Agreed, non lethal weapons should carry the same rules that lethal weapons do, or at least, somewhere near that strict. (i.e. you can use them to assist in the apprehension of an unwilling detainee).
They frequently do carry the same rules (or very close to it) as lethal weapons, at least in the States. There are "levels of force" that are clearly defined in every police department that I've dealt with (and the one that I worked for) that states not only what weapons are acceptable to use at that level, but also what situations and criteria are needed before said weapons are used. The principle of escalation of force usage is usually recommended and legally sound: talk -> threat -> open-handed defencive tactics -> chemical methods (mace, pepper spray, etc) -> blunt weapons (batons, PR-24, ASP, etc) -> firearms discharge....all depending on the level of force used against the officer. A firearm or even most non-lethal uses of force are discouraged in normal (read: no officer or civilian is being threatened) situations. Hell, I got cracked on for using a PR-24 on a guy who was a foot taller than myself, outweighed me by at least 100 pounds, and had already thrown another officer across the room! I was told that pepper spray or electric stun gun was the appropriate level of force to use on the guy (who incidentally had broken several bones in his wife's face and skull while beating her nearly unconscious). I wasn't written up for it, but did receive a verbal warning (officer safety concerns and the statements by the "got thrown" cop were the only reason that I wasn't suspended).
As an example of non-lethal force usage rules, the ASP retractable baton is a non-lethal weapon, by classification, but its use in my former department was restricted to a level of force just below firearm discharge since it had the potential to actually break a bone in the suspect. Many departments in other states had less restrictions on the ASP and PR-24 side-handled baton than we did, but most did consider their usage to be acceptible only in more extreme situations.
Although, now that I think about it, I would much prefer the cops had nothing but non lethal weapons, otherwise they are given a sort of 'instant executive right' to dole out the death penalty as they see fit, and I wouldn't quite consider 1 cop with a gun a jury of my peers.
That's because you aren't on the line yourself:-) The public frequently forgets two things when it comes to police officers: a) they are citizens as well and aren't really anxious to get killed, and b) the number of police brutality cases is extremely minor compared to the number of lawfully-executed detentions and arrests. In the case of (a) above, why should any person who happens to choose the law enforcement profession be forced to walk around with what is essentially a giant target on their back and no way to defend themselves or others? Yes, I've drawn a gun in the line of duty, but thankfully never had to fire it. It's presence, however, is one of the contributing factors to me being alive to type this message....my words, actions, and uniform would not have made that difference alone. Of course, ideally, you shouldn't need to confront violence with violence, but we do not live in an ideal world and I think that a cop in the USA should not be less equipped to defend themselves and others than those they encounter in the course of their duty. As for (b), people never believe this, but cases where police brutality complaints are made account for less than 1% of the number of total number of cases handled by the police department (and that includes an estimate of those claims that go unreported). Why do you hear so much about it or seem to always know someone who's been thumped by a cop? Simple: the press just LOVES to expose the bad and leave the good on the cutting-room floor; and other people often don't understand the "levels of force", as you may not (no offence...most people that I know have no idea). They may not see anything that they have done as being particularly wrong or threatening, but an officer has to make his decisions very quickly (choosing incorrectly WILL cost a cop his/her life in almost all situations where use of force is contemplated) and there isn't much room to wonder if you're misinterpreting someone or not, so small actions by a suspect may be interpreted by the officer as threatening in nature and things escalate from there (why people don't just shut up or calm down when cops tell them to is beyond me).
Yes, there are and probably always will be bad cops out there that will abuse their authority or use their weapons (lethal and non-lethal) indiscriminately, but don't assume that this is the vast majority (or even a larger minority) of the police officers out there. Also don't assume that non-lethal force will be abused just because it's non-lethal. As with any other "weapon", things like this slippery goo will be classified on the "levels of force" heirarchy and it's use will be heavily restricted due to the potential to seriously injure suspects/others (I seriously doubt if my old department would even buy it since it appears to have big liability potential).
Nothing in the article addresses the problem that you MUST have a feature-over-security attitude to make a killer application.
I disagree with this. To develop a commercial application, there should be a good balance of both features and security. It's true that you may compromise on that third security code audit that you were planning to get the thing out of the door and onto a palette, but it's irresponsible (and could constitute negligence legally) to knowingly develop an insecure product just because you want to add more features.
Also, keep in mind that the marketroids always want you, the end-user/customer, to believe that they're acting in your best interest by releasing a buggy product Right Now(TM), so of course they're going to try to convince you not only how much you really need those new features (which will go unused in somewhere around 80% of the install base), but also to imply that you would've had to wait an inordinate amount of time to receive the product if they had gone back over it with the proverbial "fine-toothed comb" known as a security audit. In reality, however, security audits should definitely NOT be the afterbirth of development...proper security programming practices should be enforced during development so that the code can be as secure as possible from the day the code is first written. Using C functions like gets() without doing overflow checking, for example, is just asking for trouble in most cases, and every competant programmer knows it...the question is, why should it be ok to not write the overflow check or to use a different call that's safer instead? I don't see the difference in time between typing gets() and typing fgets() with a few more arguments when the code is first written? Sure, you could argue that, after thousands of development hours, the few extra seconds adds up, but if it saves you millions in PR and legal expenses, why wouldn't you change your development practices?
Up until recently, Microsoft has enjoyed an era without being held accountable for the bugs in their products (security and otherwise). That is changing now, however, and they really need to treat this as more than just a PR issue (it's becoming more of a legal issue as well). Let's face it, Microsoft is taking heat about this not because of their market position or pervasiveness...not even because their products are compiled from millions of lines of code...it's because they don't stress a proper security-oriented (read: sane) development process.
Don't be brainwashed by them saying that security is the killer of timely/rapid innovation or release schedules because it simply isn't true unless they're development practices say that security is an afterthought rather than an integral part of their programming practices.
Re:More hypocrites than zealots in this world
on
The LDP and Debian
·
· Score: 1
Yet, if you let it be later, you wouldn't be having this problem:
Not true. We would still have the problem, but it would just wouldn't have a deadline that's so immediate. In my experience, I'd rather have the immediate deadline, personally, since most people procrastinate terribly if they're not "under the gun" and usually end up forgetting the issue altogether until the issue is immediate.
This sense of absolute right and wrong, black and white, has caused you trouble.
