If my understanding of the American school system is correct, then that would probably be the only form of sex education a lot of American kids get (notwithstanding the pro-abstinence education).
I think the point is that if a child is intelligent enough to know why censorware is setup, and how to disable it, then they already know the dangers out there. Knowledge can be a powerful tool.
Also, it's more a matter of knowing your children, than it is about monitoring them 24/7.
The simplest solutions are the easiest to understand. Take a complex problem and start giving your average human being the thousands of variables involved, and explain to them the weight and statistical significance of each of those variables, and they will not be able or willing to try to understand. Even worse, they will more than likely label you as a freak. Give them a simple hard-nosed emotional solution, and they get an immediate neuro-chemical response, their adrenalin rises; it is like a cocaine rush, it is positive reenforcement. Politicians understand this, and they exploit this. They understand this not through the study of psychology, they understand this intuitively.
Unfortunately there are no educational pre-requesites for being a politician. There are only economic pre-requisites. No IQ test necessary. It is an inherent fault of the democratic system, as it is structured at the present time.
I always envisioned DRM as a technology that people will get used to. Make it ubiquitous, and people will take it for granted. That is why the RIAA and others are trying to introduce DRM concepts into early childhood classrooms, so that people grow up thinking that it is normal.
I can agree there would appear to be an amount of hypocrisy here.
A distinction should be made between what is real and what is communicated. Smoking marijuana may be illegal for example, but talking about smoking marijuana should not be illegal. In fact censoring this discussion would just make it more difficult for law enforcement to catch people. The same with breaking any other law, if you force the discussion underground, then it becomes harder to control, and more difficult to understand the sub-culture or personality types that get involved in unlawful or deviant activities. With respect to law enforcement, they would be breaking Sun Tzu's maxim of "know thy enemy". Censorship is happening to a large degree in many Western countries with regards to sex, drugs, gambling, terrorism, and so-called "hate" crimes (I have yet to understand how governments think they can control an emotion). People in the West should not be preaching to other countries about censorship until they stop censoring their own people. Unless they stop this hypocrisy, then their arguments are meaningless.
I wouldn't consider myself an expert on any OS. However, the author is implying that Vista is insecure and Linux is not. Just a few of Vista's security features are:
- Windows Resource Protection - Windows Integrity Control - User Interface Process Isolation - User Interface Privilege Isolation - User Account Control - Patch Guard - Mandatory Integrity Controls - Filter Manager - File System Filter - Address Space Layout Randomization
Yes some people complain about too many UAC prompts. People need to realize that this is very much a new operating system that has been designed to be backward compatible with as many applications as possible. It was also designed for security. Applications that are specifically designed for Vista should have little or no UAC prompts.
The main problem with Vista is driver and codec support. This happens to be the same problem with Linux, though it has gotten better over the years. His experiences with 2000 and XP are irrelevant. I'm not an M$ fanboy, but I do try to stay informed. Verifiable facts are very important to me. I'm dubious as to his experiences with Vista.
The article does read like FUD to me. The author seems to have a lot of experience with Ubuntu, and very little with Vista, and yet is making a lot of bold claims against Vista. He stating Windows is full of vulnerabilities, and Linux is not. It would be better if he actually backed up his claims with some facts and statistics.
And I now hear that Windows Vista renames the partition it's installed on what used to be the C: partition. I need to check out this story but the very idea of automatic partition renaming is insane to even contemplate.
Vista does not rename the Partition per se, it reads the partition that Vista is installed on as the "C:" partition, however if you boot into another OS (like XP), then XP will be treated as the C: partition. It will change drive letter assignments around, but they are easy enough to re-configure in Disk Management. It will not change the way your other OS's view the hard drive lettering.
The really irritating part is that Vista won't let you access any existing drives, depending on what type of security settings they already have (if I understand this correctly). You will need to "take ownership" of the drives, which means giving yourself (Vista) access to the drives. This could take a long time depending on how large the drives are and how many drives you have.
