iPods of various types,
>> but just as many if not more were Rio, Creative Zen, iRiver, and
>> all-sorts. Some kids were discussing relative merits of various players,
>> and they seemed no more impressed by Apple's offerings than with a number
>> of others.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, those Pods are stylish, and some have great storage
>> capacity, but they also cost a fair chunk of dosh. Other players can be
>> better and cheaper for a person's needs. 
>>
>> I didn't see anyone drooling over the iPods to the exclusion of all else,
>> so perhaps our pal Oxford is not so well-informed as he thinks. It's not
>> *just* about style in the end, however good.
> 
> I'd take an iPod if the price was right. So far it hasn't been. Not
> when I can get as much capability for less. And alternatives aren't
> usually as easy to spot by thieves because they aren't as readily
> identifiable at a glance.

I looked at some of the mini versions, because I don't need huge amounts
of storage, my mp3 collection not being very big, but they still seemed
overpriced. My bother bought an iPhoto, mainly because of its storage
capacity (he has a lot of photos), and because he has a Mac Mini serving
his media. But many of the rival players now seem to be offering large
amounts of hard disk also. And iPods do have drawbacks just as much as any
other player of the type

And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
we fear thieves?

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 10:41:02 AM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:41:02 +0100, Kier wrote:

> 
> And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
> we fear thieves?

Bugger! Make that 'world'.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 10:46:04 AM
On 2005-09-09, Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> posted something concerning:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:15:09 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:

>> I'd take an iPod if the price was right. So far it hasn't been. Not
>> when I can get as much capability for less. And alternatives aren't
>> usually as easy to spot by thieves because they aren't as readily
>> identifiable at a glance.
>
> I looked at some of the mini versions, because I don't need huge amounts
> of storage, my mp3 collection not being very big, but they still seemed
> overpriced. My bother bought an iPhoto, mainly because of its storage
> capacity (he has a lot of photos), and because he has a Mac Mini serving
> his media. But many of the rival players now seem to be offering large
> amounts of hard disk also. And iPods do have drawbacks just as much as any
> other player of the type
>
> And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
> we fear thieves?

Here in the US there have been people killed and beaten just to take
away iPods. In fact, people have been killed for their tennis shoes.

Such is why a fair number of people subscribe to concealed-carry for
all citizens, making it impossible for a crook to know who is an easy
target and who is not. Not to mention making it easier for a passerby
to help a person who has been targetted and isn't armed themselves.

-- 
Exxon sponsored ecology videos, Kraft sponsored nutrition videos...
I'd be surprised if Microsoft isn't sponsoring technology classes. 
0
sinister656 (2009)
9/9/2005 11:18:03 AM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:18:03 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:

> On 2005-09-09, Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> posted something concerning:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:15:09 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
> 
>>> I'd take an iPod if the price was right. So far it hasn't been. Not
>>> when I can get as much capability for less. And alternatives aren't
>>> usually as easy to spot by thieves because they aren't as readily
>>> identifiable at a glance.
>>
>> I looked at some of the mini versions, because I don't need huge amounts
>> of storage, my mp3 collection not being very big, but they still seemed
>> overpriced. My bother bought an iPhoto, mainly because of its storage
>> capacity (he has a lot of photos), and because he has a Mac Mini serving
>> his media. But many of the rival players now seem to be offering large
>> amounts of hard disk also. And iPods do have drawbacks just as much as any
>> other player of the type
>>
>> And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
>> we fear thieves?
> 
> Here in the US there have been people killed and beaten just to take
> away iPods. In fact, people have been killed for their tennis shoes.

Crazy. Just crazy...

> 
> Such is why a fair number of people subscribe to concealed-carry for
> all citizens, making it impossible for a crook to know who is an easy
> target and who is not. Not to mention making it easier for a passerby
> to help a person who has been targetted and isn't armed themselves.

I'm not a proponent of civilians carrying guns myself, but I do take you
point.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 11:35:02 AM
Kier wrote:

>I very much doubt if China will be influenced at all by this.

You "doubt very much"?  How about "no freaking way".  China will
eventually have to become a modern nation in that they will have to
clamp-down on the rampant pirating of IP.  There's no way in hell
they're going to send hundreds of $billion a year to Billy G just so
they can use his buggy crapware.

0
chrisv (22840)
9/9/2005 1:04:17 PM
spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

> > Untrue... 14,000 isn't THAT many machines, sure it's a month long job, 
> > but a Year? 
> 
> So... you're now claiming it takes 14,000 users only one month to get used
> to a totally new system and application set and the organisation should've
> just dumped it on all of them, all in one go??

sounds like you are unfamiliar with large migrations... doing this task 
using OSX wouldn't be a "totally new system". Windows users could 
leverage off their Windows and MS Office skills right from the start. 
one of my closest friends does this inside DeLL, setting up 1000's of 
OSX boxes no less, and the process is smooth without the glitches Linux 
is running into in Munich. Again, 14,000 just isn't that many machines 
when you know what you are doing, AND using OSX to accomplish the task.

http://www.trifusion.com/
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 1:56:45 PM
Oxford wrote the following on 9/8/2005 10:43 PM:
> ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Oxford wrote the following on 9/8/2005 8:38 PM:
>>
>>>The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
>>>
>>
>>Liar. They are completing the Linux deployment, just as they are in China.
> 
> 
> Be real... 

said the delusional troll who believes he'll convince Linux advocates to 
stop using Linux.

Aside...
You have obviously never migrated from UNIX to Windows. In fact, you 
don't strike me as a person who understands technology whatsoever. 
You're just a troll, and not a very good one.

> 
> 
>>BTW, did you obtain permission to reprint that story?
>>Time for you to worry.
> 
> 
> And why should I? 

Because it is copyrighted material. Copyrighted print material is not 
free to disseminate as you please, no matter what sort of delusions you 
choose to believe, which appear to be many.

-- 
The only easy day was yesterday.
0
itso1 (15)
9/9/2005 2:00:00 PM
Stephen Olsen wrote:

> Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than
> they anticipated.
> Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.

Actually I live in Munich (check the news server I'm posting this
from and to a whois on it ;-) and I know some of the people who
are involved in the migration. The reason for the delay is quite
simple: About every department has their own homebrew software
solutions. And not few of them are built around propritary
software like M$ Access. However in the Linux migration project
they want to set all of these data on a sound foundation. So the
real reason for delay isn't the OSS but the fact that there are
so much, different CSS systems used, that extracting data can't
be done with a few scripts. For about every department a own
import/export programm has to be developed.

Wolfgang Draxinger
-- 

0
wdraxinger (438)
9/9/2005 2:00:40 PM
chrisv wrote:
>> Kier wrote:
>>
>>> I very much doubt if China will be influenced at all by this.
>>
>> You "doubt very much"?  How about "no freaking way".  China will
>> eventually have to become a modern nation in that they will have to
>> clamp-down on the rampant pirating of IP.  There's no way in hell
>> they're going to send hundreds of $billion a year to Billy G just so
>> they can use his buggy crapware.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Ask Jesse Hughes about software piracy in Asia or China, where it's at 75% 
or more.

Ask Jim Moore about the "Corporate version" of Windows XP Pro, which is his 
OS of choice.


chrisv = walph teh wetard


0
sheenan1 (6)
9/9/2005 2:09:13 PM
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, those Pods are stylish, and some have great storage
> capacity, but they also cost a fair chunk of dosh. Other players can be
> better and cheaper for a person's needs. 
> 
> I didn't see anyone drooling over the iPods to the exclusion of all else,
> so perhaps our pal Oxford is not so well-informed as he thinks. It's not
> *just* about style in the end, however good.

and that was before Sept 7th... correct? ... if you went in there 
today... all the talk would be about the breakthrough iPod nano... it 
will be years before anyone catches up to it...

once again... apple is the master of miniaturization, value for the 
price, resell value, and powerful features... 

http://www.apple.com/ipodnano

http://stream.apple.akadns.net/

(by the way, Rio is no longer in business :) with Creative teetering on 
bankruptcy)
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 2:10:37 PM
Oxford wrote the following on 9/8/2005 10:36 PM:
> rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>None of the reasons for the delays are technical, they are all
>>beaurocratic.  Linux is more than capable of handling anything that is
>>requested of it in this context.
> 
> 
> the complication of switching to OpenOffice certainly is technical in 
> nature.

As I said, you are obviously not a technical person.
> 
> 
>>However, this is a HUGE migration, and it's not going to just happen
>>overnight.  This would be the case no matter what platform and apps they
>>were switching to, including OS X.  There are always going to be wrinkles
>>that need ironing out in the process. Anyone that has had anything to do
>>with migrations on any level knows this, and the larger the migration, the
>>larger the wrinkles are likely to be.
> 
> 
> Untrue... 14,000 isn't THAT many machines, sure it's a month long job, 
> but a Year? Come on... 

Indeed, come on. You have obviously never performed a migration 
before... of any type.

> 
>>What I find really telling is the way the anti-Linux/OSS factions are
>>hawking this whole thing, like they are just waiting for any little thing
>>to pick on so they can say, "I told you so".  What they don't mention is
>>that any entity making a move from one thing to another is going to
>>encounter snags along the way.
>>
>>If Munich had decided to move to OS X instead of Linux, the same problems
>>would've existed.  I think it says a lot that they didn't choose to go
>>with OS X, but Linux and OSS.  
> 
> 
> All wrong... moving that many machines to OSX would be a breeze... first 
> of all you wouldn't have the problem of migrating MS Office. Microsoft 
> has always designed Office on the Mac first, then port to PC's. 

That is simply a bald-faced lie. Micrsoft development teams have always 
designed the company's Office products in VisualBasic running on Windows 
computers. I was on the design team for Office 97 and still consult with 
MS on a regular basis.

Look here and tell us how many Microsoft development products you see 
available for Apple MacIntosh:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/howtobuy/

But you already know this. You have exhausted any chance you had at 
proving your point, so you've resorted to fabrications and nonsense.

-- 
The only easy day was yesterday.
0
itso1 (15)
9/9/2005 2:21:42 PM
ITSO azionista wrote:
> Oxford wrote the following on 9/8/2005 8:38 PM:
> > The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
> >
> Liar. They are completing the Linux deployment, just as they are in China.
>



> BTW, did you obtain permission to reprint that story?
> Time for you to worry.


Two words - "Fair use"

0
lqualig (4343)
9/9/2005 2:24:53 PM
On Friday 09 September 2005 14:56 Oxford wrote:

> sounds like you are unfamiliar with large migrations... doing this
> task using OSX wouldn't be a "totally new system". Windows users could
> leverage off their Windows and MS Office skills right from the start.
> one of my closest friends does this inside DeLL, setting up 1000's of
> OSX boxes no less, and the process is smooth without the glitches
> Linux is running into in Munich. Again, 14,000 just isn't that many
> machines when you know what you are doing, AND using OSX to accomplish
> the task.

I don't think that you understand what's going on, or why, do you?

If they were to adopt (standardise on) Apple, I can see that the Germans
might gain a more secure O/S, but that would still be closed source,
still be a lock-in, still be produced by a foreign company (currently
friendly, but perhaps not for ever), and still tie them in (following
your suggestion) to MS applications and various proprietary formats.

It won't happen.

Also, you seem to think that "all" that is involved here is 14,000
desktop machines, in Munich, in Germany.  There's a much bigger
agenda....

Bill
0
bbgruff (6626)
9/9/2005 2:36:29 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
spike1@freenet.co.uk <spike1@freenet.co.uk> espoused:
> Oxford <csma@mac.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> Untrue... 14,000 isn't THAT many machines, sure it's a month long job, 
>> but a Year? 
> 
> So... you're now claiming it takes 14,000 users only one month to get used
> to a totally new system and application set and the organisation should've
> just dumped it on all of them, all in one go???

Haha!  I don't see Oxford posts, but that claim is truly funny.  14,000
in a month would be 470/day, or 60/hour, or 1/min (assuming an 8-hour
working day - no lunch, no tea, no breaks, no p*ssing...).  Wow!

> 
> No wonder they call you oxtard.
> 

Quite :-))

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky!
		-- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/9/2005 2:37:07 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:09:13 +0000, S.Heenan wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>> Kier wrote:
>>>
>>>> I very much doubt if China will be influenced at all by this.
>>>
>>> You "doubt very much"?  How about "no freaking way".  China will
>>> eventually have to become a modern nation in that they will have to
>>> clamp-down on the rampant pirating of IP.  There's no way in hell
>>> they're going to send hundreds of $billion a year to Billy G just so
>>> they can use his buggy crapware.

Quite right. Linux is serving their needs better already. They're able to
make the software do what *they* want.

> 
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Are you incapable of doing anything except braying?

> 
> Ask Jesse Hughes about software piracy in Asia or China, where it's at 75% 
> or more.

And? Yes? That's one of the reasons they're going over to Linux. No need
for piracy, no need to pay a nation they distrust anythig at all to use
software. They can get what they need legally, and do much more with it.
It will adapt to *their* needs, not expect them to adapt to *it*.

> 
> Ask Jim Moore about the "Corporate version" of Windows XP Pro, which is his 
> OS of choice.

And? Yes?

> 
> 
> chrisv = walph teh wetard

Do you have anything useful to say, rather than the crap you invariably
spout?

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 2:37:48 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:41:02 +0100, Kier wrote:
> 
>> 
>> And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
>> we fear thieves?
> 
> Bugger! Make that 'world'.
> 

Hehe.  You're right though.  You never see a Ferrari or an Aston or
a Bristol parked in the street - why?  Because a jealous person will
scratch them with keys or similar.  This has happened to me with my
Disco, which is hardly a 'posh' car.

I came back to my bike one day in London to find some daft tw*t sitting
on it, drinking his beer.  I think he was trying to impress some girls,
but me turning up and riding it away probably blew that for him.

I rarely buy/have/use anything which is overtly expensive, for the
simple reason that it will attract thieves.

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky!
		-- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/9/2005 2:44:43 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:18:03 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
> 
>> On 2005-09-09, Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> posted something concerning:
>>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:15:09 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
>> 
>>>> I'd take an iPod if the price was right. So far it hasn't been. Not
>>>> when I can get as much capability for less. And alternatives aren't
>>>> usually as easy to spot by thieves because they aren't as readily
>>>> identifiable at a glance.
>>>
>>> I looked at some of the mini versions, because I don't need huge amounts
>>> of storage, my mp3 collection not being very big, but they still seemed
>>> overpriced. My bother bought an iPhoto, mainly because of its storage
>>> capacity (he has a lot of photos), and because he has a Mac Mini serving
>>> his media. But many of the rival players now seem to be offering large
>>> amounts of hard disk also. And iPods do have drawbacks just as much as any
>>> other player of the type
>>>
>>> And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
>>> we fear thieves?
>> 
>> Here in the US there have been people killed and beaten just to take
>> away iPods. In fact, people have been killed for their tennis shoes.
> 
> Crazy. Just crazy...

Kids used to get mugged for their trainers in London (some of the rougher
suburbs, not really in the centre).

> 
>> 
>> Such is why a fair number of people subscribe to concealed-carry for
>> all citizens, making it impossible for a crook to know who is an easy
>> target and who is not. Not to mention making it easier for a passerby
>> to help a person who has been targetted and isn't armed themselves.
> 
> I'm not a proponent of civilians carrying guns myself, but I do take you
> point.
> 

Unfortunately, the likely end-game is that ordinary people will want to
be armed as the 'system' proves increasingly unable to protect them from
the criminal fraternity.


-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky!
		-- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/9/2005 2:46:34 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:10:37 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Don't get me wrong, those Pods are stylish, and some have great storage
>> capacity, but they also cost a fair chunk of dosh. Other players can be
>> better and cheaper for a person's needs. 
>> 
>> I didn't see anyone drooling over the iPods to the exclusion of all else,
>> so perhaps our pal Oxford is not so well-informed as he thinks. It's not
>> *just* about style in the end, however good.
> 
> and that was before Sept 7th... correct? ... if you went in there 
> today... all the talk would be about the breakthrough iPod nano... it 
> will be years before anyone catches up to it...

Bollocks. You talk a huge pile of steaming horse-manure, every single time
you open your gob. 

> 
> once again... apple is the master of miniaturization, value for the 
> price, resell value, and powerful features...

Evidently not. There were probably twice as many non-Apple players as
there were Pods on display. Resell value? Maybe.
 
 
> http://www.apple.com/ipodnano
> 
> http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
> 
> (by the way, Rio is no longer in business :) with Creative teetering on
> bankruptcy)

Funny, didn't look like that where I was. The new Creative Zen was
prominent.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 2:54:10 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:44:43 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:41:02 +0100, Kier wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
>>> we fear thieves?
>> 
>> Bugger! Make that 'world'.
>> 
> 
> Hehe.  You're right though.  You never see a Ferrari or an Aston or
> a Bristol parked in the street - why?  Because a jealous person will
> scratch them with keys or similar.  This has happened to me with my
> Disco, which is hardly a 'posh' car.

My brother's been lucky with his Subaru, but he lives in a street with
only one exit, so there's less 'passing traffic', as it were, and it's a
quiet neighbourhood

> 
> I came back to my bike one day in London to find some daft tw*t sitting
> on it, drinking his beer.  I think he was trying to impress some girls,
> but me turning up and riding it away probably blew that for him.

Love to have seen his face.

'Errm, my good man, would you mind getting your fat arse off my
motorcycle, as I'm about to burn rubber, preferably up the middle of your
back'.

> 
> I rarely buy/have/use anything which is overtly expensive, for the
> simple reason that it will attract thieves.

Society has gone to the dogs of late. 

-- 
Kier 


0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 3:10:07 PM
ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:

> > All wrong... moving that many machines to OSX would be a breeze... first 
> > of all you wouldn't have the problem of migrating MS Office. Microsoft 
> > has always designed Office on the Mac first, then port to PC's. 
> 
> That is simply a bald-faced lie. Micrsoft development teams have always 
> designed the company's Office products in VisualBasic running on Windows 
> computers. I was on the design team for Office 97 and still consult with 
> MS on a regular basis.

Wrong, every component outside of Access began on the Mac, polished on 
the Mac, then ported to the PC. Office 2004 is currently the most 
advanced version of Office MS builds, it will trickle over to the PC in 
due time, but Windows always lags the Mac version by a year or more.

> Look here and tell us how many Microsoft development products you see 
> available for Apple MacIntosh:
> 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/howtobuy/

And why would anyone need Development Tools from Microsoft to Develop on 
the Mac? MS has always had 2nd rate development tools, they have always 
been a joke in that area. The CREAM of Development Tools for any 
platform is Xcode.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/developertools/

http://developer.apple.com/tools/xcode/index.html
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 3:11:04 PM
lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

> > BTW, did you obtain permission to reprint that story?
> > Time for you to worry.
> 
> Two words - "Fair use"

thanks, yes... as long as you aren't publishing it, and calling it your 
own, there is no issue with copyright... the link provided to the 
original document is "fair use".
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 3:13:03 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:46:34 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:18:03 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2005-09-09, Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> posted something concerning:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:15:09 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> I'd take an iPod if the price was right. So far it hasn't been. Not
>>>>> when I can get as much capability for less. And alternatives aren't
>>>>> usually as easy to spot by thieves because they aren't as readily
>>>>> identifiable at a glance.
>>>>
>>>> I looked at some of the mini versions, because I don't need huge amounts
>>>> of storage, my mp3 collection not being very big, but they still seemed
>>>> overpriced. My bother bought an iPhoto, mainly because of its storage
>>>> capacity (he has a lot of photos), and because he has a Mac Mini serving
>>>> his media. But many of the rival players now seem to be offering large
>>>> amounts of hard disk also. And iPods do have drawbacks just as much as any
>>>> other player of the type
>>>>
>>>> And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
>>>> we fear thieves?
>>> 
>>> Here in the US there have been people killed and beaten just to take
>>> away iPods. In fact, people have been killed for their tennis shoes.
>> 
>> Crazy. Just crazy...
> 
> Kids used to get mugged for their trainers in London (some of the rougher
> suburbs, not really in the centre).

In's still heard of from time to time - mobiles, too. As if shoes and
phones and the like could ever be worth a life.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Such is why a fair number of people subscribe to concealed-carry for
>>> all citizens, making it impossible for a crook to know who is an easy
>>> target and who is not. Not to mention making it easier for a passerby
>>> to help a person who has been targetted and isn't armed themselves.
>> 
>> I'm not a proponent of civilians carrying guns myself, but I do take you
>> point.
>> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the likely end-game is that ordinary people will want to
> be armed as the 'system' proves increasingly unable to protect them from
> the criminal fraternity.

Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 3:14:06 PM
Kier wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:10:37 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>
> >
> > once again... apple is the master of miniaturization, value for the
> > price, resell value, and powerful features...
>
> Evidently not. There were probably twice as many non-Apple players as
> there were Pods on display. Resell value? Maybe.
>
>
> > http://www.apple.com/ipodnano
> >
> > http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
> >
> > (by the way, Rio is no longer in business :) with Creative teetering on
> > bankruptcy)
>
> Funny, didn't look like that where I was. The new Creative Zen was
> prominent.
>



http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=10103

- "Research conducted for its Digital Home Analysis service puts Apple
in the overall market lead in the first half of 2005, with 44.8 per
cent share by units, but with a commanding 71.5 per cent share of the
hard-disk based player segment. Canalys estimates put Creative in
second place overall with 16.0 per cent share, followed by Rio on 7.1
per cent."


My personal non-scientific poll (i.e. people I know and see walking
around town) seems to validate this. Most everyone uses an iPod around
here.

0
lqualig (4343)
9/9/2005 3:15:08 PM
lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

> http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=10103
> 
> - "Research conducted for its Digital Home Analysis service puts Apple
> in the overall market lead in the first half of 2005, with 44.8 per
> cent share by units, but with a commanding 71.5 per cent share of the
> hard-disk based player segment. Canalys estimates put Creative in
> second place overall with 16.0 per cent share, followed by Rio on 7.1
> per cent."
> 
> 
> My personal non-scientific poll (i.e. people I know and see walking
> around town) seems to validate this. Most everyone uses an iPod around
> here.

yeah, it's easily 8 out of 10 using some form of an iPod here... the 
other players just don't work well in conjunction with Music Software or 
the ability to "manage" huge Music Libraries... iTunes rules the Music 
Universe that's for sure...

Version 5 was released Wednesday... and of course it's free!

http://www.apple.com/itunes/overview/

http://www.apple.com/itunes/
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 3:21:20 PM
Kier wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:46:34 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
> > begin  oe_protect.scr
> > Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
> >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:18:03 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2005-09-09, Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> posted something concerning:
> >>>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 10:15:09 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> I'd take an iPod if the price was right. So far it hasn't been. Not
> >>>>> when I can get as much capability for less. And alternatives aren't
> >>>>> usually as easy to spot by thieves because they aren't as readily
> >>>>> identifiable at a glance.
> >>>>
> >>>> I looked at some of the mini versions, because I don't need huge amounts
> >>>> of storage, my mp3 collection not being very big, but they still seemed
> >>>> overpriced. My bother bought an iPhoto, mainly because of its storage
> >>>> capacity (he has a lot of photos), and because he has a Mac Mini serving
> >>>> his media. But many of the rival players now seem to be offering large
> >>>> amounts of hard disk also. And iPods do have drawbacks just as much as any
> >>>> other player of the type
> >>>>
> >>>> And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
> >>>> we fear thieves?
> >>>
> >>> Here in the US there have been people killed and beaten just to take
> >>> away iPods. In fact, people have been killed for their tennis shoes.
> >>
> >> Crazy. Just crazy...
> >
> > Kids used to get mugged for their trainers in London (some of the rougher
> > suburbs, not really in the centre).
>
> In's still heard of from time to time - mobiles, too. As if shoes and
> phones and the like could ever be worth a life.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Such is why a fair number of people subscribe to concealed-carry for
> >>> all citizens, making it impossible for a crook to know who is an easy
> >>> target and who is not. Not to mention making it easier for a passerby
> >>> to help a person who has been targetted and isn't armed themselves.
> >>
> >> I'm not a proponent of civilians carrying guns myself, but I do take you
> >> point.
> >>
> >
> > Unfortunately, the likely end-game is that ordinary people will want to
> > be armed as the 'system' proves increasingly unable to protect them from
> > the criminal fraternity.
>

> Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
> bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?


A solution to this problem would be nice. Given the millions and
millions of weapons out in circulation, I doubt this problem will ever
be solved.

I heard something on the radio coming home from work a couple of weeks
ago that was (and wasn't) surprising. A study here in the states showed
that in all/every/100% of the areas where citizens were allowed to
carry concealed weapons, violent crime dropped. It's easy to twist
statistics but even if there's a hint of truth to this...

0
lqualig (4343)
9/9/2005 3:21:47 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:15:08 -0700, lqualig wrote:

> 
> Kier wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:10:37 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > once again... apple is the master of miniaturization, value for the
>> > price, resell value, and powerful features...
>>
>> Evidently not. There were probably twice as many non-Apple players as
>> there were Pods on display. Resell value? Maybe.
>>
>>
>> > http://www.apple.com/ipodnano
>> >
>> > http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
>> >
>> > (by the way, Rio is no longer in business :) with Creative teetering on
>> > bankruptcy)
>>
>> Funny, didn't look like that where I was. The new Creative Zen was
>> prominent.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=10103
> 
> - "Research conducted for its Digital Home Analysis service puts Apple
> in the overall market lead in the first half of 2005, with 44.8 per
> cent share by units, but with a commanding 71.5 per cent share of the
> hard-disk based player segment. Canalys estimates put Creative in
> second place overall with 16.0 per cent share, followed by Rio on 7.1
> per cent."

I'm not desputing that Pods are popular items - one sees them even around
where I live. But Oxford always claims no one will touch anything else,
and clearly, this is untrue. Other player are gettig a look-in, even if
they're not doing as well as the various iPods.

> 
> 
> My personal non-scientific poll (i.e. people I know and see walking
> around town) seems to validate this. Most everyone uses an iPod around
> here.

As I said, even round here, they do make an appearance. But it''s hard to
tell whether or not there are other players in use, as the iPods are
distinctive - the white headphones give them away - whereas other players,
unless you get a good look at them, could be any one of several things. I
use a MiniDisc player myself. When my bro' got his Pod he gave me his old
MD player and discs, since I had an older MD player with a dud battery.
Two workmates of mine that I know of have mp3 players, neither one a Pod. 

If I were in the market for such a device, and all the players I looked at
were roughly the same in feature and price, I might buy an iPod for it's
style alone. But if another player offered something extra, but was less
sylish, I would most probably buy that. One of my first Walkmans was an
ugly brick, but it survived a *lot* of use and abuse before giving up,
including being dropped on a concrete yard at work

Stlish looks are important up to a point. Beyond that, it's function and
price that make the grade, IMO.

-- 
Kier 

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 3:33:14 PM
Oxford wrote:
> lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
>
> > http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=10103
> >
> > - "Research conducted for its Digital Home Analysis service puts Apple
> > in the overall market lead in the first half of 2005, with 44.8 per
> > cent share by units, but with a commanding 71.5 per cent share of the
> > hard-disk based player segment. Canalys estimates put Creative in
> > second place overall with 16.0 per cent share, followed by Rio on 7.1
> > per cent."
> >
> >
> > My personal non-scientific poll (i.e. people I know and see walking
> > around town) seems to validate this. Most everyone uses an iPod around
> > here.
>
> yeah, it's easily 8 out of 10 using some form of an iPod here... the
> other players just don't work well in conjunction with Music Software or
> the ability to "manage" huge Music Libraries... iTunes rules the Music
> Universe that's for sure...
>



If anything I expect the marketshare for the iPod to grow for at least
the short term. A few months ago you could pretty much buy an iPod at
most retailers that sell these sorts of things.

Recently there have been floods of "free" iPods around this area
(Boston). Citibank is offering free iPods if you open a new account. A
few of other banks around here followed and are doing the same. I hear
this one commercial on the radio all the time for a health club that is
giving away a free iPod with a 6-month membership. Some travel agency
is also giving away free iPods if you book a cruise with them and a
chain of tire-stores was giving away an iPod if you buy a set of four
(4) Michelin tires from them.


Winter is approaching and I do need new snow tires....