I don't see anything as being a "grey area", personally. In every situation that someone encounters, they have to "draw the line" as to what will be tolerated and what won't be. On either side of that line lies an absolute. This is no different of a situation. There are some licenses that are free by Debian's standards, but not as free as others that are also in the "Debian says they're free" category. Within the absolutes, there are shades of grey, but the absolutes still exist by necessity.
I'm actually glad that a fellow Debian developer/maintainer followed his conscience rather than just sweeping it under the rug because it would've been easier. I wish more people didn't always take the easy way out of a difficult situation.
Re:Why was this never noticed before?
on
The LDP and Debian
·
· Score: 1
Am I missing something? Or does this sound to anyone else like it would have been noticed before? (Especially among the Debian crowd?)
Even as a Debian developer, I'm inclined to agree on this one. Someone dropped the ball and is now quite a few more people have to scramble because of it.
Also, this isn't something to stop the code freeze for? I thought code freezes were done to get everything in order for releasing the next version.
Like many other types of projects, Debian has a few types of "freezing" going on prior to release. We already got through the "soft freeze", where maintainers were supposed to concentrate on closing as many open bug reports as possible, etc, but if it meant a newer version needs to be uploaded to do so, that's ok. We're now entering the "hard freeze" time, where new versions will not be accepted...only variations on the packages that are already frozen (basically, if a post-hard-freeze new version of some software has a patch that fixes a problem and you want that fix in the release, then you'll have to backport the patch to the frozen version).
This is pretty common practice, but is known by different names depending on the project's participants (milestones, pre-versions, alpha/beta/gamma versions, etc).
Clearly, not everything is ready, so it would make sense to me not to freeze the code...
an updated version without documentation wouldn't be much of an updated version!
This is the source of the problem. Stuff like manpages are ok, since they are usually covered by the same license as the software. This is about docs like HOWTOs and such that are seperately licensed and authored. I don't see the "dropping" of these docs to be a great hardship since they'll still be available via the LDP web sites anyway. And, to be honest, the word "dropping" is deceiving: it just means that the docs will be moved to non-free and won't be part of the core distribution (ie. not available on official "from Debian" CDs). They will still be available to the users if they choose to enable the non-free package sources during installation.
What if the changes are specific to a distribution
on
The LDP and Debian
·
· Score: 1
There is a good reason why changes to the documentation should make it back to the original authors, so they can update their documents.
What if this is not necessary, as in cases where the docs are changing in responce to distribution-specific needs? Under your proposal, simple changes like changing "/usr/local/bin" to "/usr/bin" in documentation because that's where the distribution installs a binary in their package would mean that you would have to send that change back to the original author. To make matters worse, what if the original author rejects the change?
More complex changes are often needed as well (enter the example of the Adrian Sun patches against netatalk awhile ago). Adrian's patches added functionality to netatalk and changed some original behaviour. Now, under your proposed system, additions to cover those behaviour changes and additions to the software (even if they're qualified by saying "if you use the +asun patches...blah blah blah") would have to be accepted by the original author prior to you being able to distribute the document.
To promote virtually non-editable documentation is just silly because of examples like the above. This always leads me to question why the documentation was ever released in the form that can be read on the net if the original author is so anal about changes? What's wrong with writing the document and just flat-out assigning the copyright on the document over to the LDP?
If the Debian fanatics insist on it, let them write their own docs.
This doesn't just affect Debian, it could possibly open up anyone who packages these docs to copyright infringement liability (yes, this includes RedHat and others, which I'm beginning to believe never check half of the licenses in their packages for distribution or alteration restrictions). Not speaking with my "Debian Developer" hat on here, I actually agree with Debian's stance on this. I'd rather have docs that can be modified or updated if they need to be rather than waiting on the upstream authors (who are frequently not reachable) to approve changes. I don't consider the "willy-nilly" editing situation to be a problem since anyone who distributes docs that are obviously wrong will undoubtedly shy people away from getting other docs from them. If you consider usability and even stupid things like spelling corrections (why can't most people that post things on the net spell anyway?) to be "willy nilly", then I suppose we should probably encourage authors to not write free documentation that they hope will be helpful and, instead, encourage them to publish them in books that we all have to pay for (after all, you can't modify those without asking permission either).
Why is that, every time a school cries out for computers or asks about how to better serve the students with what limited resources they have, everyone here rants about how technology should be more prevalent in schools. Now that yet another state has decided to actually get laptops for the kids, you all start bitching about how the money would be better spent? Please...get your opinions straight, people.
First off, I can virtually guarantee that a portion of the money that Maine is spending comes from federal grants and other such sources..and very rarely does the goverment just give money to a state saying "spend it how you want to". It's usually earmarked for a program such as providing computers to students (or at least access to computers), etc. If the state doesn't find a way to spend that money for the designated purpose, they lose it the next time the government comes around looking to hand out more cash. Obviously, very few people who post here have worked for the Federal (or even a state) government, otherwise you would understand this very basic operating principle: spend the money if they give it to you...all of it...and spend it on whatever they tell you to. If you don't, good luck getting anything out of them next year.
Next off, from what I've seen of Maine so far, it's a largely rural state that doesn't have many of the technological perks that the rest of us enjoy (I live in New Hampshire and, despite our proximity to Massachussetts, it's the tech "sticks" out here too, with very few real choices for even decent bandwidth). No offence to Maine folk, but even you have to admit that it's not exactly the richest state out there and many kids growing up there can only hope to afford a good college education (it's also not the most populated state either, but it sure is pretty up there). If they have or received the money to do this, then why not? Someone give me a really good argument against buying the laptops, please! Unlike the many urban folk that seem to live on/., less-populated states need to spend money on things like this just to help the kids in their states compete with the rest of the nation. Yes, teacher salaries are important and, yes, improving classroom materials helps as well, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a college professor today that actually accepts a handwritten term paper (hell, some won't even accept them on physical paper)...how are these kids supposed to learn and get comfortable on computers and word processors if they only get 10 mins a day on a computer and have to share that with 15 of their classmates?
Also, even if Maine put up all of the money from the state's budget, which I seriously doubt, who cares? That kinda cash is a drop in the bucket compared to what most states spend on law enforcement and beurocratic bullshit. It's also a small amount compared to what many COUNTIES spend on their schools. And, unless you live in Maine yourselves, who cares? It's not your state deciding to spend the money.
