why people are still winning to pay for (or pirate) an operating system..
Ok, Windows doesn't really come with a spell checker. But Microsoft Office does, and people think that if they use Linux, they'll end up sounding like some hacker-type...
While I said it in jest, I think there's a point to be made. People tend to use the operating systems that best suit them (or from another perspective: that they deserve). Linux users and Windows users have different needs. Surprise, yawn.
It would be more constructive to talk about how Linux users can improve the experience for Windows users. I know of quite a few people who hate computers altogether because of their experience with Windows, and, tragically, because of this, are unwilling to try anything different because they fear it will be more of the same.
I mean, really. We've known about macro viruses for 20 years, and the danger of putting executable code in documents for about the same, and yet, in 2007, an open-source application, backed by a major UNIX vendor is released with this vulnerability?
Apparently many eyes do not make bugs shallow. I guess the community was asleep at the switch. Or maybe, something in the process is broken. Or maybe Sun just doesn't care.
Now, lest you think this a troll, consider: Security and virus immunity have been a big selling point for open source systems. Until now. Sun is a large player in the open source arena, and this makes everyone else - secure or not - look bad. Security was the major selling point for OO, and now that it's questionable, I'm not sure where Sun is going to go with this: they can't compete with Microsoft on features, OO is far from a universal standard (which means you're going to be plagued with interoperability issues), and OO's last major selling point is that it is free as in beer.
Okay, there are open source religious zealots. Just like the proprietary-software zealots. But neither is representative of the mainstream of users in either category.
What particularly irritates me is the suggestion that because a company has some open source offerings, that they've given up on their proprietary business. It is more likely that said business is simply attempting to capitalize on the open-source movement. It gives them an additional revenue stream where none existed before.
Furthermore, it doesn't seem prudent to me that any company would ignore open source. If your customers are going to be using open source software anyway, you might as well get something out of it.
And this whole open vs. closed debate is likewise pointless. In most businesses, software is chosen for a given task based not on the licensing model, but on how well it meets the particular needs of the business. If you look at the state of office software or multimedia integration on Linux, it's not difficult to understand why most businesses and home users pick Windows. If you look at the security and reliability of Linux, it's not hard to understand why businesses use it for file and print and web serving.
In the end, it comes down to a question of utility. Sure, a distinct minority - those of us who are computer saavy - can take the high road and pick software based on the license terms. But for most people, choosing software is a matter of getting a particular job done, and they could care less about the licensing terms. In the end, people often pick software for its strengths, not its weaknesses. I see no reason why pundits find this so difficult to understand.
It is better to leave when you see it coming, than wait for the disaster to happen and be blamed for it afterward.
Granted, it might be difficult, but usually, you have a few months before a problem turns into a reality. I have left jobs in the past because of unethical behavior on the employer's part, but believe me, it was for the better. Not only did I get a better paying job with better benefits, I no longer got that sinking feeling when management asked me to do what I felt was wrong.
Because they want the bomb to go off as the President approaches, when the cameras are trained on him - not afterward. The idea is that it would blow up close enough for him and the world to see on TV, yet far enough away that it doesn't pose any significant risk to the President. That way, they get the best of both worlds - protection for the President, and another bargaining chip for escalating the "War on Terror".
Kind of like me sharing your house with others for a weekend party while you're away? After all, if I do it often enough, you might just get a reputation for being cool, and benefit by having some cool friends, right? I'm promoting you by sharing your house with others - you should thank me, right?! Even if you don't want your house shared, it's alright because you'll obtain some later benefit from it.
It's not sharing if it doesn't belong to you. And it isn't that noble of you to shift the cost of your sharing back to the artist, who can least afford it. You can rationalize it by calling it promotion, but - at least to some degree - you are destroying the market for a given artist's work. If you really wanted to promote the *good* bands, you'd buy their music so that they would have the money to pay hosting fees, etc... so they could reach a wider audience. There is a large moral difference between you sharing what you have created with the world, and sharing something created by someone else, against their wishes.
What good does popularity do the artist if they can't make a living?
When the victim is an RIAA or MPAA member company?
Or is that mere copyright infringement?
There's this interesting cognitive dissonance when it comes to copyright infringement. When the little guy (or gal) gets ripped off, it's called stealing; but when a large company gets ripped off, it's called sharing.