0
lqualig (4343)
9/9/2005 3:34:40 PM
lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

> If anything I expect the marketshare for the iPod to grow for at least
> the short term. A few months ago you could pretty much buy an iPod at
> most retailers that sell these sorts of things.
> 
> Recently there have been floods of "free" iPods around this area
> (Boston). Citibank is offering free iPods if you open a new account. A
> few of other banks around here followed and are doing the same. I hear
> this one commercial on the radio all the time for a health club that is
> giving away a free iPod with a 6-month membership. Some travel agency
> is also giving away free iPods if you book a cruise with them and a
> chain of tire-stores was giving away an iPod if you buy a set of four
> (4) Michelin tires from them.

yeah, I've never seen Apple so aggressive... an iPod even shows up on my 
Bank's ATM Machine Screen!  during the conference call they said they 
went from something like 6,500 sales outlets 90 days ago to 21,000 
today. And I guess wal-mart now has the shuffle in 1/4 its stores (wow). 
The new nano is going to push all competitors further out of the market. 
There is no way they can compete on price, much less "style", the nano 
is about 1/2 what a similar mp3 player costs with a similar feature set.

apple does run the risk of making the ipod a fad, but since music has 
been around since the dawn of time there is little to worry about as 
long as they do what they did on wednesday with the nano... whoa!

the nano section starts at 42 minutes into the stream...

http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 3:51:35 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:44:43 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
> 
>> begin  oe_protect.scr 
>> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:41:02 +0100, Kier wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
>>>> we fear thieves?
>>> 
>>> Bugger! Make that 'world'.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hehe.  You're right though.  You never see a Ferrari or an Aston or
>> a Bristol parked in the street - why?  Because a jealous person will
>> scratch them with keys or similar.  This has happened to me with my
>> Disco, which is hardly a 'posh' car.
> 
> My brother's been lucky with his Subaru, but he lives in a street with
> only one exit, so there's less 'passing traffic', as it were, and it's a
> quiet neighbourhood

Does help.  I can park off-road now, so I'm okay at home, but once
you're out...

> 
>> 
>> I came back to my bike one day in London to find some daft tw*t sitting
>> on it, drinking his beer.  I think he was trying to impress some girls,
>> but me turning up and riding it away probably blew that for him.
> 
> Love to have seen his face.
> 
> 'Errm, my good man, would you mind getting your fat arse off my
> motorcycle, as I'm about to burn rubber, preferably up the middle of your
> back'.

Hehe - he did look a bit crest-fallen, and I wasn't particularly polite
about it.  If I'd been thinking a bit quicker, I'd've offered one of the
girls a ride somewhere :-)  One of the great things about bike riding
is that the girls always get off on the leather & bike combination :-)

> 
>> 
>> I rarely buy/have/use anything which is overtly expensive, for the
>> simple reason that it will attract thieves.
> 
> Society has gone to the dogs of late. 
> 

It's an interesting thing that people say "ah, we used to be able to
leave our doors open and nobody would take anything"... well, as few
people could afford anything worth steeling, there wasn't a lot of point
burgling a 2-up 2-down slum house, and as there would generally have
been at least one person at home, it was probably quite a risk too...

When I lived in Eltham, South London, I used to go into a pub (now closed)
known as the 'Man of Kent'.  It was quite rough, but the beer was good,
and it had a pool table, dart-board and the best pinball machine I've
ever played (I know nobody plays pinball anymore!).  

It also had, without fail, every time I went in, someone saying something
like:

"Hi Mark - you want a car radio?"  or "You want a portably tele", or
"you want a video" and so on...  I'd always politely decline, but it was
clear that a huge amount of knocked-off gear was passing through.  The
goods were never exchanged in the pub, of course...

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky!
		-- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/9/2005 3:55:49 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 09:21:20 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
> 
>> http://www.dmeurope.com/default.asp?ArticleID=10103
>> 
>> - "Research conducted for its Digital Home Analysis service puts Apple
>> in the overall market lead in the first half of 2005, with 44.8 per
>> cent share by units, but with a commanding 71.5 per cent share of the
>> hard-disk based player segment. Canalys estimates put Creative in
>> second place overall with 16.0 per cent share, followed by Rio on 7.1
>> per cent."
>> 
>> 
>> My personal non-scientific poll (i.e. people I know and see walking
>> around town) seems to validate this. Most everyone uses an iPod around
>> here.
> 
> yeah, it's easily 8 out of 10 using some form of an iPod here... the 
> other players just don't work well in conjunction with Music Software or 
> the ability to "manage" huge Music Libraries... iTunes rules the Music 
> Universe that's for sure...

Making this type of blanket statement and expecting everyone to swallow it
is one of the things which gets you labelled 'troll', and treated with
derision. Lots of music services for downloads and the like are springing
up - it's a growth area.

In April, the magazine PC Answers did a survey of music download sites.
While iTunes came out on top, it was closely followed by several others,
including one from Tesco which works with other players but not iPods, and
which can be used with Firefox, and another (which came in second) which
doesn't tie you to a particular format, but supports ogg, mp3, wav, etc.
Seveal of the sites don't support the iPod at all.

> 
> Version 5 was released Wednesday... and of course it's free!
> 
> http://www.apple.com/itunes/overview/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/itunes/

Not much use unless ou have an iPod - and not everyone has one or wants
one. There are a lot of Windows users out there. not to mention Linux user
and others.

-- 
Kier 

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 4:00:15 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
> 
<ker-snip commentary leading to speculation that ordinary people
will want to be armed as the state cannot protect them>
> 
> Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
> bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?
> 

That's the problem with the weapons control or not debate...
Jim's got some interesting views on this, as have, apparently, some
senior British police, too.  I'd prefer to have an effective police
force than a typically armed population, but, as Jim pointed out, the
actual murder-rate in the UK wasn't very high when guns were allowed.
I suspect that might be because they were expensive, but there is no
clear indication.

Anyway, 2-1 up in the series, England all out 1st innings for 373, Aussies
112 for 0 *but* bad light stopped play - yeah!  We might get a draw yet...

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky!
		-- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/9/2005 4:00:51 PM
Oxford wrote:
> lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
>
> > If anything I expect the marketshare for the iPod to grow for at least
> > the short term. A few months ago you could pretty much buy an iPod at
> > most retailers that sell these sorts of things.
> >
> > Recently there have been floods of "free" iPods around this area
> > (Boston). Citibank is offering free iPods if you open a new account. A
> > few of other banks around here followed and are doing the same. I hear
> > this one commercial on the radio all the time for a health club that is
> > giving away a free iPod with a 6-month membership. Some travel agency
> > is also giving away free iPods if you book a cruise with them and a
> > chain of tire-stores was giving away an iPod if you buy a set of four
> > (4) Michelin tires from them.
>
> yeah, I've never seen Apple so aggressive... an iPod even shows up on my
> Bank's ATM Machine Screen!  during the conference call they said they
> went from something like 6,500 sales outlets 90 days ago to 21,000
> today. And I guess wal-mart now has the shuffle in 1/4 its stores (wow).
> The new nano is going to push all competitors further out of the market.
> There is no way they can compete on price, much less "style", the nano
> is about 1/2 what a similar mp3 player costs with a similar feature set.
>


> apple does run the risk of making the ipod a fad, but since music has
> been around since the dawn of time there is little to worry about as
> long as they do what they did on wednesday with the nano... whoa!



Apple is certainly going gang-busters with the iPod but to me the
bigger risk is where do they take it from here?

Perhaps I'll be surprised but it seems like they will be hitting a
limit as to how much storage and miniaturization they can achieve. But
then again, a couple of years ago I would have thought that the iPod
nano wasn't possible.

0
lqualig (4343)
9/9/2005 4:05:30 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:21:47 -0700, lqualig wrote:

> 
> Kier wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:46:34 +0100, Mark Kent wrote: 

<snip>

>> > Unfortunately, the likely end-game is that ordinary people will want to
>> > be armed as the 'system' proves increasingly unable to protect them from
>> > the criminal fraternity.
>>
> 
>> Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
>> bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?
> 
> 
> A solution to this problem would be nice. Given the millions and
> millions of weapons out in circulation, I doubt this problem will ever
> be solved.

Agreed. Society as a whole will have to change radically.

> 
> I heard something on the radio coming home from work a couple of weeks
> ago that was (and wasn't) surprising. A study here in the states showed
> that in all/every/100% of the areas where citizens were allowed to
> carry concealed weapons, violent crime dropped. It's easy to twist
> statistics but even if there's a hint of truth to this...

Possibly. It's also possible it just moved over to a new neighbourhood
where concealment isn't allowed.

Of course, the answer *might* be to allow *everyone* to conceal weapons.
One problem with that is, many otherwise law-abiding citizens are wholly
unfit to carry guns responsibly. And even if everyone did had a gun, you'd
end up with the whole escalation thing again, and we're back to the pocket
Uzi. IMO, weapons are not part of the general solution, whatever that
might be.

Personally, I would rather live in a society where guns are not a part of
daily life. 

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 4:09:47 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:54:26 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> Stephen Olsen <eastern_ny497235@yahoo.com> espoused:
>> 
>> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free has
>> such as dismal desktop market share?
>> 
> 
> As linux is free, there is no way of reliably establishing its desktop
> share that I'm aware of.  All the evidence floating around indicates
> that it's share is growing rapidly indeed, however, although probably not
> yet close to the phenomenal rise in server and embedded spaces for linux.

I tend to agree that Linux is growing rapidly as a server operating system
as well as embedded but I don't see it appearing as a desktop system
anywhere that I go.


> Of the reliable information out there, though, it's interesting to note
> that Apache remains at approximately 70% of web server deployments, 
> with IIS at around 20%.

See above.

> A quick look at browser stats from 
> http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
> shows:
> 
>    IE6 		80% 71% 88% 80% 84% 46%
>    Gecko based 9.3% 23% 6.4% 8.4% 8.4% 34%
> 
> Over 6 quite separate sites.  Clearly, free software browsers are rising
> rapidly in popularity, and free software servers are by far the most
> popular.

Many people who use Windows have switched to Mozilla based browsers
because they are far superior to Internet Explorer. This is in fact being
mandated by large companies who are moving employees to Mozilla as well.

> From WebReference.com we have:
> 
> FF ALL                        8423                  20.75
> IE ALL                       22687                  55.90
> 
> Which puts Firefox at a stunning 1/5th of all hits here.  For 
> digital web magazine, we have:
> 
> Browser    	  	Session %  % Change
> Firefox 		51.02%   up 5.94%
> Internet Explorer 	21.69% down 6.21%
> Mozilla    		18.66%   up 0.68%
> 
> Which puts IE as the minority browser, at approx 1/5th.
> 
> Clearly, firefox is making huge inroads into the browser market, and
> I'm sure that thunderbird is doing the same thing in the mail client
> environment.

Firefox yes, but thunderbird no because people are just too entrenched
with Outlook.


 
> As open office continues to grow in popularity and usage, there is
> unlikely to be much compelling reason to stay with Microsoft Windows
> for most users, considering the reliability problems, the difficulties
> avoiding malware, and so on.

I don't think OpenOffice is going to replace Microsoft Office anytime soon.
It has been available for Windows as well, is free and yet I don't see
people moving over to it mostly because they already have Microsoft Office.
I've tried Openoffice for Windows and honestly I found it to be slow,
bloated and buggy. The Linux version is better but it's still slow.
For Linux Abiword suits my needs just fine and for Windows I use an old
copy of Word97.


> Microsoft's hard-nosed business tactics clearly do not work when dealing
> with the threat of free software to their business, thus it seems highly
> likely that there will be a period of genuine competition.  How long
> that lasts will depend on whether Microsoft are able to adjust their
> business model to a support model, and are able to produce reliable,
> secure software.
> 
> However, it is clear that the expanding area is linux/free software.

Competing with free is very difficult if not impossible assuming the two
items in question are of equal quality and that they perfom the same
functions.
Linux still has the public to deal with and the public is ignoring Linux
in a big way for many reasons but mostly because they already have Windows
and any future machines they buy come with Windows so there is no need to
switch.
I wouldn't trust Microsoft at all BTW.


-- 
Stephen Olsen	
Gearslut Extraordinaire
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! 
Dump the numbers to reply. Damm Spam!

0
9/9/2005 4:23:04 PM
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:00 Mark Kent wrote:

> Anyway, 2-1 up in the series, England all out 1st innings for 373,
> Aussies
> 112 for 0 but bad light stopped play - yeah!  We might get a draw
> yet...

Yep.  As long as they stay sitting on the pavillion steps, that's fine
by me:-)

Bill
0
bbgruff (6626)
9/9/2005 4:25:52 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:55:49 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:44:43 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>> 
>>> begin  oe_protect.scr 
>>> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:41:02 +0100, Kier wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> And isn't a it a sad word where we hesitate to buy stylish goods because
>>>>> we fear thieves?
>>>> 
>>>> Bugger! Make that 'world'.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hehe.  You're right though.  You never see a Ferrari or an Aston or
>>> a Bristol parked in the street - why?  Because a jealous person will
>>> scratch them with keys or similar.  This has happened to me with my
>>> Disco, which is hardly a 'posh' car.
>> 
>> My brother's been lucky with his Subaru, but he lives in a street with
>> only one exit, so there's less 'passing traffic', as it were, and it's a
>> quiet neighbourhood
> 
> Does help.  I can park off-road now, so I'm okay at home, but once
> you're out...
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I came back to my bike one day in London to find some daft tw*t sitting
>>> on it, drinking his beer.  I think he was trying to impress some girls,
>>> but me turning up and riding it away probably blew that for him.
>> 
>> Love to have seen his face.
>> 
>> 'Errm, my good man, would you mind getting your fat arse off my
>> motorcycle, as I'm about to burn rubber, preferably up the middle of your
>> back'.
> 
> Hehe - he did look a bit crest-fallen, and I wasn't particularly polite
> about it.  If I'd been thinking a bit quicker, I'd've offered one of the
> girls a ride somewhere :-)  One of the great things about bike riding
> is that the girls always get off on the leather & bike combination :-)
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I rarely buy/have/use anything which is overtly expensive, for the
>>> simple reason that it will attract thieves.
>> 
>> Society has gone to the dogs of late. 
>> 
> 
> It's an interesting thing that people say "ah, we used to be able to
> leave our doors open and nobody would take anything"... well, as few
> people could afford anything worth steeling, there wasn't a lot of point
> burgling a 2-up 2-down slum house, and as there would generally have
> been at least one person at home, it was probably quite a risk too...

That's true. When everyone around you hasn't much to take, you don't feel
much temptation. And penalties then were more of a deterrent, I think. It
wasn't considered 'cool' to use violence.

> 
> When I lived in Eltham, South London, I used to go into a pub (now closed)
> known as the 'Man of Kent'.  It was quite rough, but the beer was good,
> and it had a pool table, dart-board and the best pinball machine I've
> ever played (I know nobody plays pinball anymore!).

When he first moved into his house, my brother and the friends he was
sharing with at the time had an actual arcade pinball machine. He only got
rid of it a few years back.
  
> It also had, without fail, every time I went in, someone saying
> something like:
> 
> "Hi Mark - you want a car radio?"  or "You want a portably tele", or
> "you want a video" and so on...  I'd always politely decline, but it was
> clear that a huge amount of knocked-off gear was passing through.  The
> goods were never exchanged in the pub, of course...

I think there's a difference in the quality of the criminals these days.
Many more seem to be drug users willing to commit any amount of violence
to get their money, or they're wannabe or actual gang-banger types who
have no morals or conscience whatever. That said, if you look back, in the
past it was actually far *more* violent and brutal than it is now, it was
just a different kind of violence. Guns were a rarity, but knives, clubs
and garottes certainly weren't, nor the willingness to use them.

The denser a population becomes, the more violence-prone it seems to be,
and we're a crowded little island these dasy.

-- 
Kier
0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 4:28:56 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:00:51 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> 
> <ker-snip commentary leading to speculation that ordinary people
> will want to be armed as the state cannot protect them>
>> 
>> Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
>> bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?
>> 
> 
> That's the problem with the weapons control or not debate...

Among others -  in a so-called ideal world, I could almost see gun
carrying as an option, but if we had that, we wouldn't need them. The
trouble with guns it any fool can use one.

> Jim's got some interesting views on this, as have, apparently, some
> senior British police, too.  I'd prefer to have an effective police
> force than a typically armed population, but, as Jim pointed out, the
> actual murder-rate in the UK wasn't very high when guns were allowed.
> I suspect that might be because they were expensive, but there is no
> clear indication.

Not only that, but not as easy to obtain, I suspect.

> 
> Anyway, 2-1 up in the series, England all out 1st innings for 373, Aussies
> 112 for 0 *but* bad light stopped play - yeah!  We might get a draw yet...

Here's hoping.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 4:33:04 PM
Kier wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:21:47 -0700, lqualig wrote:
>
> >
> > Kier wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:46:34 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> > Unfortunately, the likely end-game is that ordinary people will want to
> >> > be armed as the 'system' proves increasingly unable to protect them from
> >> > the criminal fraternity.
> >>
> >
> >> Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
> >> bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?
> >
> >
> > A solution to this problem would be nice. Given the millions and
> > millions of weapons out in circulation, I doubt this problem will ever
> > be solved.
>
> Agreed. Society as a whole will have to change radically.
>
> >
> > I heard something on the radio coming home from work a couple of weeks
> > ago that was (and wasn't) surprising. A study here in the states showed
> > that in all/every/100% of the areas where citizens were allowed to
> > carry concealed weapons, violent crime dropped. It's easy to twist
> > statistics but even if there's a hint of truth to this...
>
> Possibly. It's also possible it just moved over to a new neighbourhood
> where concealment isn't allowed.
>
> Of course, the answer *might* be to allow *everyone* to conceal weapons.
> One problem with that is, many otherwise law-abiding citizens are wholly
> unfit to carry guns responsibly. And even if everyone did had a gun, you'd
> end up with the whole escalation thing again, and we're back to the pocket
> Uzi. IMO, weapons are not part of the general solution, whatever that
> might be.
>
> Personally, I would rather live in a society where guns are not a part of
> daily life.
>


The problem here in the states is how the second amendment to the Bill
of Rights which gives citizens the "right to bear arms" is
interpretted. For obvious reasons there are legal limits as to how far
my "right to bear arms" extends. I can't arm myself with a cruise
missle, atomic weapon or a bazooka for example but I can legally arm
myself with a rifle, handgun and a machine gun.

I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
Collect stamps or swords instead. I know two people with machine gun
permits and neither one is what I would consider to be a "collector of
fine munitions."

I also don't believe that handguns (pistols) should be legal for
citizens to carry. There are several reasons why police and the
military should be issued handguns but from a practical perspective
there is no reason why someone needs to own a handgun. A rifle is more
than capable of doing anything a handgun can do an in fact, it's much
better at it. (more accurate + higher muzzle velocity)

Finally we need to enforce the existing gun laws instead of passing new
ones. 


(Disclaimer: I own a couple of rifles and a air pistol.)

0
lqualig (4343)
9/9/2005 4:43:35 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:33:04 +0100,
 Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:00:51 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin  oe_protect.scr 
>> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>>> 
>> <ker-snip commentary leading to speculation that ordinary people
>> will want to be armed as the state cannot protect them>
>>> 
>>> Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
>>> bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?
>>> 
>> 
>> That's the problem with the weapons control or not debate...
>
> Among others -  in a so-called ideal world, I could almost see gun
> carrying as an option, but if we had that, we wouldn't need them. The
> trouble with guns it any fool can use one.
>
>> Jim's got some interesting views on this, as have, apparently, some
>> senior British police, too.  I'd prefer to have an effective police
>> force than a typically armed population, but, as Jim pointed out, the
>> actual murder-rate in the UK wasn't very high when guns were allowed.
>> I suspect that might be because they were expensive, but there is no
>> clear indication.
>
> Not only that, but not as easy to obtain, I suspect.
>

easier actually. You could buy them mail order, in the hardware stores,
pretty much anywhere, and contrary to Mark's claim, they were *less*
expensive than now in the UK. (due to cost of regulations mostly) 


Look at some store ads from the 1900-1920 period. Guns were easily
available in the UK, *much* more so than now, in the US, and crime rates
were low. 

The reason most of the gun laws started in the UK, was fear of a revolt
by the workers, not crime. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDIbwpd90bcYOAWPYRAuFkAJ40a0sWlKH6nazjWElp0KfGDZ5pvgCeISdc
QMtAIKWy6g2Rd/GnJ8ekS28=
=QWOw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I have seen the light.  I was not impressed.
0
warlock (9522)
9/9/2005 4:45:29 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:23:04 -0400, Stephen Olsen wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:54:26 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
> 
>> begin  oe_protect.scr 
>> Stephen Olsen <eastern_ny497235@yahoo.com> espoused:
>>> 
>>> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free has
>>> such as dismal desktop market share?
>>> 
>> 
>> As linux is free, there is no way of reliably establishing its desktop
>> share that I'm aware of.  All the evidence floating around indicates
>> that it's share is growing rapidly indeed, however, although probably not
>> yet close to the phenomenal rise in server and embedded spaces for linux.
> 
> I tend to agree that Linux is growing rapidly as a server operating system
> as well as embedded but I don't see it appearing as a desktop system
> anywhere that I go.
> 
> 
>> Of the reliable information out there, though, it's interesting to note
>> that Apache remains at approximately 70% of web server deployments, 
>> with IIS at around 20%.
> 
> See above.
> 
>> A quick look at browser stats from 
>> http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
>> shows:
>> 
>>    IE6 		80% 71% 88% 80% 84% 46%
>>    Gecko based 9.3% 23% 6.4% 8.4% 8.4% 34%
>> 
>> Over 6 quite separate sites.  Clearly, free software browsers are rising
>> rapidly in popularity, and free software servers are by far the most
>> popular.
> 
> Many people who use Windows have switched to Mozilla based browsers
> because they are far superior to Internet Explorer. This is in fact being
> mandated by large companies who are moving employees to Mozilla as well.

Very true, and a sensible more on their part.

> 
>> From WebReference.com we have:
>> 
>> FF ALL                        8423                  20.75
>> IE ALL                       22687                  55.90
>> 
>> Which puts Firefox at a stunning 1/5th of all hits here.  For 
>> digital web magazine, we have:
>> 
>> Browser    	  	Session %  % Change
>> Firefox 		51.02%   up 5.94%
>> Internet Explorer 	21.69% down 6.21%
>> Mozilla    		18.66%   up 0.68%
>> 
>> Which puts IE as the minority browser, at approx 1/5th.
>> 
>> Clearly, firefox is making huge inroads into the browser market, and
>> I'm sure that thunderbird is doing the same thing in the mail client
>> environment.
> 
> Firefox yes, but thunderbird no because people are just too entrenched
> with Outlook.

Which is a pity, considering Outlook's record.

> 
> 
>  
>> As open office continues to grow in popularity and usage, there is
>> unlikely to be much compelling reason to stay with Microsoft Windows
>> for most users, considering the reliability problems, the difficulties
>> avoiding malware, and so on.
> 
> I don't think OpenOffice is going to replace Microsoft Office anytime soon.

In all honesty, nor do I. But continue to provide a good low-cost
alternative, yes.

> It has been available for Windows as well, is free and yet I don't see
> people moving over to it mostly because they already have Microsoft Office.
> I've tried Openoffice for Windows and honestly I found it to be slow,
> bloated and buggy. The Linux version is better but it's still slow.

I can be speeded up considerably. And I don't think its all that buggy -
no worse than any other suite. Version 2.0 is likely to address any of
the current problems it has.

> For Linux Abiword suits my needs just fine and for Windows I use an old
> copy of Word97.

If you just need a word processor, abiword is probably as good a choice as
OO.org, perhaps better in some ways, and it's reputed to deal with MS docs
better than OO.org. Not everyone needs a full office suite.

> 
> 
>> Microsoft's hard-nosed business tactics clearly do not work when dealing
>> with the threat of free software to their business, thus it seems highly
>> likely that there will be a period of genuine competition.  How long
>> that lasts will depend on whether Microsoft are able to adjust their
>> business model to a support model, and are able to produce reliable,
>> secure software.
>> 
>> However, it is clear that the expanding area is linux/free software.
> 
> Competing with free is very difficult if not impossible assuming the two
> items in question are of equal quality and that they perfom the same
> functions.
> Linux still has the public to deal with and the public is ignoring Linux
> in a big way for many reasons but mostly because they already have Windows
> and any future machines they buy come with Windows so there is no need to
> switch.

That's one of the reasons, yes. Nor is it particularly hard to understand.
People tend to stick with the familiar, unless given a good reason to do
otherwise. Because Windows is on most PCs sold, it tends to perpetuate
itself. But if someone works in a company where Linux is used, they will
be exposed to it, and more likely to switch, because the benefits are
clear.

-- 
Kier



0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 4:47:35 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:23:04 -0400,
 Stephen Olsen <eastern_ny497235@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:54:26 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin  oe_protect.scr 
>> Stephen Olsen <eastern_ny497235@yahoo.com> espoused:
>>> 
>>> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free has
>>> such as dismal desktop market share?
>>> 
>> 
>> As linux is free, there is no way of reliably establishing its desktop
>> share that I'm aware of.  All the evidence floating around indicates
>> that it's share is growing rapidly indeed, however, although probably not
>> yet close to the phenomenal rise in server and embedded spaces for linux.
>
> I tend to agree that Linux is growing rapidly as a server operating system
> as well as embedded but I don't see it appearing as a desktop system
> anywhere that I go.
>

I see it a lot more than the Mac. Mostly as a business desktop.
Dunn Lumber here in the Seattle area uses Linux, as does Lowes (a Home
Depot kind of store) IS it far behind MS-Windows in desktop market
share? yes. Does that mean it will stay there? No. 


>
>> Of the reliable information out there, though, it's interesting to note
>> that Apache remains at approximately 70% of web server deployments, 
>> with IIS at around 20%.
>
> See above.
>
>> A quick look at browser stats from 
>> http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
>> shows:
>> 
>>    IE6 		80% 71% 88% 80% 84% 46%
>>    Gecko based 9.3% 23% 6.4% 8.4% 8.4% 34%
>> 
>> Over 6 quite separate sites.  Clearly, free software browsers are rising
>> rapidly in popularity, and free software servers are by far the most
>> popular.
>
> Many people who use Windows have switched to Mozilla based browsers
> because they are far superior to Internet Explorer. This is in fact being
> mandated by large companies who are moving employees to Mozilla as well.

and many companies are making the same change to Linux desktops, for
much the same reason. 


>
>> From WebReference.com we have:
>> 
>> FF ALL                        8423                  20.75
>> IE ALL                       22687                  55.90
>> 
>> Which puts Firefox at a stunning 1/5th of all hits here.  For 
>> digital web magazine, we have:
>> 
>> Browser    	  	Session %  % Change
>> Firefox 		51.02%   up 5.94%
>> Internet Explorer 	21.69% down 6.21%
>> Mozilla    		18.66%   up 0.68%
>> 
>> Which puts IE as the minority browser, at approx 1/5th.
>> 
>> Clearly, firefox is making huge inroads into the browser market, and
>> I'm sure that thunderbird is doing the same thing in the mail client
>> environment.
>
> Firefox yes, but thunderbird no because people are just too entrenched
> with Outlook.

No, it's because Thunderbird is far newer. 

>
>
>  
>> As open office continues to grow in popularity and usage, there is
>> unlikely to be much compelling reason to stay with Microsoft Windows
>> for most users, considering the reliability problems, the difficulties
>> avoiding malware, and so on.
>
> I don't think OpenOffice is going to replace Microsoft Office anytime soon.
> It has been available for Windows as well, is free and yet I don't see
> people moving over to it mostly because they already have Microsoft Office.
> I've tried Openoffice for Windows and honestly I found it to be slow,
> bloated and buggy. The Linux version is better but it's still slow.
> For Linux Abiword suits my needs just fine and for Windows I use an old
> copy of Word97.

OO2 will take market share from MS-Office, no two ways about it. How
much? we'll have to see. I look forward to finding out. 


