Dude, WTF are you talking about? I'm highly optimistic about ocean life. What I'm not optimistic about is how people will treat it. Being all sunshine and lollipops about it isn't going to change the actions of others. On the other hand, if I point out the idiocy of others, perhaps they will either change or be forced to change by others.
Giving food will only sustain a larger famine. It actually makes the problem worse.
In other words, you think the best way to address a famine is to let people die?
Just so you know as well, there is a world food shortage.
No, there is a surplus of food in the world, not a shortage.
The world needs to learn how to do it themselves.
Or we could, you know, help them with this. Give them food (so they don't all die), and help them set up the required infrastructure within which they can feed themselves. Sometimes famines are caused by droughts, wars, overpopulation, etc. Telling them to just "learn to do it themselves" helps no one, and makes the matter worse because a starving populace is very ill-equipped to "learn to do it themselves".
Therefore if we spent all our time and effort giving people food the world would actually be a worse place. Giving people the ability to learn how to do things for themselves, as opposed to only teaching them how to put out their hand and beg for food is surely a much better approach to the problem.
There's a glimmer of insight there. What you have to do is both. You don't seem willing to go so far as to admit to the half of the equation of actually giving them food. The ability to pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps is a very rare ability which relies far more on luck than most people realize.
There was another obvious point: You can still give them food at the same time. The OLPC project does not prevent aid! Also, I love how everyone is so specific to "omg teh children". Because as soon as people become adults we really just couldn't care less, huh? Perhaps if they had some/any education before they became adults they'd be able to take care of the children themselves. Also, let's just skip the arms trade arguments altogether and blame the OLPC project for the proliferation of the problem.
Considering "Folders" are a totally Windows metaphor, why should they know (or care) ?
Folders is a real-world desktop metaphor.
As far as I'm concerned, they are called directories, and always will be.
Directories is a real-world text-based metaphor. Interestingly enough, the term is used primarily for text-based interfaces (such as CLI's). Call them what you want, but folder is the better metaphor for more people. Additionally, the fact that the icon is an image of a folder certainly helps the metaphor. What would a directory icon look like? A phone book? A mall directory?
I'm sure you didn't get modded down just because of me. The only thing in your post that implied "I'm joking" was "turn off... the Sun". Republicans actually do blame the Sun entirely (well, the Sun and volcanos, I think. Really, anything except humans) for global warming, so really, even if you aren't of the addled-minded, you certainly sounded like one.
In my defense, you'll note I didn't say you were a Republican, just that your post was very similar to Republican rhetoric.
(In other words, don't blame me. Your joke really wasn't all that funny.:-))
I just couldn't let the partisan idiot go by with his snide remarks.
I'll ignore that "snide remark" (in fact, I didn't insult the OP at all, yet you did insult me, right off the bat even), since getting too hung up over it doesn't do any good.
I get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you aren't a Dem or a Repub. You (I gather) find both Dems and Repubs to be pretty much the mirror image of each other, both equally bad, just in opposites of sorts. I'm not going to defend the short-comings of the Democratic Party (they certainly have them), but do want to address the assertion that they are just as bad as the Republican Party.
Actually, the same can be said of Democrats as well. End Poverty, tax the rich. As for personal responsibility and such, go talk to the PI lawyers that line the coffers of democrats running for office.
"The same" can be said of anyone. Your proposed example is not nearly as egregious as what the Republicans engage in. You do a massive disservice to equate the two. To do so encourages the lesser party to get away with whatever they can, so long as the other party can be described in the same way, and punishes the better party, for no matter how much they minimize their negatives, there will always be some, and regardless of how minor they are, they will be used against them.
For examples:
Every freaking time there is a surplus, the tax and spend liberals, and the tax cut and spend neo-cons start new "programs" that are designed to do one thing or another, without any ability to actually EOL them.