Maybe, just maybe, we need a better model for understanding the interests of consumers and artists alike. It seems that in the digital age, the copyright model doesn't do a very good job of protecting the interests of either the artist or the consumer.
I suppose that by the time you read this, it will be 230 patents...
225...
219...
Microsoft knows that as soon as they are forced to reveal exactly which patents Linux infringes, Linux won't infringe on them any more.
I used to think Linux would perpetually remain on the fringes of larger society, but these recent events suggest that Microsoft sees it as a very real threat to their operating system monopoly. I'm thinking that Microsoft is going to have to reinvent itself to remain competitive.
Or until his monitor disappears because IT thinks it isn't being used and decides to "recycle" it.
Sure, I can understand his sentiments, but the lights come in handy when it comes to troubleshooting. Just try removing the lights from every computer gadget:
Let's watch you crawl under the desk every time your computer freezes because you can't tell the difference between an unplugged keyboard or mouse and Windows just being slow.
Is that PC off, or is the monitor in sleep mode? Why don't you hit the power switch to be sure?
When I have network problems, I always prefer to swap out the router rather than looking at the link lights to discover an unplugged cable.
Etc...
A 10 cent LED can save $100 of IT support time. They're there for a reason.
And frankly, without them, most open-source projects would rapidly wither away: without an intellectual property behemoth like Microsoft to fight, what would be the point?
Maybe to produce truly good software, rather than just lie about doing so in your marketing, perhaps? The author seems not to understand that some people create things for the sheer beauty of it; more often than not, OS projects have nothing to do with Microsoft; in fact, if OS was out to "get Microsoft", it is doing a pretty poor job considering the level of skill which goes into most OS projects. If we wanted to "get Microsoft" we wouldn't be licensing our code with the GPL; instead, we'd use a restrictive license which would prevent someone from compiling the code on a Microsoft platform, or not supply the code at all.
While some open source contributors do have an anti-Microsoft bent, most open source projects go beyond mere competition with Microsoft. In fact, the roots of open source were growing before Microsoft was even a company; Richard Stallman was doing it in the sixties at the MIT AI lab. It wasn't called open source until someone needed a term to differentiate those who felt software should benefit everyone from those who believed only the priveledged few (i.e., rich) should be able to benefit.
I'm not against copyrights and patents, per se, though I do realize that the system has been, and continues to be abused by corporations. Those who create works should share in their successes and from their labor be able to earn a decent living. The problem is that while a reasonable person would overlook the occasional sharing of IP among friends, a corporation would not; nor would a corporation feel any pity for those who would use their software if they could afford it.
Perhaps things would be better if it were illegal for corporations to possess intellectual property. Or perhaps fair use should be extended to any purpose for which there is no commercial gain.
But creating and propping up an artificial property right is not the answer. It is just the closest thing we have at the moment.
Them: "Promiscuous behavior is immoral because it creates unintentional babies."
You: "But birth control ends that risk; therefore, there is no longer any basis for condemning promiscuous behavior. Your moral rule is obsolete."
Them: "Then to protect morality, we must ban birth control."
Ok, I'll bite. This is the most convoluted misunderstanding of morality I've seen yet on slashdot, and that's saying a lot.
The reason promiscuity is immoral is because it typically results in children growing up without fathers in the house, and the reasoning is that it is immoral to use a woman for sex without being willing to make a lifelong committment to the woman or assume the responsibilities of fatherhood.
The reason birth control is immoral is because it suppresses a woman's sexuality and her desire for children. It also gives rise to men using women strictly for sexual pleasure, without any intention of making a loving, lasting committment.
These kinds of prohibitions come about because men have this habit of fulfilling their carnal desires without thought of the impact on others. The prohibitions against promiscuity and birth control seek to balance the wants of men with the legitimate interests of women.
And quite frankly, sex without the possibility of children is boring. If you look at how birth control works - the two most popular methods either mask the feeling, or cause weight gain - you realize that it really does take something away from the experience.
They will find themselves the subject of more lawsuits than they can count. If it can be argued that they are within their rights to turn over information to the government for law enforcement purposes, then it can likewise be argued that they are responsible for *not* turning over information that would lead to the arrest of criminals. Imagine where one could go with this:
If the 911 terrorists used Verizon phones, it could be argued that Verizon knew about the plot and chose to do nothing about it. Remember, in civil cases, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Anyone who is victimized by a criminal who discussed the crime over the phone prior to committing it would have a good case against the phone company
If the above lawsuits were to be successful, it is likely that monitoring of our phone conversations would become a de facto practice for the phone company.