>
>
>> Microsoft's hard-nosed business tactics clearly do not work when dealing
>> with the threat of free software to their business, thus it seems highly
>> likely that there will be a period of genuine competition.  How long
>> that lasts will depend on whether Microsoft are able to adjust their
>> business model to a support model, and are able to produce reliable,
>> secure software.
>> 
>> However, it is clear that the expanding area is linux/free software.
>
> Competing with free is very difficult if not impossible assuming the two
> items in question are of equal quality and that they perfom the same
> functions.
> Linux still has the public to deal with and the public is ignoring Linux
> in a big way for many reasons but mostly because they already have Windows
> and any future machines they buy come with Windows so there is no need to
> switch.
> I wouldn't trust Microsoft at all BTW.
>

The public ignores computers period. 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDIb04d90bcYOAWPYRAh8MAJ9EmE2PLvl6yM3KGSiTMOslhKuVUgCdGtfw
PeVX7IlRq6oo6ecJcIT7OB4=
=jQjL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"An american, is someone who thinks 200 years is a long time.
A european is someone who thinks 200 miles, is a long distance"
0
warlock (9522)
9/9/2005 4:50:00 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:00:40 +0200, Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:

> Stephen Olsen wrote:
> 
>> Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than
>> they anticipated.
>> Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.
> 
> Actually I live in Munich (check the news server I'm posting this
> from and to a whois on it ;-) and I know some of the people who
> are involved in the migration. The reason for the delay is quite
> simple: About every department has their own homebrew software
> solutions. And not few of them are built around propritary
> software like M$ Access. However in the Linux migration project
> they want to set all of these data on a sound foundation. So the
> real reason for delay isn't the OSS but the fact that there are
> so much, different CSS systems used, that extracting data can't
> be done with a few scripts. For about every department a own
> import/export programm has to be developed.
> 
> Wolfgang Draxinger

Thanks for posting some inside information Wolfgang.
In retrospect I should have considered that switching from any one
platform to another platform is going to involve headaches and unforseen
problems. I've always suspected that this was a major reason for the
failure of "distributed computing" that happened in the 90's. IOW moving
off large mainframes to many servers running Windows.

-- 
Stephen Olsen	
Gearslut Extraordinaire
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! 
Dump the numbers to reply. Damm Spam!

0
9/9/2005 4:51:33 PM
On Friday 09 September 2005 17:43 lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

> The problem here in the states is how the second amendment to the Bill
> of Rights which gives citizens the "right to bear arms" is
> interpretted. For obvious reasons there are legal limits as to how far
> my "right to bear arms" extends. I can't arm myself with a cruise
> missle, atomic weapon or a bazooka for example but I can legally arm
> myself with a rifle, handgun and a machine gun.

Well OT now, but perhaps one/some of you Americans can explain to me WHY
the second amendment was inserted?  I can't help wondering if the
intent (a bit like billeting troops) was so that the Brits (in those
turbulent times), or perhaps Brit-sympathisers, couldn't DIS-arm the
populace to help a "come-back" as it were.  Is this the case - was it
seen as a move to help the defence of a new nation, rather than a
method of protection of the individual?

Bill
0
bbgruff (6626)
9/9/2005 5:37:38 PM
Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:

>Stephen Olsen wrote:
>
>> Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than
>> they anticipated.
>> Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.
>
>Actually I live in Munich (check the news server I'm posting this
>from and to a whois on it ;-) and I know some of the people who
>are involved in the migration. The reason for the delay is quite
>simple: About every department has their own homebrew software
>solutions. And not few of them are built around propritary
>software like M$ Access. However in the Linux migration project
>they want to set all of these data on a sound foundation. So the
>real reason for delay isn't the OSS but the fact that there are
>so much, different CSS systems used, that extracting data can't
>be done with a few scripts. For about every department a own
>import/export programm has to be developed.

Well worth the effort, for the long-term advantages of cost savings
and owning your data.

0
chrisv (22840)
9/9/2005 5:51:01 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 09:43:35 -0700, lqualig wrote:

> 
> Kier wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:21:47 -0700, lqualig wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Kier wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:46:34 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> > Unfortunately, the likely end-game is that ordinary people will want to
>> >> > be armed as the 'system' proves increasingly unable to protect them from
>> >> > the criminal fraternity.
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
>> >> bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?
>> >
>> >
>> > A solution to this problem would be nice. Given the millions and
>> > millions of weapons out in circulation, I doubt this problem will ever
>> > be solved.
>>
>> Agreed. Society as a whole will have to change radically.
>>
>> >
>> > I heard something on the radio coming home from work a couple of weeks
>> > ago that was (and wasn't) surprising. A study here in the states showed
>> > that in all/every/100% of the areas where citizens were allowed to
>> > carry concealed weapons, violent crime dropped. It's easy to twist
>> > statistics but even if there's a hint of truth to this...
>>
>> Possibly. It's also possible it just moved over to a new neighbourhood
>> where concealment isn't allowed.
>>
>> Of course, the answer *might* be to allow *everyone* to conceal weapons.
>> One problem with that is, many otherwise law-abiding citizens are wholly
>> unfit to carry guns responsibly. And even if everyone did had a gun, you'd
>> end up with the whole escalation thing again, and we're back to the pocket
>> Uzi. IMO, weapons are not part of the general solution, whatever that
>> might be.
>>
>> Personally, I would rather live in a society where guns are not a part of
>> daily life.
>>
> 
> 
> The problem here in the states is how the second amendment to the Bill
> of Rights which gives citizens the "right to bear arms" is
> interpretted. For obvious reasons there are legal limits as to how far
> my "right to bear arms" extends. I can't arm myself with a cruise
> missle, atomic weapon or a bazooka for example but I can legally arm
> myself with a rifle, handgun and a machine gun.
> 
> I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
> practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
> argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.

Nor me. I've never seen any good reason a civilian should have such a
weapon - at least, not one in full working order. They are weapons of war,
and should be treated as such.

> Collect stamps or swords instead. I know two people with machine gun
> permits and neither one is what I would consider to be a "collector of
> fine munitions."
> 
> I also don't believe that handguns (pistols) should be legal for
> citizens to carry. There are several reasons why police and the
> military should be issued handguns but from a practical perspective
> there is no reason why someone needs to own a handgun. A rifle is more
> than capable of doing anything a handgun can do an in fact, it's much
> better at it. (more accurate + higher muzzle velocity)

If you're a farmer, or a game warden or some such, or even a hunter, or
you control vermin by shooting, it's a legitimate use. I'm not in favour
of wholesale banning without good reasons.

> 
> Finally we need to enforce the existing gun laws instead of passing new
> ones.

I agree. Punishments for use of a gun in the commission of crime should
be more severely punished, IMO. 
 
> 
> (Disclaimer: I own a couple of rifles and a air pistol.)

There's talk of banning air pistols here - a child was killed recently by
some druggie idiot firing an airgun at him. The kid was two years old. Of
course, it's not exactly the gun that's at fault, but the person behind
it. At the same time, the excuse that 'guns don't kill, people do' can't
really justify everything done with guns.

Cars kill a lot of people, and we don't ban them, but cars aren't designed
to kill, and guns sadly are. Films and TV should show less of the glamour
of guns, and more of the hideous effects they have on the human body.
There's nothing 'cool' about a mother holding her 14-year-old
daughter in her arms as she dies of bullet wounds inflicted by a barely
out his teens gang member, as happened in the UK last year.

-- 
Kier 

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 5:56:15 PM
Stephen Olsen wrote:

>Firefox yes, but thunderbird no because people are just too entrenched
>with Outlook.

How "entrenched" can a silly email program be?  Yeah, I know it does
scheduling stuff too, but email is the primary (and for many only)
use.

>I don't think OpenOffice is going to replace Microsoft Office anytime soon.
>It has been available for Windows as well, is free and yet I don't see
>people moving over to it mostly because they already have Microsoft Office.
>I've tried Openoffice for Windows and honestly I found it to be slow,
>bloated and buggy. The Linux version is better but it's still slow.
>For Linux Abiword suits my needs just fine and for Windows I use an old
>copy of Word97.

If people don't mind throwing-away money...  The price of this package
is WAY too high, considering that most people who have it use only a
tiny fraction of what's there.  Every PC in my company has Office on
it, and for what reason?  Myself, I only use it for light
word-processing.

0
chrisv (22840)
9/9/2005 5:59:20 PM
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> > yeah, it's easily 8 out of 10 using some form of an iPod here... the 
> > other players just don't work well in conjunction with Music Software or 
> > the ability to "manage" huge Music Libraries... iTunes rules the Music 
> > Universe that's for sure...
> 
> Making this type of blanket statement and expecting everyone to swallow it
> is one of the things which gets you labelled 'troll', and treated with
> derision. Lots of music services for downloads and the like are springing
> up - it's a growth area.

yes, but I go direct to the full answer, not toy around with "what 
ifs"... Is the Apple Music Store the largest (2 Million Songs), most 
advanced features, most widely used, easiest to manage system on the 
planet? yes, yes, yes, yes. Doesn't anyone have the ability at this late 
stage to enter and dominate the legal download market above Apple? no. 
The barriers to building such a huge worldwide store are just to much 
for anyone, even Microsoft... doesn't have the technical ability, nor 
the "desire" to unseat Apple in this area. 20 years out, Apple will 
still have 50+% of the online Music Distribution market, they are laying 
the "concrete" with the iPod and iTunes as we speak.

> In April, the magazine PC Answers did a survey of music download sites.
> While iTunes came out on top, it was closely followed by several others,
> including one from Tesco which works with other players but not iPods, and
> which can be used with Firefox, and another (which came in second) which
> doesn't tie you to a particular format, but supports ogg, mp3, wav, etc.
> Seveal of the sites don't support the iPod at all.

yes, but if it doesn't work with the top selling player, there is no way 
it can become the top selling "music store"... the Apple Music Store is 
like a worldwide "Utility", it pumps out 80% of the worlds legal music 
downloads, so those economies of scale are just too large to overcome at 
this point in the game.

> > Version 5 was released Wednesday... and of course it's free!
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/itunes/overview/
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/itunes/
> 
> Not much use unless ou have an iPod - and not everyone has one or wants
> one. There are a lot of Windows users out there. not to mention Linux user
> and others.

What?  iTunes is HUGELY useful even if you don't have a iPod... that's 
only one small feature of it... it can organize your Music Collection, 
Burn CDs and DVDs, Listen to Internet Radio, Listen to AudioBooks, 
Listen to Podcasts... Wirelessly stream all this Audio to your Stereo... 
ALL WITHOUT an iPod.

It's free... give it a whirl...

http://www.apple.com/itunes/

And if you are ready to move up to wireless audio from your laptop or 
desktop (with zero quality loss) here is your ticket...

http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/airtunes.html
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 6:11:24 PM
lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:

> > apple does run the risk of making the ipod a fad, but since music has
> > been around since the dawn of time there is little to worry about as
> > long as they do what they did on wednesday with the nano... whoa!
> 
> Apple is certainly going gang-busters with the iPod but to me the
> bigger risk is where do they take it from here?
> 
> Perhaps I'll be surprised but it seems like they will be hitting a
> limit as to how much storage and miniaturization they can achieve. But
> then again, a couple of years ago I would have thought that the iPod
> nano wasn't possible.

yeah, there are plenty of directions they can take... getting smaller 
and cheaper has been the main work of the last 3 years... but my guess 
is wireless bluetooth 2, or some kind of vPod is in the works... (music 
videos first for $.99. then, full length movies a bit later on. The 
terabyte iPod should be here about 2010, so it will be interesting. Gosh 
if they could just master projecting an image out of it, it could become 
a Movie System. They could also go the Camera Route... an iPod with a 
built in 6mp camera and a nice Apple quality lens would rock the camera 
market.

anyway, personally I think the shuffle is "too small"... probably fine 
for kids but even the nano is pushing the small factor a bit too far I 
think. I'll play with one tomorrow so I'll see...
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 6:21:28 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:37:38 +0100,
 B Gruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 17:43 lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
>
>> The problem here in the states is how the second amendment to the Bill
>> of Rights which gives citizens the "right to bear arms" is
>> interpretted. For obvious reasons there are legal limits as to how far
>> my "right to bear arms" extends. I can't arm myself with a cruise
>> missle, atomic weapon or a bazooka for example but I can legally arm
>> myself with a rifle, handgun and a machine gun.
>
> Well OT now, but perhaps one/some of you Americans can explain to me WHY
> the second amendment was inserted?  I can't help wondering if the
> intent (a bit like billeting troops) was so that the Brits (in those
> turbulent times), or perhaps Brit-sympathisers, couldn't DIS-arm the
> populace to help a "come-back" as it were.  Is this the case - was it
> seen as a move to help the defence of a new nation, rather than a
> method of protection of the individual?
>

It's both. History is replete with examples, ancient, and recent (Rwanda
anyone?) of minorities, once disarmed, being massacred. If you are going
to massacre someone you don't like, say, Armenians, Jews, or Tutsis, you
must first make sure they can't effectively resist. So you disarm them. 

The founding fathers worried that a strong central govt would run
rampant over the citizens, since that's what they were objecting to with
the British, it seems a rather valid point. As to current politics...




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDIdQyd90bcYOAWPYRAiGpAJ0XGhOQqq2WcL4tlNyHDZnRLQgAQACgv93O
/1d8f5RdiEX0YZO9ulJRoYU=
=tv1H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Homo sapiens, isn't
0
warlock (9522)
9/9/2005 6:28:02 PM
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> There's talk of banning air pistols here - a child was killed recently by
> some druggie idiot firing an airgun at him. The kid was two years old. Of
> course, it's not exactly the gun that's at fault, but the person behind
> it. At the same time, the excuse that 'guns don't kill, people do' can't
> really justify everything done with guns.
> 
> Cars kill a lot of people, and we don't ban them, but cars aren't designed
> to kill, and guns sadly are. Films and TV should show less of the glamour
> of guns, and more of the hideous effects they have on the human body.
> There's nothing 'cool' about a mother holding her 14-year-old
> daughter in her arms as she dies of bullet wounds inflicted by a barely
> out his teens gang member, as happened in the UK last year.

it's a bit far fetched, but it would be interesting if all guns had to 
have a built in GPSs, so they could only be fired in designated areas, 
if they were outside that area, they wouldn't fire.

just a thought.
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 6:30:00 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:11:24 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> > yeah, it's easily 8 out of 10 using some form of an iPod here... the 
>> > other players just don't work well in conjunction with Music Software or 
>> > the ability to "manage" huge Music Libraries... iTunes rules the Music 
>> > Universe that's for sure...
>> 
>> Making this type of blanket statement and expecting everyone to swallow it
>> is one of the things which gets you labelled 'troll', and treated with
>> derision. Lots of music services for downloads and the like are springing
>> up - it's a growth area.
> 
> yes, but I go direct to the full answer, not toy around with "what 
> ifs"... Is the Apple Music Store the largest (2 Million Songs), most 
> advanced features, most widely used, easiest to manage system on the 
> planet? yes, yes, yes, yes.

Maybe. And maybe not.

 Doesn't anyone have the ability at this late 
> stage to enter and dominate the legal download market above Apple? no.

Actually, I wouldn't bet on that.
 
> The barriers to building such a huge worldwide store are just to much 
> for anyone, even Microsoft... doesn't have the technical ability, nor 
> the "desire" to unseat Apple in this area. 20 years out, Apple will 
> still have 50+% of the online Music Distribution market, they are laying 
> the "concrete" with the iPod and iTunes as we speak.

In twenty years, the whole *world* will have changed, never mind just this
area of technology. In twenty years Apple might be totally gone, barely
remembered.

> 
>> In April, the magazine PC Answers did a survey of music download sites.
>> While iTunes came out on top, it was closely followed by several others,
>> including one from Tesco which works with other players but not iPods, and
>> which can be used with Firefox, and another (which came in second) which
>> doesn't tie you to a particular format, but supports ogg, mp3, wav, etc.
>> Seveal of the sites don't support the iPod at all.
> 
> yes, but if it doesn't work with the top selling player, there is no way 
> it can become the top selling "music store"... the Apple Music Store is 
> like a worldwide "Utility", it pumps out 80% of the worlds legal music 
> downloads, so those economies of scale are just too large to overcome at 
> this point in the game.

It's on top *now*. That could easily change. 

> 
>> > Version 5 was released Wednesday... and of course it's free!
>> > 
>> > http://www.apple.com/itunes/overview/
>> > 
>> > http://www.apple.com/itunes/
>> 
>> Not much use unless ou have an iPod - and not everyone has one or wants
>> one. There are a lot of Windows users out there. not to mention Linux user
>> and others.
> 
> What?  iTunes is HUGELY useful even if you don't have a iPod... that's 
> only one small feature of it... it can organize your Music Collection, 
> Burn CDs and DVDs, Listen to Internet Radio, Listen to AudioBooks, 
> Listen to Podcasts... Wirelessly stream all this Audio to your Stereo... 
> ALL WITHOUT an iPod.

Pretty much all of that can be done with AmaroK, or other Linux software,
at no cost.

> 
> It's free... give it a whirl...

No thanks.

> 
> http://www.apple.com/itunes/
> 
> And if you are ready to move up to wireless audio from your laptop or 
> desktop (with zero quality loss) here is your ticket...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/airtunes.html

What use is that when I don't have Mac or Windows?

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 6:31:48 PM
ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:

> > Untrue... 14,000 isn't THAT many machines, sure it's a month long job, 
> > but a Year? Come on... 
> 
> Indeed, come on. You have obviously never performed a migration 
> before... of any type.

sure I have, 100's of machines over the last few years...

let's look at the numbers...

3 minutes to unbox the mac, plug in and connect to the network.
3-6 minutes to pull the old drive out of the PC.
1 minute to insert into firewire bay, mount on new mac.
1-10 minutes to copy user's data.
5-10 minutes of user training.

Done.

So at most, it's a 30 minute job per machine.

If you automate the process and pull the drives in bulk, train in bulk 
you can cut that time in about half.

Granted only about 13,000 of those machines will be that straight 
forward, but the remaining 1,000 wouldn't be too hard, at least if they 
were using OSX or OSX Server. Companies like Trifusion will take those 
drives, do the data transfer, rebox the macs for about $12 per machine.
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 6:42:10 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9 Sep 2005 09:43:35 -0700,
 lqualig@uku.co.uk <lqualig@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Kier wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:21:47 -0700, lqualig wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Kier wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:46:34 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> > Unfortunately, the likely end-game is that ordinary people will want to
>> >> > be armed as the 'system' proves increasingly unable to protect them from
>> >> > the criminal fraternity.
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
>> >> bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?
>> >
>> >
>> > A solution to this problem would be nice. Given the millions and
>> > millions of weapons out in circulation, I doubt this problem will ever
>> > be solved.
>>
>> Agreed. Society as a whole will have to change radically.
>>
>> >
>> > I heard something on the radio coming home from work a couple of weeks
>> > ago that was (and wasn't) surprising. A study here in the states showed
>> > that in all/every/100% of the areas where citizens were allowed to
>> > carry concealed weapons, violent crime dropped. It's easy to twist
>> > statistics but even if there's a hint of truth to this...
>>
>> Possibly. It's also possible it just moved over to a new neighbourhood
>> where concealment isn't allowed.
>>
>> Of course, the answer *might* be to allow *everyone* to conceal weapons.
>> One problem with that is, many otherwise law-abiding citizens are wholly
>> unfit to carry guns responsibly. And even if everyone did had a gun, you'd
>> end up with the whole escalation thing again, and we're back to the pocket
>> Uzi. IMO, weapons are not part of the general solution, whatever that
>> might be.
>>
>> Personally, I would rather live in a society where guns are not a part of
>> daily life.
>>
>
>
> The problem here in the states is how the second amendment to the Bill
> of Rights which gives citizens the "right to bear arms" is
> interpretted. For obvious reasons there are legal limits as to how far
> my "right to bear arms" extends. I can't arm myself with a cruise
> missle, atomic weapon or a bazooka for example but I can legally arm
> myself with a rifle, handgun and a machine gun.
>

Couple of points, the constitution, grants no rights to the people. It
*recognizes* existing rights. The constitution has no power to grant
rights to the people, it is a limited grant of power to the state. 

As for the legal limits, you can legally own (state restrictions vary)
by federal law, anything up to and including howitzers and other large
ordnance. I don't know what the biggest is, but I know of several modern
105mm pieces in private hands, there are larger pieces in private hands,
but the ones I know of are civil war era items, or the replicas. 


> I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
> practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
> argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
> Collect stamps or swords instead. I know two people with machine gun
> permits and neither one is what I would consider to be a "collector of
> fine munitions."
>

I *enjoy* shooting full auto weapons, I don't *need* one, any more than
I *need* a motorcycle capable of 150MPH, but I have one, and enjoy
riding it. (although not that fast) Worry about the actions, not the
implement. We don't ban gasoline and rags, in case someone makes a
molotov, and that's a damn sight more destructive than any firearm. 


Whether you "buy" the reason for others to own such things, is
irellevent, you aren't the dictator, and don't get to decide. Rights are
not subject to the whim of others. 

> I also don't believe that handguns (pistols) should be legal for
> citizens to carry. There are several reasons why police and the
> military should be issued handguns but from a practical perspective
> there is no reason why someone needs to own a handgun. A rifle is more
> than capable of doing anything a handgun can do an in fact, it's much
> better at it. (more accurate + higher muzzle velocity)
>

33 states have "shall issue" CCW in place. That is, if you meet the
criteria, they *must* issue you the permit. 2 states (Alaska and
Vermont) have no permit required for concealed carry. 

Care to guess as to how many murders were commited in the last 10 years
by CCW holders? I'll give you a clue, fewer than were committed by "duly
authorized" police officers. Despite there being many more CCW holders.
In Washington, (where I live) there are approx 200,000 CCW holders.
fewer than 20 have been revoked "for cause" in the last 5 years. 

Florida enacted their "shall issue" CCW law in (IIRC) 1989. Various
victim disarmament groups predicted "blood in the streets", that the
Sunshine state would explode in a flurry of shootouts over parking
spaces, and such. Didn't happen. In fact, to the best of my knowledge,
not one violent crime has been committed by a CCW holder, with their
carry piece. There were a few permits revoked for technical violations
(carrying into a courthouse, or the like) but I know of none involving
violence, or the threat thereof. 

and as previously mentioned, *every* state which enacted a shall issue
CCW law in the last 10 years has seen a drop in violent crime, and while
violent crime in general was dropping in the US at the same time, the
states which *don't* have a shall issue CCW didn't see the same drop as
the shall issue states. I don't think the criminals are driving from
Portland Oregon, to LA to commit crimes, and even if they were, that
would be a pretty good indication that the criminals feared to commit
the crimes in Portland...

> Finally we need to enforce the existing gun laws instead of passing new
> ones. 
>

I'd agree there.


>
> (Disclaimer: I own a couple of rifles and a air pistol.)
>



you wild eyed revolutionary you. :) 




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDIdiXd90bcYOAWPYRAoQTAKDgboTcNculEQIkJUE6Lx9V2OfECgCfd76/
G6vx1n2g61ziYXbVkEjerfU=
=tj1Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his
 self-interest gives you more leverage. 	-- Lazarus Long
0
warlock (9522)
9/9/2005 6:46:48 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:00:40 +0200,
 Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger@darkstargames.de> wrote:
> Stephen Olsen wrote:
>
>> Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than
>> they anticipated.
>> Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.
>
> Actually I live in Munich (check the news server I'm posting this
> from and to a whois on it ;-) and I know some of the people who
> are involved in the migration. The reason for the delay is quite
> simple: About every department has their own homebrew software
> solutions. And not few of them are built around propritary
> software like M$ Access. However in the Linux migration project
> they want to set all of these data on a sound foundation. So the
> real reason for delay isn't the OSS but the fact that there are
> so much, different CSS systems used, that extracting data can't
> be done with a few scripts. For about every department a own
> import/export programm has to be developed.
>
> Wolfgang Draxinger

Interesting. It would be nice if the Munich project folks mentioned
this, would take the wind out of the sails of a bunch of the wintrolls
here, and elsewhere. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDIdj1d90bcYOAWPYRAtFyAJ9iE0tD5AKa/wz6EVRYutmBhn9GWgCg2BX/
CcGneQ6KuBtYFPg8qEscb5g=
=Zgb5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The major advances in civilization are processes that all but wreck the
societies in which they occur.
  -- A.N. Whitehead
0
warlock (9522)
9/9/2005 6:48:21 PM
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> > yes, but I go direct to the full answer, not toy around with "what 
> > ifs"... Is the Apple Music Store the largest (2 Million Songs), most 
> > advanced features, most widely used, easiest to manage system on the 
> > planet? yes, yes, yes, yes.
> 
> Maybe. And maybe not.

there was "no maybe" in what I said...

is it the largest store?  yes.
is it the most advanced? yes.
is it the most widely used? yes.
is it the easiest to manage? yes.

please show us where there is an error.... there were no "maybes" with 
my particular statement.

>  Doesn't anyone have the ability at this late 
> > stage to enter and dominate the legal download market above Apple? no.
> 
> Actually, I wouldn't bet on that.

Who? If the nearest competitor to Apple only has 6% marketshare, and 
Apple has already sold 20+ million units, then who could come in and 
grab 70% overnight? This is a new market (5ish years old) Apple is the 
clear leader, so it's very unlikely someone can come in at this point. 
If it was a mature market, perhaps, but Apple will certainly be ahead 
for the next 5-10 years, so who else is there?

> > The barriers to building such a huge worldwide store are just to much 
> > for anyone, even Microsoft... doesn't have the technical ability, nor 
> > the "desire" to unseat Apple in this area. 20 years out, Apple will 
> > still have 50+% of the online Music Distribution market, they are laying 
> > the "concrete" with the iPod and iTunes as we speak.
> 
> In twenty years, the whole *world* will have changed, never mind just this
> area of technology. In twenty years Apple might be totally gone, barely
> remembered.

Yes, in 20 years there will be 10 terabyte wireless, with full coverage 
over the planet. but the fundamental transaction of a legal download 
will still be with us, for music, movies, holograms :) etc... Apple 
already has the world's top Movie Trailer site, by far... they will own 
the Movie download market like they do music, that's about the only 
thing outside of faster transfers that will happen. Apple will surely be 
stronger than ever, 5-10 times larger than it is now... it's quite 
possible it will become the "MicroSoft" of the 10's... all the parts are 
coming into place. (top intel systems running unix, top music store, top 
movie store, top software developer, etc)

> > yes, but if it doesn't work with the top selling player, there is no way 
> > it can become the top selling "music store"... the Apple Music Store is 
> > like a worldwide "Utility", it pumps out 80% of the worlds legal music 
> > downloads, so those economies of scale are just too large to overcome at 
> > this point in the game.
> 
> It's on top *now*. That could easily change. 

please explain... "how" apple could be unseated... where is the weakness?

will Apple stop selling the ipod to make this occur? will they stop the 
music store? will they pull iTunes from development so others can lead? 
just what can happen to make them lose out at this point in the game?

> > What?  iTunes is HUGELY useful even if you don't have a iPod... that's 
> > only one small feature of it... it can organize your Music Collection, 
> > Burn CDs and DVDs, Listen to Internet Radio, Listen to AudioBooks, 
> > Listen to Podcasts... Wirelessly stream all this Audio to your Stereo... 
> > ALL WITHOUT an iPod.
> 
> Pretty much all of that can be done with AmaroK, or other Linux software,
> at no cost.

What in the world is AmoroK? NOBODY in the normal flow of life has ever 
heard of it... it's running on what? 60K machines worldwide?  How much 
worldwide Advertising do they do? Does it seamlessly work with the iPod?  
How about Podcasts? Or how big is its Music Store?  Looking over the 
features, it's missing about 80% of what iTunes does... so they really 
need to get moving if they are going to catch up... Even if Apple 
stopped Development of iTunes today (to help them) it would be about 3 
years of work from the looks of it...

> > It's free... give it a whirl...
> 
> No thanks.

you will in time...

> > And if you are ready to move up to wireless audio from your laptop or 
> > desktop (with zero quality loss) here is your ticket...
> > 
> > http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/airtunes.html
> 
> What use is that when I don't have Mac or Windows?

Get a mac, put yourself out of this linux misery

http://www.apple.com/imac/design.html
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 7:10:57 PM
ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> writes:

> Oxford wrote the following on 9/8/2005 8:38 PM:
>> The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
>>
> Liar. They are completing the Linux deployment, just as they are in
> China.

Where's your evidence regarding China?

I know that back in 2000, the Chinese claimed they'd switch very large
parts of their government system to Linux.  At the time, a Hong Kong
newspaper interviewed middle managers who scoffed at the idea.

