"...just because they download software doesn't mean they are gonna do drugs and such."
Of course it does! I'm an extremely ethical person, and it's only when people hold me down and blow dope smoke in my face that I turn into a complete moral degenerate who simply cannot help but race to the nearest computer and begin compulsively downloading the latest drek from the Spice Girls or whatever.
...the two douche bags they used to have on staff who carried water for the Bush administration. They didn't fire those guys 'til just about every other media outlet in the world outed them and started poking fun at CNN. One used to report regularly on education, and how effective the "No Child Left Behind" bill was. Then somebody noticed he got a whole whack of money from Bush to do PR work on...you guessed it.
And then there was Bob Novak, about whom the less said the better. And I'm pretty sure there was somebody else who got caught taking money from people he was supposed to be providing disinterested commentary about, but the name escapes me. One thing's for sure. They have never had a military "expert" on regularly who said anything even mildly critical about the idiots at the Pentagon who seem to be doing such a good job of getting American soldiers unnecessarily killed and maimed.
It sounds to me like they dumped this guy because he actually seems to know what good journalism is about. On a network that was an unapologetic cheerleader for the Iraq invasion and regularly buries real news stories under an avalanche of shallow, horse-race-style political coverage and pixelized footage of some starlet's crotch, I guess this guy just wasn't a good fit.
The problem is that many people have a sloppy definition of charity. Basically, if there's strings attached, it isn't charity. It's self-promotion.
My favourite example of this is Ronald McDonald House. There's no doubt that the service they provide is absolutely vital; they give families of children undergoing cancer treatment a place to stay that's near the hospital.
No matter how vociferously they claim otherwise, though, they aren't really a charity in the true sense of the word. In fact, they're using the suffering and death of little children to remind everybody who hears the name what wonderful, generous corporate citizens they are.
Here's an example of real charity: Harold Ballard was the owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs in the 1908's. As a businessman, he was an old-fashioned, back-alley brawler who served time in jail for some crooked deals. As an owner, he was a hands-on, loud-mouthed, disaster who just loved to let the world know what a hard-hearted, miserable SOB he was at every opportunity.
What he didn't tell anybody, and was in fact at great pains to keep secret, is that he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Toronto charities, many of them devoted to needy children. To this day, there are lifelong residents of Toronto who are unaware that the guy was anything but a big-mouthed jackass who ruined their team.
I guess I pretty much do stay away from Bertelsmann, but it's as much about my listening/reading habits as by design. I generally steer clear of Columbia and RCA (which I believe they have a stake in), but I have to admit I'm not above getting the occasional CD out of the library.
I'll admit I'm generalizing here, but anybody who ever thought lawyers, judges and legislators were actually intelligent rather than just clever, plausible and glib need look no further than the way the courts have dealt with hardware and software matters. The smug, bone-deep ignorance is as blatantly obvious as an elephant's...um...trunk.
If you need further evidence, consider some of the laws that have been enacted or are under consideration as a result. You get the impression these people think a computer is some kind of magic fetish that actually produces results.
How is China going to surpass the U.S. or anybody else in an area of technology? You have to wait until something's been invented before you can steal it.
I'll still turn to Toshiba for relevant hardware needs. The company laptops are Toshiba, and they're solid, reliable machines.
And since Sony stuck that effing rootkit on their CD's, I decided I will never, ever voluntarily have anything to do with that company again for any reason. The last Sony hardware I saw was a kind of "all in one" stereo system some department store sold to my great aunt. All design, all plastic, no performance. For what she paid, it sucks. Too bad...they used to be the gold standard for affordable, reliable electronics.
Those answers certainly brought back memories! It's a large part of the reason why I decided to put Linux on the back burner 'til after XP finally dies.
I thought the problem was my stupid questions, then a buddy of mine who makes a lot of money by knowing a lot about software explained that my questions were reasonable. The people responding to them were assholes. They might even have known what they were doing...I never saw any proof one way or the other.
It's past time for the Linux community to do a little housecleaning. Maybe set up an area of the various community sites, newsgroups, etc. for newcomers and people who have the patience to deal with them. And kick the jerk-offs right out. It's what happens to them in real life, after all, and they're used to it.
In the end analysis, even if these pathetic little drama queens manage to make the occasional contribution to Linux development, having to put up with them isn't worth the hassle. Somebody else will come up with the same thing sooner rather than later, and without all the strutting and self-congratulation. As anybody who's ever held a real job in the real world knows, nobody is irreplaceable.
Let me put it this way: In spite of what arrives daily in my spam box, I am in no way ashamed of my masculine endowment. Furthermore, I can produce a list of females who will attest to my skill at putting it to use. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine allowing video evidence of my sex life to appear on the Internet. A quick visit to any of those "do it yourself" porn sites proves conclusively that there's no shortage of people who feel differently.