No matter how this goes, it doesn't look good for Verizon; if they lose, they'll end up paying quite a bit; if they win, they subject themselves to an even greater liability later on.
In many states, including Illinois, it is illegal for anyone other than law enforcement personnel to record someone's conversation without their consent. I wonder if the State of Illinois has a case against them...
It is more nuanced than merely being popular. What I'm getting at is that the correlation between the number of times a system is attacked and the number of times it is compromised is a factor of design, not popularity. It is not mere popularity that makes Windows the subject of more attacks, but rather that the attacker has a much higher expectation of success than with any other platform. Why would anyone attack Macs or Linux boxes when they can more easily obtain the low-hanging-fruit from a Windows box? Yes, popularity is a part of it, but the likelihood of success on the part of the attacker plays a more important role.
That Windows is less secure because it has more market share. Let's debunk this once and for all.
In the author's view, security is quantitative, much like soldiers on the battlefield. That is, ability to comprise a system is determined not by the design and implementation of the system, but by the number of people trying to compromise it. In his warped view of the world, even a computer turned off and left in storage is hackable if you have enough script kiddies trying to own it.
But we know better: the reason why Windows has more security vulnerabilities than Linux and Unix is because it was poorly designed. The reason why there are more exploits for these vulnerabilities is because Windows systems make an attractive target; they are easily compromised, and the type of user who is lax with security typically stores important information - such as SSN's and credit card numbers - in unencrypted form on their hard drive.
Now, granted, Mac, Linux and Unix systems have had security vulnerabilities in the past, and they probably have a few right now. But the fundamental difference between them is that at any one given time, there exist hundreds or thousands of exploits for every exploit available for a non-Windows system. Thus, a hacker is pretty much gauranteed that he can compromise a Windows machine, because even fully patched Windows machines have hundreds or thousands of yet-to-be-discovered vulnerabilities. Contrast this with a Linux box, where even unpatched machines typically possess no more than a handful of weaknesses. Because Windows is so poorly designed, it is a virtual certainty that it can be compromised.
And that is why it is attacked. It is not because of its popularity.
Apparently, the Senator is Tom Coburn, who apparently objected on the grounds that a loophole would allow genetic information obtained from fetuses. That is, genetic discrimination would still be legal if the source of the information was acquired from prenatal lab tests.
There has arisen this notion that sexual activity is a requirement for health. As/. can attest, nothing is further from the truth. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most reading this post don't have regular sexual activity, and are healthy nonetheless. While I'm saying this half-joking, there is an element of truth that needs to be discussed.
Why is it that we can train a young child to control their bowel movements, yet expecting an adult to control their sexuality is somehow considered oppressive? If a child can learn to defer bowel movement until the appropriate time and place, why can't an adult defer their sexuality until an appropriate time and place? Or is it too much to expect an adult to have full control over their own body?
People can learn self-control. The fact that self-control of one's own sexuality is considered somehow repressive is indicative of a lax and selfish attitude with respect to others. Sex deeply affects people emotionally, spiritually, and (surprise!) physically. To reduce it to a mere matter of personal health is ignorant of the fact that it is much more than a mere physical release. It is not merely as simple as relieving a physical urge - if it was, NASA would just tell the astronauts to masturbate and leave it at that.
If we can require an astronaut go through extensive training so that they can cope with the effects of zero gravity for months at a time, why wouldn't we likewise train them to maintain control over their sexual urges under the same circumstances?
Really, I don't have much faith in an astronaut to do his or her job under duress if they can't even learn to control their own body.
In public debate, transparency and freedom of speech are paramount to maintaining the security of our liberties. Free speech is a crucial aspect of ensuring that a free society remains free.
But on the battlefield, the public debate has already ended. The security of society and its liberties is dependent upon the ability of military to do their job, and this requires that many things be kept secret from the enemy.
When I was in the military, all of us understood that an unrestricted flow of information to the public was a Bad Thing(TM). Speech has consequences, and updating the reg to include email and blogs is to be expected. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it took so long.
Most soldiers will tell you this is a matter of common sense. When I was in, we had only occasional access to email, and even then it was understood that we shouldn't put anything in an email which could be used against us or the Army.
Motorola's CEO said basically the same thing: it's a niche product, and it doesn't have the backing of the major carriers.