I haven't seen any evidence that the plan really has gone through.
Linux is slowly growing in China (the slow growth is partly due to the
fact that Windows costs no more than Linux, thanks to piracy).  But I
haven't seen anything that suggests the government is really moving to
Linux.

> BTW, did you obtain permission to reprint that story?
> Time for you to worry.

Blatant copyright infringement is a shame, but Oxford won't be sued
for this.

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes 
"How come there's still apes running around loose and there are
humans?  Why did some of them decide to evolve and some did not?  Did
they choose to stay as a monkey or what?" -Kans. Board of Ed member
0
jesse18 (2492)
9/9/2005 7:14:07 PM
On Friday 09 September 2005 19:28 Jim Richardson wrote:

> The founding fathers worried that a strong central govt would run
> rampant over the citizens, since that's what they were objecting to
> with the British, it seems a rather valid point

Ah - thank you Jim:-)
Put like that, it makes a lot of sense - "we've ridded ourselves of the
Brits, but don't want to replace them with something just as bad but
under another name"?

In fact (and amazingly coming back onto topic!) this is exactly what
Oxford (the OP) seems to be suggesting for Munich - replace Microsoft
with Apple!  A gain in security, but now proprietary hardware as well
as proprietary software!
I hasten to add that I have more faith in Munich's aspirations than in
Oxford's!

Bill
0
bbgruff (6626)
9/9/2005 7:18:50 PM
On Friday 09 September 2005 20:10 Oxford wrote:

> Apple will surely be
> stronger than ever, 5-10 times larger than it is now... it's quite
> possible it will become the "MicroSoft" of the 10's... all the parts
> are coming into place. (top intel systems running unix, top music
> store, top movie store, top software developer, etc)

Noted:-)

Bill
0
bbgruff (6626)
9/9/2005 7:22:19 PM
In article <9O9Ue.32005$YC1.31750@fe08.lga>, Stephen Olsen wrote:
> Why doesn't Dell pre-install Linux?

They do.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
9/9/2005 7:22:37 PM
In article <g2j3i19fb2ndf9mfg558d4ekcl4tehvjvv@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:
> If people don't mind throwing-away money...  The price of this package is
> WAY too high, considering that most people who have it use only a tiny
> fraction of what's there.  Every PC in my company has Office on it, and
> for what reason?  Myself, I only use it for light word-processing.

A lot of people overlook Works.  $50, and includes Word 2002.  For typical
home or light office use, that's all most people need.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
9/9/2005 7:30:23 PM
B Gruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> In fact (and amazingly coming back onto topic!) this is exactly what
> Oxford (the OP) seems to be suggesting for Munich - replace Microsoft
> with Apple!  A gain in security, but now proprietary hardware as well
> as proprietary software!
> I hasten to add that I have more faith in Munich's aspirations than in
> Oxford's!

yes, but Apple has never shown controlling tendencies like the Brits of 
a century ago, or Microsoft at any point in its history. Apple is very 
counter culture, karma based with a deep distain for the status quo, 
kinda like Linux but "with a long term focus" :)
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 7:33:51 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:10:57 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> > yes, but I go direct to the full answer, not toy around with "what 
>> > ifs"... Is the Apple Music Store the largest (2 Million Songs), most 
>> > advanced features, most widely used, easiest to manage system on the 
>> > planet? yes, yes, yes, yes.
>> 
>> Maybe. And maybe not.
> 
> there was "no maybe" in what I said...
> 
> is it the largest store?  yes.

Is it?

> is it the most advanced? yes.

Is it?

> is it the most widely used? yes.

Is it?

> is it the easiest to manage? yes.

Is it?
> 
> please show us where there is an error.... there were no "maybes" with 
> my particular statement.

Once again, popular as it may be, not everyone has an iPod. Without one,
it's not much use.

> 
>>  Doesn't anyone have the ability at this late 
>> > stage to enter and dominate the legal download market above Apple? no.
>> 
>> Actually, I wouldn't bet on that.
> 
> Who? If the nearest competitor to Apple only has 6% marketshare, and 
> Apple has already sold 20+ million units, then who could come in and 
> grab 70% overnight?

Why does it have to be overnight? And how do you make the nearest
competitor only has 6%. Wasn't Larry Q saying Creative has something like
16?

 This is a new market (5ish years old) Apple is the 
> clear leader, so it's very unlikely someone can come in at this point. 
> If it was a mature market, perhaps, but Apple will certainly be ahead 
> for the next 5-10 years, so who else is there?

I don't know, right now. It could easily turn out to be someone you've
completely overlooked.

> 
>> > The barriers to building such a huge worldwide store are just to much 
>> > for anyone, even Microsoft... doesn't have the technical ability, nor 
>> > the "desire" to unseat Apple in this area. 20 years out, Apple will 
>> > still have 50+% of the online Music Distribution market, they are laying 
>> > the "concrete" with the iPod and iTunes as we speak.
>> 
>> In twenty years, the whole *world* will have changed, never mind just this
>> area of technology. In twenty years Apple might be totally gone, barely
>> remembered.
> 
> Yes, in 20 years there will be 10 terabyte wireless, with full coverage 
> over the planet. but the fundamental transaction of a legal download 
> will still be with us, for music, movies, holograms :) etc... Apple 
> already has the world's top Movie Trailer site, by far... they will own 
> the Movie download market like they do music, that's about the only 
> thing outside of faster transfers that will happen. Apple will surely be 
> stronger than ever, 5-10 times larger than it is now... it's quite 
> possible it will become the "MicroSoft" of the 10's... all the parts are 
> coming into place. (top intel systems running unix, top music store, top 
> movie store, top software developer, etc)

So you can see the future? Doubt it. Could just as easily be Linux or
something else taking the top spot. The world seems to be waking up to the
good sense of open source, and nations like China are going to be a force
to be reckoned with, too. To just come out with the idea that Apple will
definitely be on top is ridiculous.

> 
>> > yes, but if it doesn't work with the top selling player, there is no way 
>> > it can become the top selling "music store"... the Apple Music Store is 
>> > like a worldwide "Utility", it pumps out 80% of the worlds legal music 
>> > downloads, so those economies of scale are just too large to overcome at 
>> > this point in the game.
>> 
>> It's on top *now*. That could easily change. 
> 
> please explain... "how" apple could be unseated... where is the weakness?

It's not a matter of weakness. Someone else comes along with a better
product, a better idea, some unexpected twist that people take to. No
company is infalliable or unbeatable.

> 
> will Apple stop selling the ipod to make this occur? will they stop the 
> music store? will they pull iTunes from development so others can lead? 
> just what can happen to make them lose out at this point in the game?

IBM was king once - now where are they? MS turned up, and took over the
scene. The same kind of thing can happen to anyone. Especially if they
have the same attitude as you, that Apple is invincible

> 
>> > What?  iTunes is HUGELY useful even if you don't have a iPod... that's 
>> > only one small feature of it... it can organize your Music Collection, 
>> > Burn CDs and DVDs, Listen to Internet Radio, Listen to AudioBooks, 
>> > Listen to Podcasts... Wirelessly stream all this Audio to your Stereo... 
>> > ALL WITHOUT an iPod.
>> 
>> Pretty much all of that can be done with AmaroK, or other Linux software,
>> at no cost.
> 
> What in the world is AmoroK? NOBODY in the normal flow of life has ever 
> heard of it... it's running on what? 60K machines worldwide?  How much 
> worldwide Advertising do they do? Does it seamlessly work with the iPod?

I don't know, I don't have one. And I'm not the only one who doesn't. Far
*anyone* who doesn't, iTunes is no use.
  
> How about Podcasts? Or how big is its Music Store?  Looking over the
> features, it's missing about 80% of what iTunes does... so they really
> need to get moving if they are going to catch up... Even if Apple
> stopped Development of iTunes today (to help them) it would be about 3
> years of work from the looks of it...

Bullshit. All iTunes really has over Linux software is integration. The
rest we can do, and more, without resorting to proprietary software that
tells us what we can listen to and how.

> 
>> > It's free... give it a whirl...
>> 
>> No thanks.
> 
> you will in time...

Here is where you lose me completely, yet again. You keep on repeating
this crap, and Linux users keep on telling you we're not buying it. Some
of us are happy where we are.

> 
>> > And if you are ready to move up to wireless audio from your laptop or 
>> > desktop (with zero quality loss) here is your ticket...
>> > 
>> > http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/airtunes.html
>> 
>> What use is that when I don't have Mac or Windows?
> 
> Get a mac, put yourself out of this linux misery
> 
> http://www.apple.com/imac/design.html

And once again, you need telling:

I'm *not in any misery*, you twerp. Never have been since I started using
Linux. Don't anticipate being as long as I go on using Linux. What you
fail to grasp, time and time again, is that not everyone thinks Apple is
the big solution to everything.

The iPod is trendy. When I was in my teens and twenties, being 'trendy'
was considered the kiss of death in my social circle. It meant that you
followed the herd.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/9/2005 7:54:34 PM
Jim Richardson wrote:

> > The problem here in the states is how the second amendment to the Bill
> > of Rights which gives citizens the "right to bear arms" is
> > interpretted. For obvious reasons there are legal limits as to how far
> > my "right to bear arms" extends. I can't arm myself with a cruise
> > missle, atomic weapon or a bazooka for example but I can legally arm
> > myself with a rifle, handgun and a machine gun.
> >
>
> Couple of points, the constitution, grants no rights to the people. It
> *recognizes* existing rights. The constitution has no power to grant
> rights to the people, it is a limited grant of power to the state.


My bad. I could have worded this better.



> As for the legal limits, you can legally own (state restrictions vary)
> by federal law, anything up to and including howitzers and other large
> ordnance. I don't know what the biggest is, but I know of several modern
> 105mm pieces in private hands, there are larger pieces in private hands,
> but the ones I know of are civil war era items, or the replicas.


Interesting that you can own a howitzer but you can't own a sawed-off
shotgun or a "saturday night special" or a switch-blade knife. I
believe that armor piercing bullets are also illegal nowdays.



> > I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
> > practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
> > argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
> > Collect stamps or swords instead. I know two people with machine gun
> > permits and neither one is what I would consider to be a "collector of
> > fine munitions."
> >
>
> I *enjoy* shooting full auto weapons, I don't *need* one, any more than
> I *need* a motorcycle capable of 150MPH, but I have one, and enjoy
> riding it. (although not that fast) Worry about the actions, not the
> implement. We don't ban gasoline and rags, in case someone makes a
> molotov, and that's a damn sight more destructive than any firearm.


Boy, this is a tough one. I certainly understand what you're saying and
a large part of me agrees with you. I enjoying going out to the
shooting range a few times a year (that's the only place I can legally
shoot around here) and certainly don't want to lose that right.

But on the other hand gun violence is a serious problem in many parts
of this country. As a nation there are already many things that we've
outlawed because of the "greater good" for society. Ideally we could
keep the guns away from the criminals and let rest of the citizens
enjoy them. But how? I'd like to see CCW in more areas but it doesn't
look like it's going to happen. Out here I had to register (this is no
joke) my air pistol.



> Whether you "buy" the reason for others to own such things, is
> irellevent, you aren't the dictator, and don't get to decide. Rights are
> not subject to the whim of others.


Things are certainly different out where I live. Until a few years ago
I was able to ride my bike (1993 Heritage Softail) without a helmet.
Not any more. (Not that I would regularly ride without a helmet but
it's the principal. If it's 95-degrees and I want to ride up the road I
should be able to.) Then there's mandatory seatbelts. A friends father
has owned a bar for 20+ years. He can no longer smoke in his own bar.

The worst one to me is the recent Supreme Court decision. Emminent
domain can be used to takeover land in order to generate more tax
revenue.

Lately it seems as if my rights are subject to the whim of the state
legislature.



> > I also don't believe that handguns (pistols) should be legal for
> > citizens to carry. There are several reasons why police and the
> > military should be issued handguns but from a practical perspective
> > there is no reason why someone needs to own a handgun. A rifle is more
> > than capable of doing anything a handgun can do an in fact, it's much
> > better at it. (more accurate + higher muzzle velocity)
> >
>
> 33 states have "shall issue" CCW in place. That is, if you meet the
> criteria, they *must* issue you the permit. 2 states (Alaska and
> Vermont) have no permit required for concealed carry.
>
> Care to guess as to how many murders were commited in the last 10 years
> by CCW holders? I'll give you a clue, fewer than were committed by "duly
> authorized" police officers. Despite there being many more CCW holders.
> In Washington, (where I live) there are approx 200,000 CCW holders.
> fewer than 20 have been revoked "for cause" in the last 5 years.
>
> Florida enacted their "shall issue" CCW law in (IIRC) 1989. Various
> victim disarmament groups predicted "blood in the streets", that the
> Sunshine state would explode in a flurry of shootouts over parking
> spaces, and such. Didn't happen. In fact, to the best of my knowledge,
> not one violent crime has been committed by a CCW holder, with their
> carry piece. There were a few permits revoked for technical violations
> (carrying into a courthouse, or the like) but I know of none involving
> violence, or the threat thereof.
>



> and as previously mentioned, *every* state which enacted a shall issue
> CCW law in the last 10 years has seen a drop in violent crime, and while


I think I was the one who mentioned this a few posts ago.




> violent crime in general was dropping in the US at the same time, the
> states which *don't* have a shall issue CCW didn't see the same drop as
> the shall issue states. I don't think the criminals are driving from
> Portland Oregon, to LA to commit crimes, and even if they were, that
> would be a pretty good indication that the criminals feared to commit
> the crimes in Portland...
>
> > Finally we need to enforce the existing gun laws instead of passing new
> > ones.
> >
>
> I'd agree there.
>
>
> >
> > (Disclaimer: I own a couple of rifles and a air pistol.)
> >
>
>


> you wild eyed revolutionary you. :)


I just want to strap a sawed-off shotgun to the side of my leg and ride
my hog without a helmet.<g>

0
lqualig (4343)
9/9/2005 8:09:54 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:18:50 +0100,
 B Gruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 19:28 Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> The founding fathers worried that a strong central govt would run
>> rampant over the citizens, since that's what they were objecting to
>> with the British, it seems a rather valid point
>
> Ah - thank you Jim:-)
> Put like that, it makes a lot of sense - "we've ridded ourselves of the
> Brits, but don't want to replace them with something just as bad but
> under another name"?
>
> In fact (and amazingly coming back onto topic!) this is exactly what
> Oxford (the OP) seems to be suggesting for Munich - replace Microsoft
> with Apple!  A gain in security, but now proprietary hardware as well
> as proprietary software!
> I hasten to add that I have more faith in Munich's aspirations than in
> Oxford's!
>

Oxford has shown himself to be pretty clueless, once he wanders past the
press releases he regurgitates. 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDIeyGd90bcYOAWPYRAsBuAJ9pl5Z2sR0Ye8MqFPYOKuDvGjyn+QCeMLx8
vS+kBRm3PULisq2y1Vr65VA=
=Obgr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Good judgement comes with experience. Unfortunately, the experience
usually comes from bad judgement.
0
warlock (9522)
9/9/2005 8:11:50 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 19:30:23 GMT,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <g2j3i19fb2ndf9mfg558d4ekcl4tehvjvv@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:
>> If people don't mind throwing-away money...  The price of this package is
>> WAY too high, considering that most people who have it use only a tiny
>> fraction of what's there.  Every PC in my company has Office on it, and
>> for what reason?  Myself, I only use it for light word-processing.
>
> A lot of people overlook Works.  $50, and includes Word 2002.  For typical
> home or light office use, that's all most people need.
>


Wasn't there an issue with works not being able to read or write (can't
recall which ) word files properly? 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDIezyd90bcYOAWPYRAtaEAJ9xFbrRfv7Ki/72kZahwFLKNYkS4gCfRJBG
fNxOjMorXWnPh3KYMlTOSiE=
=O3u7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done
0
warlock (9522)
9/9/2005 8:13:38 PM
Oxford wrote:
> rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>None of the reasons for the delays are technical, they are all
>>beaurocratic.  Linux is more than capable of handling anything that is
>>requested of it in this context.
> 
> 
> the complication of switching to OpenOffice certainly is technical in 
> nature.
> 

Rubbish. Anyone who can use MS Office can use Open Office with only a 
very slight learning curve...(some of the more frequently-used menu 
items are in slightly different places in OO....)

-- 
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.04 and Open Office
Was Windows XP SP2 and Office 2003
gbplinuxATgmailDOTcom
0
gbplinux (1091)
9/9/2005 8:40:04 PM
Oxford wrote:
> ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>All wrong... moving that many machines to OSX would be a breeze... first 
>>>of all you wouldn't have the problem of migrating MS Office. Microsoft 
>>>has always designed Office on the Mac first, then port to PC's. 
>>
>>That is simply a bald-faced lie. Micrsoft development teams have always 
>>designed the company's Office products in VisualBasic running on Windows 
>>computers. I was on the design team for Office 97 and still consult with 
>>MS on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> Wrong, every component outside of Access began on the Mac, polished on 
> the Mac, then ported to the PC. Office 2004 is currently the most 
> advanced version of Office MS builds, it will trickle over to the PC in 
> due time, but Windows always lags the Mac version by a year or more.

So you think that someone on the Office 97 design team doesn't know a 
Mac from a PC? That just exposes you as a complete fucktard, doesn't it?


-- 
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.04 and Open Office
Was Windows XP SP2 and Office 2003
gbplinuxATgmailDOTcom
0
gbplinux (1091)
9/9/2005 8:41:36 PM
Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> > Wrong, every component outside of Access began on the Mac, polished on 
> > the Mac, then ported to the PC. Office 2004 is currently the most 
> > advanced version of Office MS builds, it will trickle over to the PC in 
> > due time, but Windows always lags the Mac version by a year or more.
> 
> So you think that someone on the Office 97 design team doesn't know a 
> Mac from a PC? That just exposes you as a complete fucktard, doesn't it?

yes, it was surprising how ignorant he was on that topic... he even 
pointed to a microsoft "buy" page and said "look, very few Mac 
development tools"... I guess he wasn't thinking too clearly on the 
history of Office.
0
csma (3267)
9/9/2005 9:11:39 PM
Jim Richardson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:00:40 +0200,
>  Wolfgang Draxinger <wdraxinger@darkstargames.de> wrote:
> 
>>Stephen Olsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Looks to me like switching to Linux was a lot more trouble than
>>>they anticipated.
>>>Maybe that is why Linux has such a dismal market share.
>>
>>Actually I live in Munich (check the news server I'm posting this
>>from and to a whois on it ;-) and I know some of the people who
>>are involved in the migration. The reason for the delay is quite
>>simple: About every department has their own homebrew software
>>solutions. And not few of them are built around propritary
>>software like M$ Access. However in the Linux migration project
>>they want to set all of these data on a sound foundation. So the
>>real reason for delay isn't the OSS but the fact that there are
>>so much, different CSS systems used, that extracting data can't
>>be done with a few scripts. For about every department a own
>>import/export programm has to be developed.
>>
>>Wolfgang Draxinger
> 
> 
> Interesting. It would be nice if the Munich project folks mentioned
> this, would take the wind out of the sails of a bunch of the wintrolls
> here, and elsewhere. 

This does put's a whole lot of wind in Massachusetts sails!

Aside: Where's DFS when you need him? He would have whipped up a Access 
Data exporter to EBCDIC in a few minutes, of course. ;-)

Cheers,
WS

-- 
change to leews to mail

0
see.sig5 (410)
9/9/2005 9:48:58 PM
On Friday 09 September 2005 20:33 Oxford wrote:

> B Gruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> In fact (and amazingly coming back onto topic!) this is exactly what
>> Oxford (the OP) seems to be suggesting for Munich - replace Microsoft
>> with Apple!  A gain in security, but now proprietary hardware as well
>> as proprietary software!
>> I hasten to add that I have more faith in Munich's aspirations than
>> in Oxford's!
> 
> yes, but Apple has never shown controlling tendencies like the Brits
> of a century ago, or Microsoft at any point in its history. Apple is
> very counter culture, karma based with a deep distain for the status
> quo, kinda like Linux but "with a long term focus" :)

I see.
I'll now leave it to you then to argue with my trans-Atlantic cousins
that in 1776 they shouldn't simply have pushed out the Brits - they
should have installed the French.

Bon chance et au revoir, mon brave!

Bill
0
bbgruff (6626)
9/9/2005 10:51:19 PM
On Friday 09 September 2005 21:13 Jim Richardson wrote:

> 
> Wasn't there an issue with works not being able to read or write
> (can't recall which ) word files properly?

Certainly that's what a (on-line) friend told me about 18 months ago.
He scrapped his PC (had bought it pre-loaded with MS Office
way-back-when) and bought a new one, all pre-loaded, but with Works.
Reckoned not to be able to use his old docs.
I put him onto OO, and he was very grateful.

Bill
0
bbgruff (6626)
9/9/2005 10:59:57 PM
In article <i079v2-e9d.ln1@fimbul.myth>, Jim Richardson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 19:30:23 GMT,
>  Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> In article <g2j3i19fb2ndf9mfg558d4ekcl4tehvjvv@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:
>>> If people don't mind throwing-away money...  The price of this package is
>>> WAY too high, considering that most people who have it use only a tiny
>>> fraction of what's there.  Every PC in my company has Office on it, and
>>> for what reason?  Myself, I only use it for light word-processing.
>>
>> A lot of people overlook Works.  $50, and includes Word 2002.  For typical
>> home or light office use, that's all most people need.
>>
> 
> 
> Wasn't there an issue with works not being able to read or write (can't
> recall which ) word files properly? 
> 

I don't see how that could be - since works includes word.  Works is a
suite.  The word processor is Word - at least it has been for a while.
It used to have it's own...  So, maybe that's where you got that from.

-- 
Tom Shelton
0
tom271 (867)
9/9/2005 11:03:10 PM
begin  In <1126296594.309524.91500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on
09/09/2005
   at 01:09 PM, lqualig@uku.co.uk said:

>But on the other hand gun violence is a serious problem in many parts
>of this country.

That suggests a need for control; it does not suggest a need for
prohibition. I'd want to see a lot more data justifying it before
outlawing handguns. OTOH, I have no sympathy for the NRA and its ilk.

What happened in those towns with mandatory firearms ownership? Are
there any crime statistics for areas with large numbers of open carry
permits?

If it were up to me there would be firearms laws that both the left
and the right would hate.

 1. Registration.

 2. Mandatory range time.

 3. Mandatory safety classes, with refresher courses.

 4. Mandatory lockup of firearms and ammo.

 5. Safe harbor provisions for anyone using a legal firearm in defense
    of his home and family. That is, there should be a legal
    presumption of necessity and any claim of excessive force would
    have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 6. Anybody purchasing certain categories of weapons should be subject
    to callup in an emergency.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

0
spamtrap16 (3722)
9/9/2005 11:34:11 PM
> Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:
> The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.

> The first big deployment has been full of "snags" and "delays"... just 
> like using Linux!

Government "progress" notwithstanding, your article explains many of the
issues. They changed distributions in mid-stream (I have no idea why, it's
all Linux), they put the project on hold because of a piece of legislation
that turned out to be a paper tiger, and they still went into it without
even knowing what they needed to do (obviously, if they're doing testing
/now/).

It sort of sounds like the U.N. building boondoggle to me, but, having
worked for the gov't for the past five years, I'm not surprised that they're
all over the map with this. I predict that it will be done overbudget and
late, and they'll know the true cost of vendor lock-in with their data.


-- 
0
Bones5581 (72)
9/9/2005 11:43:41 PM
"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in 
message news:43222a03$6$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net...

> >But on the other hand gun violence is a serious problem in many parts
> >of this country.
>
> That suggests a need for control; it does not suggest a need for
> prohibition. I'd want to see a lot more data justifying it before
> outlawing handguns. OTOH, I have no sympathy for the NRA and its ilk.
>


> What happened in those towns with mandatory firearms ownership? Are
> there any crime statistics for areas with large numbers of open carry
> permits?


Violent crime is down in *all* (all as in each and every, 100%, zero 
exceptions) towns. At least according to the news that I heard on the radio.


>
> If it were up to me there would be firearms laws that both the left
> and the right would hate.
>
>  1. Registration.

It's a state thing. In Massachusetts it's mandatory for *all* firearms. 
Including air pistols and pellet guns.


>  2. Mandatory range time.

Happened to me when I was in the military. (not that I minded very much)


>  3. Mandatory safety classes, with refresher courses.

Safety classes are mandatory here. But not the refresher courses.


>  4. Mandatory lockup of firearms and ammo.

This one is strange where I live. It's not "mandatory" that I lockup my 
rifles and ammo but if I don't lock them up and someone gets hurt them I'm 
liable.


>  5. Safe harbor provisions for anyone using a legal firearm in defense
>     of his home and family. That is, there should be a legal
>     presumption of necessity and any claim of excessive force would
>     have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I "think" it's like this but I'm not 100% sure. We just had a violent crime 
where I live (Concord, MA) about 30 or 40 years ago. So it's not big on my 
list of priorities. But believe me... if I ever shoot someone dead in my 
house they *will* have a gun in their hand when the police show up.


>  6. Anybody purchasing certain categories of weapons should be subject
>     to callup in an emergency.

Not sure what you mean. If you're talking about "emergency service" type 
stuff then I'd agree to that.





0
9/10/2005 3:33:42 AM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:33:04 +0100,
>  Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:00:51 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> begin  oe_protect.scr 
>>> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>>>> 
>>> <ker-snip commentary leading to speculation that ordinary people
>>> will want to be armed as the state cannot protect them>
>>>> 
>>>> Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
>>>> bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's the problem with the weapons control or not debate...
>>
>> Among others -  in a so-called ideal world, I could almost see gun
>> carrying as an option, but if we had that, we wouldn't need them. The
>> trouble with guns it any fool can use one.
>>
>>> Jim's got some interesting views on this, as have, apparently, some
>>> senior British police, too.  I'd prefer to have an effective police
>>> force than a typically armed population, but, as Jim pointed out, the
>>> actual murder-rate in the UK wasn't very high when guns were allowed.
>>> I suspect that might be because they were expensive, but there is no
>>> clear indication.
>>
>> Not only that, but not as easy to obtain, I suspect.
>>
> 
> easier actually. You could buy them mail order, in the hardware stores,
> pretty much anywhere, and contrary to Mark's claim, they were *less*
> expensive than now in the UK. (due to cost of regulations mostly) 
> 

I meant relatively expensive, ie., could the average person afford one?

> 
> Look at some store ads from the 1900-1920 period. Guns were easily
> available in the UK, *much* more so than now, in the US, and crime rates
> were low. 
> 
> The reason most of the gun laws started in the UK, was fear of a revolt
> by the workers, not crime. 
> 

There's some evidence that the Home Guard which was built up in WW2 as a
domestic guerilla force was seen as a potential threat to the government
at the time;  apparently, there was some kind of background threat that
if HMG caved to Hitler, the Home Guard would overrun the government and
replace them.


-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
		-- Errol Flynn

Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure.
		-- Errol Flynn
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/10/2005 6:27:57 AM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:23:04 -0400,
>  Stephen Olsen <eastern_ny497235@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:54:26 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> begin  oe_protect.scr 
>>> Stephen Olsen <eastern_ny497235@yahoo.com> espoused:
>>>> 
>>>> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free has
>>>> such as dismal desktop market share?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> As linux is free, there is no way of reliably establishing its desktop
>>> share that I'm aware of.  All the evidence floating around indicates
>>> that it's share is growing rapidly indeed, however, although probably not
>>> yet close to the phenomenal rise in server and embedded spaces for linux.
>>
>> I tend to agree that Linux is growing rapidly as a server operating system
>> as well as embedded but I don't see it appearing as a desktop system
>> anywhere that I go.
>>
> 
> I see it a lot more than the Mac. Mostly as a business desktop.
> Dunn Lumber here in the Seattle area uses Linux, as does Lowes (a Home
> Depot kind of store) IS it far behind MS-Windows in desktop market
> share? yes. Does that mean it will stay there? No. 

Macs have become rare.  They used to be fairly commonplace, though.
My mother-in-law is about to buy a Mac, as she's sick of her Windows
machines grinding to a halt through nothing but normal usage.  The guy
in the Mac shop recommended Open-Office...

