Check out this new Acer netbook that “dual-boots” Windows and Google’s GNU/Linux variant “Android”:
(No, this post is not to point out the video cutting at 1:33 because Windows is taking a lifetime to boot – that laugh is bonus)
At the 1:16 mark we see Android ask, “Switch to OS: Would you like boot (sic) to Windows?”. After confirmation, we see Windows begin to boot…or is it launch? I’m curious – has the Windows operating system been turned into a proprietary GNU/Linux application? It appears this Acer isn’t hard booting when the command is given to start Windows (where’s the BIOS’s output?). So is this a warm boot or has Windows been virtualized?
I’d be grateful to anyone with more information willing to pass it on. When Windows is shut down, are we back to GNU/Linux? Or do we need to boot the machine again?
The United States’ current version of their War on Drugs fails miserably because the problem of drug abuse is a health issue. Categorizing an illness as a crime makes the situation worse by introducing unnecessary problems. Instead of policy posturing to demonstrate a “get tough” approach on drugs, the US should get smart and reform laws to resemble those in countries like Portugal.
The current administration has indicated they’re open to change. However, simply making arrests a “low priority” doesn’t go nearly far enough. Decriminalization will coax more citizens suffering from addiction to seek treatment. As well, non-enforcement indicates a corruption of the law itself. If enforcement causes problems, the solution isn’t to ignore the law but to change it, so that its existence is just and beneficial to society.
I’m so very proud of my religious congregation. $118,600 as of October 4th! When I rejoiced, an un-noodly one tried to discredit Our Faith by challenging the common knowledge that belief in Him makes you a better person. With an arrogant smirk, he ignorantly flashed this superficiallylarger measure ($989,675) of “generosity”. But using my smarts granted by Him, I quickly shot back at the infidel by pointing out the datesthe two teams formed.
Tom Hoffman has an insightful but disturbing post regarding the push for adoption of the Common Standards in US schools. His comparison of other documents to the Common Standards makes it clear they’re designed not to improve Language Arts, but to satisfy the parties heavily invested in standardized testing results.
If you’re a stakeholder, it’s well worth your time essential to give Tom’s words a read. At the end of the post, he includes a link for commenting on the currently proposed draft.
I came across the video below of Peter Schiff “interviewed” by Ed Schultz. This has to be one of the worst interviews I’ve seen. Schultz simply wasn’t interested in constructive questioning or dialog. It was clear Schultz entered the interview with the intent of shouting Peter down. This was annoying at best and disrespectful at worst but getting beyond that, Schiff brought up a point (between 7:07 and 7:18) that I’ve questioned before.
I want people who now get health insurance from their employers to get money – to get wages instead that are not taxed and they can make a decision if they want to buy healthcare or if they want to buy something else.
The problem I have with this is that it equates the need of health care with the desire for every other consumer product on the market. Schiff doesn’t seem to think that health care should be seen as any different than the production of cars or Frisbees. So let’s say that one chooses not to buy health insurance and their gamble doesn’t pay off. They get sick. A car salesman has no ethical obligation to sell someone a car when they’ve spent their dollars on something else. A toy store owner won’t feel a compassionate impulse to sell someone a Frisbee when they’ve spent their income on something else. Should doctors be put in a position to say, “Sorry about that cancer, buddy. Next time you should think about making better economic choices. I hope you’ve learned your lesson.”
Either I’m misunderstanding Peter’s proposal or his approach is void of any humanity. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against the free market. I just don’t see that the efficiency of the free market on its own can sufficiently meet essential human needs.
The path forward is open source, not free software.
In one sense this is true as freedom and Free software are the goal, not means to an end – but clearly this is not what Matt means. The question a pure, “pragmatic” open source supporter could ask is, “If this is the path forward, where am I trying to go?” One may get the impression that while Matt loves the Open Road, he has no vision of where he’s headed. Going “mainstream” is useful and arguably necessary (thanks, Open Source) but if that’s it – if that’s the goal – the “path forward” leads nowhere. Proprietary software companies love nothing more than those who repeat (or imply) the mantra that technical advantages and market forces alone will be the cause of open source’s coming dominance. Matt concludes:
Free software has lost. Open source has won. We’re all the better for it.
There’s certainly differences regarding the values empahsized by Free software and Open Source, but since when did the two begin to compete against each other?
Someday they will though, and as long as they’re going to horde it, we want them to horde ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to share sometime in the next decade.
Let’s say the Wal-Mart Corporation could wave a magic wand, putting an end to all shoplifting from their stores. Would they? Let’s say the Microsoft Corporation could wave a magic wand, putting an end to all unauthorized distribution of their software. Would they? Perhaps surprisingly to some, the answers to these two questions are polar opposites. It would seem there’s not much difference between the two suggestions, right? After all, unauthorized distribution of software is “stealing” – just like shoplifting. It is to commit “theft”, so they say. It would be absurd not to stop people stealing from your business.
Organizations like the BSA claim that “piracy” does “harm” to the proprietary software industry. However, it’s “piracy” that keeps their ship from sinking quickly. Without “piracy”, one of the biggest obstacles to Free software adoption would be removed. To claim that “economic viability is threatened” with billions in losses is to twist the truth by ignoring the bigger picture. Without “piracy”, the actual losses would put those numbers to shame. The more Free software gains traction, the more “piracy” becomes proprietary software’s life jacket.
