I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire. -- Avram Grumer, rec.arts.sf.written, May 2000
"Such huge demand for Linux is good news. It should convince dial-up ISPs like AOL to release a Linux client..."
This is exactly what's wrong with the prospect of pre-installed Linux from one of the big Windows PC shops: vendor spyware, aka crapware. There are too many "custom apps" in the Windows world, shipped with every new PC, every ISP, every piece of hardware... most of it serving very little apparent purpose beyond flashing logos at the user, and most of it with very little documentation on what's necessary (e.g. just the driver) vs. duplicating built-in OS functionality.
We can't assume that Linux vendors all have halos. In 2004 I bought a PC pre-loaded with Linspire, and lasted a week on the distro before nuking and paving the drive, because the software installer was pay-for-play: only a limited set of apps were available for free, and the rest (e.g. OpenOffice, the Gimp) required a subscription. As a then Linux-newbie, I went crying back to Windows XP - but installed cleanly from a MS-branded CD, not a vendor-provided "recovery disk".
My most recent PC purchase is a Dell laptop which came pre-installed with a large number of commercial applications, each of which would, on first execution, inform you that your 30-day trial had just started. There are also proprietary "support" applications to map the various hotkeys, inform me of the latest drivers, tell me that I should really buy a new battery (just click this link), and show advertisements for more Dell software of equally dubious utility. Just useful enough for me to not uninstall it.
Given pre-installed Linux, I can imagine vendors releasing drivers as object code only, with proprietary undocumented calls, which will only work with vendor-branded utilities. My WiFi card was almost that bad (proprietary 80211 stack). Can you imagine what a PC vendor as skilled as Dell in pre-loading crap could do?
First, thank you for posting a "Republican" position. Understanding the thoughts and opinions of others is crucial to constructive discussion, rather than name-calling and head-shaking.
(Quotes added to indicate that the term has been used in a broader scope than merely the political positions of the Republican Party, and as such may be misrepresentative of many, but is a useful label for this discussion. In short, it's a sign of respect, not of derision.)
In the spirit of that discussion, here's what I read from your post. Since I may be summarizing things differently, I'm using a different numbering scheme.
A. Often, scientific conclusions imply consequences, which can be seen as problems, whose proposed solutions require actions, whose enforcement can require laws. Therefore, there is a quick mental jump made between the scientific issue and the political response. The majority of us do this unconsciously and regularly.
B. There are many "forced choices" in the mental step above, where the politics focuses on specific techniques for a single hot-topic problem.
C. Just as politicians try to talk about science, scientists try to talk about laws. This often publicises the political opinions while obscuring the scientific conclusion..
D. Supporters of the scientific conclusion are labeled as supporters of the political opinion. Those who disagree with the political opinion are labeled as ignoring the problem.
Here's an example of the resulting conversation: Scientist: Looking at goldfish causes cancer. Politician A: We should ban goldfish. Politician B: Goldfish are kept as pets. Politician A: If you don't like our solution, then you're part of the problem. Politician B: If your solution causes more problems than it solves, then we can't address the problem. Politician A: You want people to get cancer! Politician B: You want to kill beloved pets and destroy the pet economy! Politician A: Why are you ignoring the science? Politician B: Why are you creating problems?
Result: Politicial parties A and B each think the other are idiots.
"[...] What/. obviously needs is some kind of copyright and/or patent system(s) such that we will promote the creation of new and better trolls. [...]"
Let's think about this.
If the response to a post contains a thoughtful rebuttal, then by definition that response addresses all of the elements of a single claim, which makes it in violation of the patent.
If a response fails to represent the contents of the post in an appropriate manner, then it's a violation of trademark.
If a response quotes the initial post in any way, then it's a violation of copyright.
Ergo, reductio ad absurdum, the only possibly permissible posts are parody.
Slashdot Mirror
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire.
-- Avram Grumer, rec.arts.sf.written, May 2000
Local TV news coverage from April 4.