Ignoring the fact that the Democrats actually *BALANCED* the budget, a budget that was thrown out of whack by 12 years of Reagan and Bush, then the next Republican goes and throws it out of balance again, how can you equate "tax and spend" with "tax cut and spend"? Taxing and spending are supposed to go together. To spend and not tax is foolish, dangerous, and self-destructive. You may disagree with what the Democrats spend money on (I'm sure you'd, in fact, agree with most of what they spend on, it's just the small, but visible, projects you likely take issue with), but at least they are responsible about it.
And just so you know, but LIBERAL Democrats and CONSERVATIVE Republicans were to blame for the crap that happened in NO. Why? Because neither one really care about people, only their own skins.
Both care about their own skins, but the Democrats actually believe they have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. Republicans believe people should fend for themselves. Democrats have the balls to spend tax money to actually help others. Republicans will consistently spend only if it furthers their own selfish interests. Only a Class A Moron (there you go, a bit of snide for you to latch onto) could believe the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, and will not help the people any more than the Republicans do.
Personally, I would like people to take responsibility for themselves more and learn from disasters like Katrina. The government is USELESS, and if you think they are going to "help" you, you better get your head examined.
By definition, a liberal government is one that helps its people. With the liberals in power, they actually will help you. What I can't understand is how people can make statements like yours. Can you actually not imagine a way that the government can help people? Do you think such things are actually impossible? And finally, do you not realize that one party will be better at it than another?
I used to think like you. I used to see Democrats and Republicans as pretty much the same, just with a different name. That was until recent times when the Republican party really went off the deep end. I can respect Republicans who are reasonably flawed (like the Democrats are), I can respect honest disagreement, and I think the Republican party ha
Personally I think we should turn off or at least dim the Sun anyway. It is, unlike CO2, the ultimate cause of global warming.
The Sun is the source of the heat for global warming, but it's the CO2 that keeps it on Earth.
There is something reminiscent of the modern Republican party in your response, though. Oversimplification, not accepting personal responsibility, and proposing an impossible solution. The only thing missing is you haven't suggested paying for it by lowering taxes.
Instinct is not thinking whatsoever. It happens below the cognitive level. Emotions are instinctual. But not all instincts are emotional.
Truthiness is based on emotion, but is a thought process used to pretend something is true merely because you want it to be. Instinct says nothing about truth.
The words are related, but *NOT EXACTLY THE SAME*. Not even *mostly* the same. To honestly think so is to engage in truthiness yourself.
The closest synonym for "truthiness" we have is "doublethink". Not quite the same either, but closer than "instinct" is.
Not saying anyone is doing that or plans to do that, but security is about preventing potential abuse. If you only care about stopping whats actually being abused you're on the wrong side of a vicious cat and mouse game and will NEVER be safe.
Not quite. Not just "potential", but also some degree of "reasonably likely". I find it extremely unlikely there will be a grid of Nike+ surveillance devices. Possible? Yes. Reasonably likely? Not at all.
On the other hand, I fully expect RFID scanners to be located at just about every store. Both possible *and* reasonably likely.
To ignore likelihood is to ignore a critical metric, and will ensure vigilance against threats that will never come (aka paranoia).
Believe it or not: Yes--but only if the person is actively resisting.
He wasn't.
There were three cops. They could have easily cuffed him on the ground, and carried him out.
What are the long-lasting measurable effects of being tazed?
Sometimes, death.
No matter how you slice it, the 5 taserings were excessive. There are certainly circumstances where 5 taserings, or more, are justified, but in this case, even the first is wholly out-of-line.
This is akin to them beating him with a club while on the ground,
This is where you and half the other people posting here fail completely. If tasing were the same as beating with a club
This is where you fail completely. He said "akin" not "the same".
Pointing out that there are differences does not mean they are not similar.
If tasing were the same as beating with a club THE TASER WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN INVENTED.
Because no one ever invents something that is "the same" as something else?
What milamber3 clearly meant was that it's a similar (hence, "akin"). It's an extreme physical force used to subdue a subject. The only legitimate reason for police to beat someone with a club is to temporarily incapacitate them, which is the *EXACT* same reason for the taser.
In fact, tasing him in this situation likely prevented more harm to the suspect that it could have ever caused.
