I come at this from a completely different viewpoint, having only recently dipped my toes into Linux - for me, a package manager is a relatively new concept. The nearest I've come to it previously has been with Apple's App Store, both for iOS and now OSX - plenty of choice, sometimes too much choice.
As far as manually installing apps goes, it usually boils down to double-clicking on the DMG file to mount it, then either running the installation package or dragging the app file to your Applications folder.
In theory, uninstalling apps is as simple as dragging the app file to the Trash. I say 'in theory' because apps do leave behind some detritus formed by using them - thankfully not to the same degree as Windows, but it is there. For suites of apps like Microsoft Office or Adobe Creative Cloud, there tends to be a lot more extra stuff deposited onto your system besides the apps themselves.
Sadly, updates do tend to be on a per-app basis, with the exception of those acquired through the App Store, which handles the update process.
You pretty much got it - the core of Microsoft's argument was 100% vindicated by history. It's one of the little quirks of nature:
1. Bundling DOES help the consumer. Apple is the proving point. The users crave a unified bundled approach. Even to the level MS never envisioned, hardware, service and software.
2. An upstart competition could arrive at anytime and take MS's market share, because unlike natural monopolies on resources, the human capital needed to fight MS was readily available to competitors. Google, Apple, Blackberry, all came from nowhere to drink MS's milkshake.
3. The browser is a natural part of the operating system and it's unfair to force MS to accommodate competitors who someday would be more profitable or powerful than MS.
4. MS doesn't have the ability to set prices which is a critical part of the monopoly power. This is so obviously true. MS exerts almost no price pressure on the market these days.
Your politics are backwards. Nationally, the car dealers are associated strongly with the conservatives in the GOP. Many, many, many car dealers are owned by Republicans.
Nate Silver correlated the data nicely back when the major makers were on the verge of bankruptcy.
It's better than 8-to-1 correlation (i.e., a fairly strong correlation).
The problem is that, adjusting for inflation, it should be dramatically less. That's the trend. The major outlier is for raw materials which are more costly to extract and process for use.
In the 1950's a decent Westinghouse consolve TV cost about $1000. Inflation adjusted to today, that's about $9000. You'd be hard pressed to spend $9000 on a TV today unless it was a big theater setup or was quite exotic. That's because technology has replaced the need for many expensive raw materials, improved production (including moving it overseas), and driven out the excess.
Auto manufacturers have a problem, and they are the ones driving cost inflation, trying to convince Americans to spend more and more of their income each year on automobiles. For the last two generations this has been through fictionalization of automobiles - you are buying a payment, not a product. That has started to lessen, but record low interest rates have prevented a major crash in sales, and actually led to some good years against a trend of decline.
There is a large untapped market for a car marker who builds the same model of car, with no changes other than manufacturing refinements, for 7-15 years, direct to consumers. From a manufacturing theory perspective, there are something like 7,000-10,000 drivers in an auto production line. 10 years is about what you could expect to optimize the supply chain for each driver, maybe half that if you are very good at managing supply chain. This type of company is stymied by three things:
a. cheap credit money which makes it cheaper to buy a new car than to maintain and run older cars,
b. regulatory creep which increases requirements continually and
c. consumers willing to spend a large slice of their income on flashy cars and status symbols.
And in the end, car dealerships do deserve to undergo a radical change in their structure. They are inherently bad for customers.
For one - they make money in ways that customers are not aware of. The most insidious being "point spread". You walk in, buy a car, and they make money selling the car (fair), future service either under warranty or direct to the consumer (fair), and more importantly, on the financing. You might qualify for a certain rate, but they get a big chunk of the difference between your best qualifying rate and what they convince you to pay. So you qualify for a 3.5% rate, but they get you sign on the line for 9.9%, and they get roughly 50% of the point spread between 3.5% and 9.9%, which on many financing arrangements, is far more than the profit involved in selling the car to begin with.
Second, they do an only okay job with service. They do not typically do as a good job as independent shops, and for warranty work, face little competitive price pressure.
Finally, they are effective local monopolies and do not always respond to market pressure. Because of brand monopolies, there is not as much competition as they would have you believe. The car market is deeply segmented, and so there are not as many brand choices in a price/demographic band as you might think. On paper there are 15 manufacturers selling through dealerships in a market. But for a single random consumer, there are likely 3 or 4 options that meet the basic criteria of type and price range.
In many small towns or areas, the local car dealer is the wealthiest person in town. There is a lot of profit standing between the car maker and the consumer. And in the end, this excess is needs to be wrung out of the system. Manufacturer's should not be able to prevent car dealers from selling and servicing cars, but long-term, the concept of a franchised car dealership needs to be scaled back. Channel conflict is inevitable.
No offense to you or your coworker, but is there any reason to accept your theory just on your say so?
(And your sig is accurate, btw)
Kathleen Sebelius was put in a politically impossible position. There was zero possibility of the technology supporting the ACA ever working as originally specced. She should have recognized this instantly, but even if she did, what could she have done?
I'm sure she's in a financial position where she didn't have to have the income, and if she had any integrity, she would walk. Further, when questioned by the press, she wouldn't give the 'spend more time with my family' canned response, she would be truthful.
She wasn't placed in a position. She sought out the position. As do all politicians.
'cuz he's a MAVERICK!
He's too busy to learn to computer because he's busy playing with the boys?
So the correct answer to this question was the one ESR asked - for who and for what?
That's why I asked him to specify criteria when he answered. IMNSHO, the answer is almost entirely dependent on the criteria, as evidenced by the poster above who mentioned the FNFAL, etc.
People are attacking libertarians over it because they don't know the difference between anarchist, minarchist, and libertarian.
Because we don't care about that any more than we care about whether you are in the People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front.
I thought the whole system was based on the fact that most of the individuals with bitcoin holdings were criminals, so that stealing anything would get you killed.
No, you've confused BTC with USD.
First Amendment rights don't extend to threats and trafficking stolen financial instruments
Fifth Amendment rights are clearly satisfied; the motion practice described above indicates he was charged and habeas corpus is not an issue.
Sixth Amendment rights are muddied by the aforementioned motion practice - I am positive that if he had wanted a trial by now, he'd have one. I think the point is that he'd get convicted of something, hence the delay.
Eighth Amendment - someone with a bunch of stolen credit cards available has resources, so evaluating 'excessive bail'
Woodward and Bernstein weren't instrumental to the Watergate case, they were simply public relations arms. The case was proceeding without them, and would have ended up in pretty much the same place if they'd been run over by a bus. Despite the mythology, the principals would have found some other reporter to feed data to. The independent prosecutor was the key to the case beyond February 1973, initially Cox and later Jaworski. It is important to remember that initially, the press reports of Watergate were not considered a large issue by the White House. The potential testimony of the burglars themselves was the primary issue initially, hence the hush money delivered until after the 1972 election.