I know many teachers, both in public and private schools (in fact, my mother-in-law is a middle-school teacher) and every one of them that gives a shit about their students and their education are begging for more computers and programs like this one. Yes, they do realise that it will probably cost them a raise here and there, but they also realise that it'll make their jobs easier in many ways and will also help the kids adjust better in the modern world (not to mention, prepare them for what they will need to do in college, if they choose to go). So, while you all can talk about how much better it would be to buy books and such, try actually listening to what the teachers in your area are saying rather than just assuming that they want more money. Many of them are just as concerned about the quality of education (or lack of) that they're being forced to give to students and how deficient the curriculums and materials are in the face of this tech-centric era. And what's to say that buying electronically published books to put on those laptops may not be cheaper in the long run than buying paper books themselves...
So why would you want to take a step backwards and make these poor saps use somethign that will make them hate computers even more?
Perhaps we shouldn't try to make the like computers at all...maybe we should just ignore them. Put your argument into a different context for a moment and say that driving a car is too difficult for 95% of the population of the world (which it was back when cars were first around) because of the complex actions needed to drive (let's face it, to a five-year-old, there's too much to keep track of and too much to do). Now, according to your argument, we should try to make driving simpler for the average person and if we have to modify the car to do that, we should, correct? Well, then, why have cars become increasingly complex since their inception, yet many more people are capable of driving them now?
The key is to your argument is that the average computer user's skill (and intimidation level) will always remain the same. I disagree and say that the "average user that is afraid of anything but Windows" is around 35+ years old and have much less of a "career lifespan" in today's world anyway. Eventually, the knowledge base shared by that generation will be replaced by the younger, more computer-friendly generations that have followed. It's very rare that I find kids that don't at least know (or have tried) Linux yet, but I'd be hard-pressed to find an over-40 businessman that has even heard of Linux. The key thing is, how much longer do you think the over-40 businessman will be running the show? The mentality of that generation is already fading fast and being replaced by the more technology-aware principles of the 20+ generation. My grandmother is afraid of email...should I try to make a friendly email client for her, or just write her a letter on paper? There's no need to force technology at all on those who fear it, but this is what you're attempting to do by dumbing down software in a vain attempt to satisfy the aging generation's mindset and fears. Let them use typewriters or WordPerfect, if they want...it still gets the job done for 99% of today's office tasks...as would just about any text editor (let's face it, only 8% of the Word users actually use more than just the basic functionality of the software anyway...they wouldn't care if you gave them a text editor, so long as they could bold or italicise characters, spell-check, and indent paragraphs here and there). As for me, I'd prefer something a bit more advanced because I can cope with changing technology better than most of them can.
Times change..as does the world and the "basic" skillset of the working populace. I don't see adopting Linux as "taking a step back", as you put it, but rather in adding a bit more complexity to everyday office tasks, but it's the complexity that will eventually allow them to be even more productive than the supposedly idiot-proof MS interfaces (in other words, there are people that use more than just the basic features of MS software...for those people, it takes infinitely more time to get work done simply because MS has purposely hidden those needed, but advanced features in an effort to make it simple for the novice user). When it comes to idiot-proofing things, it just can't be done. Every time you think you've idiot-proofed something, society will come up with a bigger idiot and you will also end up alienating the more savvy users. Now, if you force the curve up a bit, then perhaps we'll actually reduce the amount of idiots rather than encouraging them to develop.
they just need to get out there and see how """normal""" people think.
Last time that I checked, we were normal people. Unfortunately, Debian isn't like the "other guys" in that we don't have either people with extensive UI design background nor have we consulted with expensive usability experts (and I use that term loosely...hence the expensive argument).
I, myself, am rather tired of people taking shots at the installer without providing specific feedback on how to make it better. All that I ever hear is people saying such constructive comments like "it sucks" or "it's confusing", which do not help improve the situation. Perhaps one of the critics should sit down with someone from the install team (or the whole team via phone) and hammer out a better UI for installation. Hell, consider this a challenge to anyone who doesn't like Debian's installer to improve it with us.
I've been in this field for too many years to count at this point, and I have never been confused by Debian's install process. I'm not ignorant enough to think other should be like me, but I do feel that the apparent complexity of the install process as it is today provides folks like me with more options and let's us get our system installed the way that we like it the first time (rather than having to go back and remove or upgrade 75% of the packages like I have to do with some RH systems that have been in my charge professionally). I'm all for providing a simpler interface with an option to get more advanced for people like me, but until someone steps up and helps streamline the process rather than waiting for the existing Debian folks to fix it without input (and criticise when things don't change enough for their liking), then you may be waiting a very long time.
Bear in mind that the entire Debian distribution is produced by volunteers, not some company with investors and/or revenue. Most of what we get accomplished is done without corporate support at all (95% of the potato alpha distribution, for example, compiled on my personal system that I paid for and keep on the net at my own expense). Donations usually only encompass hardware, which is made available to the developers as a whole and rarely (if at all) include services such as UI design or development assistance with regards to hardware (hardware docs, etc).
In short, I'm no huge fan of our installer, but it serves its purpose and does it well with very few bugs that the user sees (behind the scenes is another story...it's a pain to add new archs to the existing system). Hell, I personally thank Adam for doing such a good job given the flawed initial design of the boot-floppies system.
I've played with one of these boards before...really nice performance thanks to DDR:-)
At the time, we were still using the Irongate chipset configs in the kernel (since the 761 is aka Irongate II) and it wasn't as stable as I hear that it has become.
As for the processor, they were using EV68 833MHz Alpha on the board (same exact processor as in the CS-20, fyi). I'm pretty sure that they haven't varied from this since that is what they were halfway through QA with
If SafeSurf somehow manages to get a politician's ear on this, I say that every web designer out there label ALL of their pages as obscene. This would basically nullify their software's effectiveness and have the side benefit of minimising suits against web designers under the premises of their proposal. At the very least, it'll put a gaping hole in the argument that their software should be required and isn't a form of censorship. I especially like how they are preaching voluntary labeling in their FAQ while proposing a compulsory system in that document. Truly classic...
What they seem to forget is that the existing ratings schemes (motion pictures, music, and video games) are largely voluntary and industry driven. The only penalties that are imposed on products in those markets are that some stores may not carry their product if they aren't labeled. What SafeSurf wants is a mandatory rating by law, which is just ridiculous, especially given the international nature of the net.
For the best explanation of ion propulsion that's used in the DS1 probe, see the
Ion Propulsion FAQ at NASA's JPL site.
For more information on the DS1 probe itself (and the technologies that it tested), see the
DS1 Home Page, also on the JPL site.
Re:there's an argument to be made....