Includes video feed.
It's also the only source I've seen that mentions that 34 other calls were logged that night.
"Such huge demand for Linux is good news. It should convince dial-up ISPs like AOL to release a Linux client..."
This is exactly what's wrong with the prospect of pre-installed Linux from one of the big Windows PC shops: vendor spyware, aka crapware. There are too many "custom apps" in the Windows world, shipped with every new PC, every ISP, every piece of hardware... most of it serving very little apparent purpose beyond flashing logos at the user, and most of it with very little documentation on what's necessary (e.g. just the driver) vs. duplicating built-in OS functionality.
We can't assume that Linux vendors all have halos. In 2004 I bought a PC pre-loaded with Linspire, and lasted a week on the distro before nuking and paving the drive, because the software installer was pay-for-play: only a limited set of apps were available for free, and the rest (e.g. OpenOffice, the Gimp) required a subscription. As a then Linux-newbie, I went crying back to Windows XP - but installed cleanly from a MS-branded CD, not a vendor-provided "recovery disk".
My most recent PC purchase is a Dell laptop which came pre-installed with a large number of commercial applications, each of which would, on first execution, inform you that your 30-day trial had just started. There are also proprietary "support" applications to map the various hotkeys, inform me of the latest drivers, tell me that I should really buy a new battery (just click this link), and show advertisements for more Dell software of equally dubious utility. Just useful enough for me to not uninstall it.
Given pre-installed Linux, I can imagine vendors releasing drivers as object code only, with proprietary undocumented calls, which will only work with vendor-branded utilities. My WiFi card was almost that bad (proprietary 80211 stack). Can you imagine what a PC vendor as skilled as Dell in pre-loading crap could do?
First, thank you for posting a "Republican" position. Understanding the thoughts and opinions of others is crucial to constructive discussion, rather than name-calling and head-shaking.
(Quotes added to indicate that the term has been used in a broader scope than merely the political positions of the Republican Party, and as such may be misrepresentative of many, but is a useful label for this discussion. In short, it's a sign of respect, not of derision.)
In the spirit of that discussion, here's what I read from your post. Since I may be summarizing things differently, I'm using a different numbering scheme.
A. Often, scientific conclusions imply consequences, which can be seen as problems, whose proposed solutions require actions, whose enforcement can require laws. Therefore, there is a quick mental jump made between the scientific issue and the political response. The majority of us do this unconsciously and regularly.
B. There are many "forced choices" in the mental step above, where the politics focuses on specific techniques for a single hot-topic problem.
C. Just as politicians try to talk about science, scientists try to talk about laws. This often publicises the political opinions while obscuring the scientific conclusion..
D. Supporters of the scientific conclusion are labeled as supporters of the political opinion. Those who disagree with the political opinion are labeled as ignoring the problem.
Here's an example of the resulting conversation:
Scientist: Looking at goldfish causes cancer.
Politician A: We should ban goldfish.
Politician B: Goldfish are kept as pets.
Politician A: If you don't like our solution, then you're part of the problem.
Politician B: If your solution causes more problems than it solves, then we can't address the problem.
Politician A: You want people to get cancer!
Politician B: You want to kill beloved pets and destroy the pet economy!
Politician A: Why are you ignoring the science?
Politician B: Why are you creating problems?
Result: Politicial parties A and B each think the other are idiots.
"[...] What /. obviously needs is some kind of copyright and/or patent system(s) such that we will promote the creation of new and better trolls. [...]"
Let's think about this.
If the response to a post contains a thoughtful rebuttal, then by definition that response addresses all of the elements of a single claim, which makes it in violation of the patent.
If a response fails to represent the contents of the post in an appropriate manner, then it's a violation of trademark.
If a response quotes the initial post in any way, then it's a violation of copyright.
Ergo, reductio ad absurdum, the only possibly permissible posts are parody.
Hey, you're right!