You need javascript enabled for NoScript to work (assuming you want to be able to allow javascript on at least some sites (which seems to be the basic idea behind NoScript). Just having javascript disabled should help with most traditional annoyances (like pop-ups).
Ok, perhaps this is a better example. A person with an MBA credential and who has experience being the President of the United States of America, may not necessarily be competent or trustworthy, although that same person would meet Mr. Sanger's qualifications of having both experience and credentials.
Please excuse my biases, but I think you get my point.
Credentials aren't bad, but they are highly over-rated, and credentials do absolutely nothing for proving honesty, or to a lesser degree competence.
As somebody who has gone to school for much of my life I have caught professors saying things that just weren't true. I know, because I'm the type of person who always asks questions, and I often double-check things. My skepticism has often found people saying things that just aren't true.
There are people who spend their time chasing grades and credentials, and there are people who just have a passion for learning and knowledge. I see too much arrogance in the former.
One of the solutions Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger suggests is using "credentialed" experts who have college degrees or an institutional email address. This not only smacks of arrogance, it is completely fallacious. It is like suggesting that a person with a drivers license is a good driver.
This process also effectively eliminates the diligent amateur who may very well have good very good methodologies of investigation.
Expertise can be got by many methods. Certifications merely prove that you paid the price, and passed the tests. After that it's all tenure.
That reminds me of the "Export Controls" portion of an employee handbook I have from a company I once worked for.
To quote:
This is includes exports of technology (which includes sending an employee overseas who has possession, either in paper, on his or her computer, or in his or her mind)...
It is different however. In your analogy the copy would more accurately be a cover song, rather than a transcription.
One could ask oneself: If I hear a song, and I transcribe it for my own personal use, is that fair (or legal)? If I then post by transcription on the Internet, is that fair or legal?
It seems obvious to me that songs were written to be heard and not read. It also appears to me that this is just another example of artists and record labels just trying to get as much marginal value out of a product as possible.
Yes there are obviously political motives involved. But as others here have already pointed out, companies should know by now the spirit of the FSF, and any software that uses its licenses. The licensing has evolved over the years, and continues to evolve. People should expect that. I don't see this as a bait-and-switch here. I am sure Tivo and others will adapt. It will cost them, but they will adapt.
If using freely obtained software (with the associated licenses) is hurting their business, then they should just start spending some money hiring developers and making their own fully proprietary software. You can't have your free beer and drink it too.
It's not a question of hiding. It's a question of respect. It's pretty sad that people still ask these questions. I find most people however to be hypocrites when it really comes down to it.
a) You are assuming I let myself be photographed - I have been unwillingly photographed in public many times. Aside from breaking the law and taking the photographer's camera away, there is not much I can do about. And let's face, it's not in anybody's self interest to make ones' self look like an anti-social deviant. - I have been photographed at work. I suppose I could tell my boss to fuck off, but really I do need a job - I have been photographed while sleeping. Not much I can do if I'm unconscious.
Of course if somebody put these photos of me on Flickr with my name on it, I would not expect any privacy. The question is irrelevant.
b) You are assuming you have the right to privacy in a public place If you walk down the street there are social expectations of privacy. Of course there may or may not be legal expectations of privacy. There have been instances of people being arrested for taking pictures of children in public parks, so one could presume that society (or at least the police) consider that a privacy violation. Also, there have been people arrested for taking pictures of the police in the public. Of course these incidents are legally dubious (depends where you live of course), but it indicates that there is at least a social expectation of privacy.
The real issue is trying to legislate privacy, especially with something as ubiquitous as photography and the Internet. Laws generally seem to be better at punishing people than controlling them (just look at the drug laws, or even the laws on speeding). These laws are ineffectual (at STOPPING bad behavior), and so will any new laws dealing with spreading pictures over the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also why politicians have lobbyists.
If my understanding of the American school system is correct, then that would probably be the only form of sex education a lot of American kids get (notwithstanding the pro-abstinence education).
I think the point is that if a child is intelligent enough to know why censorware is setup, and how to disable it, then they already know the dangers out there. Knowledge can be a powerful tool.