WTF? Tasing him is *better* than handcuffing him and carrying him out? You're insane.
"What makes you want to so strongly defend such an ambiguous claim that has such little evidence?"
I don't.
Yes, you do. You're doing it right now.
You live in a fantasy land where Apple can do no wrong.
Straw man, I've stated nothing of the kind.
Funny that Apple released updates shortly after their demonstation however.
Gee, with all the attention on the drivers, funny that Apple would go through and look at them! However, the update *DOESN'T ADDRESS THE SAME ISSUE IN QUESTION*. Funny that doesn't seem to matter to you.
The two hackers have not shown a *single piece* of evidence that they hacked the Apple drivers. All they've done is hacked a third-party driver, and implied their hack would work on Apple's drivers. There's absolutely no reason someone should believe them. They have *NO* credibility.
In what way am I deluding myself? In every conceivable way, the hackers in question have failed to give me any reason to believe they actually had an exploit against Apple's AirPort drivers.
Sure, it's *possible* they really had an exploit, and they just don't care if anyone believes them. But given they've not given me a reason to believe them, why on earth should I?
Even worse, they've never even made it clear EXACTLY WHAT their claim is. In other words, they've never stated, clearly, that they actually had a working exploit against Apple's AirPort drivers.
What makes you want to so strongly defend such an ambiguous claim that has such little evidence?
That's circular reasoning, since there is no additional expense incurred by MS's use, by definition it is not being used against you. MS's benefit is not your loss, it is not a zero-sum game.
If MS promotes a competing, incompatible standard based on my work in order to circumvent my efforts, they *are* using my work against me. MS has done this many times in the past. HTML and java are two examples.
With HTML, MS took an open standard that is intended to promote platform independence, and tweaked it to favor MS products (yes, Netscape did the same, both companies were wrong in what they did). With java, Microsoft attempted the exact same thing, and Sun successfully *sued* MS over the attempt. With Linux, and open source in general, how it will play out is uncertain, but if MS is up to their same tricks (and there's no reason yet to give them the benefit of the doubt here), then it's absolutely *certain* that they will be using other peoples' code against them.
It's not the Open Source *Software* that's inherently superior, it's the open source *process* that is. The problem is that MS intends to (based on their past actions) circumvent that process.
An MS-sanctioned Linux will not succeed by being better (oh! that I wish it would). It will succeed (if it succeeds) by exploiting weaknesses which have little-to-nothing to do with the quality of the software. They will leverage their relationships with their current customers, they will create incompatible forks of existing projects, they will use proprietary modules/plug-ins/etc to make it so that only the MS version is actually useful, and so on.
Certainly, these are all sharp business practices. I can't fault their acumen on that aspect. What I fault is that by building up their own business, they tend to have an overall detrimental affect on the culture as a whole.
As for why you should care, that depends on your morality. Should you care about the effects of your actions if those effects don't directly affect you?
Fortunately, I have confidence that open source is stronger than Microsoft, in the long run. If MS tries too hard to subvert Linux, they will fail miserably. If they actually put reasonable effort to work well with the open source community (like, to various degrees, IBM, Apple, Sun and others do), they will likely be little more than a nuisance, or perhaps even a productive member of the community (although the last part is doubtful).
OSS doesn't make the world a better place. It's all in how it (and other kinds of software) are used.
You're mostly right that OSS, itself, doesn't necessarily make the world a better place. But the open source process and community enables and encourages the creation of software and sharing of software, which encourages and enables people to make the world a better place.
There are plenty of reasons for not accepting the challenge.
The primary reason being that they couldn't do it.
Their problem is that they made ambiguous claims, and were given many chances to clarify their claims. Specifically, do they have a working exploit that can take over a clean, up-to-date MacBook with no user-intervention other than that the AirPort card be enabled? They've never directly answered that question. NEVER. And they've been given multiple opportunities. Gruber's challenge was mean to financially/materially motivate them to put up or shut up.
A macbook may be exciting to you and John Gruber but probably not to them.