That's fine. There's no cops breaking down their doors and carting them off to jail. And I don't have to worry that somebody's going to put a gun to my head and force me to make a sex video. Both views can exist side by side, neither affecting the other.
This most emphatically is not the case with privacy. The lowest common denominator rules, and is enforced on everybody. If my service provider decides that every nosy cop who feels like it can legally check out my browsing habits, that's just too bad for me. The law allows it, and there's never been a police force yet that won't push the limits as far as they'll go, then a little bit farther.
All of a sudden, the argument about whether or not to publish your own porn video has changed. It becomes "there will be a camera in every bedroom, and somebody else will have the final say over whether or not you wind up being famous. Your wishes will be respected as far as possible."
Bottom line: When there is social protection of privacy, an individual can decide that he has no need for it and live his life that way. When society decides that privacy should not be protected, there is no "opting out".
Perhaps most pathetically ignorant of all are those people who say, "If you aren't doing something wrong, why should you care?" Here's why: One of the most fundamental building blocks of a free society is the presumption of innocence, and the ironclad rule that the state has no right to exercise coercion against a law-abiding citizen going about his daily life.
I'll buy Vista SP1 blowing up some poor bastard's computer and killing his dog, but sleeping with his wife? With or without the suggestively named "Service Pack", Vista is much too lame to bone a guy's wife.
It would be so busy phoning home to make sure sex with a real, live woman wasn't forbidden by Sony or some other DRM-Monster, wifey would be off banging XXXP Pro while Vista was still issuing safe download warnings.
(Sniff, sniff) "OK, who's cooking the pork roast?"
on
Australia's Geekiest Man
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Even without having met him, there's one thing I can tell you about this gentleman with absolute certainty: He does not number among his friends anybody with a warped sense of humour and knowledge of the term "induction field".
Your point is well-taken, but there's an important difference between Windows and Windows-like Linux. The latter is open source, so security holes and bugs are addressed rapidly and efficiently by a huge community that includes some of the best programmers in the world.
Microsoft, on the other hand, will pretend there's nothing wrong until somebody rubs their nose in the problem. At that point, they'll come up with some patch that only an idiot would install without waiting for a few days to see if the brave people who keep "Automatic Update" enabled die horribly when their PC blows up or something.
The allegation that this issue could bring down the Canadian government is pure, unadulterated bullshit. If Stephen Harper's minority government falls, it will be because that's what he wants. The other major party is in disarray, and Harper's Conservatives see a chance to go after a majority.
On top of that, the economy is showing signs of following the U.S. economy into the toilet, and Canadians are getting as sick of the way Harper kisses Bush's ass as the American people are of Bush himself. And there are some pretty ugly questions being asked about the government's conduct of our involvement in Afghanistan. The Tories sense that they may never be more popular than they are right now, so they're trying to turn every vote short of a decision on who buys the coffee into a confidence motion.
Like, Nash and Allchin, like how long have they been, like, on this Linux Apple fanboy site? Like, all you guys ever do is spread, like, FUD about Microsoft products. Like, you suck, man. Really. Get a clue, man. You guys just hate Microsoft and your crappy operating systems just, like, suck which is why those guys didn't really say any of that stuff about Vista, like, sucking. Vista rocks, man.
Facebook pulls this crap because they know most people are too lazy, stupid and/or indifferent to give a crap about what happens to their personal information. Those same people will be the first to whine about how unfair it is if they win a lottery and somebody tracks down their relatives and holds a child for ransom.
It's not particularly well-known, but prior to World War II there were a significant number of people in England who were actually sympathetic to the Nazi cause. I guess the bastards must have produced offspring, because this story makes it pretty clear the mind-set is alive and well, and carried on by English legislators.
I'll try to make this simple for you. WHATEVER the product, when I've bought and paid for it, it becomes my property. Mine. Period. I don't want it trying to sell me something or phone home with my personal information or chat with its buddies. I expect it to do as it's told. If Microsoft or anybody else wants to push their own agenda at me, they can try renting or leasing their product.
Ah, a Left Coaster, I'm guessing. I have friends and relatives out there. Pale, stoned people who seem to have a lot more fun than me.
This does seem to offer some promise. It would take quite a while, I'm thinking, to slow the planet's rotation by making use of the kinetic energy of raindrops.
And I don't doubt you'd have beaten me to the post if I hadn't noticed just last night how nice it was to have worn waterproof winter boots to the pub.
If the prof is a real scientist, his reaction is completely appropriate. Did he say anything about buying the idea that it's perpetual motion?
Sorry, but a jackass is someone who would dismiss an observed phenomenon out-of-hand without attempting to discover what's really going on. Remind you of anybody you saw in the mirror this morning?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it does! I'm an extremely ethical person, and it's only when people hold me down and blow dope smoke in my face that I turn into a complete moral degenerate who simply cannot help but race to the nearest computer and begin compulsively downloading the latest drek from the Spice Girls or whatever.
