It sounds like I could get Sharepoint by installing MoinMoin, Word Press, and integrating the two with something like OpenID for single sign-on.
How is this some spectacular whizzy thing that nobody else is doing? Could you please enlighten us all as to what makes it so fantastically juicy to the CIO set?
No, they haven't. Very few people have moved to open source systems, and very few have any desire to, or even knowledge of what they are.
You have such a dismal and inaccurate view of things. I talk to non-technical people all the time about the ideas, and I tend to get a very positive response.
Of course, it's easy to be enthusiastic, but not so easy to act on it. I know of a few people though who have switched what they use because I've helped them understand what was going on and what was at stake.
Your attitude is apathetic and negative. Nothing will ever happen anywhere near you because the effect of your attitude is to give people the feeling that there is no choice and that there is nothing they can do. OTOH, it's an attitude that requires very little of you than to spout cynical garbage every time someone pokes you, so it's a wonderful thing for lazy people.
While construing a once in 30 year event as evidence for global warming isn't necessarily correct, neither is calling it an ideology instead of a theory (and one that's fairly well substantiated by less shaky evidence).
Or maybe I should decide that relativity is an ideology and not a theory because some people decide that their subjective experience of time is evidence that it's true.
The virtual shelf idea should probably be implemented with tagging or some other sort of social categorization system. Because basically what it's doing is creating a custom category.
No, the consequences of him being allowed to be tried again would be disastrous. The government could keep anybody on trial for the same crime practically forever until a conviction was obtained. No, unless something was structurally botched in the trial (i.e. there was a mistrial) a verdict of 'not guilty' should terminate the government's right to try someone for a crime. Either they get all their ducks in a row and have the evidence ready or they fail to convict.
There are many reasons. Perhaps the jury was precluded from seeing certain evidence. Perhaps they were dazzled and confused by the irrelevant rhetoric of the defense attorney. Perhaps they refuse to convict out of racial solidarity or bigotry. You seem to be assuming that every jury is omniscient and incapable of error. I find that laughable.
The most important reason a jury might not convict is that they don't think the law is just (or perhaps that it's application in the particular circumstance isn't just). I wish more people were aware of this because we have a lot of messed up laws in the US.
In the US a criminal verdict of 'not guilty' means "The prosecution couldn't come up with enough evidence to prove your guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt.". The burden of proof is much higher because the consequences are much higher for a criminal than a civil case. I think that makes a lot of sense, and I like how the US legal system works in that regard.
I suspect he did it myself, but I'm willing to wait for the outcome of a trial to find out.
In truth, though I think OJ was guilty, I also think the verdict was a just one. The LA police completely flubbed the whole thing. I think they tried to frame a guilty man in large part because of the color of his skin, but also because of an attitude just like yours. They weren't willing to wait for a trial.
So, though I have my opinion here, he needs to convicted by a jury who has heard all the evidence before I will treat it as fact. Our legal system exists for a reason.
It truly is sad that OJ would've been convicted, even with the LA police's botching, if he hadn't had a ton of money. Nobody should've been convicted after they messed with the evidence in the way they did.
It's not actually pump-and-dump in this case. It's using social engineering to trick people into looking at an ad they might otherwise not see. I'm sure the Google adword price for PHYA was very low.
Except, that's not ad hominem because it's directly related to the issue at hand. Pointing out that even SCO doesn't really agree with their own arguments if you look at their behavior doesn't create the standard logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack.
Yes that was my thought after reading a few of the blurbs. The thing I was most amused by though is the percentage of their top-ten products that are basically special purpose Linux boxes. Which OS is really making more money for VARs?:-)
Oops. *sheepish grin* I should've done a bit of research. I, in fact, should've known. The actual quote is a coherent sentence that makes sense and shows even a bit of elegance in its construction. This is not what I would expect of George W. Bush.
But I don't really think that mistake on my part invalidates my point.
*nod* Firebombing Dresden was a tactic we used to get Hitler to target civilians rather than military installations. *think* If I felt we had a clear strategy or some idea what we were doing, I could perhaps forgive a bit of spilled milk to get there. But I don't think we do.
I've heard anecdotes of prisoners in our various torture prisons who aren't there for any particularly good reason. We can't, in fact, muster even the tiniest shred of evidence for their incarceration.
Additionally, the existence of Abu Gharib was a horrible move from the standpoint of actually winning the war in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if that, more than any other single factor (including the natural inclination of the populace to fall into civil war over religious and ethnic differences) has been what has hurt us in Iraq.
Our leadership no longer knows how to win a war. They never did. They know how to have their strings pulled by various moneyed interests in the US. And none of them care about the war in particular, they just want stability so they can suck out all the oil.