That's really not the point. Jobs could care less how many of them sell - he's more concerned with testing out the market for unencumbered phones, and hoping that he can create a new market for phones.
The iPhone is dangerous and disruptive in this respect. If consumers can grow a pair and tell the cellphone companies they'd rather have an unencumbered, standards-based service than a proprietary, locked in, shaft-the-consumer service, then we will see real positive change in the cellphone industry.
Jobs can do this. Ballmer can't. And that is what scares him and everyone else at Microsoft.
Maybe it will become another Newton. But it doesn't matter, because Apple can afford the risk, and they stand a fortune to gain by being the first in the unencumbered phone services market.
If any virus-infested machine can take down your network by merely connecting to it, you obviously don't own your network. You just think you do.
Ok, it's trollish, I'll admit, but I'm disgusted with network admins that push the responsibility for their network back onto the users. I'm a professional engineer, and people expect my stuff to work, even under adverse circumstances. Is it too much to ask the same of a network admin?
It doesn't show that you are smart. Rather, just that you are not dumb.
It shows that you can tolerate BS for a considerable length of time.
It shows you can work with eccentric and sometimes assinine people.
It shows you can learn how to work the system.
It shows you have the perseverance to stick with something long enough to finish it.
It shows you have the capability to learn new things. So what if your classes don't apply to the real world - at least you've demonstrated the capability to learn how the real world works.
It shows that you take initiative to get things done, and can tackle challenges beyond your immediate ability to solve.
It shows you can work independently, without immediate supervision.
The reason employers like college degrees is not merely because it shows the candidate's intellectual ability. The college experience happens to filter out those people who would not be well-suited to a desk job, where you have to take initiative to get things done, to work without supervision, and keep yourself current in the discipline.
No, the original article is pointing out that artists who want to distribute their music on terms other than the compulsory license model are finding that they can't. Instead, this entity is collecting royalties on their behalf regardless of whether or not they want those royalties collected.
Now, there are two problems with this model:
Someone well established and good may feel that SoundExchange is licensing their music for less than its actual value, and
Someone just getting started might not want royalties charged on their music because they want to reach the widest possible audience. The problem with these compulsory royalties is that if a venue owner is getting charged $X for every song, they're only going to play the songs which are most popular. However, if they can pay $Y less by going with an independent artist, they might do just that. But the compulsory licensing authority of SoundExchange doesn't give the independent, up-and-coming artist the chance to negotiate down the price to something reasonable for his/her level of appeal. Instead, the compulsory $X charge shuts them out of the market.
Even with the compulsory licensing model, the fact that SoundExchange effectively prevents artists from collecting royalties for their own work is unfair. Sure, an artist could negotiate independently, but:
Who would pay both the artist and SoundExchange, and
Why would anyone pay the artist more than SoundExchange is asking when they can just pay the SoundExchange royalty alone?
I understand the compulsory licensing model, but what isn't mentioned is why SoundExchange can collect royalties for artists which aren't even members, and for songs which might legally be in the public domain. As others have mentioned, venue owners have to pay SoundExchange regardless of whether or not copyrighted songs are actually played in the venue.
From what I gather, the breach occurred on his own computer!? Since when does keeping your own computer private from the intrusive eyes of others count as a computer crime?
Essentially, what the university is asking for is the root password to your own machine, in exchange for network access. I think I'd rather do without the university network if I had to run snoopware.
And on what ethical principle does the university believe they have a right to own a machine for which they haven't paid? I can understand they are trying to combat network problems caused by viruses, but the correct response is not to install spyware, but rather simply to cut off the network connections of those machines infected. They have no right to install backdoors on machines they don't own.
And even so, he doesn't deserve to be punished for effectively taking control over his own machine. It belongs to him, not the university!
I would argue just the opposite - that without reference to the supernatural, the commonly accepted definition of what constitutes good and evil is bent toward a definition favorable to whomever is in power. The interesting thing about appeal to the supernatural is that it serves as a natural buffer against undue influence.
But the reason I say I have a unique perspective of evil because I am Christian is because I have received an extensive education in such, at least compared to an unbeliever. This is not to say that an atheist can't understand evil, but that an understanding of evil is the prelude to theism. If God doesn't exist, his will couldn't exist, which means that nothing that exists could be contrary to His non-existent will. Hence, as an atheist you would probably be in the minority if you believe in the existence of evil, or at least you are using a different definition.