Also, it's more a matter of knowing your children, than it is about monitoring them 24/7.
The simplest solutions are the easiest to understand. Take a complex problem and start giving your average human being the thousands of variables involved, and explain to them the weight and statistical significance of each of those variables, and they will not be able or willing to try to understand. Even worse, they will more than likely label you as a freak. Give them a simple hard-nosed emotional solution, and they get an immediate neuro-chemical response, their adrenalin rises; it is like a cocaine rush, it is positive reenforcement. Politicians understand this, and they exploit this. They understand this not through the study of psychology, they understand this intuitively.
Unfortunately there are no educational pre-requesites for being a politician. There are only economic pre-requisites. No IQ test necessary. It is an inherent fault of the democratic system, as it is structured at the present time.
I always envisioned DRM as a technology that people will get used to. Make it ubiquitous, and people will take it for granted. That is why the RIAA and others are trying to introduce DRM concepts into early childhood classrooms, so that people grow up thinking that it is normal.
North Korea is democratic republic; Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The US is a constitutional republic.
I can agree there would appear to be an amount of hypocrisy here.
A distinction should be made between what is real and what is communicated. Smoking marijuana may be illegal for example, but talking about smoking marijuana should not be illegal. In fact censoring this discussion would just make it more difficult for law enforcement to catch people. The same with breaking any other law, if you force the discussion underground, then it becomes harder to control, and more difficult to understand the sub-culture or personality types that get involved in unlawful or deviant activities. With respect to law enforcement, they would be breaking Sun Tzu's maxim of "know thy enemy". Censorship is happening to a large degree in many Western countries with regards to sex, drugs, gambling, terrorism, and so-called "hate" crimes (I have yet to understand how governments think they can control an emotion). People in the West should not be preaching to other countries about censorship until they stop censoring their own people. Unless they stop this hypocrisy, then their arguments are meaningless.
I wouldn't consider myself an expert on any OS. However, the author is implying that Vista is insecure and Linux is not. Just a few of Vista's security features are:
- Windows Resource Protection
- Windows Integrity Control
- User Interface Process Isolation
- User Interface Privilege Isolation
- User Account Control
- Patch Guard
- Mandatory Integrity Controls
- Filter Manager
- File System Filter
- Address Space Layout Randomization
Yes some people complain about too many UAC prompts. People need to realize that this is very much a new operating system that has been designed to be backward compatible with as many applications as possible. It was also designed for security. Applications that are specifically designed for Vista should have little or no UAC prompts.
The main problem with Vista is driver and codec support. This happens to be the same problem with Linux, though it has gotten better over the years. His experiences with 2000 and XP are irrelevant. I'm not an M$ fanboy, but I do try to stay informed. Verifiable facts are very important to me. I'm dubious as to his experiences with Vista.
The article does read like FUD to me. The author seems to have a lot of experience with Ubuntu, and very little with Vista, and yet is making a lot of bold claims against Vista. He stating Windows is full of vulnerabilities, and Linux is not. It would be better if he actually backed up his claims with some facts and statistics.
Vista does not rename the Partition per se, it reads the partition that Vista is installed on as the "C:" partition, however if you boot into another OS (like XP), then XP will be treated as the C: partition. It will change drive letter assignments around, but they are easy enough to re-configure in Disk Management. It will not change the way your other OS's view the hard drive lettering.
The really irritating part is that Vista won't let you access any existing drives, depending on what type of security settings they already have (if I understand this correctly). You will need to "take ownership" of the drives, which means giving yourself (Vista) access to the drives. This could take a long time depending on how large the drives are and how many drives you have.
Sorry, I re-read that... I thought you said "Disable javascript and install fx and the noscript extension"
You need javascript enabled for NoScript to work (assuming you want to be able to allow javascript on at least some sites (which seems to be the basic idea behind NoScript). Just having javascript disabled should help with most traditional annoyances (like pop-ups).
Let them say what they want. Words are not indecent.
Ok, perhaps this is a better example. A person with an MBA credential and who has experience being the President of the United States of America, may not necessarily be competent or trustworthy, although that same person would meet Mr. Sanger's qualifications of having both experience and credentials.