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Our "defense" industry is largely what caused this debacle -- the number one export for the United States is weapons. Think about that for a second -- we make more money selling weapons to the rest of the world than any other thing that we make.
I disagree. Actually, the number one export for the United States is the U.S. Dollar. We give more money in foreign aid than we could ever ship weapons. There is no one reason that anyone can point to that would invoke such actions as we have witnessed recently. Instead, a multitude of reasons are apparent to anyone who has travelled a bit throughout the world.
Foreign policy ranks at or near the top. It's a known fact that no matter what the U.S. does, SOMEONE will still hate us. It should be obvious that you can't support someone without pissing off someone else (anyone that's tried to be a friend to both parties of a split-up couple can tell you that). There are times that the U.S. has chosen to support both sides of a conflict, which hasn't always bitten us in the tail and, in fact, proved to be quite the success. The Iran-Contra situation wasn't necessarily about getting money from the sale of arms to Iran, it was more about choosing the greater "bad" in that region: Iran or Iraq. Iraq's military might was threatening to totally unbalance the region and threaten U.S. interests there (and, yes, there are more things in that area that interest us besides oil, believe it or not). As a result, the sale of arms to Iran was the best move the U.S. could make at the time, especially considering the fact that Iran had depleted their military forces and hardware so much that Iraq threatened their very existence (plus, Iran just plain hates Iraq...). Without such a sale, I venture to say that the Kuwait situation would've happened years before it did, and Iraq probably would've continued into Saudi Arabia in the same push.
American wealth is another major irritant to the world. Let's face it, while our currency may not be very strong, the U.S. business community has a very real impact on foreign nations and governments. To less resource-rich countries, we appear to be greedy and rich jerks who thumb their noses at most of the problems of those countries. Public addresses in the former Soviet Union, Libya, and Iraq have almost always labelled the U.S. as rich and greedy and the lack of foreign aid to some of these countries usually evokes that kind of sentiment (which can be turned violent if a few zealots are added to the mix).
The last big issue (and there are many more, but too many to list) is that we carry the biggest stick on the block, but won't use it. I liken the world as similar to being in prison: if you don't want to be messed with by most of the population, beat up the largest guy that you can find on the first day in prison and you'll get respect. The U.S.'s sheer might and importance makes for an easy target for anyone looking to enter the world stage. To make matters worse, the commitment to the use of military might by the U.S. has softened drastically since Vietnam and Korea, so anyone who wants to start trouble may be more inclined to do so figuring that we'll pursue diplomatic means in almost all cases.
The news loves to also pick on the CIA because of the lack of forewarning. I wish they would also remember that Congress crucified the Agency not too long ago and virtually removed their ability to conduct just about any involved field operations. Prior to yesterday, I guarantee you that a majority of Americans would have been seriously opposed to black ops and assassinations in other countries by the Agency. Today, however, I'm sure that most of their minds would have been changed. I, personally, believe that the Agency's old practices were vital and necessary in most cases, and should never have been called into question. Instead, Congress forced the Agency to rely heavily on electronic surveillance and communications-based espionage rather than actual field operations using agents. They also pushed quite a bit of the CIA's power (and funding) over to the NSA, whose job is more to monitor the citizens of the U.S. than those in other countries. Fact is, "impersonal" espionage does not work by itself. It can be a great adjunct to the flow of info from field agents, but it definitely is not a substitute (if police solely relied on phone calls to 911 to detect crime rather than putting patrols out on the streets, can you imagine what it would be like out there?).
In summation, there are quite a few reasons why these things could've possibly happened to the U.S. with no warning at all. In reality, only the perpetrators know the real reasons and we can only guess. But, if I were a betting man, I would bet on at least a few of the above reasons before I would ever bet on arms sales to foreign powers as a possible reason.
But the point is that it's very easy to accuse any software company that they have broken GPL. You don't really need any proof, you can just say "hey, your implementation looks a little bit like ours, I bet you stole some of our stuff", and the software company doesn't really have any way to defend itself.
The converse is also true. Anyone or any company can be sued because another company or developer decided that someone's implementation looks a lot like theirs. It's happened in the past (once to a friend of mine) and will probably continue. Flip through some case law books and you probably will find a few suits where Microsoft was the plaintiff in such cases (I know they filed one such suit and won, but can't remember which it was), so why would the point be any less valid on the other side of the GPL "fence"?
Honestly, anyone can sue anyone else for anything in the USA...it's whether or not they win and how much it costs the defendant that matters.
Possibility of terrorist-originated attacks?
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
One thing I think everyone is missing about Internet-based voting in a national election is the possibility of DoS or similar attacks by terrorist organisations in order to delay or thwart the election process. Not an issue, you say? I disagree. There are many groups out there interested in thwarting just about any governmental process, as evidenced by the rampant voter fraud and denial of access issues that seem to crop up in every election (even local). Endless attacks on US military computers also speak volumes to me.
No matter how secure you make a system, there are always the possibility for an attack method that nobody counted on. Unfortunately, this is a harsh fact of life on the Net these days. I think it's pretty sad when teenagers can hack even the most high-profile and secure sites out there. What does this say about the possibility of making a relatively safe Internet voting system? Again, there are many groups out there that obviously will do just about anything to achieve their goals...
Privacy issues are another concern altogether. IPv6 will undoubtedly be making a strong appearance by 2004. I doubt I have to say more on that subject:-). Also, it seems that everyone hates the government to have information about them or to even have the possibility of having that info. Frankly, I'm surprised that nobody has popped up saying that the FBI might use electronic voting log files as a way to track people. I'm not a privacy zealot, so I don't think that the info would be abused or even kept beyond what is currently kept (basic voter records), but the possibility is there. So, what the argument for electronic voting is saying to me about privacy concerns is that "we all vigorously protect our private information from possible abuse by the government/third parties UNLESS giving it up makes things more convenient for us".
I, personally, like the idea of Internet voting, but any information relay between the voting locations and any central location should be verified in triplicate, complete with supporting evidence being hand-carried (eventually). Basically, they could transmit the locations' voting records to the county offices via a closed network, verify the results by phone, and hand-carry printouts and media to the offices (in due time). Relaying this information further up the chain (to the state offices, etc) should be conducted in the same manner. Proper checksums and encryption should be used on any media being hand-carried to prevent any tampering which may cause irregularities, but that goes without saying:-)
As for the voting process itself and interface, that should be determined through studies and testing. I doubt that the "more senior, but less tech-savvy" Americans would really be receptive towards electronic voting, but times have changed before in their lifetime and I think that they would adapt (they would bitch, but adapt).