Help me. Please.
"Reefer Madness" for a new generation.
And then there was Bob Novak, about whom the less said the better. And I'm pretty sure there was somebody else who got caught taking money from people he was supposed to be providing disinterested commentary about, but the name escapes me. One thing's for sure. They have never had a military "expert" on regularly who said anything even mildly critical about the idiots at the Pentagon who seem to be doing such a good job of getting American soldiers unnecessarily killed and maimed.
It sounds to me like they dumped this guy because he actually seems to know what good journalism is about. On a network that was an unapologetic cheerleader for the Iraq invasion and regularly buries real news stories under an avalanche of shallow, horse-race-style political coverage and pixelized footage of some starlet's crotch, I guess this guy just wasn't a good fit.
Sorry, that's 1980's, not 1908's.
The problem is that many people have a sloppy definition of charity. Basically, if there's strings attached, it isn't charity. It's self-promotion.
My favourite example of this is Ronald McDonald House. There's no doubt that the service they provide is absolutely vital; they give families of children undergoing cancer treatment a place to stay that's near the hospital.
No matter how vociferously they claim otherwise, though, they aren't really a charity in the true sense of the word. In fact, they're using the suffering and death of little children to remind everybody who hears the name what wonderful, generous corporate citizens they are.
Here's an example of real charity: Harold Ballard was the owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs in the 1908's. As a businessman, he was an old-fashioned, back-alley brawler who served time in jail for some crooked deals. As an owner, he was a hands-on, loud-mouthed, disaster who just loved to let the world know what a hard-hearted, miserable SOB he was at every opportunity.
What he didn't tell anybody, and was in fact at great pains to keep secret, is that he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Toronto charities, many of them devoted to needy children. To this day, there are lifelong residents of Toronto who are unaware that the guy was anything but a big-mouthed jackass who ruined their team.
That's charity.
I guess I pretty much do stay away from Bertelsmann, but it's as much about my listening/reading habits as by design. I generally steer clear of Columbia and RCA (which I believe they have a stake in), but I have to admit I'm not above getting the occasional CD out of the library.
I'll admit I'm generalizing here, but anybody who ever thought lawyers, judges and legislators were actually intelligent rather than just clever, plausible and glib need look no further than the way the courts have dealt with hardware and software matters. The smug, bone-deep ignorance is as blatantly obvious as an elephant's...um...trunk.
If you need further evidence, consider some of the laws that have been enacted or are under consideration as a result. You get the impression these people think a computer is some kind of magic fetish that actually produces results.
How is China going to surpass the U.S. or anybody else in an area of technology? You have to wait until something's been invented before you can steal it.
I'll still turn to Toshiba for relevant hardware needs. The company laptops are Toshiba, and they're solid, reliable machines.
And since Sony stuck that effing rootkit on their CD's, I decided I will never, ever voluntarily have anything to do with that company again for any reason. The last Sony hardware I saw was a kind of "all in one" stereo system some department store sold to my great aunt. All design, all plastic, no performance. For what she paid, it sucks. Too bad...they used to be the gold standard for affordable, reliable electronics.
Those answers certainly brought back memories! It's a large part of the reason why I decided to put Linux on the back burner 'til after XP finally dies.
I thought the problem was my stupid questions, then a buddy of mine who makes a lot of money by knowing a lot about software explained that my questions were reasonable. The people responding to them were assholes. They might even have known what they were doing...I never saw any proof one way or the other.
It's past time for the Linux community to do a little housecleaning. Maybe set up an area of the various community sites, newsgroups, etc. for newcomers and people who have the patience to deal with them. And kick the jerk-offs right out. It's what happens to them in real life, after all, and they're used to it.
In the end analysis, even if these pathetic little drama queens manage to make the occasional contribution to Linux development, having to put up with them isn't worth the hassle. Somebody else will come up with the same thing sooner rather than later, and without all the strutting and self-congratulation. As anybody who's ever held a real job in the real world knows, nobody is irreplaceable.
Let me put it this way: In spite of what arrives daily in my spam box, I am in no way ashamed of my masculine endowment. Furthermore, I can produce a list of females who will attest to my skill at putting it to use. Nevertheless, I cannot imagine allowing video evidence of my sex life to appear on the Internet. A quick visit to any of those "do it yourself" porn sites proves conclusively that there's no shortage of people who feel differently.
That's fine. There's no cops breaking down their doors and carting them off to jail. And I don't have to worry that somebody's going to put a gun to my head and force me to make a sex video. Both views can exist side by side, neither affecting the other.