And, as for the war on terrorism, we are doing pretty badly there. We're consistently failing to understand the problem, and seem to be bending over backwards to make it worse. And we favor tactics that harass people and look scary over tactics that actually work.
So, as I said, if we had even vaguely effective leadership, I might be willing to overlook (with some amount of distaste and muttering about how ugly war is) some human rights abuses. As it is, nothing is being done that will end the war in Iraq or the war on terrorism quickly, expediently and with a minimal loss of life.
Lastly, pointing out other people's human rights abuses and using that as a reason we shouldn't care about our own is kind of disturbing. Most of Bush's supporters would claim that they abhorred moral relativism. So your invocation of it is interesting to say the least.
I agree with you. There is currently no comparison. But that is not a reason for complacency or self-congratulation either.
Calling people 'unamerican' for not sharing the government's view of things or the president stating that atheists are not citizens and certainly not patriots is edging right up there. It's not that far from uttering that statement and enforcing it, especially now that habeas corpus has been suspended for whoever the president decides are 'enemy combatants'.
We are kept from becoming Iran by the thinnest of lines. It galls me that probably two the biggest factors in the Republican's losing the legislative branch are sex scandals and the fact we're doing poorly in Iraq. The president's horrible abuse of power, condoning of torture, and his statements like those about atheists probably weren't that important to most voters who switched sides.
Most Americans seem to think that it's just fine if we become Iran as long as they don't have to actually think about any public figure having any sort of sexuality or see any sort of evidence that can't be ignored that our star is falling in the world.
Well, the SQL API can be very nice for certain kinds of data, and there is no storage system I know that does ACID without tons of work on your part.
I've actually been really hopeful that some filesystem would grow ACID + a few extra Unix calls to make it work. In general I hate databases because (as you say) SQL isn't a very nice API in many cases. I was looking forward to some of the extra semantics reiserfs 4 was (and maybe still is) going to include to make certain kinds of operations atomic that weren't before.
I consider foreign key constraints to be like strong typing or array bounds checking. It can quite useful, especially if you have a lot of people working different bodies of code that all call eachother. But, you can get a heck of a lot done without it.
And of course (like with array bounds checking) you can shoot yourself in the foot in a major way if you make a mistake when you don't have foreign key constraints.
Someone who gets so confused about what Free Software is that they conflate something that you can download at no cost (which is Opera) with Free Software doesn't deserve my attention.
*nod* That analysis has some meat on it and makes sense. But I still don't think that means that RedHat is the Microsoft of Linux.:-)
I've used Ubuntu and I was extremely disappointed. Important security updates were delayed for the next release. For example, I made extensive use of ethereal at my last job and when it changed to wireshark along with a whole slew of security updates I waited in vain for it to show up in Ubuntu. It even showed up in fink. But it never made it into Ubuntu until the next release of the entire distribution.
And the same thing with Mercurial. And the packaging system was so arcane and ill-documented that creating my own Mercurial packages from my personal development branch wasn't something I ever figured out how to do.
I've considered switching to Suse because I really hate RedHat's attitude towards ReiserFS.
I run several headless server boxes in text-only mode under RedHat. And while I feel that I have way more software on them than I probably need, they aren't running X, and I've been able to work with them just fine without it.
But experiences and tastes vary. I'm glad that you've found something you like even if it isn't what I like. And the fact the I can write software you can use despite the fact we use wildly different distributions is the reason I can't bring myself to think of RedHat as being anything like Microsoft.
Well, we know they have the goal of blowing things up, not just themselves. And that goal stems from another goal of convincing the American public that they should be paid attention to or that they are a credible threat. They aren't afraid to waste their own lives in these attempts, but they have shown a marked reluctance to throw away their lives without achieving these goals.
So, there is a certain rationality to it.
What really surprises me is that they don't use the fact that they're likely being spied on to hatch all kinds of ridiculous threats that have a veneer of credibility to cause themselves to appear in the news over and over again. That's a lot easier than actually carrying out the plots and achieves the same effect.
But, of course, it doesn't involve them actually killing anybody, so perhaps it's off the list for that reason.
I'm waiting for the news that there have been several bombs created in the form of books, stuffed animals, cell phones and laptops that have been left on planes. If that 'news' ever broke, flying would become completely intolerable and those claiming responsibility would get fantastic headlines.
Hmm, well, those have never been how I define Microsoft. I've defined Microsoft by their abuse of their monopoly power and predatory relationships with their 'partners'. A close second has been the shoddy nature of their products, since they don't have to actually make a decent product in order to sell it.
I don't think any of those things are true with RedHat.