Stormix is working on folding their improvements back into Debian. It's a slow process, though, mostly because most of their employees didn't start out as official Debian developers until AFTER they started at Stormix. Also, there has been some maintainer resistance here and there to any of these efforts, but this really isn't an issue overall. A good example of their changes starting to make their way into Debian poper is that stormpkg is now in the woody tree.
I agree. I think the other things that are wrong with his argument are that he's basing the entire argument solely on a two-candidate election, as well as thinking that any grouping by ethnicity, locale, etc would vote in a similar fashion. So much for individuality and protecting it...
My observation of the formation of the electoral college system is that it was created to help otherwise under-represented areas get more power in the vote as well as helping to bridge the physical distance between the voting areas (states). It worked back then and solved the problems it had to solve. Remember, there were only a handful of states and populated states like New York and Pennsylvania would obviously trounce any voting in the vastly idealogically different and less populous Southern states (thus robbing them of their voting voice about issues that really didn't involve them OR were the foundation of their lifestyles). Also, tabulating votes in a national election was very difficult without districting/grouping prior to the telegraph days.
These days, though, it seems almost ridiculous to think that any clearcut voting majority would ever last or oppress the voting minority. The "rules of engagement" in elections is pretty clear-cut and understood, and could easily be established as law rather than relying on an electoral system to effect it. The population of the states still varies greatly, but this is mostly a dumb thing to compensate for in any way(even the electoral college really doesn't do that, but it pseudo-attempts to) since this would mean that some voters are more "powerful" just because they live in a geographical locale (hence, tossing out the "all men are created equal" thing). Lastly, the information age has made it possible for us to relay vast amounts of information almost anywhere rapidly (hence, the/. effect), which eliminates the need to group votes in one locale for relay as a batch.
Regardless of whether or not this guy can mathematically prove that it's a better system, most citizens of the USA are taught that the will of the majority rules in elections. I think people would have an easier time accepting the abolition of the electoral college system than they seem to be having trying to come to grips with the continuing existance of it.
Plus, I really don't like the sports analogies that this author kept making. The Presidential election is NOT a "series" of contests, but rather a "Super Bowl"-like event. Comparing the election to the number of runs vs. number of games won in the World Series in 1960 is like saying that the winner of the 100m dash in the Olympics should be the person who ran each yard with the fewest amount of steps per yard (longer stride length doesn't matter if the runner is just slower than another). That whole analogy
was just ridiculous. Sure, it made a point, but it really showed me the weakness in the whole argument, in my eyes.
that the ballots were messed up, and they arne't going to fix that.
If you have some ideas on how to fix that, please call Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth...I'm sure he'd like to know how to do that without calling for another national election.
Seems kind of suspicious considering who runs that state...
I don't know what state you live in, but in Florida, Jeb doesn't have that much power, considering many of the offices involved in elections are controlled by strictly partisan Democrats (including Bob Butterworth). Jeb's only the governor, not the King of Florida. Much like any city/county mayor, that position sounds more lofty and powerful than it really is.
As for the allegations of voting fraud, etc...why is it that every time there's a tight race in an election, everyone automatically assumes that there may be some kind of fraud going on? Usually, this kind of thing is only mentioned by the supporters of the losing candidate, unfortunately. If there was some type of fraud involved, though, then everyone should not only blame the folks that ran the voting centres, but should also blame the observers from each of parties/candidates for not catching the fraud (they are there and it's in their best interest to be honest if they really do support their candidate).
As for past voter fraud, yes it's happened. I would be surprised if you could find a major metropolitan area where it never happened, though, so it's not that unusual. In the only case that I can remember, the City of Miami mayoral election was tainted by a fraud case where votes were registered by people who turned out to be dead and buried. It was quite comical for those of us who live here and, considering who was involved, it wasn't terribly surprising. The scam was quickly exposed, however (it was in our local fishwrapper within a week, meaning they had the info within a day of the election). I seriously doubt that anyone in this state that Florida would end up being this close. I never did, that's for sure...I thought it would be close, but not like this. Therefore, you'd have to be a logical/statistical genius psychic who has something to gain to throw the election by this small of a margin. Does such a person even exist?
In short, let's just let the recount happen and live with it sans bitching. I mean, Gore supporters will be disappointed and Bush supporters will be elated, should the recount confirm the current numbers, but that's life. Overall, it was a tight election all across the country, so why should Florida be any different?
Gore easily won the exit polls in Florida, which is why the Major networks declared a Gore victory in Florida early on.
One thing that I think a lot of people are forgetting about the exit polls is that most people (at least in South Florida) don't speak English as their first language. Simply addressing some of those people in English first will cause them to avoid you and not talk to you (take it from me, I live here and speak both English and Spanish luckily). While the Hispanic community tends to have a great voter turnout percentage, they're usually not very keen on dealing with just about anyone from outside of their community. They also tend to take the "secret ballot" thing very seriously. In all, at least in two counties in South Florida, Hispanics make up over 25% of the population of the state (estimate on my part). If this population was under-represented in the exit polls, it could easily account for the initial false estimates of Gore taking Florida 3-1.
All things considered, though, I seriously doubt that we should take exit polls very seriously. There have been many occasions where their validity and accuracy was in question (with good reason). It's also not a very scientific method of determining an accurate representation of voting trends. But, since people see it on the news, they assume it is. Hell, I had to stay up for hours trying to explain why the differences between AP estimates and actually vote tallies were so large at times and why the media flip-flopped so often.
Does this mean that dear hunter will be ported to linux? oh yeah thats what we really want:(
I happen to like Deer Hunter! And, yes, I actually make patches for the kernel every so often. Not everyone who likes to hunt is a person of low intelligence. Hey, after all, at least I'm not killing real animals if I'm playing Deer Hunter on the computer:-)
I noticed the same (and was disappointed about it). I'm looking for an old DEC 3000 (or any TURBOChannel bus Alpha) so that I can start getting TC working in Linux for them. I have a user that wants to buy me one, but I'd rather try to score a donated or free box since I don't want to burden anyone financially. If you happen to find a couple free DEC 3000's, please let me know also...
FYI, I've repackaged the Netscape RPMs offered by Compaq as debs for Debian and have resubmitted them to Compaq and alphalinux.org. Compaq has yet to post the debs, but a.l.o should have them (it's really one deb, fyi, dunno why I said "debs" plural). The Tru64 Netscape runs very nicely on all of my Alphas running Debian.