They could just return it for full value minus the restocking fee.
If they truly have an exploit, they have severely damaged their reputation by not being forthright. On the other hand, if they have no working exploit, they have more notoriety than they deserve (notoriety which would be severely damaged by being shown to be frauds). Of the two possibilities, which most closely fits with their actions?
You seem unclear on the concept - whatever is done with the pennies after you toss them into the fountain has absolutely zero impact on any expense that you incurred by throwing them into the fountain in the first place. Your "wants" and "desires" about what happens to those pennies afterwards don't have any effect either.
This isn't about causality, I know the future can't change the past.
The initial question was whether someone wants to help MS "at their expense", and one's "wants and desires" most certainly *do* come into play here. If I don't want to help MS at my expense (for example), even if after my contribution has been made, I *still* don't want to see MS benefit. That's the point. Not that it is somehow going to cost me more after the fact.
But there's more than just my past expense, there's my present and future expense. Will I want to further contribute to a project that I now know is going to be used against me? If I see the mall owner scooping change out of the wishing well to pay for a meal at the food court, I'm *definitely* not going to want to ever toss in another cent.
Wanting a "MS-sanctioned Linux" shows a lack of understanding of both Microsoft and Linux.
Based on your other posts, you are an Ayn Randian type capitalist who thinks success in business means quality and morality. This is not the case, and never has been. Success in business is not inherently bad, but neither is it automatically good.
Given the fact that supporting Linux will send the message to their customers that it's OK to run Linux (which is another way to say, it's "OK to *not* run Windows"), Microsoft will need to believe that being seen as a strong Linux parter (like IBM is) is more important than the inherent negative impact on Windows such a deal will have.
On the other hand, doesn't it make more sense, and better fit MS's history (of tactics like "embrace and extend") to try to fracture Linux? If they can convince businessmen such as yourself to try their MS-sanctioned Linux, and can convince their corporate partners to deploy it, what's to stop them from doing what they *always* do? They will branch off their Linux distro further and further out of compatibility with the rest. They did this with html and java (among others). What's to make you think somehow *this time* it will be different?
"At your expense"? Like, what, exactly? If you wrote any OSS code, and gave it away, then there is no expense for you if it is used by Microsoft or anybody else.
Yes, there is. The expense is the initial work put into it, as well as any ongoing and future efforts. If I toss pennies in a fountain, my expense is the same, no matter what happens to the pennies, but I don't want the mall to just pocket the change, I want it to help some charity. In other words, I wanted a charity to benefit at my expense, not the mall.
Likewise, if I donate my time and effort to an open source project, I want that effort to help others who can make honest use of my code (yes, including Microsoft), but I don't want it to be used as a cudgel against others (or, even, against my own efforts!), the way getting entangled with this Novell+MS plan has the potential to do (and given MS's past history, there's absolutely no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt).
Actually they have every right to do whatever they like as long as it is within the law.
That's a tautology. In other words, "they have the right to do what they have the right to do." It doesn't really mean anything. Regardless of whether Novell has the legal right or not, or the moral right or not, your sentence means the exact same thing. Which is to say, it has absolutely no bearing on what the SAMBA team wrote.
I suspect they weren't talking about legal rights, but right in the sense of "moral or proper". Such as, "you have every right to be mad at me for what I did".
And no, Novell has *NO RIGHT* to do what it appears they are doing, even if they have every legal right to do it. The sentence is not contradictory because the word "right" is being used in two different ways. If you are still having a hard time with that, imagine I wrote, "it's wrong of Novell to do what they appear to be doing, even if it's entirely within the law". The two sentences mean the same thing.
Also, I doubt the fishing industry would want their business to collapse.
That depends. Can the "fishing industry" make decisions regarding it's furthered survival? It can't if it's run Laissez-Faire style. In such a case, if you decide to hold off on overfishing, someone else will just take your place. In non-regulated capitalism, doing the *right* thing is often also the *stupid* thing.