My lad's just had to reinstall his Mac, as the terminal stopped working.
Reasons not clear - it just wouldn't start.  Nothing on the net
about this.  He's lost a lot of his data (some through inexperience,
of course).  He's learnt a lot about how good free software is through
his Mac experiences.

> 
> 
>>
>>> Of the reliable information out there, though, it's interesting to note
>>> that Apache remains at approximately 70% of web server deployments, 
>>> with IIS at around 20%.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> A quick look at browser stats from 
>>> http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
>>> shows:
>>> 
>>>    IE6 		80% 71% 88% 80% 84% 46%
>>>    Gecko based 9.3% 23% 6.4% 8.4% 8.4% 34%
>>> 
>>> Over 6 quite separate sites.  Clearly, free software browsers are rising
>>> rapidly in popularity, and free software servers are by far the most
>>> popular.
>>
>> Many people who use Windows have switched to Mozilla based browsers
>> because they are far superior to Internet Explorer. This is in fact being
>> mandated by large companies who are moving employees to Mozilla as well.
> 
> and many companies are making the same change to Linux desktops, for
> much the same reason. 
> 
> 
>>
>>> From WebReference.com we have:
>>> 
>>> FF ALL                        8423                  20.75
>>> IE ALL                       22687                  55.90
>>> 
>>> Which puts Firefox at a stunning 1/5th of all hits here.  For 
>>> digital web magazine, we have:
>>> 
>>> Browser    	  	Session %  % Change
>>> Firefox 		51.02%   up 5.94%
>>> Internet Explorer 	21.69% down 6.21%
>>> Mozilla    		18.66%   up 0.68%
>>> 
>>> Which puts IE as the minority browser, at approx 1/5th.
>>> 
>>> Clearly, firefox is making huge inroads into the browser market, and
>>> I'm sure that thunderbird is doing the same thing in the mail client
>>> environment.
>>
>> Firefox yes, but thunderbird no because people are just too entrenched
>> with Outlook.
> 
> No, it's because Thunderbird is far newer. 
> 

It's very recent, but growing at a phenomenal rate.  What I'm seeing is
that people who've got Firefox are looking at Thunderbird as a natural
step, rather than something difficult or new.

>>
>>
>>  
>>> As open office continues to grow in popularity and usage, there is
>>> unlikely to be much compelling reason to stay with Microsoft Windows
>>> for most users, considering the reliability problems, the difficulties
>>> avoiding malware, and so on.
>>
>> I don't think OpenOffice is going to replace Microsoft Office anytime soon.
>> It has been available for Windows as well, is free and yet I don't see
>> people moving over to it mostly because they already have Microsoft Office.
>> I've tried Openoffice for Windows and honestly I found it to be slow,
>> bloated and buggy. The Linux version is better but it's still slow.
>> For Linux Abiword suits my needs just fine and for Windows I use an old
>> copy of Word97.
> 
> OO2 will take market share from MS-Office, no two ways about it. How
> much? we'll have to see. I look forward to finding out. 

It's more than good enough now.  

> 
> 
>>
>>
>>> Microsoft's hard-nosed business tactics clearly do not work when dealing
>>> with the threat of free software to their business, thus it seems highly
>>> likely that there will be a period of genuine competition.  How long
>>> that lasts will depend on whether Microsoft are able to adjust their
>>> business model to a support model, and are able to produce reliable,
>>> secure software.
>>> 
>>> However, it is clear that the expanding area is linux/free software.
>>
>> Competing with free is very difficult if not impossible assuming the two
>> items in question are of equal quality and that they perfom the same
>> functions.


The test for 'disruptive technology' is 10% of the price and 1/2
as good.  Open Office is << 10% of the price, and is easily 1/2 as
good as MS Office, in many areas, it's superior, openness being one.
Presumably this is why the folks in Boston have decided to go this way...

Wrapping all of the above up, if people are using Firefox, Thunderbird
and OpenOffice, there will be no particular reason for most people
to use Windows at all.  It will not be long before the Tescos, Asdas
and so on are selling inexpensive computers pre-installed with Linux,
Firefox, Thunderbird, OO2 and the standard distro stuff.


>> Linux still has the public to deal with and the public is ignoring Linux
>> in a big way for many reasons but mostly because they already have Windows
>> and any future machines they buy come with Windows so there is no need to
>> switch.
>> I wouldn't trust Microsoft at all BTW.
>>
> 
> The public ignores computers period. 
> 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFDIb04d90bcYOAWPYRAh8MAJ9EmE2PLvl6yM3KGSiTMOslhKuVUgCdGtfw
> PeVX7IlRq6oo6ecJcIT7OB4=
> =jQjL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 


-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
		-- Errol Flynn

Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure.
		-- Errol Flynn
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/10/2005 6:44:27 AM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Bones <Bones@domain.dom> espoused:
>> Oxford <csma@mac.com> said:
>> The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
> 
>> The first big deployment has been full of "snags" and "delays"... just 
>> like using Linux!
> 
> Government "progress" notwithstanding, your article explains many of the
> issues. They changed distributions in mid-stream (I have no idea why, it's
> all Linux), they put the project on hold because of a piece of legislation
> that turned out to be a paper tiger, and they still went into it without
> even knowing what they needed to do (obviously, if they're doing testing
> /now/).
> 
> It sort of sounds like the U.N. building boondoggle to me, but, having
> worked for the gov't for the past five years, I'm not surprised that they're
> all over the map with this. I predict that it will be done overbudget and
> late, and they'll know the true cost of vendor lock-in with their data.
> 
> 

Large software projects are never simple.  You'd have all of these
problems no matter what kind of 'upgrade' you were doing.  The key to
hold in mind is that once the linux install is in place, there will
never be a need to make such a big change again, as vendor lock-in
can be avoided completely.  Document formats will not become magically
unusable over time, machines will not degrade and suffer 'bit-rot' for
no clear reasons.  Upgrades can be automated, and have no direct cost.
Bug-fixes which are required can be developed in-house and then submitted
to the package maintainers, so the fix stays fixed, and there's no
need to get the fix requirement into a queue, stuck behind three 'gold'
customers because you're only a 'top' customer.


-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
		-- Errol Flynn

Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure.
		-- Errol Flynn
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/10/2005 6:54:07 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9 Sep 2005 13:09:54 -0700,
 lqualig@uku.co.uk <lqualig@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> > The problem here in the states is how the second amendment to the Bill
>> > of Rights which gives citizens the "right to bear arms" is
>> > interpretted. For obvious reasons there are legal limits as to how far
>> > my "right to bear arms" extends. I can't arm myself with a cruise
>> > missle, atomic weapon or a bazooka for example but I can legally arm
>> > myself with a rifle, handgun and a machine gun.
>> >
>>
>> Couple of points, the constitution, grants no rights to the people. It
>> *recognizes* existing rights. The constitution has no power to grant
>> rights to the people, it is a limited grant of power to the state.
>
>
> My bad. I could have worded this better.
>

it's a point a lot of people miss. But it's critical. 

>
>
>> As for the legal limits, you can legally own (state restrictions vary)
>> by federal law, anything up to and including howitzers and other large
>> ordnance. I don't know what the biggest is, but I know of several modern
>> 105mm pieces in private hands, there are larger pieces in private hands,
>> but the ones I know of are civil war era items, or the replicas.
>
>
> Interesting that you can own a howitzer but you can't own a sawed-off
> shotgun or a "saturday night special" or a switch-blade knife. I
> believe that armor piercing bullets are also illegal nowdays.
>

Depends on the jurisdiction. There's no such legal thing as a "saturday
night special" thus, no law banning such a non-existant item. There are
federal laws restricting the import of some handguns, although the laws
don't prevent domestic production of the identical piece. Another
example of a silly law. 

Short barreled shotguns are legal, after paying a tax, and doing the
background thing, at least at the federal level, some jurisdictions have
other restrictions. But at the federal level, it's pretty basic. 


>
>
>> > I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
>> > practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
>> > argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
>> > Collect stamps or swords instead. I know two people with machine gun
>> > permits and neither one is what I would consider to be a "collector of
>> > fine munitions."
>> >
>>
>> I *enjoy* shooting full auto weapons, I don't *need* one, any more than
>> I *need* a motorcycle capable of 150MPH, but I have one, and enjoy
>> riding it. (although not that fast) Worry about the actions, not the
>> implement. We don't ban gasoline and rags, in case someone makes a
>> molotov, and that's a damn sight more destructive than any firearm.
>
>
> Boy, this is a tough one. I certainly understand what you're saying and
> a large part of me agrees with you. I enjoying going out to the
> shooting range a few times a year (that's the only place I can legally
> shoot around here) and certainly don't want to lose that right.
>
> But on the other hand gun violence is a serious problem in many parts
> of this country. As a nation there are already many things that we've
> outlawed because of the "greater good" for society. Ideally we could
> keep the guns away from the criminals and let rest of the citizens
> enjoy them. But how? I'd like to see CCW in more areas but it doesn't
> look like it's going to happen. Out here I had to register (this is no
> joke) my air pistol.
>
>

More and more states are switching to "shall issue" CCW, or, like Alaska
and Vermont, no permit needed. <http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php> has
a cute animated gif map showing the spread of shall issue CCW. 

For a lot of info on CCW in the states (and a few other places. ) check
out <http://www.packing.org>


>
>> Whether you "buy" the reason for others to own such things, is
>> irellevent, you aren't the dictator, and don't get to decide. Rights are
>> not subject to the whim of others.
>
>
> Things are certainly different out where I live. Until a few years ago
> I was able to ride my bike (1993 Heritage Softail) without a helmet.
> Not any more. (Not that I would regularly ride without a helmet but
> it's the principal. If it's 95-degrees and I want to ride up the road I
> should be able to.) Then there's mandatory seatbelts. A friends father
> has owned a bar for 20+ years. He can no longer smoke in his own bar.

Agreed, this kind of crap annoys the piss out of me. If you want to
smear your brains all over the street, fine by me, just don't expect me
to foot your hospital bill. (I ride a MC pretty much every day, put
about 12Kmiles on the bike a year, I ride with a helmet, it's not the
law, it's my head.)

>
> The worst one to me is the recent Supreme Court decision. Emminent
> domain can be used to takeover land in order to generate more tax
> revenue.


yeah, don't get me started on *that* one. 

>
> Lately it seems as if my rights are subject to the whim of the state
> legislature.
>

Three boxes guard our liberty, Ballot, Jury, and cartridge. 


>
>
>> > I also don't believe that handguns (pistols) should be legal for
>> > citizens to carry. There are several reasons why police and the
>> > military should be issued handguns but from a practical perspective
>> > there is no reason why someone needs to own a handgun. A rifle is more
>> > than capable of doing anything a handgun can do an in fact, it's much
>> > better at it. (more accurate + higher muzzle velocity)
>> >
>>
>> 33 states have "shall issue" CCW in place. That is, if you meet the
>> criteria, they *must* issue you the permit. 2 states (Alaska and
>> Vermont) have no permit required for concealed carry.
>>
>> Care to guess as to how many murders were commited in the last 10 years
>> by CCW holders? I'll give you a clue, fewer than were committed by "duly
>> authorized" police officers. Despite there being many more CCW holders.
>> In Washington, (where I live) there are approx 200,000 CCW holders.
>> fewer than 20 have been revoked "for cause" in the last 5 years.
>>
>> Florida enacted their "shall issue" CCW law in (IIRC) 1989. Various
>> victim disarmament groups predicted "blood in the streets", that the
>> Sunshine state would explode in a flurry of shootouts over parking
>> spaces, and such. Didn't happen. In fact, to the best of my knowledge,
>> not one violent crime has been committed by a CCW holder, with their
>> carry piece. There were a few permits revoked for technical violations
>> (carrying into a courthouse, or the like) but I know of none involving
>> violence, or the threat thereof.
>>
>
>
>
>> and as previously mentioned, *every* state which enacted a shall issue
>> CCW law in the last 10 years has seen a drop in violent crime, and while
>
>
> I think I was the one who mentioned this a few posts ago.
>
>
>
>
>> violent crime in general was dropping in the US at the same time, the
>> states which *don't* have a shall issue CCW didn't see the same drop as
>> the shall issue states. I don't think the criminals are driving from
>> Portland Oregon, to LA to commit crimes, and even if they were, that
>> would be a pretty good indication that the criminals feared to commit
>> the crimes in Portland...
>>
>> > Finally we need to enforce the existing gun laws instead of passing new
>> > ones.
>> >
>>
>> I'd agree there.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > (Disclaimer: I own a couple of rifles and a air pistol.)
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>> you wild eyed revolutionary you. :)
>
>
> I just want to strap a sawed-off shotgun to the side of my leg and ride
> my hog without a helmet.<g>
>


No skin off my nose :) Would that be a hogleg on the leg on a hog? 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDIpyBd90bcYOAWPYRAmekAKCDJ6mGLSmR5rGyliBjMxT/3AFYzACg6ex3
6VkEohtGnRdpL36sP9oOol0=
=s4Pq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done
0
warlock (9522)
9/10/2005 8:42:42 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 07:27:57 +0100,
 Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> espoused:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:33:04 +0100,
>>  Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:00:51 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> begin  oe_protect.scr 
>>>> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>>>>> 
>>>> <ker-snip commentary leading to speculation that ordinary people
>>>> will want to be armed as the state cannot protect them>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which will probably lead to escalation. To beat a small gun, you get a
>>>>> bigger gun. What will it end up with, I wonder - pocket Uzis?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That's the problem with the weapons control or not debate...
>>>
>>> Among others -  in a so-called ideal world, I could almost see gun
>>> carrying as an option, but if we had that, we wouldn't need them. The
>>> trouble with guns it any fool can use one.
>>>
>>>> Jim's got some interesting views on this, as have, apparently, some
>>>> senior British police, too.  I'd prefer to have an effective police
>>>> force than a typically armed population, but, as Jim pointed out, the
>>>> actual murder-rate in the UK wasn't very high when guns were allowed.
>>>> I suspect that might be because they were expensive, but there is no
>>>> clear indication.
>>>
>>> Not only that, but not as easy to obtain, I suspect.
>>>
>> 
>> easier actually. You could buy them mail order, in the hardware stores,
>> pretty much anywhere, and contrary to Mark's claim, they were *less*
>> expensive than now in the UK. (due to cost of regulations mostly) 
>> 
>
> I meant relatively expensive, ie., could the average person afford one?
>

You could buy a cheap pistol in 1910, for about a weeks wages, on either
side of the atlantic, and many people did. 

Firearms prices are cheaper now, for the same level of tech true, since
a simple revolver can be made in pretty much any high school machine
shop. But it's wishful thinking to pin the low crime rate in the UK
prior to their expansion of gun restrictions, on expensive handguns. 


An interesting read on the gun control system in the UK, and it's
history, can be found at
<http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm>

>> 
>> Look at some store ads from the 1900-1920 period. Guns were easily
>> available in the UK, *much* more so than now, in the US, and crime rates
>> were low. 
>> 
>> The reason most of the gun laws started in the UK, was fear of a revolt
>> by the workers, not crime. 
>> 
>
> There's some evidence that the Home Guard which was built up in WW2 as a
> domestic guerilla force was seen as a potential threat to the government
> at the time;  apparently, there was some kind of background threat that
> if HMG caved to Hitler, the Home Guard would overrun the government and
> replace them.
>
>


The feared revolt in question, was after the First World War, Soldiers
returning from the war, with a low opinion of the aristocracy
and the titled ministers.  


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDIqDBd90bcYOAWPYRAkkiAJwIyhvLgKf1A7wxpEjZ84H8I0XZlgCgnmEb
NNWNQ6hP5eKRYLSibXKbqEk=
=PYbL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
This isn't hell. This is where you get sent when you've been bad in hell.
0
warlock (9522)
9/10/2005 9:00:50 AM
On 2005-09-09, B Gruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> posted something concerning:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 20:33 Oxford wrote:
>
>> B Gruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> In fact (and amazingly coming back onto topic!) this is exactly what
>>> Oxford (the OP) seems to be suggesting for Munich - replace Microsoft
>>> with Apple!  A gain in security, but now proprietary hardware as well
>>> as proprietary software!
>>> I hasten to add that I have more faith in Munich's aspirations than
>>> in Oxford's!
>> 
>> yes, but Apple has never shown controlling tendencies like the Brits
>> of a century ago, or Microsoft at any point in its history. Apple is
>> very counter culture, karma based with a deep distain for the status
>> quo, kinda like Linux but "with a long term focus" :)
>
> I see.
> I'll now leave it to you then to argue with my trans-Atlantic cousins
> that in 1776 they shouldn't simply have pushed out the Brits - they
> should have installed the French.
>
> Bon chance et au revoir, mon brave!

Oxtard can be sooooooooo funny sometimes! Too bad he's an idiot and
really thinks he's making sense.

-- 
I'm using linux daily to up my productivity. So, up yours,
Microsoft.
0
sinister656 (2009)
9/10/2005 9:45:06 AM
On Saturday 10 September 2005 07:44 Mark Kent wrote:

> Wrapping all of the above up, if people are using Firefox, Thunderbird
> and OpenOffice, there will be no particular reason for most people
> to use Windows at all.

He's got it, he's got it, I do believe he's got it!

(sorry about that - but it's precisely what happened in our case!)

Bill
0
bbgruff (6626)
9/10/2005 11:00:15 AM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:11:24 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> It's free... give it a whirl...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/itunes/

If and when it ever is ported to run natively on Linux, I will. 
Until then, get fscked.

-- 
rapskat -  08:18:31 up 1 day,  6:53,  1 user,  load average: 1.39, 2.03, 1.76
	"Just 'cuz I don't have an IP doesn't mean I'm not on your
network."
	-- Mike Poor

0
rapskat2 (2033)
9/10/2005 12:19:29 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:23:04 -0400, Stephen Olsen wrote:


> I tend to agree that Linux is growing rapidly as a server operating system
> as well as embedded but I don't see it appearing as a desktop system
> anywhere that I go.

So what did you mean by "Linux is all about failure" ?


0
steve9385 (208)
9/10/2005 12:37:05 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
B Gruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
> On Saturday 10 September 2005 07:44 Mark Kent wrote:
> 
>> Wrapping all of the above up, if people are using Firefox, Thunderbird
>> and OpenOffice, there will be no particular reason for most people
>> to use Windows at all.
> 
> He's got it, he's got it, I do believe he's got it!
> 
> (sorry about that - but it's precisely what happened in our case!)
> 

Hehe - no probs.  My Fair Lady, wasn't it?  Anyway, that was very
much the point I was driving towards.  I think it won't be very long
before a LiveCD with Firefox, Open Office and Thunderbird is all that's
required for most uses, perhaps with a USB key for storage and an online
mail account.  I can contemplate the possibility of machines with no
hard drive with a DVD drive for the OS and some flash-ram for storage.
Upgrades would be easy - just put a fresh DVD in.

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
		-- Errol Flynn

Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure.
		-- Errol Flynn
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/10/2005 12:38:52 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> espoused:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:11:24 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> 
>> It's free... give it a whirl...
>> 
>> http://www.apple.com/itunes/
> 
> If and when it ever is ported to run natively on Linux, I will. 
> Until then, get fscked.
> 

You could buy a Mac, like my kid's one.  Once you've paid out �2,200
and waited 3 months for the damn thing to turn up, noting that they lie
about delivery in the first place.  Then, it's "free", in the same way
that skype is free once you've paid for broadband, a router, firewall,
terminal equipment or PC to run the client on, microphone and headphones,
or the Dect phone they sell on the web.  That kind of free.

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
		-- Errol Flynn

Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure.
		-- Errol Flynn
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/10/2005 1:06:04 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:56:15 +0100, Kier wrote:

>> I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
>> practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
>> argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
> 
> Nor me. I've never seen any good reason a civilian should have such a
> weapon - at least, not one in full working order. They are weapons of war,
> and should be treated as such.

The problem isn't firearms, it's society.  If it wasn't guns it would be
something else.

Taking away guns, making harsher laws, etc., etc. isn't going to do a
thing about the cause of the problem.  I don't know what the answer is, I
won't even presume to try, but I do know that attacking the symptoms
doesn't cure the disease.

-- 
rapskat -  09:46:14 up 1 day,  8:21,  1 user,  load average: 1.75, 0.91, 0.65
        "return(ECRAY); /* Program exited before being run */"
        -- Martin Mares

0
rapskat2 (2033)
9/10/2005 1:50:31 PM
Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >> http://www.apple.com/itunes/
> > 
> > If and when it ever is ported to run natively on Linux, I will. 
> > Until then, get fscked.
> 
> You could buy a Mac, like my kid's one.  Once you've paid out �2,200
> and waited 3 months for the damn thing to turn up, noting that they lie
> about delivery in the first place.  Then, it's "free", in the same way
> that skype is free once you've paid for broadband, a router, firewall,
> terminal equipment or PC to run the client on, microphone and headphones,
> or the Dect phone they sell on the web.  That kind of free.

liar... how can you pay �2,200 for a Mac? sounds like you didn't look at 
the various models, the top model starts at  �1,349, the basic model 
starts at �349.

http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/ukstore/

and no, Apple didn't lie to you about delivery dates... they are always 
within a few days of what is listed on their page. you probably mean 
your Apple dealer, which could happen because of demand. but 3 months? 
very, very doubtful.
0
csma (3267)
9/10/2005 1:54:49 PM
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:50:31 -0400, rapskat wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:56:15 +0100, Kier wrote:
> 
>>> I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
>>> practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
>>> argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
>> 
>> Nor me. I've never seen any good reason a civilian should have such a
>> weapon - at least, not one in full working order. They are weapons of war,
>> and should be treated as such.
> 
> The problem isn't firearms, it's society.  If it wasn't guns it would be
> something else.

Probably. But it's easier to kill, and kill indescriminately, with such a
weapon. And can you think of a good reason for a civilian to actually
*need* one?. By all means collect replicas but the real thing? No.

> 
> Taking away guns, making harsher laws, etc., etc. isn't going to do a
> thing about the cause of the problem.  I don't know what the answer is, I
> won't even presume to try, but I do know that attacking the symptoms
> doesn't cure the disease.

You won't get much disagreement from me on that score. Better heads than
mine have been defeated by these deep-rooted problems, and I don't see it
changing any time soon.

Though some success was had in the past by making harsher laws, etc - in
the Geogian period in England, cheap gin was a scourge of the poor. 'Drunk
for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence', so by various means the price was
raised, penalties put in place, the virtues of wholesome ale promoted, and
gradually society changed its attitudes, the lot of the poor began to be
addressed.

Perhaps the solution will only come when enough people get sick of the
present situation and want to change it.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/10/2005 2:15:10 PM
Jim Richardson wrote:
> side of the atlantic, and many people did. 
> 
> Firearms prices are cheaper now, for the same level of tech true, since
> a simple revolver can be made in pretty much any high school machine
> shop. But it's wishful thinking to pin the low crime rate in the UK
> prior to their expansion of gun restrictions, on expensive handguns. 

That's an interesting point that the "gun control" lobby appear to be in 
complete denial of (and I've had some interesting if hugely naive emails 
on this subject from the "Gun Control Network"), that crimes in the UK 
committed with a firearm have risen some *400%* since the banning of 
privately-held pistols for legitimate sporting purposes.

-- 
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.04 and Open Office
Was Windows XP SP2 and Office 2003
gbplinuxATgmailDOTcom
0
gbplinux (1091)
9/10/2005 3:06:11 PM
Tom Shelton wrote:
> In article <i079v2-e9d.ln1@fimbul.myth>, Jim Richardson wrote:
> 
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 19:30:23 GMT,
>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <g2j3i19fb2ndf9mfg558d4ekcl4tehvjvv@4ax.com>, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>>If people don't mind throwing-away money...  The price of this package is
>>>>WAY too high, considering that most people who have it use only a tiny
>>>>fraction of what's there.  Every PC in my company has Office on it, and
>>>>for what reason?  Myself, I only use it for light word-processing.
>>>
>>>A lot of people overlook Works.  $50, and includes Word 2002.  For typical
>>>home or light office use, that's all most people need.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Wasn't there an issue with works not being able to read or write (can't
>>recall which ) word files properly? 
>>
> 
> 
> I don't see how that could be - since works includes word.  Works is a
> suite.  The word processor is Word - at least it has been for a while.
> It used to have it's own...  So, maybe that's where you got that from.
> 

There are two different versions of Works - plain old Works that does 
NOT use Word as the WP and Works /Suite/ that does.

-- 
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.04 and Open Office
Was Windows XP SP2 and Office 2003
gbplinuxATgmailDOTcom
0
gbplinux (1091)
9/10/2005 3:26:09 PM
Oxford wrote:
> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>There's talk of banning air pistols here - a child was killed recently by
>>some druggie idiot firing an airgun at him. The kid was two years old. Of
>>course, it's not exactly the gun that's at fault, but the person behind
>>it. At the same time, the excuse that 'guns don't kill, people do' can't
>>really justify everything done with guns.
>>
>>Cars kill a lot of people, and we don't ban them, but cars aren't designed
>>to kill, and guns sadly are. Films and TV should show less of the glamour
>>of guns, and more of the hideous effects they have on the human body.
>>There's nothing 'cool' about a mother holding her 14-year-old
>>daughter in her arms as she dies of bullet wounds inflicted by a barely
>>out his teens gang member, as happened in the UK last year.
> 
> 
> it's a bit far fetched, but it would be interesting if all guns had to 
> have a built in GPSs, so they could only be fired in designated areas, 
> if they were outside that area, they wouldn't fire.

.... 'that area'? What area would that be? You cnafire your gun in 
the kitchen, but not the bathroom? Or in your backyard, but not 
the front yard? Or on your street, but not 2 streets over?

> 
> just a thought.

Uh huh.


-- 
Rick
0
none11 (12193)
9/10/2005 4:06:13 PM
Kier wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:50:31 -0400, rapskat wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:56:15 +0100, Kier wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
>>>>practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
>>>>argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
>>>
>>>Nor me. I've never seen any good reason a civilian should have such a
>>>weapon - at least, not one in full working order. They are weapons of war,
>>>and should be treated as such.
>>
>>The problem isn't firearms, it's society.  If it wasn't guns it would be
>>something else.
> 
> 
> Probably. But it's easier to kill, and kill indescriminately, with such a
> weapon. And can you think of a good reason for a civilian to actually
> *need* one?. By all means collect replicas but the real thing? No.


yes. The need for a militia, as outline in the Constitution. It 
gives us the ability to fight threats from without and within the 
Republic. The Founding Fathers realized we might have to defend 
ourselves from the governement as well as from invaders or criminals.

> 
> 
>>Taking away guns, making harsher laws, etc., etc. isn't going to do a
>>thing about the cause of the problem.  I don't know what the answer is, I
>>won't even presume to try, but I do know that attacking the symptoms
>>doesn't cure the disease.
> 
> 
> You won't get much disagreement from me on that score. Better heads than
> mine have been defeated by these deep-rooted problems, and I don't see it
> changing any time soon.
> 
> Though some success was had in the past by making harsher laws, etc - in
> the Geogian period in England, cheap gin was a scourge of the poor. 'Drunk
> for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence', so by various means the price was
> raised, penalties put in place, the virtues of wholesome ale promoted, and
> gradually society changed its attitudes, the lot of the poor began to be
> addressed.

.... and it wsa the lot of the poor that was the problem, not the 
avaibability of cheap gin.

> 
> Perhaps the solution will only come when enough people get sick of the
> present situation and want to change it.
> 


-- 
Rick
0
none11 (12193)
9/10/2005 4:09:51 PM
Oxford wrote:
> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>yeah, it's easily 8 out of 10 using some form of an iPod here... the 
>>>other players just don't work well in conjunction with Music Software or 
>>>the ability to "manage" huge Music Libraries... iTunes rules the Music 
>>>Universe that's for sure...
>>
>>Making this type of blanket statement and expecting everyone to swallow it
>>is one of the things which gets you labelled 'troll', and treated with
>>derision. Lots of music services for downloads and the like are springing
>>up - it's a growth area.
> 
> 
> yes, but I go direct to the full answer, not toy around with "what 
> ifs"... Is the Apple Music Store the largest (2 Million Songs), most 
> advanced features, most widely used, easiest to manage system on the 
> planet? yes, yes, yes, yes. Doesn't anyone have the ability at this late 
> stage to enter and dominate the legal download market above Apple? no. 