I've always wondered where the "Microsoft of Linux" thing came from. They don't seem to be at all like Microsoft to me, so the comparison makes no sense to me.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like I could get Sharepoint by installing MoinMoin, Word Press, and integrating the two with something like OpenID for single sign-on.
How is this some spectacular whizzy thing that nobody else is doing? Could you please enlighten us all as to what makes it so fantastically juicy to the CIO set?
You have such a dismal and inaccurate view of things. I talk to non-technical people all the time about the ideas, and I tend to get a very positive response.
Of course, it's easy to be enthusiastic, but not so easy to act on it. I know of a few people though who have switched what they use because I've helped them understand what was going on and what was at stake.
Your attitude is apathetic and negative. Nothing will ever happen anywhere near you because the effect of your attitude is to give people the feeling that there is no choice and that there is nothing they can do. OTOH, it's an attitude that requires very little of you than to spout cynical garbage every time someone pokes you, so it's a wonderful thing for lazy people.
While construing a once in 30 year event as evidence for global warming isn't necessarily correct, neither is calling it an ideology instead of a theory (and one that's fairly well substantiated by less shaky evidence).
Or maybe I should decide that relativity is an ideology and not a theory because some people decide that their subjective experience of time is evidence that it's true.
The virtual shelf idea should probably be implemented with tagging or some other sort of social categorization system. Because basically what it's doing is creating a custom category.
No, the consequences of him being allowed to be tried again would be disastrous. The government could keep anybody on trial for the same crime practically forever until a conviction was obtained. No, unless something was structurally botched in the trial (i.e. there was a mistrial) a verdict of 'not guilty' should terminate the government's right to try someone for a crime. Either they get all their ducks in a row and have the evidence ready or they fail to convict.
The most important reason a jury might not convict is that they don't think the law is just (or perhaps that it's application in the particular circumstance isn't just). I wish more people were aware of this because we have a lot of messed up laws in the US.
In the US a criminal verdict of 'not guilty' means "The prosecution couldn't come up with enough evidence to prove your guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt.". The burden of proof is much higher because the consequences are much higher for a criminal than a civil case. I think that makes a lot of sense, and I like how the US legal system works in that regard.
I suspect he did it myself, but I'm willing to wait for the outcome of a trial to find out.
In truth, though I think OJ was guilty, I also think the verdict was a just one. The LA police completely flubbed the whole thing. I think they tried to frame a guilty man in large part because of the color of his skin, but also because of an attitude just like yours. They weren't willing to wait for a trial.
So, though I have my opinion here, he needs to convicted by a jury who has heard all the evidence before I will treat it as fact. Our legal system exists for a reason.
It truly is sad that OJ would've been convicted, even with the LA police's botching, if he hadn't had a ton of money. Nobody should've been convicted after they messed with the evidence in the way they did.
It's not actually pump-and-dump in this case. It's using social engineering to trick people into looking at an ad they might otherwise not see. I'm sure the Google adword price for PHYA was very low.
Except, that's not ad hominem because it's directly related to the issue at hand. Pointing out that even SCO doesn't really agree with their own arguments if you look at their behavior doesn't create the standard logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack.
Oh, noz! The Democratz did bad and/or stupid things too! That must mean that what's currently going on is just fine!
Yes that was my thought after reading a few of the blurbs. The thing I was most amused by though is the percentage of their top-ten products that are basically special purpose Linux boxes. Which OS is really making more money for VARs? :-)
I don't disagree with you about Clinton.
Oops. *sheepish grin* I should've done a bit of research. I, in fact, should've known. The actual quote is a coherent sentence that makes sense and shows even a bit of elegance in its construction. This is not what I would expect of George W. Bush.
But I don't really think that mistake on my part invalidates my point.
*nod* Firebombing Dresden was a tactic we used to get Hitler to target civilians rather than military installations. *think* If I felt we had a clear strategy or some idea what we were doing, I could perhaps forgive a bit of spilled milk to get there. But I don't think we do.
I've heard anecdotes of prisoners in our various torture prisons who aren't there for any particularly good reason. We can't, in fact, muster even the tiniest shred of evidence for their incarceration.
Additionally, the existence of Abu Gharib was a horrible move from the standpoint of actually winning the war in Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if that, more than any other single factor (including the natural inclination of the populace to fall into civil war over religious and ethnic differences) has been what has hurt us in Iraq.
Our leadership no longer knows how to win a war. They never did. They know how to have their strings pulled by various moneyed interests in the US. And none of them care about the war in particular, they just want stability so they can suck out all the oil.
And, as for the war on terrorism, we are doing pretty badly there. We're consistently failing to understand the problem, and seem to be bending over backwards to make it worse. And we favor tactics that harass people and look scary over tactics that actually work.
So, as I said, if we had even vaguely effective leadership, I might be willing to overlook (with some amount of distaste and muttering about how ugly war is) some human rights abuses. As it is, nothing is being done that will end the war in Iraq or the war on terrorism quickly, expediently and with a minimal loss of life.
Lastly, pointing out other people's human rights abuses and using that as a reason we shouldn't care about our own is kind of disturbing. Most of Bush's supporters would claim that they abhorred moral relativism. So your invocation of it is interesting to say the least.
I agree with you. There is currently no comparison. But that is not a reason for complacency or self-congratulation either.
Calling people 'unamerican' for not sharing the government's view of things or the president stating that atheists are not citizens and certainly not patriots is edging right up there. It's not that far from uttering that statement and enforcing it, especially now that habeas corpus has been suspended for whoever the president decides are 'enemy combatants'.
We are kept from becoming Iran by the thinnest of lines. It galls me that probably two the biggest factors in the Republican's losing the legislative branch are sex scandals and the fact we're doing poorly in Iraq. The president's horrible abuse of power, condoning of torture, and his statements like those about atheists probably weren't that important to most voters who switched sides.
Most Americans seem to think that it's just fine if we become Iran as long as they don't have to actually think about any public figure having any sort of sexuality or see any sort of evidence that can't be ignored that our star is falling in the world.
Well, the SQL API can be very nice for certain kinds of data, and there is no storage system I know that does ACID without tons of work on your part.
I've actually been really hopeful that some filesystem would grow ACID + a few extra Unix calls to make it work. In general I hate databases because (as you say) SQL isn't a very nice API in many cases. I was looking forward to some of the extra semantics reiserfs 4 was (and maybe still is) going to include to make certain kinds of operations atomic that weren't before.
I consider foreign key constraints to be like strong typing or array bounds checking. It can quite useful, especially if you have a lot of people working different bodies of code that all call eachother. But, you can get a heck of a lot done without it.
And of course (like with array bounds checking) you can shoot yourself in the foot in a major way if you make a mistake when you don't have foreign key constraints.
Someone who gets so confused about what Free Software is that they conflate something that you can download at no cost (which is Opera) with Free Software doesn't deserve my attention.
*chuckle*
No, it's an exploit released before there's a patch that fixes the hole the exploit exploits.
zero-day warez are cracked (i.e. DRM removed) versions of programs available on the same day or before the commercial versions are released.
*nod* That analysis has some meat on it and makes sense. But I still don't think that means that RedHat is the Microsoft of Linux. :-)
I've used Ubuntu and I was extremely disappointed. Important security updates were delayed for the next release. For example, I made extensive use of ethereal at my last job and when it changed to wireshark along with a whole slew of security updates I waited in vain for it to show up in Ubuntu. It even showed up in fink. But it never made it into Ubuntu until the next release of the entire distribution.
And the same thing with Mercurial. And the packaging system was so arcane and ill-documented that creating my own Mercurial packages from my personal development branch wasn't something I ever figured out how to do.
I've considered switching to Suse because I really hate RedHat's attitude towards ReiserFS.
I run several headless server boxes in text-only mode under RedHat. And while I feel that I have way more software on them than I probably need, they aren't running X, and I've been able to work with them just fine without it.
But experiences and tastes vary. I'm glad that you've found something you like even if it isn't what I like. And the fact the I can write software you can use despite the fact we use wildly different distributions is the reason I can't bring myself to think of RedHat as being anything like Microsoft.
Well, we know they have the goal of blowing things up, not just themselves. And that goal stems from another goal of convincing the American public that they should be paid attention to or that they are a credible threat. They aren't afraid to waste their own lives in these attempts, but they have shown a marked reluctance to throw away their lives without achieving these goals.
So, there is a certain rationality to it.
What really surprises me is that they don't use the fact that they're likely being spied on to hatch all kinds of ridiculous threats that have a veneer of credibility to cause themselves to appear in the news over and over again. That's a lot easier than actually carrying out the plots and achieves the same effect.
But, of course, it doesn't involve them actually killing anybody, so perhaps it's off the list for that reason.
I'm waiting for the news that there have been several bombs created in the form of books, stuffed animals, cell phones and laptops that have been left on planes. If that 'news' ever broke, flying would become completely intolerable and those claiming responsibility would get fantastic headlines.
Hmm, well, those have never been how I define Microsoft. I've defined Microsoft by their abuse of their monopoly power and predatory relationships with their 'partners'. A close second has been the shoddy nature of their products, since they don't have to actually make a decent product in order to sell it.
I don't think any of those things are true with RedHat.
I've always wondered where the "Microsoft of Linux" thing came from. They don't seem to be at all like Microsoft to me, so the comparison makes no sense to me.