Please excuse my biases, but I think you get my point.
Credentials aren't bad, but they are highly over-rated, and credentials do absolutely nothing for proving honesty, or to a lesser degree competence.
As somebody who has gone to school for much of my life I have caught professors saying things that just weren't true. I know, because I'm the type of person who always asks questions, and I often double-check things. My skepticism has often found people saying things that just aren't true.
There are people who spend their time chasing grades and credentials, and there are people who just have a passion for learning and knowledge. I see too much arrogance in the former.
One of the solutions Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger suggests is using "credentialed" experts who have college degrees or an institutional email address. This not only smacks of arrogance, it is completely fallacious. It is like suggesting that a person with a drivers license is a good driver.
This process also effectively eliminates the diligent amateur who may very well have good very good methodologies of investigation.
Expertise can be got by many methods. Certifications merely prove that you paid the price, and passed the tests. After that it's all tenure.
To quote:
It is different however. In your analogy the copy would more accurately be a cover song, rather than a transcription.
One could ask oneself:
If I hear a song, and I transcribe it for my own personal use, is that fair (or legal)?
If I then post by transcription on the Internet, is that fair or legal?
It seems obvious to me that songs were written to be heard and not read.
It also appears to me that this is just another example of artists and record labels just trying to get as much marginal value out of a product as possible.
BTW, the phrase I used "You can't have your free beer and drink it too." is actually a pun on the term "have your cake and eat it too"
The "free beer" part is actually a reference to the way free software licenses are often described. "Gratis" is often referred to as "free as in beer.
The proverbial reference to the oft-maligned and under-rated Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
Not sure if you understood that. At any rate, I hope that helps out for anybody who may not "get it".
Yes there are obviously political motives involved. But as others here have already pointed out, companies should know by now the spirit of the FSF, and any software that uses its licenses. The licensing has evolved over the years, and continues to evolve. People should expect that. I don't see this as a bait-and-switch here. I am sure Tivo and others will adapt. It will cost them, but they will adapt.
t ion
"The original purpose of the FSF was to promote the ideals of free software." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Founda
I expect there licenses to adapt with the changing technological, economic and political environment as well.
If they don't like it, then don't use.
If using freely obtained software (with the associated licenses) is hurting their business, then they should just start spending some money hiring developers and making their own fully proprietary software. You can't have your free beer and drink it too.
Nice try, but your gmail account is just as anonymous as your slashdot account.
Oh... speaking of hypocrites... why do you not show your email, or use show your name? ... or your phone number for that matter?
It's not a question of hiding. It's a question of respect. It's pretty sad that people still ask these questions. I find most people however to be hypocrites when it really comes down to it.
You are making too many assumptions.
a) You are assuming I let myself be photographed
- I have been unwillingly photographed in public many times. Aside from breaking the law and taking the photographer's camera away, there is not much I can do about. And let's face, it's not in anybody's self interest to make ones' self look like an anti-social deviant.
- I have been photographed at work. I suppose I could tell my boss to fuck off, but really I do need a job
- I have been photographed while sleeping. Not much I can do if I'm unconscious.
Of course if somebody put these photos of me on Flickr with my name on it, I would not expect any privacy. The question is irrelevant.
b) You are assuming you have the right to privacy in a public place
If you walk down the street there are social expectations of privacy. Of course there may or may not be legal expectations of privacy. There have been instances of people being arrested for taking pictures of children in public parks, so one could presume that society (or at least the police) consider that a privacy violation. Also, there have been people arrested for taking pictures of the police in the public. Of course these incidents are legally dubious (depends where you live of course), but it indicates that there is at least a social expectation of privacy.
The real issue is trying to legislate privacy, especially with something as ubiquitous as photography and the Internet. Laws generally seem to be better at punishing people than controlling them (just look at the drug laws, or even the laws on speeding). These laws are ineffectual (at STOPPING bad behavior), and so will any new laws dealing with spreading pictures over the Internet.