You don't know that. Everyone thought Netscape ruled the web... 
until it didn't.

> The barriers to building such a huge worldwide store are just to much 
> for anyone, even Microsoft... 

No, it isn't. The barrier to entry is how to differentiate your 
product.

> doesn't have the technical ability, nor 
> the "desire" to unseat Apple in this area. 20 years out, Apple will 
> still have 50+% of the online Music Distribution market, they are laying 
> the "concrete" with the iPod and iTunes as we speak.

Idiot. You have no idea what the digital music market will llok 
like in 5 years, much less 20.


> 
> 
>>In April, the magazine PC Answers did a survey of music download sites.
>>While iTunes came out on top, it was closely followed by several others,
>>including one from Tesco which works with other players but not iPods, and
>>which can be used with Firefox, and another (which came in second) which
>>doesn't tie you to a particular format, but supports ogg, mp3, wav, etc.
>>Seveal of the sites don't support the iPod at all.
> 
> 
> yes, but if it doesn't work with the top selling player, there is no way 
> it can become the top selling "music store"... the Apple Music Store is 
> like a worldwide "Utility", it pumps out 80% of the worlds legal music 
> downloads, so those economies of scale are just too large to overcome at 
> this point in the game.


The competition is only starting to emerge.

> 
> 
>>>Version 5 was released Wednesday... and of course it's free!
>>>
>>>http://www.apple.com/itunes/overview/
>>>
>>>http://www.apple.com/itunes/
>>
>>Not much use unless ou have an iPod - and not everyone has one or wants
>>one. There are a lot of Windows users out there. not to mention Linux user
>>and others.
> 
> 
> What?  iTunes is HUGELY useful even if you don't have a iPod... that's 
> only one small feature of it... it can organize your Music Collection, 
> Burn CDs and DVDs, Listen to Internet Radio, Listen to AudioBooks, 
> Listen to Podcasts... Wirelessly stream all this Audio to your Stereo... 
> ALL WITHOUT an iPod.
> 
> It's free... give it a whirl...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/itunes/

.... don't need it. Don't want it. When it runs under Linux, 
without needing somehting like wine, I'll look at it.

> 
> And if you are ready to move up to wireless audio from your laptop or 
> desktop (with zero quality loss) here is your ticket...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/airtunes.html


-- 
Rick
0
none11 (12193)
9/10/2005 4:15:07 PM
Rick <none@nomail.com> wrote:

> > it's a bit far fetched, but it would be interesting if all guns had to 
> > have a built in GPSs, so they could only be fired in designated areas, 
> > if they were outside that area, they wouldn't fire.
> 
> ... 'that area'? What area would that be? You cnafire your gun in 
> the kitchen, but not the bathroom? Or in your backyard, but not 
> the front yard? Or on your street, but not 2 streets over?

don't be so dumb... limits like shooting ranges, hunting areas during 
certain parts of the year, etc... yes, perhaps your own property for 
self-defense... but not downtown, schools, or at a sporting event, etc

come on rick... think!
0
csma (3267)
9/10/2005 4:24:45 PM
Rick <none@nomail.com> wrote:

> > yes, but I go direct to the full answer, not toy around with "what 
> > ifs"... Is the Apple Music Store the largest (2 Million Songs), most 
> > advanced features, most widely used, easiest to manage system on the 
> > planet? yes, yes, yes, yes. Doesn't anyone have the ability at this late 
> > stage to enter and dominate the legal download market above Apple? no. 
> 
> You don't know that. Everyone thought Netscape ruled the web... 
> until it didn't.

yes, but that's a very different situation... the web is open, the 
internet is open for all practical purposes... "legal downloads of 
musical  property" are not, and are protected by the ipod. thus, the 
music industry loves them... hates MP3's floating around uncontrolled. 

each quarter, apple actually GROWs it's music marketshare, and there is 
no sign this will stop anytime soon. the iPod nano will knock out 
another few % from the top competitor, only if Apple were to stop 
innovating could your hypothesis come true.

> > The barriers to building such a huge worldwide store are just to much 
> > for anyone, even Microsoft... 
> 
> No, it isn't. The barrier to entry is how to differentiate your 
> product.

Yes, and other music players cannot connect to a large Music Store, nor 
do they have a viable Music Player such as iTunes. The game is already 
over, now we just have to see how much Apple ends up with... will it be 
80%, 85%, 90%?  those are the questions for the next 10 years.

> > doesn't have the technical ability, nor 
> > the "desire" to unseat Apple in this area. 20 years out, Apple will 
> > still have 50+% of the online Music Distribution market, they are laying 
> > the "concrete" with the iPod and iTunes as we speak.
> 
> Idiot. You have no idea what the digital music market will llok 
> like in 5 years, much less 20.

Oh, but I do... You can calculate most all of the factors by looking 
into the past. Apple has gone from 0% in Oct 2001, to 70% today... now 
all you have to do is figure out how much they will end up with in 5, 
10, 20 years... Will they reach 75% in five years? or will it be 85%? 
Again, those are the questions you need to be focusing on... 

> > yes, but if it doesn't work with the top selling player, there is no way 
> > it can become the top selling "music store"... the Apple Music Store is 
> > like a worldwide "Utility", it pumps out 80% of the worlds legal music 
> > downloads, so those economies of scale are just too large to overcome at 
> > this point in the game.
> 
> The competition is only starting to emerge.

That's been said for what? 3 years now? and EVERY YEAR, the competition 
has less marketshare than Apple gains. I'm all for competition, but I'm 
pretty savvy at looking at trends and don't see any strong competition 
for the mere fact: Only Apple has... the iPod, the main Music Store, 
iTunes, the main Music Creation Apps. NONE of the others have more than 
"1" of these items, thus they can't compete at Apple's level. They've 
been locked out.

> > http://www.apple.com/itunes/
> 
> ... don't need it. Don't want it. When it runs under Linux, 
> without needing somehting like wine, I'll look at it.

Okay, suffer all you want... while 10's of Millions are enjoying the 
latest Killer App to be created for personal computers.

http://www.apple.com/itunes/

http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/airtunes.html

enjoy!
0
csma (3267)
9/10/2005 4:43:15 PM
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:09:51 -0400, Rick wrote:

>> 
>> Though some success was had in the past by making harsher laws, etc - in
>> the Geogian period in England, cheap gin was a scourge of the poor. 'Drunk
>> for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence', so by various means the price was
>> raised, penalties put in place, the virtues of wholesome ale promoted, and
>> gradually society changed its attitudes, the lot of the poor began to be
>> addressed.
> 
> ... and it wsa the lot of the poor that was the problem, not the 
> avaibability of cheap gin.

True, but the gin problem made everything fifty times worse.

-- 
Kier
0
vallon (8614)
9/10/2005 4:50:48 PM
Oxford wrote the following on 9/9/2005 8:13 AM:
> lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
> 
> 
>>>BTW, did you obtain permission to reprint that story?
>>>Time for you to worry.
>>
>>Two words - "Fair use"
> 
> 
> thanks, yes... as long as you aren't publishing it, and calling it your 
> own, there is no issue with copyright... the link provided to the 
> original document is "fair use".

Yes, using the link is fine; however, reprinting the article is illegal 
(even on Usenet).

I suggest you read the article posted at the following URL:
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid14_gci211841,00.html?offer=netiquette

Pay particular attention to section entitled, "Are You Violating 
Copyright on the Internet?"

Fair use does not apply whatsoever.

-- 
The only easy day was yesterday.
0
itso1 (15)
9/10/2005 5:05:31 PM
Jesse F. Hughes wrote the following on 9/9/2005 12:14 PM:
> ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> writes:
> 
> 
>>Oxford wrote the following on 9/8/2005 8:38 PM:
>>
>>>The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
>>>
>>
>>Liar. They are completing the Linux deployment, just as they are in
>>China.
> 
> 
> Where's your evidence regarding China?
> 

Simply Google "linux deployment in China" and read any one of the 
hundreds of articles that appear.

> I know that back in 2000, the Chinese claimed they'd switch very large
> parts of their government system to Linux.  At the time, a Hong Kong
> newspaper interviewed middle managers who scoffed at the idea.
> 
> I haven't seen any evidence that the plan really has gone through.
> Linux is slowly growing in China (the slow growth is partly due to the
> fact that Windows costs no more than Linux, thanks to piracy).  But I
> haven't seen anything that suggests the government is really moving to
> Linux.
> 
> 
>>BTW, did you obtain permission to reprint that story?
>>Time for you to worry.
> 
> 
> Blatant copyright infringement is a shame, but Oxford won't be sued
> for this.
> 

I agree. I believe he is simply unaware of copyright laws and what they 
entail. To help explain what is truly involved, I provided the following 
URL:
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid14_gci211841,00.html?offer=netiquette





-- 
The only easy day was yesterday.
0
itso1 (15)
9/10/2005 5:12:36 PM
ITSO azionista wrote:

> Jesse F. Hughes wrote the following on 9/9/2005 12:14 PM:
>> ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> writes:
>> 
>> 
>>>Oxford wrote the following on 9/8/2005 8:38 PM:

>>>Liar. They are completing the Linux deployment, just as they are in
>>>China.
>> 
>> 
>> Where's your evidence regarding China?
>> 
> 
> Simply Google "linux deployment in China" and read any one of the
> hundreds of articles that appear.

I did and found this:

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170700943

Microsoft Fights Piracy In China, Linux Wins   Sept. 6, 2005 
As proprietary software vendors crack down on piracy, China looks to Linux
as an alternative.
  By Maria Trombly 

"In the past few months, the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of
China (ICBC) decided to roll out Linux in all of its 20,000 retail
branches. The news was trumpeted by Turbolinux, the Tokyo-based vendor that
won the contract. ICBC has 100 million customer accounts, and 8 million
corporate accounts. It is the largest bank in China, and will buy an
unrestricted user license and integrate Linux throughout its entire banking
operations network over the next three years. It's the largest Linux
deployment to date in the Chinese financial industry."


-- 
The Texeme Construct, http://www.texeme.com
360, http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43


0
jabailo (8241)
9/10/2005 5:53:12 PM
Oxford wrote:
> The pipedream of Linux being used by Government is quickly fading.
> 
> The first big deployment has been full of "snags" and "delays"... just 
> like using Linux!
> 
> We told everyone this, now the truth is known.
> 
> -
> 
> Munich announces delay in Linux migration into 2006
Because of the Software Patent issue (now that it's resolved, migration 
can start back up).

> 
> 9/7/2005 4:55:02 PM, by Jeremy Reimer
> 
> The municipal government of Munich, Germany released a statement 
> yesterday that the migration of its office PCs to Linux and 
> OpenOffice.org, which was scheduled to be completed in 2005, has slipped 
> to at least next year.
> 
> The original plan, which involved switching all 14,000 of the city's 
> desktop PCs from Windows NT 4 and Microsoft Office to Linux and 
> OpenOffice.org at a cost of �30 million (US$35 million) was proposed in 
> May 2003. Several Linux companies bid for the project, with the 
> front-runners being SuSE, with financial backing and hardware support 
> from IBM. At the time, SuSE was a German-owned company, and had garnered 
> praise for its Linux distribution, which was considered easy to use and 
> maintain. The proposed switch generated enough press that Steve Ballmer 
> himself made a special visit to Munich to deliver a slightly cheaper 
> counter-offer for updated Microsoft software. The trip was in vain, 
> however, as the government decided they would stick to their original 
> plan.
> 
> However, the switch soon ran into unforeseen snags and delays. In 
> November 2003 the American software company Novell Inc. announced that 
> it was acquiring SuSE for $210 million. While this didn't immediately 
> put SuSE out of the running, it did cause the Munich government to start 
> considering other Linux options. Concerns about legal ramifications from 
> new EU patent laws caused the switch to be temporarily put on hold in 
> August 2004. The patent concern issue faded, and after a year-long 
> feasibility study, executed with the help of IBM and Novell, Munich was 
> almost ready to begin the transition. They announced in April of 2005 
> that their new Linux distribution of choice would be Debian, a popular 
> distribution among open-source purists. Two German companies, Gonicus 
> and Softcon, were contracted to help customize and package the Debian 
> distribution to suit the Munich government's needs.
> 
> While the decision to pick a particular Linux distribution had been 
> settled, the actual details of the transition were still yet to be 
> finalized. The first office scheduled for the switch is that of the Lord 
> Mayor, although at press time it was not known how many of the Mayor's 
> 250 computers were expected to be migrated. This first step of the 
> transition is expected to start in the middle of 2006, with the rest of 
> the government offices to follow.
> 
> Part of the reason for the delay is the need, identified by project 
> leader Peter Hofmann, for an additional "pilot phase" to be run in the 
> first half of 2006, where a single PC running Linux and OpenOffice.org 
> will be placed in each department. "It became clear later in the 
> planning phase that a pilot was more important than we first thought and 
> should last longer," Hofmann said. Once the pilot is completed, 
> departments plan to migrate to Open Source Software (OSS) in either one 
> or two steps:
> 
>  "Some departments will start with OpenOffice on Windows, others will 
> start with OpenOffice on Linux," Hofmann said. "It depends on their 
> infrastructure, for example, if a department has a small number of 
> simple (Office) macros and templates, but a large number of complex 
> applications, it is easier to do OpenOffice on Windows first."
> 
> This statement begs the question of what the departments with both large 
> numbers of Office macros and templates and complex Windows applications 
> will do in the face of the transition, but presumably there is a plan to 
> migrate these computers as well. Clearly the enthusiasm and eagerness 
> displayed when OSS transitions are initially announced must be tempered 
> in the face of inevitable migration difficulties. Munich gained a 
> considerable amount of press as one of the first major civic governments 
> in the world to announce a large-scale transition to OSS, and many other 
> cities followed suit. However, as the Munich transition became 
> increasingly delayed, many of these cities either scaled down their OSS 
> migration plans (Paris) or abandoned them completely (Turku).
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050907-5284.html
0
theletterk3 (2489)
9/10/2005 6:28:32 PM
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:24:45 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Rick <none@nomail.com> wrote:
> 
>> > it's a bit far fetched, but it would be interesting if all guns had to 
>> > have a built in GPSs, so they could only be fired in designated areas, 
>> > if they were outside that area, they wouldn't fire.
>> 
>> ... 'that area'? What area would that be? You cnafire your gun in 
>> the kitchen, but not the bathroom? Or in your backyard, but not 
>> the front yard? Or on your street, but not 2 streets over?
> 
> don't be so dumb... limits like shooting ranges, hunting areas during 
> certain parts of the year, etc... yes, perhaps your own property for 
> self-defense... but not downtown, schools, or at a sporting event, etc
> 
> come on rick... think!

You need to think as well Oxford. Gun ownership and the Second Amendment
have nothing to do with hunting, target practice or home and self-defense
against armed criminals. These are all nice by-products but not the
primary focus.
Nor is it about the right of the populace to form citizen militia.
Read it for your-self and put your brain in gear as you do.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
The framers of the Constitution knew that, in order for the people of this
new country to remain free and secure, military force(read: well regulated
militia) would be necessary to defend against any aggressors. However,
they had just witnessed, and were still experiencing, what happens when a
government turns it "well regulated militia" against the citizens.
The framers and founding fathers wanted it known, by the government and
the citizens, that the citizens had the right to arm themselves in order
that they could fight back in the event that it were to ever happen again.

0
woodardjd (20)
9/10/2005 6:52:27 PM
On Friday 09 September 2005 07:17 Stephen Olsen wrote:

> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free
> has such as dismal desktop market share?
> 
> Why doesn't Dell pre-install Linux?
> 
> Why doesn't IBM?
> 
> Why doesn't HP?
> 
> So why don't these major players install Linux on their desktop
> systems?
> 
> Why?

On Saturday 10 September 2005 08:47 Arkady Duntov wrote:

>     HP's Sean Owen-Jones ... said the company would shortly be
>     releasing desktop and notebook PCs running Ubuntu Linux. The
>     NX6110 notebook would be available shortly with Ubuntu and a
>     desktop PC would also be available.
>     ...
>     [HP's] Schulz said that HP's entire email infrastructure ... is
>     [run on
>     Linux and delivers in the region of three terrabytes [sic] of mail
>     annually.
> 
> http://www.tectonic.co.za/viewr.php?id=595

Things move rather fast in the Linux world, don't they?:-):-)

Bill
0
bbgruff (6626)
9/10/2005 7:25:04 PM
ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:

> > thanks, yes... as long as you aren't publishing it, and calling it your 
> > own, there is no issue with copyright... the link provided to the 
> > original document is "fair use".
> 
> Yes, using the link is fine; however, reprinting the article is illegal 
> (even on Usenet).
> 
> I suggest you read the article posted at the following URL:
> http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid14_gci211841,00.h
> tml?offer=netiquette
> 
> Pay particular attention to section entitled, "Are You Violating 
> Copyright on the Internet?"
> 
> Fair use does not apply whatsoever.

yawn... none of that matters unless it was reprinted for profit... the 
courts just don't waste time will little issues as "posting to usenet".
0
csma (3267)
9/10/2005 8:31:58 PM
ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:

> > Blatant copyright infringement is a shame, but Oxford won't be sued
> > for this.
> 
> I agree. I believe he is simply unaware of copyright laws and what they 
> entail. To help explain what is truly involved, I provided the following 
> URL:
> http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid14_gci211841,00.h
> tml?offer=netiquette

oh, i'm aware of the copyright laws, but if they were enforced, the web, 
internet, nor usenet would be any place to visit... it's important to 
stand strong against lawyer abuse... just as it's important to not abuse 
other authors works. there is a happy middle and that's where most 
people should be... provide a link if you copy something, don't sell it 
as your own, and you will be fine...
0
csma (3267)
9/10/2005 8:37:42 PM
Oxford wrote the following on 9/10/2005 1:31 PM:
> ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>thanks, yes... as long as you aren't publishing it, and calling it your 
>>>own, there is no issue with copyright... the link provided to the 
>>>original document is "fair use".
>>
>>Yes, using the link is fine; however, reprinting the article is illegal 
>>(even on Usenet).
>>
>>I suggest you read the article posted at the following URL:
>>http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid14_gci211841,00.h
>>tml?offer=netiquette
>>
>>Pay particular attention to section entitled, "Are You Violating 
>>Copyright on the Internet?"
>>
>>Fair use does not apply whatsoever.
> 
> 
> yawn... none of that matters unless it was reprinted for profit... 

Not true. Did you read the article or the laws to which it pertains? It 
mentions nothing about "for profit." In fact, the word "profit" is not 
present.

> the courts just don't waste time will little issues as "posting to usenet".

This is true; however, this has nothing to do with my point. Also, since 
you are a person who feels that getting caught makes the crime, your 
credibility, (had you any), has just dropped to considerably.

You will probably respond with something like, "LOL!" or, "yawn..." or 
some such nonsense... but you know it matters to you. Your other posts 
prove it.


-- 
The only easy day was yesterday.
0
itso1 (15)
9/10/2005 9:18:27 PM
Oxford wrote the following on 9/10/2005 1:37 PM:
> ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Blatant copyright infringement is a shame, but Oxford won't be sued
>>>for this.
>>
>>I agree. I believe he is simply unaware of copyright laws and what they 
>>entail. To help explain what is truly involved, I provided the following 
>>URL:
>>http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid14_gci211841,00.h
>>tml?offer=netiquette
> 
> 
> oh, i'm aware of the copyright laws, but if they were enforced, the web, 
> internet, nor usenet would be any place to visit... it's important to 
> stand strong against lawyer abuse... just as it's important to not abuse 
> other authors works. there is a happy middle and that's where most 
> people should be... provide a link if you copy something, don't sell it 
> as your own, and you will be fine...

So you've changed your lie to fit your argument. You did violate 
copyright laws, but it's O.K. because everybody does it.

Strong argument that.

-- 
The only easy day was yesterday.
0
itso1 (15)
9/10/2005 9:20:32 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:06:11 +0100,
 Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>> side of the atlantic, and many people did. 
>> 
>> Firearms prices are cheaper now, for the same level of tech true, since
>> a simple revolver can be made in pretty much any high school machine
>> shop. But it's wishful thinking to pin the low crime rate in the UK
>> prior to their expansion of gun restrictions, on expensive handguns. 
>
> That's an interesting point that the "gun control" lobby appear to be in 
> complete denial of (and I've had some interesting if hugely naive emails 
> on this subject from the "Gun Control Network"), that crimes in the UK 
> committed with a firearm have risen some *400%* since the banning of 
> privately-held pistols for legitimate sporting purposes.
>


It never ceases to amaze me that people who will go on and on about how
the failures in the drug war show that banning drugs isn't the answer,
that driving things into the black market, benefits no one but the
criminals. 

Somehow, banning guns will work, even when banning nothing else has. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDI1Lzd90bcYOAWPYRAsZIAKDTYHltyB1d0TTk+UMMzgwsX01qGQCgggP5
NZu7tBRMuu2woRML9rEhe/g=
=Ft0a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The reason the Irish are always fighting each other
is they have no other worthy opponents.
0
warlock (9522)
9/10/2005 9:41:07 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:15:10 +0100,
 Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:50:31 -0400, rapskat wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:56:15 +0100, Kier wrote:
>> 
>>>> I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
>>>> practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
>>>> argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
>>> 
>>> Nor me. I've never seen any good reason a civilian should have such a
>>> weapon - at least, not one in full working order. They are weapons of war,
>>> and should be treated as such.
>> 
>> The problem isn't firearms, it's society.  If it wasn't guns it would be
>> something else.
>
> Probably. But it's easier to kill, and kill indescriminately, with such a
> weapon. And can you think of a good reason for a civilian to actually
> *need* one?. By all means collect replicas but the real thing? No.
>

it's even easier to kill, indescriminately with a molotov cocktail, but
we don't ban gasoline and rags. 

I don't *need* a pile of cameras, or two motorcycles, or a pair of
roller blades. I don't *need* a piano, (actually, I really need to get
rid of it, if someone has a need for a 1908 Hallet and Davis upright
grand...) 

Laws aren't there to prevent you from owning things you don't "need"
even ignoring the question of who defines need. Laws are there to
prevent you from doing damage to others. If owning a machine gun results
in no such damage, the law, should leave you alone. 

A criminal with a brick, is more dangerous than a law abiding man, with
a flamethrower. (also legal in most states, and fun to boot.) 

 


>> 
>> Taking away guns, making harsher laws, etc., etc. isn't going to do a
>> thing about the cause of the problem.  I don't know what the answer is, I
>> won't even presume to try, but I do know that attacking the symptoms
>> doesn't cure the disease.
>
> You won't get much disagreement from me on that score. Better heads than
> mine have been defeated by these deep-rooted problems, and I don't see it
> changing any time soon.
>

yet you feel comfortable stating what "should be done" even if you have
no idea if it would work? 


> Though some success was had in the past by making harsher laws, etc - in
> the Geogian period in England, cheap gin was a scourge of the poor. 'Drunk
> for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence', so by various means the price was
> raised, penalties put in place, the virtues of wholesome ale promoted, and
> gradually society changed its attitudes, the lot of the poor began to be
> addressed.


you're mixing up cause and effect again. Cheap gin, and drunkeness, was
a reaction to poor conditions, not the cause of them. When conditions
improved, people changed their behaviour. The Gin tax was instituted not
to "help" the poor to avoid drinking it, but to tax Luxuries, as another
example of puritan silliness. (the tax affected Brandy and Gin, but not
Whisky, go figure.) 


>
> Perhaps the solution will only come when enough people get sick of the
> present situation and want to change it.
>


The violent crime rate in the US is, and has been dropping for a decade
or more. In fact, IIRC, last year saw the lowest violent crime rate in
the US since the early 60's. 

That of the UK, is a less happy line on the graph. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDI1ZXd90bcYOAWPYRAr/AAJ9fybnCLskNsh/30MmGt/aMk69sagCfSrk8
nnWsoSPLkS+d4ePfXFm4Gw0=
=LGlk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's
the law!
0
warlock (9522)
9/10/2005 9:55:35 PM
On Friday 09 September 2005 00:17, Stephen Olsen
<eastern_ny497235@yahoo.com> (<9O9Ue.32005$YC1.31750@fe08.lga>) wrote:

> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free has

Are you related to Jimmy Olsen from Metropolis?  It's in the tri-state
region of eastern_ny.

> Why doesn't HP?

    HP's Sean Owen-Jones ... said the company would shortly be releasing
    desktop and notebook PCs running Ubuntu Linux. The NX6110 notebook would
    be available shortly with Ubuntu and a desktop PC would also be
    available. 

    http://www.tectonic.co.za/viewr.php?id=595

> How about Wine?

Thank you, Flatfish, but I'll pass... maybe after dinner.
0
9/10/2005 10:01:32 PM
ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:

> > yawn... none of that matters unless it was reprinted for profit... 
> 
> Not true. Did you read the article or the laws to which it pertains? It 
> mentions nothing about "for profit." In fact, the word "profit" is not 
> present.

yes, but I was only including what a court would care about... if there 
is no profit being made, they won't hear the case... the law can say 
anything it wants, but the "reality" is it doesn't matter unless there 
is money involved or gross abuse for personal gain.

> > the courts just don't waste time will little issues as "posting to usenet".
> 
> This is true; however, this has nothing to do with my point. Also, since 
> you are a person who feels that getting caught makes the crime, your 
> credibility, (had you any), has just dropped to considerably.

i understand your point, you are focusing on the "letter of the law", 
i'm focusing on the "reality of the law"... those are different items.

> You will probably respond with something like, "LOL!" or, "yawn..." or 
> some such nonsense... but you know it matters to you. Your other posts 
> prove it.

you can play miss goodie two shoes all you want...but at the end of the 
day, it doesn't matter what is posted to usenet as long as there is not 
money involved. those are the facts, deal with it...
0
csma (3267)
9/10/2005 10:26:15 PM
ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:

> > oh, i'm aware of the copyright laws, but if they were enforced, the web, 
> > internet, nor usenet would be any place to visit... it's important to 
> > stand strong against lawyer abuse... just as it's important to not abuse 
> > other authors works. there is a happy middle and that's where most 
> > people should be... provide a link if you copy something, don't sell it 
> > as your own, and you will be fine...
> 
> So you've changed your lie to fit your argument. You did violate 
> copyright laws, but it's O.K. because everybody does it.
> 
> Strong argument that.

doesn't matter, i'm not concerned about copyright as long as i don't 
abuse it... i'm not, so i have nothing to worry about... 

(my above comment is copyrighted �2005)

if you reply you cannot use my "work" or I'll sue you and of course win 
$1 billion dollars (smirk)
0
csma (3267)
9/10/2005 10:32:11 PM
On 2005-09-10, Rick <none@nomail.com> posted something concerning:
> Oxford wrote:

>> It's free... give it a whirl...
>> 
>> http://www.apple.com/itunes/
>
> ... don't need it. Don't want it. When it runs under Linux, 
> without needing somehting like wine, I'll look at it.
>
>> 
>> And if you are ready to move up to wireless audio from your laptop or 
>> desktop (with zero quality loss) here is your ticket...
>> 
>> http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/airtunes.html

And when you're ready to move into the endlessness of empty space, try
this one on:

  Oxtard

-- 
When you boil it down to the essentials, it's because Linux is
designed to be *used* and Mac is designed to be *sold*.
0
sinister656 (2009)
9/10/2005 10:39:03 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:20:32 -0700,
 ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:
> Oxford wrote the following on 9/10/2005 1:37 PM:
>> ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>Blatant copyright infringement is a shame, but Oxford won't be sued
>>>>for this.
>>>
>>>I agree. I believe he is simply unaware of copyright laws and what they 
>>>entail. To help explain what is truly involved, I provided the following 
>>>URL:
>>>http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,290660,sid14_gci211841,00.h
>>>tml?offer=netiquette
>> 
>> 
>> oh, i'm aware of the copyright laws, but if they were enforced, the web, 
>> internet, nor usenet would be any place to visit... it's important to 
>> stand strong against lawyer abuse... just as it's important to not abuse 
>> other authors works. there is a happy middle and that's where most 
>> people should be... provide a link if you copy something, don't sell it 
>> as your own, and you will be fine...
>
> So you've changed your lie to fit your argument. You did violate 
> copyright laws, but it's O.K. because everybody does it.
>
> Strong argument that.
>


Oxford has in the past advocated stealing software. He'll do pretty much
anything to try and advance his cult. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDI21ld90bcYOAWPYRAqtnAJ9k0Rb9RPzBMzpNYAK8ngi1KydFKwCgs+9C
bDlxKuMBEXCbBjrySgTeQE4=
=VCKW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
0
warlock (9522)
9/10/2005 11:33:57 PM
Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:

> > So you've changed your lie to fit your argument. You did violate 
> > copyright laws, but it's O.K. because everybody does it.
> >
> > Strong argument that.
> >
> Oxford has in the past advocated stealing software. He'll do pretty much
> anything to try and advance his cult. 