On the other hand, if there's a strong, viable international body which oversees and regulates the fishing industry--and I don't care whether it's the UN, some treaty among nations, or a private consortium of fishers, canners, and distributors--then yes, they *can* make the right decision, and in that case, the right decision is also the *smart* decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, WTF are you talking about? I'm highly optimistic about ocean life. What I'm not optimistic about is how people will treat it. Being all sunshine and lollipops about it isn't going to change the actions of others. On the other hand, if I point out the idiocy of others, perhaps they will either change or be forced to change by others.
It's like finding a pocket of air in a sinking ship. The good news is far overshadowed by the bad news.
No, there is a surplus of food in the world, not a shortage.
Or we could, you know, help them with this. Give them food (so they don't all die), and help them set up the required infrastructure within which they can feed themselves. Sometimes famines are caused by droughts, wars, overpopulation, etc. Telling them to just "learn to do it themselves" helps no one, and makes the matter worse because a starving populace is very ill-equipped to "learn to do it themselves".
There's a glimmer of insight there. What you have to do is both. You don't seem willing to go so far as to admit to the half of the equation of actually giving them food. The ability to pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps is a very rare ability which relies far more on luck than most people realize.
Agreed.
Directories is a real-world text-based metaphor. Interestingly enough, the term is used primarily for text-based interfaces (such as CLI's). Call them what you want, but folder is the better metaphor for more people. Additionally, the fact that the icon is an image of a folder certainly helps the metaphor. What would a directory icon look like? A phone book? A mall directory?
You could, but you'd be making stuff up since that's not what was said, nor is it even what was meant.
Move your mouse.
I'm sure you didn't get modded down just because of me. The only thing in your post that implied "I'm joking" was "turn off ... the Sun". Republicans actually do blame the Sun entirely (well, the Sun and volcanos, I think. Really, anything except humans) for global warming, so really, even if you aren't of the addled-minded, you certainly sounded like one.
:-))
In my defense, you'll note I didn't say you were a Republican, just that your post was very similar to Republican rhetoric.
(In other words, don't blame me. Your joke really wasn't all that funny.
I'll ignore that "snide remark" (in fact, I didn't insult the OP at all, yet you did insult me, right off the bat even), since getting too hung up over it doesn't do any good.
I get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you aren't a Dem or a Repub. You (I gather) find both Dems and Repubs to be pretty much the mirror image of each other, both equally bad, just in opposites of sorts. I'm not going to defend the short-comings of the Democratic Party (they certainly have them), but do want to address the assertion that they are just as bad as the Republican Party.
"The same" can be said of anyone. Your proposed example is not nearly as egregious as what the Republicans engage in. You do a massive disservice to equate the two. To do so encourages the lesser party to get away with whatever they can, so long as the other party can be described in the same way, and punishes the better party, for no matter how much they minimize their negatives, there will always be some, and regardless of how minor they are, they will be used against them.
For examples:
Ignoring the fact that the Democrats actually *BALANCED* the budget, a budget that was thrown out of whack by 12 years of Reagan and Bush, then the next Republican goes and throws it out of balance again, how can you equate "tax and spend" with "tax cut and spend"? Taxing and spending are supposed to go together. To spend and not tax is foolish, dangerous, and self-destructive. You may disagree with what the Democrats spend money on (I'm sure you'd, in fact, agree with most of what they spend on, it's just the small, but visible, projects you likely take issue with), but at least they are responsible about it.
Both care about their own skins, but the Democrats actually believe they have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. Republicans believe people should fend for themselves. Democrats have the balls to spend tax money to actually help others. Republicans will consistently spend only if it furthers their own selfish interests. Only a Class A Moron (there you go, a bit of snide for you to latch onto) could believe the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, and will not help the people any more than the Republicans do.
By definition, a liberal government is one that helps its people. With the liberals in power, they actually will help you. What I can't understand is how people can make statements like yours. Can you actually not imagine a way that the government can help people? Do you think such things are actually impossible? And finally, do you not realize that one party will be better at it than another?