No? You didn't even know that? You haven't even looked at the data? You didn't realise that the most accurate temperature measurements we have show that absolutely nothing out of the ordinary is happening to the planet today?
First off, I never claimed to be a climatologist, so don't be such a jerk about it. Secondly, yes, I have seen that data and I am aware of that information (and I don't mean that I just looked at it before writing this reply). Climatologists and meteorologists all have their own theories on the future and perhaps I spoke to one that actually agrees with the global warming idea, but it still begs a point: what would happen if we the Earth did become uninhabitable due to climatic changes or other reasons? I seriously doubt that, even if global warming is not a real phenomenon at this point, it couldn't be in the future. We humans have a habit of destroying natural balances. It almost certainly is a probability that we will eventually force ourselves off of the Earth.
Caused by a meteor impact, supposedly. Or do you believe that dinosaurs were all roaring around the planet in their convertible 57-liter V64 Dino-Buggies, running on non-existent oil reserves?
I'm quite aware of the current theories regarding the climatic changes that brought about the extintion of the dinosaurs (note that I said theory...it's still not a scientifically proven fact, although there is a mass of evidence to support such a conclusion). But you missed the overall point: despite the method that caused such a climatic change, the result was the same: large-scale death of countless species because of a change in the climate on Earth. Can you deny that?
And, in the future, try just sticking to presenting the facts that you're aware of. Being a smart-ass doesn't help to present your case.
From my recollection of Earths history, the climate has been through some pretty dramatic changes over the ages, and in general the age of the dinosaurs was warmer than it is now, so how come all this doom and gloom?
Remind me again...what happened to the dinosaurs? They're basically all dead due to the extreme climatic changes that they went on. Sure, some minor species managed to survive, but a large portion of the species all died off. It was once estimated that the genetic variety of the species that existed during those times was at least ten times what we know of throughout recorded history, meaning that even if 10% of the species survived back then, 90 times our current genetic variety died. I think this is cause for some doom and gloom.
There is no denying that global warming will have some pretty catastrophic affects, and may cause famine disease hunger flooding etc. but I doubt it will go as far as Mr Hawking suggests.
Last thing that I heard while chatting about global warming with a climatologist was that, if the current trend continues, conditions on this planet will have reached the intolerable within 750-1000 years. Remember, global warming isn't something that is increasing at a fixed rate. Every day, more and more "greenhouse gases" are being released into the atmosphere, meaning this effect is multiplying slowly. There are always organisms which help reduce this kind of insulating effect (mostly plant life), but in general, we're reducing their effectiveness by reducing the forest areas and also increasing the amount of man-made pollutants that are released.
Maybe space colonisation isn't the way to go and maybe we can somehow stop the current trend of pollution without thought and start to repair the damage that's already done....but I seriously doubt it. Let's face it, we're all pretty comfortable these days with cars, refrigeration, plastics, etc, so who would want to do without even a portion of the quantity of products that fill our daily lives? Not many, I can tell you that. Unfortunately, I think that mankind is too selfish at times to survive for a long period of time (we're talking on a celestial scale...I don't mean 30-10000 years). What could it hurt to try something new? Perhaps we should try to colonise a new planet. Who knows, it might bring out the best in the species...
After all, anything you can do on an expensive Sparc, you can do faster/better on an x86 at a lower cost.
I disagree with this type of statement when it comes to comparing just about any other architecture to x86 (and I've heard this kind of thing from countless x86-centric people). First off, contrary to popular belief, there are still uses for "big iron" in today's world. Understand this, not everything is a desktop-class system, and I haven't seen a good large-scale server come from Intel since they were first experimenting with their Hypercubes. Uses of big iron include data warehouses (which are big within larger corporations, mostly), scientific research, meteorological research/prediction, etc. For some of these uses, using Beowulf technology can work well using what Intel likes to refer to as "servers" as nodes (usually, these are just desktop or workstation motherboards with increased RAM capacity and a bit more cache), but in many cases, big iron is still the way to go. Ever try to bring up a 10TB data warehouse server under Linux using x86-class components? Good luck.
Compaq and Sun have MUCH more experience with large servers than almost any PC manufacturer. Unfortunately, in the case of Sun equipment, Solaris is the only choice if you need to get a large-scale system running in a very short time. Compaq (and partners) are improving Linux for their Alpha servers to make sure that it can handle such tasks. It may not seem too profitable to do this, especially since they produce a "competing" product in Tru64, but the marketing issues skew a bit when the hardware manufacturer is the same company as the primary OS manufacturer. To Compaq, selling hardware and support contracts on that hardware is #1, Tru64 is a close second, but offsetting R&D and fab costs on hardware is often much more difficult than it is to recover OS development costs. Unfortunately, Sun drops the ball in this regard. They have not given enough to the Linux community for them to entertain the same favour amongst the Sparc-Linux users as Compaq has with the Alpha-Linux users (granted, quite a few Alpha-Linux users still have tenuous relationships with Compaq, but it's not as bad as those with/against Sun). This is sad, but true. Had Sun been more forthcoming, both on an informational level as well as a pricing level, they could've enjoyed more success with Sparc-Linux. So, IMO, it has nothing to do, though, with the quality or speed of their hardware, though, that RedHat hasn't seen great numbers out of the Sparc releases. I mean, NOBODY can tell me that there aren't a ton of sparcs out there...
So now that we've established that Sun is partially to blame here, let's talk about RedHat's shortcomings in this situation and how it will affect the future of both their distribution and Linux in general. First off, I think that RedHat dropped the ball on this as well and could have enjoyed much more success with the sparc release than they did. Anyone that knows anything about the average Sparc customer knows one thing: they will not buy a server without a support contract on the hardware and the OS component...end of story, no discussion. After all, corporations are Sun's biggest customers and corporations not only cover their ass, but also the rest of their body with armour when they purchase something computer-related. Now, we all know how much crap RedHat has its hands in now (seems like every week, they're releasing PR about acquiring, agreeing with, or partnering with SOMEONE). I honestly think they've diversified too much for their own good, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, if they're going to work on/with all of these other companies, why not try to get in bed with Sun? A small contract and perhaps a small personnel exchange could've easily made a deal between the two that allowed Sun to only focus on Solaris, while deferring the Linux question to RedHat (which would allow it to be nurtured by someone other than Joe User). RedHat could also allow Sun to sell Linux support contracts on Sun equipment and just kick back some money to Sun for the administration involved in doing the sales (this kind of deal is made every single day in the IT industry...it's just contracting out for a support service). RedHat and Sun could've practically owned the Sparc OS market (sorry, BSD folks, you do count, but the research shows you're still in the vast minority).
This all should seem easy to come up with for any marketing person or corporate executive, and it really should be that easy (hell, I came up with it and I didn't even finish college), but let's face facts: non-x86 archs are practically shunned by the core Linux community, especially the corporate side of Linux. This is a shame because there are valid contributions that could be made to the kernel and the distributions by listening to the other-port folks. Sure, you don't find tons of large-scale servers in the hands of most kernel programmers, but there are people out there that have access to these systems and have valuable scalability issues that should be addressed by the Linux community as a whole. Also, I feel that Linux should present on a unified front and say collectively that "Linux doesn't equal x86-only". If you want to drive people and corporate software products away from other archs, treating ports the way that they are now is a good start.
Marketing and logistics are too often cited as being reasons for dropping ports like sparc, but I think that those issues are not to blame for the situation. The problem is that RedHat (in this case) is using traditional business models and isn't trying to forge new (additional) revenue streams. They seem to love jumping onto the hot issues of today (like embedded systems, etc), which are guaranteed money-makers, but won't attempt an alliance with a company like Sun for some reason. IMO, they should've done this before even releasing a sparc port. I mean, why release a product for a few cycles, then drop it? corporate image can be more important than income reports somtimes (ask IBM) and they're only serving to alienate the users of that port (many of whom are probably also x86 RedHat users). RedHat: do your research BEFORE releasing the port.
But, at any rate, don't be so quick to write off Sparc or any other non-x86 arch just because your applications run faster/cheaper on them. Obviously, there are customers for these other architectures and they buy them for a reason. Not everyone's problems can be solved on an x86. For many of the consumers in the non-x86 market, though, prices of software can be huge because it's over-and-above the higher cost of the hardware, which makes Linux a nice alternative for some of those folks. So, don't assume that practically nobody uses the sparc port (or any other) because the native OS is just too indiginous to be ousted. Besides, Linux is beginning to replace MS, who was the odds-on favourite for awhile simply because of their huge install base. But, until someone like RedHat seriously tries to make it profitable to support a port like Sparc, it won't happen. This is not Field of Dreams...if you build it, but don't advertise it, they won't come.
Personally, I'm kinda glad RedHat is slimming down their product offerings. I've watched the quality control drop drastically on non-x86 platform releases. Maybe now they can turn some attention towards improving the ones that they still support.
IIRC, the damages awarded were based on lost royalties, so she's entitled to those "lost royalties" if they would've been otherwise paid to her. So, despite the basis of the suit arguments (copyright), part of the damages are theoretically hers. Since she's got good lawyers, I'm sure she'll get a percentage or at least make a big enough stink about it to make Universal look greedy and like they're not acting in the artists' best interests.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, non lethal weapons should carry the same rules that lethal weapons do, or at least, somewhere near that strict. (i.e. you can use them to assist in the apprehension of an unwilling detainee).
They frequently do carry the same rules (or very close to it) as lethal weapons, at least in the States. There are "levels of force" that are clearly defined in every police department that I've dealt with (and the one that I worked for) that states not only what weapons are acceptable to use at that level, but also what situations and criteria are needed before said weapons are used. The principle of escalation of force usage is usually recommended and legally sound: talk -> threat -> open-handed defencive tactics -> chemical methods (mace, pepper spray, etc) -> blunt weapons (batons, PR-24, ASP, etc) -> firearms discharge....all depending on the level of force used against the officer. A firearm or even most non-lethal uses of force are discouraged in normal (read: no officer or civilian is being threatened) situations. Hell, I got cracked on for using a PR-24 on a guy who was a foot taller than myself, outweighed me by at least 100 pounds, and had already thrown another officer across the room! I was told that pepper spray or electric stun gun was the appropriate level of force to use on the guy (who incidentally had broken several bones in his wife's face and skull while beating her nearly unconscious). I wasn't written up for it, but did receive a verbal warning (officer safety concerns and the statements by the "got thrown" cop were the only reason that I wasn't suspended).
As an example of non-lethal force usage rules, the ASP retractable baton is a non-lethal weapon, by classification, but its use in my former department was restricted to a level of force just below firearm discharge since it had the potential to actually break a bone in the suspect. Many departments in other states had less restrictions on the ASP and PR-24 side-handled baton than we did, but most did consider their usage to be acceptible only in more extreme situations.
Although, now that I think about it, I would much prefer the cops had nothing but non lethal weapons, otherwise they are given a sort of 'instant executive right' to dole out the death penalty as they see fit, and I wouldn't quite consider 1 cop with a gun a jury of my peers.
That's because you aren't on the line yourself :-) The public frequently forgets two things when it comes to police officers: a) they are citizens as well and aren't really anxious to get killed, and b) the number of police brutality cases is extremely minor compared to the number of lawfully-executed detentions and arrests. In the case of (a) above, why should any person who happens to choose the law enforcement profession be forced to walk around with what is essentially a giant target on their back and no way to defend themselves or others? Yes, I've drawn a gun in the line of duty, but thankfully never had to fire it. It's presence, however, is one of the contributing factors to me being alive to type this message....my words, actions, and uniform would not have made that difference alone. Of course, ideally, you shouldn't need to confront violence with violence, but we do not live in an ideal world and I think that a cop in the USA should not be less equipped to defend themselves and others than those they encounter in the course of their duty. As for (b), people never believe this, but cases where police brutality complaints are made account for less than 1% of the number of total number of cases handled by the police department (and that includes an estimate of those claims that go unreported). Why do you hear so much about it or seem to always know someone who's been thumped by a cop? Simple: the press just LOVES to expose the bad and leave the good on the cutting-room floor; and other people often don't understand the "levels of force", as you may not (no offence...most people that I know have no idea). They may not see anything that they have done as being particularly wrong or threatening, but an officer has to make his decisions very quickly (choosing incorrectly WILL cost a cop his/her life in almost all situations where use of force is contemplated) and there isn't much room to wonder if you're misinterpreting someone or not, so small actions by a suspect may be interpreted by the officer as threatening in nature and things escalate from there (why people don't just shut up or calm down when cops tell them to is beyond me).