Jim has trouble understanding the customs of other cultures and only 
thinks his way is the only correct way... yawn...
0
csma (3267)
9/11/2005 1:51:59 AM
begin  virus.txt.scr Oxford wrote:

> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> 
>> > So you've changed your lie to fit your argument. You did violate
>> > copyright laws, but it's O.K. because everybody does it.
>> >
>> > Strong argument that.
>> >
>> Oxford has in the past advocated stealing software. He'll do pretty much
>> anything to try and advance his cult.
> 
> Jim has trouble understanding the customs of other cultures and only
> thinks his way is the only correct way... yawn...

If you mean "stealing" is a culture, I guess most people have problems
understanding those "customs"
But then, you are simply an extremely stupid Mac troll. And because of the
Mac, totally out of cash. So stealing stuff is your only recourse
-- 
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I can not change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
9/11/2005 6:58:06 AM
Oxford  <csma@mac.com> writes:

> ITSO azionista <itso@comcast.com.100.teraflop> wrote:
>
>> > oh, i'm aware of the copyright laws, but if they were enforced, the web,=20
>> > internet, nor usenet would be any place to visit... it's important to=20
>> > stand strong against lawyer abuse... just as it's important to not abuse=20
>> > other authors works. there is a happy middle and that's where most=20
>> > people should be... provide a link if you copy something, don't sell it=20
>> > as your own, and you will be fine...
>>=20
>> So you've changed your lie to fit your argument. You did violate=20
>> copyright laws, but it's O.K. because everybody does it.
>>=20
>> Strong argument that.
>
> doesn't matter, i'm not concerned about copyright as long as i don't=20
> abuse it... i'm not, so i have nothing to worry about...=20
>
> (my above comment is copyrighted =A92005)
>
> if you reply you cannot use my "work" or I'll sue you and of course win=20
> $1 billion dollars (smirk)

Of course, there are such things as fair use rights.  Not to mention
that damages are related to how much money you could have made off
those two sentences.

Anyway, good luck with your project.

--=20
"I've been thinking about my problems with getting any kind of
admission that my math arguments showing the core error in mathematics
are correct, so I've gone to marketing books."=20=20
  -- James S. Harris, on when mathematics isn't enough
0
jesse18 (2492)
9/11/2005 7:55:47 AM
Oxford wrote the following on 9/10/2005 6:51 PM:
> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>So you've changed your lie to fit your argument. You did violate 
>>>copyright laws, but it's O.K. because everybody does it.
>>>
>>>Strong argument that.
>>>
>>
>>Oxford has in the past advocated stealing software. He'll do pretty much
>>anything to try and advance his cult. 
> 
> 
> Jim has trouble understanding the customs of other cultures and only 
> thinks his way is the only correct way... yawn...

Is it a cult of yawning?
Frequent yawning indicates a lack of oxygen to the brain.

-- 
The only easy day was yesterday.
0
itso1 (15)
9/11/2005 8:35:33 AM
John Bailo wrote:

> ITSO azionista wrote:

> "In the past few months, the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of
> China (ICBC) decided to roll out Linux in all of its 20,000 retail
> branches. The news was trumpeted by Turbolinux, the Tokyo-based vendor
> that won the contract. ICBC has 100 million customer accounts, and 8
> million corporate accounts. It is the largest bank in China, and will buy
> an unrestricted user license and integrate Linux throughout its entire
> banking operations network over the next three years. It's the largest
> Linux deployment to date in the Chinese financial industry."

I wonder why China chose a Japanese distro provider when the China's own Red
Flag Linux may have fitted their needs better?

0
9/11/2005 8:51:04 AM
Mark Kent wrote:

> Wrapping all of the above up, if people are using Firefox, Thunderbird
> and OpenOffice, there will be no particular reason for most people
> to use Windows at all.  It will not be long before the Tescos, Asdas
> and so on are selling inexpensive computers pre-installed with Linux,
> Firefox, Thunderbird, OO2 and the standard distro stuff.

I don't know why Asda don't already sell Linux machines mail-order as the
company is owned by Wallmart who Do sell linux machines on their American
website - surely something that's doing well for the parent company should
at least be given a trial in the UK.



0
9/11/2005 8:59:37 AM
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:55:35 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:15:10 +0100,
>  Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:50:31 -0400, rapskat wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:56:15 +0100, Kier wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
>>>>> practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
>>>>> argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
>>>> 
>>>> Nor me. I've never seen any good reason a civilian should have such a
>>>> weapon - at least, not one in full working order. They are weapons of war,
>>>> and should be treated as such.
>>> 
>>> The problem isn't firearms, it's society.  If it wasn't guns it would be
>>> something else.
>>
>> Probably. But it's easier to kill, and kill indescriminately, with such a
>> weapon. And can you think of a good reason for a civilian to actually
>> *need* one?. By all means collect replicas but the real thing? No.
>>
> 
> it's even easier to kill, indescriminately with a molotov cocktail, but
> we don't ban gasoline and rags.

True. But gasoline and rags aren't *designed* for killing.
 
> 
> I don't *need* a pile of cameras, or two motorcycles, or a pair of
> roller blades. I don't *need* a piano, (actually, I really need to get
> rid of it, if someone has a need for a 1908 Hallet and Davis upright
> grand...)

None of those things kill people - well, not unless you decide to get rid
of your piano problem by chucking it out of a second floor window, and it
drops on someone's head :-)

There was some talk of banning long kitchen knives in this country - the
sale of them, at any rate, on the grounds that shorter knives cause
wounds that are more survivable. I thought it was a daft idea.

 
> 
> Laws aren't there to prevent you from owning things you don't "need"
> even ignoring the question of who defines need. Laws are there to
> prevent you from doing damage to others. If owning a machine gun results
> in no such damage, the law, should leave you alone.

Not everyone is as law-abiding, though.

 
> 
> A criminal with a brick, is more dangerous than a law abiding man, with
> a flamethrower. (also legal in most states, and fun to boot.) 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> Taking away guns, making harsher laws, etc., etc. isn't going to do a
>>> thing about the cause of the problem.  I don't know what the answer is, I
>>> won't even presume to try, but I do know that attacking the symptoms
>>> doesn't cure the disease.
>>
>> You won't get much disagreement from me on that score. Better heads than
>> mine have been defeated by these deep-rooted problems, and I don't see it
>> changing any time soon.
>>
> 
> yet you feel comfortable stating what "should be done" even if you have
> no idea if it would work?

I was offering an opinion.
 
> 
> 
>> Though some success was had in the past by making harsher laws, etc - in
>> the Geogian period in England, cheap gin was a scourge of the poor. 'Drunk
>> for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence', so by various means the price was
>> raised, penalties put in place, the virtues of wholesome ale promoted, and
>> gradually society changed its attitudes, the lot of the poor began to be
>> addressed.
> 
> 
> you're mixing up cause and effect again.


No, I'm not. I didn't say gin-drinking directly *caused* poverty, that
would be stupid. What it did do was exacerbate the problems of poverty.
Instead of feeding their families, the poor were spending their limitied
funds on gin, which of course made their situation more wretched, which
drove then to buy more gin. It wasn't by any means the only factor, but it
was at the time an extremely pervasive problem.

 Cheap gin, and drunkeness, was
> a reaction to poor conditions, not the cause of them. When conditions
> improved, people changed their behaviour. The Gin tax was instituted not
> to "help" the poor to avoid drinking it, but to tax Luxuries, as another
> example of puritan silliness. (the tax affected Brandy and Gin, but not
> Whisky, go figure.) 
> 
> 
>>
>> Perhaps the solution will only come when enough people get sick of the
>> present situation and want to change it.
>>
> 
> 
> The violent crime rate in the US is, and has been dropping for a decade
> or more. In fact, IIRC, last year saw the lowest violent crime rate in
> the US since the early 60's. 
> 
> That of the UK, is a less happy line on the graph.

Seems so. Let's hope we learn from it.

-- 
Kier
0
vallon (8614)
9/11/2005 1:30:32 PM
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:35:33 -0700, ITSO azionista wrote:

> Oxford wrote the following on 9/10/2005 6:51 PM:
>> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>So you've changed your lie to fit your argument. You did violate 
>>>>copyright laws, but it's O.K. because everybody does it.
>>>>
>>>>Strong argument that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oxford has in the past advocated stealing software. He'll do pretty much
>>>anything to try and advance his cult. 
>> 
>> 
>> Jim has trouble understanding the customs of other cultures and only 
>> thinks his way is the only correct way... yawn...
> 
> Is it a cult of yawning?
> Frequent yawning indicates a lack of oxygen to the brain.

How much oxygen can a single cell need?

0
chrisv (22840)
9/11/2005 1:53:28 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> espoused:
> It never ceases to amaze me that people who will go on and on about how
> the failures in the drug war show that banning drugs isn't the answer,
> that driving things into the black market, benefits no one but the
> criminals. 
> 
> Somehow, banning guns will work, even when banning nothing else has. 
> 

Interesting observation.  Gun crime rates are rising quickly
indeed here, so I'm not sure what will happen next.

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
		-- Errol Flynn

Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure.
		-- Errol Flynn
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/11/2005 2:53:21 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Nigel Feltham <nigel.feltham@btinternet.com> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
> 
>> Wrapping all of the above up, if people are using Firefox, Thunderbird
>> and OpenOffice, there will be no particular reason for most people
>> to use Windows at all.  It will not be long before the Tescos, Asdas
>> and so on are selling inexpensive computers pre-installed with Linux,
>> Firefox, Thunderbird, OO2 and the standard distro stuff.
> 
> I don't know why Asda don't already sell Linux machines mail-order as the
> company is owned by Wallmart who Do sell linux machines on their American
> website - surely something that's doing well for the parent company should
> at least be given a trial in the UK.
> 

Good question.  I guess there's some expense and effort training the
call-centre folks in handling problems, but as the distribution chains
and logistical capabilities are all in place, as you say, it shouldn't
be all that difficult.

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
		-- Errol Flynn

Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure.
		-- Errol Flynn
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/11/2005 2:54:51 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
B Gruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
> On Friday 09 September 2005 07:17 Stephen Olsen wrote:
> 
>> Well why don't you explain to me why an operating system that is free
>> has such as dismal desktop market share?
>> 
>> Why doesn't Dell pre-install Linux?
>> 
>> Why doesn't IBM?
>> 
>> Why doesn't HP?
>> 
>> So why don't these major players install Linux on their desktop
>> systems?
>> 
>> Why?
> 
> On Saturday 10 September 2005 08:47 Arkady Duntov wrote:
> 
>>     HP's Sean Owen-Jones ... said the company would shortly be
>>     releasing desktop and notebook PCs running Ubuntu Linux. The
>>     NX6110 notebook would be available shortly with Ubuntu and a
>>     desktop PC would also be available.
>>     ...
>>     [HP's] Schulz said that HP's entire email infrastructure ... is
>>     [run on
>>     Linux and delivers in the region of three terrabytes [sic] of mail
>>     annually.
>> 
>> http://www.tectonic.co.za/viewr.php?id=595
> 
> Things move rather fast in the Linux world, don't they?:-):-)
> 


Ahh, best laugh I've had today...  particularly as I've just
flooded one bedroom and the kitchen in trying to replace
the immersion heater ...

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
		-- Errol Flynn

Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure.
		-- Errol Flynn
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/11/2005 2:58:15 PM
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:06:04 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> espoused:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:11:24 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>> 
>>> It's free... give it a whirl...
>>> 
>>> http://www.apple.com/itunes/
>> 
>> If and when it ever is ported to run natively on Linux, I will. 
>> Until then, get fscked.
>> 
> 
> You could buy a Mac, like my kid's one.  Once you've paid out £2,200
> and waited 3 months for the damn thing to turn up, noting that they lie
> about delivery in the first place.  Then, it's "free", in the same way
> that skype is free once you've paid for broadband, a router, firewall,
> terminal equipment or PC to run the client on, microphone and headphones,
> or the Dect phone they sell on the web.  That kind of free.

Hehe.  That kind of "free" is too rich for my blood.  :-)

-- 
rapskat -  11:09:14 up 18:26,  1 user,  load average: 1.76, 0.86, 0.40
	"Which is worse: ignorance or apathy?  Who knows?  Who cares?" 

0
rapskat2 (2033)
9/11/2005 3:11:36 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:30:32 +0100,
 Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:55:35 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:15:10 +0100,
>>  Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:50:31 -0400, rapskat wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:56:15 +0100, Kier wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
>>>>>> practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
>>>>>> argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nor me. I've never seen any good reason a civilian should have such a
>>>>> weapon - at least, not one in full working order. They are weapons of war,
>>>>> and should be treated as such.
>>>> 
>>>> The problem isn't firearms, it's society.  If it wasn't guns it would be
>>>> something else.
>>>
>>> Probably. But it's easier to kill, and kill indescriminately, with such a
>>> weapon. And can you think of a good reason for a civilian to actually
>>> *need* one?. By all means collect replicas but the real thing? No.
>>>
>> 
>> it's even easier to kill, indescriminately with a molotov cocktail, but
>> we don't ban gasoline and rags.
>
> True. But gasoline and rags aren't *designed* for killing.

neither is my .22 target pistol, nor my 30-06 target rifle. 

>  
>> 
>> I don't *need* a pile of cameras, or two motorcycles, or a pair of
>> roller blades. I don't *need* a piano, (actually, I really need to get
>> rid of it, if someone has a need for a 1908 Hallet and Davis upright
>> grand...)
>
> None of those things kill people - well, not unless you decide to get rid
> of your piano problem by chucking it out of a second floor window, and it
> drops on someone's head :-)


or drive the bike someone. I do recall that there are some number of
traffic fatalities in the US each year...

>
> There was some talk of banning long kitchen knives in this country - the
> sale of them, at any rate, on the grounds that shorter knives cause
> wounds that are more survivable. I thought it was a daft idea.
>

it is. Just as your gun ban was a daft idea that did nothing to control
crime. 


>  
>> 
>> Laws aren't there to prevent you from owning things you don't "need"
>> even ignoring the question of who defines need. Laws are there to
>> prevent you from doing damage to others. If owning a machine gun results
>> in no such damage, the law, should leave you alone.
>
> Not everyone is as law-abiding, though.

then how will passing a law stop them? It's already illegal to murder
people, and to import and sell cocaine or heroin...

>
>  
>> 
>> A criminal with a brick, is more dangerous than a law abiding man, with
>> a flamethrower. (also legal in most states, and fun to boot.) 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Taking away guns, making harsher laws, etc., etc. isn't going to do a
>>>> thing about the cause of the problem.  I don't know what the answer is, I
>>>> won't even presume to try, but I do know that attacking the symptoms
>>>> doesn't cure the disease.
>>>
>>> You won't get much disagreement from me on that score. Better heads than
>>> mine have been defeated by these deep-rooted problems, and I don't see it
>>> changing any time soon.
>>>
>> 
>> yet you feel comfortable stating what "should be done" even if you have
>> no idea if it would work?
>
> I was offering an opinion.


opinions are great. Even better if backed up by actual, empirical data
:) otherwise, they're just wishful thinking. 

There is no safety in denial. 


>  
>> 
>> 
>>> Though some success was had in the past by making harsher laws, etc - in
>>> the Geogian period in England, cheap gin was a scourge of the poor. 'Drunk
>>> for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence', so by various means the price was
>>> raised, penalties put in place, the virtues of wholesome ale promoted, and
>>> gradually society changed its attitudes, the lot of the poor began to be
>>> addressed.
>> 
>> 
>> you're mixing up cause and effect again.
>
>
> No, I'm not. I didn't say gin-drinking directly *caused* poverty, that
> would be stupid. What it did do was exacerbate the problems of poverty.
> Instead of feeding their families, the poor were spending their limitied
> funds on gin, which of course made their situation more wretched, which
> drove then to buy more gin. It wasn't by any means the only factor, but it
> was at the time an extremely pervasive problem.
>

and the solution was to make the gin more expensive? that's... counter
intuitive...

Similar today to the drug cycle. Get high, fuck up your life, lose your
job, steal to buy drugs.

So the solution is to make the drug more expensive? 



>  Cheap gin, and drunkeness, was
>> a reaction to poor conditions, not the cause of them. When conditions
>> improved, people changed their behaviour. The Gin tax was instituted not
>> to "help" the poor to avoid drinking it, but to tax Luxuries, as another
>> example of puritan silliness. (the tax affected Brandy and Gin, but not
>> Whisky, go figure.) 
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>> Perhaps the solution will only come when enough people get sick of the
>>> present situation and want to change it.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> The violent crime rate in the US is, and has been dropping for a decade
>> or more. In fact, IIRC, last year saw the lowest violent crime rate in
>> the US since the early 60's. 
>> 
>> That of the UK, is a less happy line on the graph.
>
> Seems so. Let's hope we learn from it.
>


We seem to be here, (US) at least to the extent that more and more
states are switching to Shall issue CCW, and striking down some of the
stupider victim disarmament laws. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDJHXAd90bcYOAWPYRAm33AKDJBvx+1hRKvM5VRCiZCnEPTF0mrgCeKMiU
htWQLpCrdD+0Ybc26Mrtue4=
=3N4o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
 A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.
0
warlock (9522)
9/11/2005 6:21:52 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> espoused:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:06:04 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
> 
>> begin  oe_protect.scr 
>> rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> espoused:
>>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:11:24 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>> 
>>>> It's free... give it a whirl...
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.apple.com/itunes/
>>> 
>>> If and when it ever is ported to run natively on Linux, I will. 
>>> Until then, get fscked.
>>> 
>> 
>> You could buy a Mac, like my kid's one.  Once you've paid out �2,200
>> and waited 3 months for the damn thing to turn up, noting that they lie
>> about delivery in the first place.  Then, it's "free", in the same way
>> that skype is free once you've paid for broadband, a router, firewall,
>> terminal equipment or PC to run the client on, microphone and headphones,
>> or the Dect phone they sell on the web.  That kind of free.
> 
> Hehe.  That kind of "free" is too rich for my blood.  :-)
> 

Know what you mean.  I'm kind of relieved that Apple are moving to Intel,
so that when kid No.2 comes along, I've a reasonable excuse for not
buying him a Mac after kid No.1 had one.  If they'd stayed on PPC, it
would never've worked - my kids are just a little too switched on for that.

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
		-- Errol Flynn

Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure.
		-- Errol Flynn
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/11/2005 7:22:10 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:53:21 +0100,
 Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> espoused:
>> It never ceases to amaze me that people who will go on and on about how
>> the failures in the drug war show that banning drugs isn't the answer,
>> that driving things into the black market, benefits no one but the
>> criminals. 
>> 
>> Somehow, banning guns will work, even when banning nothing else has. 
>> 
>
> Interesting observation.  Gun crime rates are rising quickly
> indeed here, so I'm not sure what will happen next.
>


If history serves as any guide, it'll keep getting worse, and the govt
will expand it's powers, to no good effect. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDJIaHd90bcYOAWPYRAhrQAJ9Ra39lyzGPPxpmWlmFRdXao2NZhACg7vfR
4QjDmO76Q4/mc/62CLZwp+w=
=Kqvk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you think you can tell me what to think,
I think I will tell you where to go
0
warlock (9522)
9/11/2005 7:33:27 PM
Oxford wrote the following on 9/9/2005 2:11 PM:
> Gordon <gbplinux@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Wrong, every component outside of Access began on the Mac, polished on 
>>>the Mac, then ported to the PC. Office 2004 is currently the most 
>>>advanced version of Office MS builds, it will trickle over to the PC in 
>>>due time, but Windows always lags the Mac version by a year or more.
>>
>>So you think that someone on the Office 97 design team doesn't know a 
>>Mac from a PC? That just exposes you as a complete fucktard, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> yes, it was surprising how ignorant he was on that topic... he even 
> pointed to a microsoft "buy" page and said "look, very few Mac 
> development tools"... I guess he wasn't thinking too clearly on the 
> history of Office.

Quite clearly actually. The Office version releases are staggered 
becuase of the time to port and release Windows versions of Office to 
Mac. In other words, Office 2003 for Windows is Office 2004 for Mac. The 
release history is is as follows:

Major Microsoft Windows versions
Office 3.0 (CD-ROM version: Word 2.0c, Excel 4.0a, PowerPoint 3.0, Mail) 
- released August 30, 1993
Office 4.0 (Word 6.0, Excel 4.0, PowerPoint 3.0) - released January 17, 
1994
Office for NT 4.2 (Word 6.0 [32-bit, i386 and Alpha], Excel 5.0 [32-bit, 
i386 and Alpha], PowerPoint 4.0 [16-bit], "Microsoft Office Manager") - 
released July 3, 1994
Office 4.3 (The last 16-bit version; Word 6.0, Excel 5.0, PowerPoint 4.0 
and in the pro version: Access 2.0) - released June 2, 1994
Office 7.0/'95 (Word '95, etc.) - released August 30, 1995
Office 8.0/'97 (Word '97, etc.) - released December 30, 1996 (was 
published on CD-ROM as well as on a set of 45 3�-inch floppy disks)
Office 9.0/2000 (Word 2000, etc.) - released January 27, 1999
Office 10.0/2002/XP (Word 2002, etc.) - released May 31, 2001
Office 11.0/2003 (Word 2003, etc.) - released November 17, 2003
There have been variants of the later versions such as Small Business 
Edition, Student and Teacher Edition, Professional Edition and Developer 
Edition with slightly different collections of applications.

Apple Macintosh versions
Office 1 (Word 3, etc.) - released 1990
Office 2 (Word 4, etc.) - released 1992
Office 3 (Word 5, etc.) - released 1993
Office 4.2 (The first Power Mac-aware version; Word 6.0, etc.) - 
released June 2, 1994
Office 98 (Word 98, etc.) - released March 15, 1998
Office 2001 (Word 2001, etc.) - released October 11, 2000
Office v.X (The first Mac OS X/Aqua edition; Word X, etc.) - released 
September 3, 2001
Office 2004 (Word 2004, etc.) - released May 11, 2004

Note that MS Word was originally written by Richard Brodie for IBM PC 
computers running DOS in 1983. Later versions were created for the Apple 
Macintosh (1984, a year later), SCO UNIX, and Microsoft Windows (1989).

Regarding MS Office, we released version 8.0 in 1996, which was ported 
to Mac as Office 98 - which was released in 1998. This has been the 
pattern with every concurrent release.

In other words, you're totally full of shit.

-- 
Beauty is only epithelial cells deep.
0
peptide1 (43)
9/11/2005 8:30:59 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:53:21 +0100,
>  Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> begin  oe_protect.scr 
>> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> espoused:
>>> It never ceases to amaze me that people who will go on and on about how
>>> the failures in the drug war show that banning drugs isn't the answer,
>>> that driving things into the black market, benefits no one but the
>>> criminals. 
>>> 
>>> Somehow, banning guns will work, even when banning nothing else has. 
>>> 
>>
>> Interesting observation.  Gun crime rates are rising quickly
>> indeed here, so I'm not sure what will happen next.
>>
> 
> 
> If history serves as any guide, it'll keep getting worse, and the govt
> will expand it's powers, to no good effect. 
> 

The goverment mostly does that anyway :-)

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income.
		-- Errol Flynn

Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure.
		-- Errol Flynn
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/11/2005 9:06:20 PM
Peptide One <peptide1@gmail.amino.com> wrote:

> Note that MS Word was originally written by Richard Brodie for IBM PC 
> computers running DOS in 1983. Later versions were created for the Apple 
> Macintosh (1984, a year later), SCO UNIX, and Microsoft Windows (1989).
> 
> Regarding MS Office, we released version 8.0 in 1996, which was ported 
> to Mac as Office 98 - which was released in 1998. This has been the 
> pattern with every concurrent release.
> 
> In other words, you're totally full of shit.

Peptide loves to play the fool... the Word you use today... is the 
graphical Macintosh Word, not the DOS, WordStar version... same with 
Multiplan/Excel... same with PowerPoint. MS Access is the only unique 
program to MicroSoft in the MS Suite. It would never survive in the 
Macintosh World so Bill put on his thinking cap and decided not to try 
to buy out FileMaker, (which runs circles around any PC Database Product 
to this day). He gave up and forced Access on the uneducated PC masses.

The reason any Office "Suite" exists for PC's is the Macintosh.

The reason, MS Office for PC's is always a step behind is SIMPLY because 
Bill has to wait for Development to be complete on the Macintosh OS 
before he can make a move on the PC. Nobody wants to use a Windows 
machine, only people that are forced.

All Developers selling on PC's have been years behind the Mac, Peptide 
proves this point. PC OS's are just the same... OSX is Five YEARS ahead 
of XP, 3 YEARS ahead of Vista. Leopard is going to make MicroSoft stock 
drop 40%!

We all laugh at PC Developers. They don't develop where OS or App 
developments are made, that is the Silicon Valley... so Until MS moves 
it's shoddy factory south, it will always be behind the Mac OS.
0
csma (3267)
9/11/2005 9:41:36 PM
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:01:32 -0600, Arkady Duntov wrote:

>> Why doesn't HP?
> 
>     HP's Sean Owen-Jones ... said the company would shortly be releasing
>     desktop and notebook PCs running Ubuntu Linux. The NX6110 notebook would
>     be available shortly with Ubuntu and a desktop PC would also be
>     available. 
> 
>     http://www.tectonic.co.za/viewr.php?id=595

one of the weird things about HP is that the new laptop I got, an HP
Pavillion dv4150us, comes with Windows XP as the main operating system but
it also has a utility, called QuickPlay, which you can use to start the
cd/dvd playing without booting into the system.

this utility is on a small Linux partition!

(it runs ISOLinux, I believe.)

not exactly 'preloading' but remarkable just the same. (to set the
regional coding for the dvd, you have to boot into XP.)

Felmon
0
noone5 (73)
9/11/2005 11:05:26 PM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:13:38 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

> Wasn't there an issue with works not being able to read or write (can't
> recall which ) word files properly?

I often get documents from students using Word (in Works) and they are
unreadable in OpenOffice. 

I don't know about Works problems for those using Word in XP. 

Felmon 
0
noone5 (73)
9/11/2005 11:10:17 PM
On 2005-09-11, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> posted something concerning:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 01:35:33 -0700, ITSO azionista wrote:
>
>> Oxford wrote the following on 9/10/2005 6:51 PM:
>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>So you've changed your lie to fit your argument. You did violate 
>>>>>copyright laws, but it's O.K. because everybody does it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Strong argument that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oxford has in the past advocated stealing software. He'll do pretty much
>>>>anything to try and advance his cult. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jim has trouble understanding the customs of other cultures and only 
>>> thinks his way is the only correct way... yawn...
>> 
>> Is it a cult of yawning?
>> Frequent yawning indicates a lack of oxygen to the brain.
>
> How much oxygen can a single cell need?

If Oxturd ever gets a cell* we'll see if it's enough, whatever level
he's getting.

* Naughty, naughty, Oxxie! You shouldn't think such thoughts! I don't
think Steve would like to be your cellmate, no matter how many times
you promise to be his biatch.

-- 
Frontpage: Better than sticking a red hot poker in your eye.
0
sinister656 (2009)
9/11/2005 11:18:04 PM
Oxford wrote the following on 9/11/2005 2:41 PM:
> Peptide One <peptide1@gmail.amino.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Note that MS Word was originally written by Richard Brodie for IBM PC 
>>computers running DOS in 1983. Later versions were created for the Apple 
>>Macintosh (1984, a year later), SCO UNIX, and Microsoft Windows (1989).
>>
>>Regarding MS Office, we released version 8.0 in 1996, which was ported 
>>to Mac as Office 98 - which was released in 1998. This has been the 
>>pattern with every concurrent release.
>>
>>In other words, you're totally full of shit.
> 
> 
> Peptide loves to play the fool... the Word you use today... is the 
> graphical Macintosh Word, not the DOS, WordStar version... 