This most emphatically is not the case with privacy. The lowest common denominator rules, and is enforced on everybody. If my service provider decides that every nosy cop who feels like it can legally check out my browsing habits, that's just too bad for me. The law allows it, and there's never been a police force yet that won't push the limits as far as they'll go, then a little bit farther.
All of a sudden, the argument about whether or not to publish your own porn video has changed. It becomes "there will be a camera in every bedroom, and somebody else will have the final say over whether or not you wind up being famous. Your wishes will be respected as far as possible."
Bottom line: When there is social protection of privacy, an individual can decide that he has no need for it and live his life that way. When society decides that privacy should not be protected, there is no "opting out".
Perhaps most pathetically ignorant of all are those people who say, "If you aren't doing something wrong, why should you care?" Here's why: One of the most fundamental building blocks of a free society is the presumption of innocence, and the ironclad rule that the state has no right to exercise coercion against a law-abiding citizen going about his daily life.
It isn't just about privacy. It's about freedom.
I'll buy Vista SP1 blowing up some poor bastard's computer and killing his dog, but sleeping with his wife? With or without the suggestively named "Service Pack", Vista is much too lame to bone a guy's wife.
It would be so busy phoning home to make sure sex with a real, live woman wasn't forbidden by Sony or some other DRM-Monster, wifey would be off banging XXXP Pro while Vista was still issuing safe download warnings.
Even without having met him, there's one thing I can tell you about this gentleman with absolute certainty: He does not number among his friends anybody with a warped sense of humour and knowledge of the term "induction field".
Your point is well-taken, but there's an important difference between Windows and Windows-like Linux. The latter is open source, so security holes and bugs are addressed rapidly and efficiently by a huge community that includes some of the best programmers in the world.
Microsoft, on the other hand, will pretend there's nothing wrong until somebody rubs their nose in the problem. At that point, they'll come up with some patch that only an idiot would install without waiting for a few days to see if the brave people who keep "Automatic Update" enabled die horribly when their PC blows up or something.
The allegation that this issue could bring down the Canadian government is pure, unadulterated bullshit. If Stephen Harper's minority government falls, it will be because that's what he wants. The other major party is in disarray, and Harper's Conservatives see a chance to go after a majority.
On top of that, the economy is showing signs of following the U.S. economy into the toilet, and Canadians are getting as sick of the way Harper kisses Bush's ass as the American people are of Bush himself. And there are some pretty ugly questions being asked about the government's conduct of our involvement in Afghanistan. The Tories sense that they may never be more popular than they are right now, so they're trying to turn every vote short of a decision on who buys the coffee into a confidence motion.
And girls...can they make girls?
Like, Nash and Allchin, like how long have they been, like, on this Linux Apple fanboy site? Like, all you guys ever do is spread, like, FUD about Microsoft products. Like, you suck, man. Really. Get a clue, man. You guys just hate Microsoft and your crappy operating systems just, like, suck which is why those guys didn't really say any of that stuff about Vista, like, sucking. Vista rocks, man.
Word up.
Facebook pulls this crap because they know most people are too lazy, stupid and/or indifferent to give a crap about what happens to their personal information. Those same people will be the first to whine about how unfair it is if they win a lottery and somebody tracks down their relatives and holds a child for ransom.
It's not particularly well-known, but prior to World War II there were a significant number of people in England who were actually sympathetic to the Nazi cause. I guess the bastards must have produced offspring, because this story makes it pretty clear the mind-set is alive and well, and carried on by English legislators.
I'll try to make this simple for you. WHATEVER the product, when I've bought and paid for it, it becomes my property. Mine. Period. I don't want it trying to sell me something or phone home with my personal information or chat with its buddies. I expect it to do as it's told. If Microsoft or anybody else wants to push their own agenda at me, they can try renting or leasing their product.
Get it?
Actually, they took quite a bit of it as a bribe from a bunch of Nazi rocket scientists to keep them from being tried at Nuremburg as war criminals.
welcome our new, drug dispensing overlords. Although I'm not quite sure what it says about us when the pillboxes are smarter than we are.
Ah, a Left Coaster, I'm guessing. I have friends and relatives out there. Pale, stoned people who seem to have a lot more fun than me.
This does seem to offer some promise. It would take quite a while, I'm thinking, to slow the planet's rotation by making use of the kinetic energy of raindrops.
And I don't doubt you'd have beaten me to the post if I hadn't noticed just last night how nice it was to have worn waterproof winter boots to the pub.
If the prof is a real scientist, his reaction is completely appropriate. Did he say anything about buying the idea that it's perpetual motion?
Sorry, but a jackass is someone who would dismiss an observed phenomenon out-of-hand without attempting to discover what's really going on. Remind you of anybody you saw in the mirror this morning?
If they put this stuff on the floor around the urinals at my local bar, we could meet Canada's energy needs for the next hundred years.