I'm not going to get into the whole good-vs-evil bit here, but I would add that it does shed light on why things happen. You mention a bunch of relatively short periods of history for which evil left a black mark on religion. However, I'm able to see this as an indication that even good people can be led astray, and consider it a warning rather than an indictment of religion. I say this because I have seen the overwhelming good that has come from religion (specifically Christianity). Being a Christian, I am involved in charity work and good deeds which go largely unnoticed by the media and the historians. And really, if you look at the history of the last millenium, even when Christians have gone astray, the cumulative total of deaths attributed to them is less than that of legalized abortion.
Slashdot Mirror
why people are still winning to pay for (or pirate) an operating system..
Ok, Windows doesn't really come with a spell checker. But Microsoft Office does, and people think that if they use Linux, they'll end up sounding like some hacker-type...
While I said it in jest, I think there's a point to be made. People tend to use the operating systems that best suit them (or from another perspective: that they deserve). Linux users and Windows users have different needs. Surprise, yawn.
It would be more constructive to talk about how Linux users can improve the experience for Windows users. I know of quite a few people who hate computers altogether because of their experience with Windows, and, tragically, because of this, are unwilling to try anything different because they fear it will be more of the same.
Copy even Microsoft's mistakes?
I mean, really. We've known about macro viruses for 20 years, and the danger of putting executable code in documents for about the same, and yet, in 2007, an open-source application, backed by a major UNIX vendor is released with this vulnerability?
Apparently many eyes do not make bugs shallow. I guess the community was asleep at the switch. Or maybe, something in the process is broken. Or maybe Sun just doesn't care.
Now, lest you think this a troll, consider: Security and virus immunity have been a big selling point for open source systems. Until now. Sun is a large player in the open source arena, and this makes everyone else - secure or not - look bad. Security was the major selling point for OO, and now that it's questionable, I'm not sure where Sun is going to go with this: they can't compete with Microsoft on features, OO is far from a universal standard (which means you're going to be plagued with interoperability issues), and OO's last major selling point is that it is free as in beer.
Okay, there are open source religious zealots. Just like the proprietary-software zealots. But neither is representative of the mainstream of users in either category.
What particularly irritates me is the suggestion that because a company has some open source offerings, that they've given up on their proprietary business. It is more likely that said business is simply attempting to capitalize on the open-source movement. It gives them an additional revenue stream where none existed before.
Furthermore, it doesn't seem prudent to me that any company would ignore open source. If your customers are going to be using open source software anyway, you might as well get something out of it.
And this whole open vs. closed debate is likewise pointless. In most businesses, software is chosen for a given task based not on the licensing model, but on how well it meets the particular needs of the business. If you look at the state of office software or multimedia integration on Linux, it's not difficult to understand why most businesses and home users pick Windows. If you look at the security and reliability of Linux, it's not hard to understand why businesses use it for file and print and web serving.
In the end, it comes down to a question of utility. Sure, a distinct minority - those of us who are computer saavy - can take the high road and pick software based on the license terms. But for most people, choosing software is a matter of getting a particular job done, and they could care less about the licensing terms. In the end, people often pick software for its strengths, not its weaknesses. I see no reason why pundits find this so difficult to understand.
It is better to leave when you see it coming, than wait for the disaster to happen and be blamed for it afterward.
Granted, it might be difficult, but usually, you have a few months before a problem turns into a reality. I have left jobs in the past because of unethical behavior on the employer's part, but believe me, it was for the better. Not only did I get a better paying job with better benefits, I no longer got that sinking feeling when management asked me to do what I felt was wrong.
Because they want the bomb to go off as the President approaches, when the cameras are trained on him - not afterward. The idea is that it would blow up close enough for him and the world to see on TV, yet far enough away that it doesn't pose any significant risk to the President. That way, they get the best of both worlds - protection for the President, and another bargaining chip for escalating the "War on Terror".
Kind of like me sharing your house with others for a weekend party while you're away? After all, if I do it often enough, you might just get a reputation for being cool, and benefit by having some cool friends, right? I'm promoting you by sharing your house with others - you should thank me, right?! Even if you don't want your house shared, it's alright because you'll obtain some later benefit from it.