Stating the obvious does what for you?
I digress... it was this version that was ported to Mac's graphical 
environment. The Windows version came after Mr. Gates... er... 
"acquired" the ability to patent *his* graphical operating system.

Point being, Word was not originally designed on a Mac, nor were any of 
the other applications that comprise the Microsoft Office Suite.

> same with Multiplan/Excel... same with PowerPoint. MS Access is the only unique 
> program to MicroSoft in the MS Suite. It would never survive in the 
> Macintosh World so Bill put on his thinking cap and decided not to try 
> to buy out FileMaker, (which runs circles around any PC Database Product 
> to this day). He gave up and forced Access on the uneducated PC masses.
> 
> The reason any Office "Suite" exists for PC's is the Macintosh.

In Oxford-ville perhaps...
> 
> The reason, MS Office for PC's is always a step behind is SIMPLY because 
> Bill has to wait for Development to be complete on the Macintosh OS 
> before he can make a move on the PC. Nobody wants to use a Windows 
> machine, only people that are forced.

LOL! Right. That explains the Mac's dismal 1.4% share of the global 
market and a pathetic 3.2% in the U.S. (Gartner).

As with Linux, being the better OS has nothing to do with being the 
market leader... though I'll take Linux over Mac any day. Why restrict 
myself to so much proprietary *everything*?
> 
> All Developers selling on PC's have been years behind the Mac, Peptide 
> proves this point. PC OS's are just the same... OSX is Five YEARS ahead 
> of XP, 3 YEARS ahead of Vista. Leopard is going to make MicroSoft stock 
> drop 40%!

Eeeww... such bold predictions from a delusional Mac troll.
BTW,
PC literally stands for Personal Computer, a paradigm that includes 
Apple's MacIntosh. (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/PC.html)

This PC runs Windows. My other PCs run several various Linux distros.

> 
> We all laugh at PC Developers. They don't develop where OS or App 
> developments are made, that is the Silicon Valley... so Until MS moves 
> it's shoddy factory south, it will always be behind the Mac OS.

We? You and those friends in your head?
All of you Mac developers must work for TiVo.
Care to investigate the incredible lack of demand for Mac developers?
http://seeker.dice.com/jobsearch/servlet/JobSearch?op=1013&FREE_TEXT=developer

-- 
Beauty is only epithelial cells deep.
0
peptide1 (43)
9/12/2005 2:46:24 AM
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:05:26 -0400, felmon wrote:

> one of the weird things about HP is that the new laptop I got, an HP
> Pavillion dv4150us, comes with Windows XP as the main operating system but
> it also has a utility, called QuickPlay, which you can use to start the
> cd/dvd playing without booting into the system.
> 
> this utility is on a small Linux partition!
> 
> (it runs ISOLinux, I believe.)

I had read about that not too long ago, but haven't actually seen it yet. 
How's that working out for you?  What is it using for a media player?  How
long does it take to load up?

-- 
rapskat -  23:56:09 up 1 day,  7:12,  1 user,  load average: 0.05, 0.34, 0.52
        "You have to stay in shape. My grandmother, she started walking
five miles a day when she was 60.  She's 97 today and we don't know
where the hell she is."
        -- Ellen DeGeneris

0
rapskat2 (2033)
9/12/2005 3:57:20 AM
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:21:52 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

>> Seems so. Let's hope we learn from it.
>>
> 
> 
> We seem to be here, (US) at least to the extent that more and more
> states are switching to Shall issue CCW, and striking down some of the
> stupider victim disarmament laws.

I doubt that will ever happen in Commonwealth states.  In PA, there's no
such thing as a "self-defense" defense.  So if you pop someone in your
home in the dead of night who's wearing all black with gloves and a ski
mask on and brandishing a Berretta 9mm with a silencer on it, you will be
arrested and prosecuted for homicide.  Hopefully you get a jury with some
degree of common sense.

-- 
rapskat -  00:00:41 up 1 day,  7:17,  1 user,  load average: 0.07, 0.36, 0.50
	"Water?  Never touch the stuff!  Fish fuck in it."
	-- W. C. Fields

0
rapskat2 (2033)
9/12/2005 4:09:29 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:09:29 -0400,
 rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 11:21:52 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>>> Seems so. Let's hope we learn from it.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> We seem to be here, (US) at least to the extent that more and more
>> states are switching to Shall issue CCW, and striking down some of the
>> stupider victim disarmament laws.
>
> I doubt that will ever happen in Commonwealth states.  In PA, there's no
> such thing as a "self-defense" defense.  So if you pop someone in your
> home in the dead of night who's wearing all black with gloves and a ski
> mask on and brandishing a Berretta 9mm with a silencer on it, you will be
> arrested and prosecuted for homicide.  Hopefully you get a jury with some
> degree of common sense.
>


Pennsylvania is already a shall issue state. Their CCW is accepted in 19
other states. See
<http://www.packing.org/state/pennsylvania> for more details. 

A cursory web search provided
<http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA505.html> which seems to say that
yes indeed, self defence can be justifiable in PA :) Of course, that's
not an authoritative source, the statutes in question may have changed,
or may change in the future. But you might want to rethink your original
opinion :) 

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's
the things we know that ain't so."
Atemus Ward. 




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDJRszd90bcYOAWPYRAjvZAJ4zrLK7FhWNI0AWDNEJQlSaJlKpngCgzCra
PetYXLv78XeA7CqsiTEnCvo=
=42Mc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You know the system is fubared, when politics dictates to science. 
0
warlock (9522)
9/12/2005 6:07:47 AM
Oxford wrote:
> 
> Nobody wants to use a Windows  machine, only people that are forced.

Exactly! Bill Gates has FORCED Windows on 95% of the computing public by 
the use of by at best dubious and at worst illegal methods!

-- 
Registered Linux User no 240308
Ubuntu 5.04 and Open Office
Was Windows XP SP2 and Office 2003
gbplinuxATgmailDOTcom
0
gbplinux (1091)
9/12/2005 6:50:17 AM
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:07:47 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

> Pennsylvania is already a shall issue state. Their CCW is accepted in 19
> other states. See
> <http://www.packing.org/state/pennsylvania> for more details. 

I should researched what you were referring to before responding.  I
already knew that you could be licensed to carry in PA, but for some
reason I thought you meant the ability for any valid firearm owner to
carry/tranport without having to obtain a license to do so.  My bad.

Truthfully, I assumed all states allowed one to be licensed to carry. 
Shows how ignorant I am of such things.


> A cursory web search provided
> <http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA505.html> which seems to say that
> yes indeed, self defence can be justifiable in PA :) Of course, that's
> not an authoritative source, the statutes in question may have changed,
> or may change in the future. But you might want to rethink your original
> opinion :) 

My point is that even if it was a righteous shooting, you still will be
arrested and prosecuted.  It will be up to the judge or jury to determine
whether or not it was justified.

Even if you are acquitted, think of the implications that this has on
one's life, job, relationships, etc.

Many people think it's like the movies where you put one in some maniac
who's out for your blood, then the cops come, give you a pat on the
back and send you on your way. It's not like that at all, at least not in
this state.

> "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's
> the things we know that ain't so."
> Atemus Ward.

Ummm...ok.  :-)

-- 
rapskat -  03:24:24 up 1 day, 10:41,  1 user,  load average: 1.12, 0.44, 0.29
	"This is the *NIX version of the 'ILOVEYOU' worm.  It runs on
the honor system.  Forward this to everyone in your address book, and
randomly delete some of your files."

0
rapskat2 (2033)
9/12/2005 7:37:44 AM
Peptide One <peptide1@gmail.amino.com> wrote:

> > Peptide loves to play the fool... the Word you use today... is the 
> > graphical Macintosh Word, not the DOS, WordStar version... 
> 
> Stating the obvious does what for you?
> I digress... it was this version that was ported to Mac's graphical 
> environment. The Windows version came after Mr. Gates... er... 
> "acquired" the ability to patent *his* graphical operating system.
> 
> Point being, Word was not originally designed on a Mac, nor were any of 
> the other applications that comprise the Microsoft Office Suite.

fair enough, still the bottom line is... the Word you use today is the 
Macintosh Version... not the DOS version...

> > same with Multiplan/Excel... same with PowerPoint. MS Access is the only 
> > unique 
> > program to MicroSoft in the MS Suite. It would never survive in the 
> > Macintosh World so Bill put on his thinking cap and decided not to try 
> > to buy out FileMaker, (which runs circles around any PC Database Product 
> > to this day). He gave up and forced Access on the uneducated PC masses.
> > 
> > The reason any Office "Suite" exists for PC's is the Macintosh.
> 
> In Oxford-ville perhaps...
> > 
> > The reason, MS Office for PC's is always a step behind is SIMPLY because 
> > Bill has to wait for Development to be complete on the Macintosh OS 
> > before he can make a move on the PC. Nobody wants to use a Windows 
> > machine, only people that are forced.
> 
> LOL! Right. That explains the Mac's dismal 1.4% share of the global 
> market and a pathetic 3.2% in the U.S. (Gartner).

The reason for low marketshare were 2 fold, poor marketing management in 
the 1986-1996 time frame, and 2, MicroSoft relentless drive to
sabotage the Mac around the time Windows came into being. Remember when 
Bill stopped updating Word on the Mac to help Word on the PC? or when 
Excel on the Mac was slowed down so it wouldn't make PC's look bad? 
Wouldn't update MS works on the Mac since Claris had AppleWorks? On and 
On...

It's still early in the marketshare game, so it will be fun to see who 
is on top in 20 years...

> As with Linux, being the better OS has nothing to do with being the 
> market leader... though I'll take Linux over Mac any day. Why restrict 
> myself to so much proprietary *everything*?
> > 
> > All Developers selling on PC's have been years behind the Mac, Peptide 
> > proves this point. PC OS's are just the same... OSX is Five YEARS ahead 
> > of XP, 3 YEARS ahead of Vista. Leopard is going to make MicroSoft stock 
> > drop 40%!
> 
> Eeeww... such bold predictions from a delusional Mac troll.
> BTW,
> PC literally stands for Personal Computer, a paradigm that includes 
> Apple's MacIntosh. (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/P/PC.html)
> 
> This PC runs Windows. My other PCs run several various Linux distros.

And Macs run Windows and Linux as well, and have for what 15 years now? 
with the advent of the Intel based Mac boxes you are going to see a huge 
move to the Mac, best of all worlds in a single box.

> > We all laugh at PC Developers. They don't develop where OS or App 
> > developments are made, that is the Silicon Valley... so Until MS moves 
> > it's shoddy factory south, it will always be behind the Mac OS.
> 
> We? You and those friends in your head?
> All of you Mac developers must work for TiVo.
> Care to investigate the incredible lack of demand for Mac developers?
> http://seeker.dice.com/jobsearch/servlet/JobSearch?op=1013&FREE_TEXT=developer

Mac Developers have better tools than Windows or Linux counterparts, so 
the demand is lower since they are more productive. That's why salaries 
are higher for Mac programmers too! Also OSX and the stable Mac platform 
lessens the need for "problem monkeys" to figure out problems. 
Everything is smooth and consistent in the Macworld, not so for Windows 
or Linux.

Someday you'll move up to a Mac and understand what all the excitement 
is about...

http://developer.apple.com/tools/

http://guide.apple.com/uscategories/tools.lasso
0
csma (3267)
9/12/2005 2:52:18 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 03:37:44 -0400,
 rapskat <rapskat@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:07:47 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> Pennsylvania is already a shall issue state. Their CCW is accepted in 19
>> other states. See
>> <http://www.packing.org/state/pennsylvania> for more details. 
>
> I should researched what you were referring to before responding.  I
> already knew that you could be licensed to carry in PA, but for some
> reason I thought you meant the ability for any valid firearm owner to
> carry/tranport without having to obtain a license to do so.  My bad.
>
> Truthfully, I assumed all states allowed one to be licensed to carry. 
> Shows how ignorant I am of such things.
>
>
>> A cursory web search provided
>> <http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA505.html> which seems to say that
>> yes indeed, self defence can be justifiable in PA :) Of course, that's
>> not an authoritative source, the statutes in question may have changed,
>> or may change in the future. But you might want to rethink your original
>> opinion :) 
>
> My point is that even if it was a righteous shooting, you still will be
> arrested and prosecuted.  It will be up to the judge or jury to determine
> whether or not it was justified.
>

you might be, but you might not, it all depends. 


> Even if you are acquitted, think of the implications that this has on
> one's life, job, relationships, etc.
>
> Many people think it's like the movies where you put one in some maniac
> who's out for your blood, then the cops come, give you a pat on the
> back and send you on your way. It's not like that at all, at least not in
> this state.
>


It really depends on the situation. The DA or Grand Jury has to prefer
charges, and in clear cut cases, they usually don't. The DA, because
he's a political animal, and he doesn't want to start a politcal
shitstorm that will stick to him. 

Will you be charged? maybe, depending on the situation. But like the
saying goes, better to be tried by 12, than carried by six. 




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDJdXyd90bcYOAWPYRAsgNAJ9Ot/FoZomgvD2q8atzylPAw3tEQgCfcdY3
RwchZ39dkuQhRlI0Co8uvYk=
=JSa6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If I want to hear the pitter patter of little feet, I'll
put shoes on the ferret.
0
warlock (9522)
9/12/2005 7:24:34 PM
lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> > > The problem here in the states is how the second amendment to the Bill
> > > of Rights which gives citizens the "right to bear arms" is
> > > interpretted. For obvious reasons there are legal limits as to how far
> > > my "right to bear arms" extends. I can't arm myself with a cruise
> > > missle, atomic weapon or a bazooka for example but I can legally arm
> > > myself with a rifle, handgun and a machine gun.
> > >
> >
> > Couple of points, the constitution, grants no rights to the people. It
> > *recognizes* existing rights. The constitution has no power to grant
> > rights to the people, it is a limited grant of power to the state.
>
>
> My bad. I could have worded this better.
>
>
>
> > As for the legal limits, you can legally own (state restrictions vary)
> > by federal law, anything up to and including howitzers and other large
> > ordnance. I don't know what the biggest is, but I know of several modern
> > 105mm pieces in private hands, there are larger pieces in private hands,
> > but the ones I know of are civil war era items, or the replicas.
>
>
> Interesting that you can own a howitzer but you can't own a sawed-off
> shotgun or a "saturday night special" or a switch-blade knife. I
> believe that armor piercing bullets are also illegal nowdays.
>
>
>
> > > I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
> > > practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
> > > argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
> > > Collect stamps or swords instead. I know two people with machine gun
> > > permits and neither one is what I would consider to be a "collector of
> > > fine munitions."
> > >
> >
> > I *enjoy* shooting full auto weapons, I don't *need* one, any more than
> > I *need* a motorcycle capable of 150MPH, but I have one, and enjoy
> > riding it. (although not that fast) Worry about the actions, not the
> > implement. We don't ban gasoline and rags, in case someone makes a
> > molotov, and that's a damn sight more destructive than any firearm.
>
>
> Boy, this is a tough one. I certainly understand what you're saying and
> a large part of me agrees with you. I enjoying going out to the
> shooting range a few times a year (that's the only place I can legally
> shoot around here) and certainly don't want to lose that right.
>
> But on the other hand gun violence is a serious problem in many parts
> of this country. As a nation there are already many things that we've
> outlawed because of the "greater good" for society. Ideally we could
> keep the guns away from the criminals and let rest of the citizens
> enjoy them. But how? I'd like to see CCW in more areas but it doesn't
> look like it's going to happen. Out here I had to register (this is no
> joke) my air pistol.
>
>
>
> > Whether you "buy" the reason for others to own such things, is
> > irellevent, you aren't the dictator, and don't get to decide. Rights are
> > not subject to the whim of others.
>
>
> Things are certainly different out where I live. Until a few years ago
> I was able to ride my bike (1993 Heritage Softail) without a helmet.
> Not any more. (Not that I would regularly ride without a helmet but
> it's the principal. If it's 95-degrees and I want to ride up the road I
> should be able to.) Then there's mandatory seatbelts. A friends father
> has owned a bar for 20+ years. He can no longer smoke in his own bar.
>
> The worst one to me is the recent Supreme Court decision. Emminent
> domain can be used to takeover land in order to generate more tax
> revenue.
>
> Lately it seems as if my rights are subject to the whim of the state
> legislature.
>
>
>
> > > I also don't believe that handguns (pistols) should be legal for
> > > citizens to carry. There are several reasons why police and the
> > > military should be issued handguns but from a practical perspective
> > > there is no reason why someone needs to own a handgun. A rifle is more
> > > than capable of doing anything a handgun can do an in fact, it's much
> > > better at it. (more accurate + higher muzzle velocity)
> > >
> >
> > 33 states have "shall issue" CCW in place. That is, if you meet the
> > criteria, they *must* issue you the permit. 2 states (Alaska and
> > Vermont) have no permit required for concealed carry.
> >
> > Care to guess as to how many murders were commited in the last 10 years
> > by CCW holders? I'll give you a clue, fewer than were committed by "duly
> > authorized" police officers. Despite there being many more CCW holders.
> > In Washington, (where I live) there are approx 200,000 CCW holders.
> > fewer than 20 have been revoked "for cause" in the last 5 years.
> >
> > Florida enacted their "shall issue" CCW law in (IIRC) 1989. Various
> > victim disarmament groups predicted "blood in the streets", that the
> > Sunshine state would explode in a flurry of shootouts over parking
> > spaces, and such. Didn't happen. In fact, to the best of my knowledge,
> > not one violent crime has been committed by a CCW holder, with their
> > carry piece. There were a few permits revoked for technical violations
> > (carrying into a courthouse, or the like) but I know of none involving
> > violence, or the threat thereof.
> >
>
>
>
> > and as previously mentioned, *every* state which enacted a shall issue
> > CCW law in the last 10 years has seen a drop in violent crime, and while
>
>
> I think I was the one who mentioned this a few posts ago.
>
>
>
>
> > violent crime in general was dropping in the US at the same time, the
> > states which *don't* have a shall issue CCW didn't see the same drop as
> > the shall issue states. I don't think the criminals are driving from
> > Portland Oregon, to LA to commit crimes, and even if they were, that
> > would be a pretty good indication that the criminals feared to commit
> > the crimes in Portland...
> >
> > > Finally we need to enforce the existing gun laws instead of passing new
> > > ones.
> > >
> >
> > I'd agree there.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > (Disclaimer: I own a couple of rifles and a air pistol.)
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> > you wild eyed revolutionary you. :)
>
>
> I just want to strap a sawed-off shotgun to the side of my leg and ride
> my hog without a helmet.<g>


figures a lintard like you would own a heritage softtail. after using
your pathetic linux distro you probably feel right at home on a fat
bloated slow bike. i ride a ninja zx6rr which is lighter, faster,
quicker than your fat pig any day of the week. i blow by those turds
like their standing still.

only a lintard like you would actually tell people he owns a softtail.
gee, maybe one day you can get a real bike.

0
linux-sux (841)
9/13/2005 12:32:57 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 12 Sep 2005 17:32:57 -0700,
 linux-sux@lycos.com <linux-sux@lycos.com> wrote:
>

> figures a lintard like you would own a heritage softtail. after using
> your pathetic linux distro you probably feel right at home on a fat
> bloated slow bike. i ride a ninja zx6rr which is lighter, faster,
> quicker than your fat pig any day of the week. i blow by those turds
> like their standing still.
>
> only a lintard like you would actually tell people he owns a softtail.
> gee, maybe one day you can get a real bike.
>



I eat ZXR6's for breakfast. Most of the squids can't ride for squat, and
a modded Bandit 1200 leaves them in the rear views in short order.
The Ninja 600s are nice bikes, but they lack "oomph" in the roll ones.
Decent enough in the twisties I suppose, but if you want to race in the
twisties, you ride a GSXR600, or you trail the guys who do. 

And I can ride all day, without feeling like a pretzel at the end of it.
The crotch rocket crowd tend to wimp out after a couple of hours... 

Most of the guys I know who bought the Ninja 600s, either switch to
something else, or just don't ride much. Many of them are poseur fair
weather riders like you. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDJofnd90bcYOAWPYRAukbAKCa+iBXVwhqFsdnFCg/4WGedsBWPwCfUka8
ShP6rkgeosDrXX3w9d3TskY=
=Jm9/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Black holes are where God divided by zero".
0
warlock (9522)
9/13/2005 8:03:51 AM
linux-sux@lycos.com wrote:
> lqualig@uku.co.uk wrote:
> > Jim Richardson wrote:
> >
> > > > The problem here in the states is how the second amendment to the Bill
> > > > of Rights which gives citizens the "right to bear arms" is
> > > > interpretted. For obvious reasons there are legal limits as to how far
> > > > my "right to bear arms" extends. I can't arm myself with a cruise
> > > > missle, atomic weapon or a bazooka for example but I can legally arm
> > > > myself with a rifle, handgun and a machine gun.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Couple of points, the constitution, grants no rights to the people. It
> > > *recognizes* existing rights. The constitution has no power to grant
> > > rights to the people, it is a limited grant of power to the state.
> >
> >
> > My bad. I could have worded this better.
> >
> >
> >
> > > As for the legal limits, you can legally own (state restrictions vary)
> > > by federal law, anything up to and including howitzers and other large
> > > ordnance. I don't know what the biggest is, but I know of several modern
> > > 105mm pieces in private hands, there are larger pieces in private hands,
> > > but the ones I know of are civil war era items, or the replicas.
> >
> >
> > Interesting that you can own a howitzer but you can't own a sawed-off
> > shotgun or a "saturday night special" or a switch-blade knife. I
> > believe that armor piercing bullets are also illegal nowdays.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > I believe that in todays society this is a bit too much. There is no
> > > > practical reason why anyone needs to own a machine gun. The usual
> > > > argument is that people want to "collect" them but I don't buy it.
> > > > Collect stamps or swords instead. I know two people with machine gun
> > > > permits and neither one is what I would consider to be a "collector of
> > > > fine munitions."
> > > >
> > >
> > > I *enjoy* shooting full auto weapons, I don't *need* one, any more than
> > > I *need* a motorcycle capable of 150MPH, but I have one, and enjoy
> > > riding it. (although not that fast) Worry about the actions, not the
> > > implement. We don't ban gasoline and rags, in case someone makes a
> > > molotov, and that's a damn sight more destructive than any firearm.
> >
> >
> > Boy, this is a tough one. I certainly understand what you're saying and
> > a large part of me agrees with you. I enjoying going out to the
> > shooting range a few times a year (that's the only place I can legally
> > shoot around here) and certainly don't want to lose that right.
> >
> > But on the other hand gun violence is a serious problem in many parts
> > of this country. As a nation there are already many things that we've
> > outlawed because of the "greater good" for society. Ideally we could
> > keep the guns away from the criminals and let rest of the citizens
> > enjoy them. But how? I'd like to see CCW in more areas but it doesn't
> > look like it's going to happen. Out here I had to register (this is no
> > joke) my air pistol.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Whether you "buy" the reason for others to own such things, is
> > > irellevent, you aren't the dictator, and don't get to decide. Rights are
> > > not subject to the whim of others.
> >
> >
> > Things are certainly different out where I live. Until a few years ago
> > I was able to ride my bike (1993 Heritage Softail) without a helmet.
> > Not any more. (Not that I would regularly ride without a helmet but
> > it's the principal. If it's 95-degrees and I want to ride up the road I
> > should be able to.) Then there's mandatory seatbelts. A friends father
> > has owned a bar for 20+ years. He can no longer smoke in his own bar.
> >
> > The worst one to me is the recent Supreme Court decision. Emminent
> > domain can be used to takeover land in order to generate more tax
> > revenue.
> >
> > Lately it seems as if my rights are subject to the whim of the state
> > legislature.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > I also don't believe that handguns (pistols) should be legal for
> > > > citizens to carry. There are several reasons why police and the
> > > > military should be issued handguns but from a practical perspective
> > > > there is no reason why someone needs to own a handgun. A rifle is more
> > > > than capable of doing anything a handgun can do an in fact, it's much
> > > > better at it. (more accurate + higher muzzle velocity)
> > > >
> > >
> > > 33 states have "shall issue" CCW in place. That is, if you meet the
> > > criteria, they *must* issue you the permit. 2 states (Alaska and
> > > Vermont) have no permit required for concealed carry.
> > >
> > > Care to guess as to how many murders were commited in the last 10 years
> > > by CCW holders? I'll give you a clue, fewer than were committed by "duly
> > > authorized" police officers. Despite there being many more CCW holders.
> > > In Washington, (where I live) there are approx 200,000 CCW holders.
> > > fewer than 20 have been revoked "for cause" in the last 5 years.
> > >
> > > Florida enacted their "shall issue" CCW law in (IIRC) 1989. Various
> > > victim disarmament groups predicted "blood in the streets", that the
> > > Sunshine state would explode in a flurry of shootouts over parking
> > > spaces, and such. Didn't happen. In fact, to the best of my knowledge,
> > > not one violent crime has been committed by a CCW holder, with their
> > > carry piece. There were a few permits revoked for technical violations
> > > (carrying into a courthouse, or the like) but I know of none involving
> > > violence, or the threat thereof.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > and as previously mentioned, *every* state which enacted a shall issue
> > > CCW law in the last 10 years has seen a drop in violent crime, and while
> >
> >
> > I think I was the one who mentioned this a few posts ago.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > violent crime in general was dropping in the US at the same time, the
> > > states which *don't* have a shall issue CCW didn't see the same drop as
> > > the shall issue states. I don't think the criminals are driving from
> > > Portland Oregon, to LA to commit crimes, and even if they were, that
> > > would be a pretty good indication that the criminals feared to commit
> > > the crimes in Portland...
> > >
> > > > Finally we need to enforce the existing gun laws instead of passing new
> > > > ones.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd agree there.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > (Disclaimer: I own a couple of rifles and a air pistol.)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > > you wild eyed revolutionary you. :)
> >
> >
> > I just want to strap a sawed-off shotgun to the side of my leg and ride
> > my hog without a helmet.<g>
>
>




> figures a lintard like you would own a heritage softtail. after using
> your pathetic linux distro you probably feel right at home on a fat
> bloated slow bike. i ride a ninja zx6rr which is lighter, faster,
> quicker than your fat pig any day of the week. i blow by those turds
> like their standing still.
>
> only a lintard like you would actually tell people he owns a softtail.
> gee, maybe one day you can get a real bike.



A "lintard" like me? I could stop right now but it only gets better.

For starters I use to own a sport bike when I lived in Orlando. I was
in my 20's at the time, feeling indestructible and luckily I'm still
alive today.

I bought my Softail in 98 and for the price I paid for this used bike I
could have bought almost two (2) of your crotch-rocket "organ donor"
bikes. Seven years later my bike is worth more now than what I paid for
it at the time.

My Softail is more than fast enough to get me to where I need to go.
Quite frankly I'd rather go from 0-60 in 4 seconds in comfort and style
than do it 0.8 seconds faster humped over the gas-tank. Top speed....
mine will do a hundred and something. Is your top speed of 130+ useful
in day to day riding?

Even more importantly, when I get to where I'm going I can say that I
enjoyed the ride instead of being happy to finally get off the darn
bike. Riding around hunched over like some circus freak isn't my idea
of enjoyable.

0
lqualig (4343)
9/13/2005 3:58:57 PM
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 23:57:20 -0400, rapskat wrote:

>> one of the weird things about HP is that the new laptop I got, an HP
>> Pavillion dv4150us, comes with Windows XP as the main operating system but
>> it also has a utility, called QuickPlay, which you can use to start the
>> cd/dvd playing without booting into the system.
>> 
>> this utility is on a small Linux partition!
>> 
>> (it runs ISOLinux, I believe.)
> 
> I had read about that not too long ago, but haven't actually seen it yet. 
> How's that working out for you?  What is it using for a media player?  How
> long does it take to load up?

so far it is just a novelty - I haven't used it. last night though I
tested it again and was pretty impressed. it is easy to imagine being at
an airport or on a train and wanting to play music or watch a dvd but not
wanting to boot up a system to do so. put the dvd in, press a button, wait
1/2 minute and start viewing.

Felmon
0
noone5 (73)
9/16/2005 12:53:15 AM
Reply: