Yup. And yet, almost every major website with advertising has figured out a way to deliver ads that are not only localized, but also, and even better, targeted based on my browsing habits. If content distributors would take a moment to step into this century, they would realize that they don't have to license the content locally. All they need to do is to get local advertisers to *come to them* and then distribute the ads appropriately based on IP. They've already figured out how to *block* us geographically based on IP ... but, content distributors always seem good with technology when it comes to *pissing off* their customers.

I only ever read 4 of the books in the series, and found them to be WAY too large. The first book split in half down the spine before I finished it. And, I was grateful because it was easier to read. Books 2-3 I split on my own before I even started reading them.

Same here. Got through the first few books, and stopped once I realized that it was going to take at least 15 years before I'd ever see an ending.

And, there is nothing remotely new in this. Marketing agencies have had paid actors posing as real customers for ever. Most of Apple's "Switchers" were paid to say so. All of Microsoft's laptop shoppers were paid to choose a laptop running Windows and complain about Apple.

The cost of someone gathering it up is still a *distribution* cost which, again, is much easier (less costly) to do now.

No, ads don't pay for the *information*, they pay for the *distribution*. You're still buying in to the con that there is a cost to information. If there was, you'd have to charge for sharing with your friends the information you just read from a newspaper.

That's not the way the world works *currently*. But, prior to the last few years information *was* free; people only had to pay for distribution of that information (and, hence, the invention of the "newspaper"). Now, we have an insanely cheap technology for distribution and the old guard are trying to change the model to pay-for-information without anyone noticing.

We're in a thread discussing Apple, and you try to claim that we don't have an alternative to Microsoft?

60% agree with the question.

20% understand the question.

What's more, CP is often used as an excuse to target other entities (that have nothing to do with CP) that the government and their lobbies don't like but can't convince the voters not to like, such as The Pirate Bay.

It's difficult to prove something when you're not allowed to do it.

In that case, you're employer has made the choice. Just because you're employer made the choice doesn't mean that the choice doesn't exist.

You've already gone from "no alternatives" to "precious few". As long as alternatives exist, monopolies do not.

Looks like Shuttle also offers Linux pre-installed http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/shuttle-launches-199-kpc-linux-box-99-barebones-kit/

I care about points? I seriously doubt anyone has bothered to read that far down. Dell has the largest PC market share. I'd say it's pretty significant when Dell offer computers with Linux installed. http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/1q08us-1.png As for Walmart, check out the gPC http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=7754614