I used to think like you. I used to see Democrats and Republicans as pretty much the same, just with a different name. That was until recent times when the Republican party really went off the deep end. I can respect Republicans who are reasonably flawed (like the Democrats are), I can respect honest disagreement, and I think the Republican party ha
There is something reminiscent of the modern Republican party in your response, though. Oversimplification, not accepting personal responsibility, and proposing an impossible solution. The only thing missing is you haven't suggested paying for it by lowering taxes.
Instinct is not thinking whatsoever. It happens below the cognitive level. Emotions are instinctual. But not all instincts are emotional.
Truthiness is based on emotion, but is a thought process used to pretend something is true merely because you want it to be. Instinct says nothing about truth.
The words are related, but *NOT EXACTLY THE SAME*. Not even *mostly* the same. To honestly think so is to engage in truthiness yourself.
The closest synonym for "truthiness" we have is "doublethink". Not quite the same either, but closer than "instinct" is.
"Instinct" isn't a type of truth. It's a feeling (emotion) used in lieu of facts.
"Truthiness" is truth using emotion in lieu of facts.
Similar, but not the same word.
How many people have you heard claim they saw the show when it first aired? I'd guess less than a hundred.
How many people actually *watched* the show when it first aired? At *least* hundreds of thousands.
I would be very surprised if any significant percentage of the people who've claimed to have watched the series on Fox are liars.
On the other hand, I fully expect RFID scanners to be located at just about every store. Both possible *and* reasonably likely.
To ignore likelihood is to ignore a critical metric, and will ensure vigilance against threats that will never come (aka paranoia).
There were three cops. They could have easily cuffed him on the ground, and carried him out.
Sometimes, death.
No matter how you slice it, the 5 taserings were excessive. There are certainly circumstances where 5 taserings, or more, are justified, but in this case, even the first is wholly out-of-line.
Pointing out that there are differences does not mean they are not similar.
Because no one ever invents something that is "the same" as something else?
What milamber3 clearly meant was that it's a similar (hence, "akin"). It's an extreme physical force used to subdue a subject. The only legitimate reason for police to beat someone with a club is to temporarily incapacitate them, which is the *EXACT* same reason for the taser.
WTF? Tasing him is *better* than handcuffing him and carrying him out? You're insane.
Straw man, I've stated nothing of the kind.
Gee, with all the attention on the drivers, funny that Apple would go through and look at them! However, the update *DOESN'T ADDRESS THE SAME ISSUE IN QUESTION*. Funny that doesn't seem to matter to you.
The two hackers have not shown a *single piece* of evidence that they hacked the Apple drivers. All they've done is hacked a third-party driver, and implied their hack would work on Apple's drivers. There's absolutely no reason someone should believe them. They have *NO* credibility.
Sure, it's *possible* they really had an exploit, and they just don't care if anyone believes them. But given they've not given me a reason to believe them, why on earth should I?
Even worse, they've never even made it clear EXACTLY WHAT their claim is. In other words, they've never stated, clearly, that they actually had a working exploit against Apple's AirPort drivers.
What makes you want to so strongly defend such an ambiguous claim that has such little evidence?
If MS promotes a competing, incompatible standard based on my work in order to circumvent my efforts, they *are* using my work against me. MS has done this many times in the past. HTML and java are two examples.
With HTML, MS took an open standard that is intended to promote platform independence, and tweaked it to favor MS products (yes, Netscape did the same, both companies were wrong in what they did). With java, Microsoft attempted the exact same thing, and Sun successfully *sued* MS over the attempt. With Linux, and open source in general, how it will play out is uncertain, but if MS is up to their same tricks (and there's no reason yet to give them the benefit of the doubt here), then it's absolutely *certain* that they will be using other peoples' code against them.
An MS-sanctioned Linux will not succeed by being better (oh! that I wish it would). It will succeed (if it succeeds) by exploiting weaknesses which have little-to-nothing to do with the quality of the software. They will leverage their relationships with their current customers, they will create incompatible forks of existing projects, they will use proprietary modules/plug-ins/etc to make it so that only the MS version is actually useful, and so on.