It's not sharing if it doesn't belong to you. And it isn't that noble of you to shift the cost of your sharing back to the artist, who can least afford it. You can rationalize it by calling it promotion, but - at least to some degree - you are destroying the market for a given artist's work. If you really wanted to promote the *good* bands, you'd buy their music so that they would have the money to pay hosting fees, etc... so they could reach a wider audience. There is a large moral difference between you sharing what you have created with the world, and sharing something created by someone else, against their wishes.
What good does popularity do the artist if they can't make a living?
When the victim is an RIAA or MPAA member company?
Or is that mere copyright infringement?
There's this interesting cognitive dissonance when it comes to copyright infringement. When the little guy (or gal) gets ripped off, it's called stealing; but when a large company gets ripped off, it's called sharing.
Maybe, just maybe, we need a better model for understanding the interests of consumers and artists alike. It seems that in the digital age, the copyright model doesn't do a very good job of protecting the interests of either the artist or the consumer.
The more they stay the same.
For those who don't know, delay line memories have been around for at least 50 years...
Kind of interesting that they are using an old concept with new technologies.
Linux used to infringe on 235 patents...
I suppose that by the time you read this, it will be 230 patents...
225...
219...
Microsoft knows that as soon as they are forced to reveal exactly which patents Linux infringes, Linux won't infringe on them any more.
I used to think Linux would perpetually remain on the fringes of larger society, but these recent events suggest that Microsoft sees it as a very real threat to their operating system monopoly. I'm thinking that Microsoft is going to have to reinvent itself to remain competitive.
Until his computer doesn't work.
Or until his monitor disappears because IT thinks it isn't being used and decides to "recycle" it.
Sure, I can understand his sentiments, but the lights come in handy when it comes to troubleshooting. Just try removing the lights from every computer gadget:
- Let's watch you crawl under the desk every time your computer freezes because you can't tell the difference between an unplugged keyboard or mouse and Windows just being slow.
- Is that PC off, or is the monitor in sleep mode? Why don't you hit the power switch to be sure?
- When I have network problems, I always prefer to swap out the router rather than looking at the link lights to discover an unplugged cable.
Etc...A 10 cent LED can save $100 of IT support time. They're there for a reason.
And frankly, without them, most open-source projects would rapidly wither away: without an intellectual property behemoth like Microsoft to fight, what would be the point?
Maybe to produce truly good software, rather than just lie about doing so in your marketing, perhaps? The author seems not to understand that some people create things for the sheer beauty of it; more often than not, OS projects have nothing to do with Microsoft; in fact, if OS was out to "get Microsoft", it is doing a pretty poor job considering the level of skill which goes into most OS projects. If we wanted to "get Microsoft" we wouldn't be licensing our code with the GPL; instead, we'd use a restrictive license which would prevent someone from compiling the code on a Microsoft platform, or not supply the code at all.
While some open source contributors do have an anti-Microsoft bent, most open source projects go beyond mere competition with Microsoft. In fact, the roots of open source were growing before Microsoft was even a company; Richard Stallman was doing it in the sixties at the MIT AI lab. It wasn't called open source until someone needed a term to differentiate those who felt software should benefit everyone from those who believed only the priveledged few (i.e., rich) should be able to benefit.
I'm not against copyrights and patents, per se, though I do realize that the system has been, and continues to be abused by corporations. Those who create works should share in their successes and from their labor be able to earn a decent living. The problem is that while a reasonable person would overlook the occasional sharing of IP among friends, a corporation would not; nor would a corporation feel any pity for those who would use their software if they could afford it.
Perhaps things would be better if it were illegal for corporations to possess intellectual property. Or perhaps fair use should be extended to any purpose for which there is no commercial gain.
But creating and propping up an artificial property right is not the answer. It is just the closest thing we have at the moment.
Them: "Promiscuous behavior is immoral because it creates unintentional babies."
You: "But birth control ends that risk; therefore, there is no longer any basis for condemning promiscuous behavior. Your moral rule is obsolete."
Them: "Then to protect morality, we must ban birth control."
Ok, I'll bite. This is the most convoluted misunderstanding of morality I've seen yet on slashdot, and that's saying a lot.
The reason promiscuity is immoral is because it typically results in children growing up without fathers in the house, and the reasoning is that it is immoral to use a woman for sex without being willing to make a lifelong committment to the woman or assume the responsibilities of fatherhood.
The reason birth control is immoral is because it suppresses a woman's sexuality and her desire for children. It also gives rise to men using women strictly for sexual pleasure, without any intention of making a loving, lasting committment.