Certainly, these are all sharp business practices. I can't fault their acumen on that aspect. What I fault is that by building up their own business, they tend to have an overall detrimental affect on the culture as a whole.
As for why you should care, that depends on your morality. Should you care about the effects of your actions if those effects don't directly affect you?
Fortunately, I have confidence that open source is stronger than Microsoft, in the long run. If MS tries too hard to subvert Linux, they will fail miserably. If they actually put reasonable effort to work well with the open source community (like, to various degrees, IBM, Apple, Sun and others do), they will likely be little more than a nuisance, or perhaps even a productive member of the community (although the last part is doubtful).
You're mostly right that OSS, itself, doesn't necessarily make the world a better place. But the open source process and community enables and encourages the creation of software and sharing of software, which encourages and enables people to make the world a better place.
Their problem is that they made ambiguous claims, and were given many chances to clarify their claims. Specifically, do they have a working exploit that can take over a clean, up-to-date MacBook with no user-intervention other than that the AirPort card be enabled? They've never directly answered that question. NEVER. And they've been given multiple opportunities. Gruber's challenge was mean to financially/materially motivate them to put up or shut up.
They could just return it for full value minus the restocking fee.
If they truly have an exploit, they have severely damaged their reputation by not being forthright. On the other hand, if they have no working exploit, they have more notoriety than they deserve (notoriety which would be severely damaged by being shown to be frauds). Of the two possibilities, which most closely fits with their actions?
The initial question was whether someone wants to help MS "at their expense", and one's "wants and desires" most certainly *do* come into play here. If I don't want to help MS at my expense (for example), even if after my contribution has been made, I *still* don't want to see MS benefit. That's the point. Not that it is somehow going to cost me more after the fact.
But there's more than just my past expense, there's my present and future expense. Will I want to further contribute to a project that I now know is going to be used against me? If I see the mall owner scooping change out of the wishing well to pay for a meal at the food court, I'm *definitely* not going to want to ever toss in another cent.
Wanting a "MS-sanctioned Linux" shows a lack of understanding of both Microsoft and Linux.
Based on your other posts, you are an Ayn Randian type capitalist who thinks success in business means quality and morality. This is not the case, and never has been. Success in business is not inherently bad, but neither is it automatically good.
Given the fact that supporting Linux will send the message to their customers that it's OK to run Linux (which is another way to say, it's "OK to *not* run Windows"), Microsoft will need to believe that being seen as a strong Linux parter (like IBM is) is more important than the inherent negative impact on Windows such a deal will have.
On the other hand, doesn't it make more sense, and better fit MS's history (of tactics like "embrace and extend") to try to fracture Linux? If they can convince businessmen such as yourself to try their MS-sanctioned Linux, and can convince their corporate partners to deploy it, what's to stop them from doing what they *always* do? They will branch off their Linux distro further and further out of compatibility with the rest. They did this with html and java (among others). What's to make you think somehow *this time* it will be different?
Likewise, if I donate my time and effort to an open source project, I want that effort to help others who can make honest use of my code (yes, including Microsoft), but I don't want it to be used as a cudgel against others (or, even, against my own efforts!), the way getting entangled with this Novell+MS plan has the potential to do (and given MS's past history, there's absolutely no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt).
I suspect they weren't talking about legal rights, but right in the sense of "moral or proper". Such as, "you have every right to be mad at me for what I did".
And no, Novell has *NO RIGHT* to do what it appears they are doing, even if they have every legal right to do it. The sentence is not contradictory because the word "right" is being used in two different ways. If you are still having a hard time with that, imagine I wrote, "it's wrong of Novell to do what they appear to be doing, even if it's entirely within the law". The two sentences mean the same thing.
On the other hand, if there's a strong, viable international body which oversees and regulates the fishing industry--and I don't care whether it's the UN, some treaty among nations, or a private consortium of fishers, canners, and distributors--then yes, they *can* make the right decision, and in that case, the right decision is also the *smart* decision.