These kinds of prohibitions come about because men have this habit of fulfilling their carnal desires without thought of the impact on others. The prohibitions against promiscuity and birth control seek to balance the wants of men with the legitimate interests of women.
And quite frankly, sex without the possibility of children is boring. If you look at how birth control works - the two most popular methods either mask the feeling, or cause weight gain - you realize that it really does take something away from the experience.
They will find themselves the subject of more lawsuits than they can count. If it can be argued that they are within their rights to turn over information to the government for law enforcement purposes, then it can likewise be argued that they are responsible for *not* turning over information that would lead to the arrest of criminals. Imagine where one could go with this:
No matter how this goes, it doesn't look good for Verizon; if they lose, they'll end up paying quite a bit; if they win, they subject themselves to an even greater liability later on.
In many states, including Illinois, it is illegal for anyone other than law enforcement personnel to record someone's conversation without their consent. I wonder if the State of Illinois has a case against them...
It is more nuanced than merely being popular. What I'm getting at is that the correlation between the number of times a system is attacked and the number of times it is compromised is a factor of design, not popularity. It is not mere popularity that makes Windows the subject of more attacks, but rather that the attacker has a much higher expectation of success than with any other platform. Why would anyone attack Macs or Linux boxes when they can more easily obtain the low-hanging-fruit from a Windows box? Yes, popularity is a part of it, but the likelihood of success on the part of the attacker plays a more important role.
That Windows is less secure because it has more market share. Let's debunk this once and for all.
In the author's view, security is quantitative, much like soldiers on the battlefield. That is, ability to comprise a system is determined not by the design and implementation of the system, but by the number of people trying to compromise it. In his warped view of the world, even a computer turned off and left in storage is hackable if you have enough script kiddies trying to own it.
But we know better: the reason why Windows has more security vulnerabilities than Linux and Unix is because it was poorly designed. The reason why there are more exploits for these vulnerabilities is because Windows systems make an attractive target; they are easily compromised, and the type of user who is lax with security typically stores important information - such as SSN's and credit card numbers - in unencrypted form on their hard drive.
Now, granted, Mac, Linux and Unix systems have had security vulnerabilities in the past, and they probably have a few right now. But the fundamental difference between them is that at any one given time, there exist hundreds or thousands of exploits for every exploit available for a non-Windows system. Thus, a hacker is pretty much gauranteed that he can compromise a Windows machine, because even fully patched Windows machines have hundreds or thousands of yet-to-be-discovered vulnerabilities. Contrast this with a Linux box, where even unpatched machines typically possess no more than a handful of weaknesses. Because Windows is so poorly designed, it is a virtual certainty that it can be compromised.
And that is why it is attacked. It is not because of its popularity.
Apparently, the Senator is Tom Coburn, who apparently objected on the grounds that a loophole would allow genetic information obtained from fetuses. That is, genetic discrimination would still be legal if the source of the information was acquired from prenatal lab tests.
I would never turn them in...
I'm guessing that this is why they asked you. Maybe you should rethink your loyalties...
There has arisen this notion that sexual activity is a requirement for health. As /. can attest, nothing is further from the truth. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most reading this post don't have regular sexual activity, and are healthy nonetheless. While I'm saying this half-joking, there is an element of truth that needs to be discussed.
Why is it that we can train a young child to control their bowel movements, yet expecting an adult to control their sexuality is somehow considered oppressive? If a child can learn to defer bowel movement until the appropriate time and place, why can't an adult defer their sexuality until an appropriate time and place? Or is it too much to expect an adult to have full control over their own body?
People can learn self-control. The fact that self-control of one's own sexuality is considered somehow repressive is indicative of a lax and selfish attitude with respect to others. Sex deeply affects people emotionally, spiritually, and (surprise!) physically. To reduce it to a mere matter of personal health is ignorant of the fact that it is much more than a mere physical release. It is not merely as simple as relieving a physical urge - if it was, NASA would just tell the astronauts to masturbate and leave it at that.
If we can require an astronaut go through extensive training so that they can cope with the effects of zero gravity for months at a time, why wouldn't we likewise train them to maintain control over their sexual urges under the same circumstances?
Really, I don't have much faith in an astronaut to do his or her job under duress if they can't even learn to control their own body.
In public debate, transparency and freedom of speech are paramount to maintaining the security of our liberties. Free speech is a crucial aspect of ensuring that a free society remains free.
But on the battlefield, the public debate has already ended. The security of society and its liberties is dependent upon the ability of military to do their job, and this requires that many things be kept secret from the enemy.
When I was in the military, all of us understood that an unrestricted flow of information to the public was a Bad Thing(TM). Speech has consequences, and updating the reg to include email and blogs is to be expected. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it took so long.
Most soldiers will tell you this is a matter of common sense. When I was in, we had only occasional access to email, and even then it was understood that we shouldn't put anything in an email which could be used against us or the Army.
Motorola's CEO said basically the same thing: it's a niche product, and it doesn't have the backing of the major carriers.
That's really not the point. Jobs could care less how many of them sell - he's more concerned with testing out the market for unencumbered phones, and hoping that he can create a new market for phones.
The iPhone is dangerous and disruptive in this respect. If consumers can grow a pair and tell the cellphone companies they'd rather have an unencumbered, standards-based service than a proprietary, locked in, shaft-the-consumer service, then we will see real positive change in the cellphone industry.
Jobs can do this. Ballmer can't. And that is what scares him and everyone else at Microsoft.
Maybe it will become another Newton. But it doesn't matter, because Apple can afford the risk, and they stand a fortune to gain by being the first in the unencumbered phone services market.
If any virus-infested machine can take down your network by merely connecting to it, you obviously don't own your network. You just think you do.
Ok, it's trollish, I'll admit, but I'm disgusted with network admins that push the responsibility for their network back onto the users. I'm a professional engineer, and people expect my stuff to work, even under adverse circumstances. Is it too much to ask the same of a network admin?
What a college degree shows:
The reason employers like college degrees is not merely because it shows the candidate's intellectual ability. The college experience happens to filter out those people who would not be well-suited to a desk job, where you have to take initiative to get things done, to work without supervision, and keep yourself current in the discipline.
No, the original article is pointing out that artists who want to distribute their music on terms other than the compulsory license model are finding that they can't. Instead, this entity is collecting royalties on their behalf regardless of whether or not they want those royalties collected.
Now, there are two problems with this model:
Even with the compulsory licensing model, the fact that SoundExchange effectively prevents artists from collecting royalties for their own work is unfair. Sure, an artist could negotiate independently, but:
I understand the compulsory licensing model, but what isn't mentioned is why SoundExchange can collect royalties for artists which aren't even members, and for songs which might legally be in the public domain. As others have mentioned, venue owners have to pay SoundExchange regardless of whether or not copyrighted songs are actually played in the venue.
From what I gather, the breach occurred on his own computer!? Since when does keeping your own computer private from the intrusive eyes of others count as a computer crime?
Essentially, what the university is asking for is the root password to your own machine, in exchange for network access. I think I'd rather do without the university network if I had to run snoopware.
And on what ethical principle does the university believe they have a right to own a machine for which they haven't paid? I can understand they are trying to combat network problems caused by viruses, but the correct response is not to install spyware, but rather simply to cut off the network connections of those machines infected. They have no right to install backdoors on machines they don't own.
And even so, he doesn't deserve to be punished for effectively taking control over his own machine. It belongs to him, not the university!
I would argue just the opposite - that without reference to the supernatural, the commonly accepted definition of what constitutes good and evil is bent toward a definition favorable to whomever is in power. The interesting thing about appeal to the supernatural is that it serves as a natural buffer against undue influence.
But the reason I say I have a unique perspective of evil because I am Christian is because I have received an extensive education in such, at least compared to an unbeliever. This is not to say that an atheist can't understand evil, but that an understanding of evil is the prelude to theism. If God doesn't exist, his will couldn't exist, which means that nothing that exists could be contrary to His non-existent will. Hence, as an atheist you would probably be in the minority if you believe in the existence of evil, or at least you are using a different definition.
I'm not going to get into the whole good-vs-evil bit here, but I would add that it does shed light on why things happen. You mention a bunch of relatively short periods of history for which evil left a black mark on religion. However, I'm able to see this as an indication that even good people can be led astray, and consider it a warning rather than an indictment of religion. I say this because I have seen the overwhelming good that has come from religion (specifically Christianity). Being a Christian, I am involved in charity work and good deeds which go largely unnoticed by the media and the historians. And really, if you look at the history of the last millenium, even when Christians have gone astray, the cumulative total of deaths attributed to them is less than that of legalized abortion.