Yes, there are and probably always will be bad cops out there that will abuse their authority or use their weapons (lethal and non-lethal) indiscriminately, but don't assume that this is the vast majority (or even a larger minority) of the police officers out there. Also don't assume that non-lethal force will be abused just because it's non-lethal. As with any other "weapon", things like this slippery goo will be classified on the "levels of force" heirarchy and it's use will be heavily restricted due to the potential to seriously injure suspects/others (I seriously doubt if my old department would even buy it since it appears to have big liability potential).
Nothing in the article addresses the problem that you MUST have a feature-over-security attitude to make a killer application.
I disagree with this. To develop a commercial application, there should be a good balance of both features and security. It's true that you may compromise on that third security code audit that you were planning to get the thing out of the door and onto a palette, but it's irresponsible (and could constitute negligence legally) to knowingly develop an insecure product just because you want to add more features.
Also, keep in mind that the marketroids always want you, the end-user/customer, to believe that they're acting in your best interest by releasing a buggy product Right Now(TM), so of course they're going to try to convince you not only how much you really need those new features (which will go unused in somewhere around 80% of the install base), but also to imply that you would've had to wait an inordinate amount of time to receive the product if they had gone back over it with the proverbial "fine-toothed comb" known as a security audit. In reality, however, security audits should definitely NOT be the afterbirth of development...proper security programming practices should be enforced during development so that the code can be as secure as possible from the day the code is first written. Using C functions like gets() without doing overflow checking, for example, is just asking for trouble in most cases, and every competant programmer knows it...the question is, why should it be ok to not write the overflow check or to use a different call that's safer instead? I don't see the difference in time between typing gets() and typing fgets() with a few more arguments when the code is first written? Sure, you could argue that, after thousands of development hours, the few extra seconds adds up, but if it saves you millions in PR and legal expenses, why wouldn't you change your development practices?
Up until recently, Microsoft has enjoyed an era without being held accountable for the bugs in their products (security and otherwise). That is changing now, however, and they really need to treat this as more than just a PR issue (it's becoming more of a legal issue as well). Let's face it, Microsoft is taking heat about this not because of their market position or pervasiveness...not even because their products are compiled from millions of lines of code...it's because they don't stress a proper security-oriented (read: sane) development process.
Don't be brainwashed by them saying that security is the killer of timely/rapid innovation or release schedules because it simply isn't true unless they're development practices say that security is an afterthought rather than an integral part of their programming practices.
Yet, if you let it be later, you wouldn't be having this problem:
Not true. We would still have the problem, but it would just wouldn't have a deadline that's so immediate. In my experience, I'd rather have the immediate deadline, personally, since most people procrastinate terribly if they're not "under the gun" and usually end up forgetting the issue altogether until the issue is immediate.
This sense of absolute right and wrong, black and white, has caused you trouble.
I don't see anything as being a "grey area", personally. In every situation that someone encounters, they have to "draw the line" as to what will be tolerated and what won't be. On either side of that line lies an absolute. This is no different of a situation. There are some licenses that are free by Debian's standards, but not as free as others that are also in the "Debian says they're free" category. Within the absolutes, there are shades of grey, but the absolutes still exist by necessity.
I'm actually glad that a fellow Debian developer/maintainer followed his conscience rather than just sweeping it under the rug because it would've been easier. I wish more people didn't always take the easy way out of a difficult situation.
Am I missing something? Or does this sound to anyone else like it would have been noticed before? (Especially among the Debian crowd?)
Even as a Debian developer, I'm inclined to agree on this one. Someone dropped the ball and is now quite a few more people have to scramble because of it.
Also, this isn't something to stop the code freeze for? I thought code freezes were done to get everything in order for releasing the next version.
Like many other types of projects, Debian has a few types of "freezing" going on prior to release. We already got through the "soft freeze", where maintainers were supposed to concentrate on closing as many open bug reports as possible, etc, but if it meant a newer version needs to be uploaded to do so, that's ok. We're now entering the "hard freeze" time, where new versions will not be accepted...only variations on the packages that are already frozen (basically, if a post-hard-freeze new version of some software has a patch that fixes a problem and you want that fix in the release, then you'll have to backport the patch to the frozen version).
This is pretty common practice, but is known by different names depending on the project's participants (milestones, pre-versions, alpha/beta/gamma versions, etc).
Clearly, not everything is ready, so it would make sense to me not to freeze the code... an updated version without documentation wouldn't be much of an updated version!
This is the source of the problem. Stuff like manpages are ok, since they are usually covered by the same license as the software. This is about docs like HOWTOs and such that are seperately licensed and authored. I don't see the "dropping" of these docs to be a great hardship since they'll still be available via the LDP web sites anyway. And, to be honest, the word "dropping" is deceiving: it just means that the docs will be moved to non-free and won't be part of the core distribution (ie. not available on official "from Debian" CDs). They will still be available to the users if they choose to enable the non-free package sources during installation.
There is a good reason why changes to the documentation should make it back to the original authors, so they can update their documents.
What if this is not necessary, as in cases where the docs are changing in responce to distribution-specific needs? Under your proposal, simple changes like changing "/usr/local/bin" to "/usr/bin" in documentation because that's where the distribution installs a binary in their package would mean that you would have to send that change back to the original author. To make matters worse, what if the original author rejects the change?
More complex changes are often needed as well (enter the example of the Adrian Sun patches against netatalk awhile ago). Adrian's patches added functionality to netatalk and changed some original behaviour. Now, under your proposed system, additions to cover those behaviour changes and additions to the software (even if they're qualified by saying "if you use the +asun patches...blah blah blah") would have to be accepted by the original author prior to you being able to distribute the document.
To promote virtually non-editable documentation is just silly because of examples like the above. This always leads me to question why the documentation was ever released in the form that can be read on the net if the original author is so anal about changes? What's wrong with writing the document and just flat-out assigning the copyright on the document over to the LDP?
If the Debian fanatics insist on it, let them write their own docs.
This doesn't just affect Debian, it could possibly open up anyone who packages these docs to copyright infringement liability (yes, this includes RedHat and others, which I'm beginning to believe never check half of the licenses in their packages for distribution or alteration restrictions). Not speaking with my "Debian Developer" hat on here, I actually agree with Debian's stance on this. I'd rather have docs that can be modified or updated if they need to be rather than waiting on the upstream authors (who are frequently not reachable) to approve changes. I don't consider the "willy-nilly" editing situation to be a problem since anyone who distributes docs that are obviously wrong will undoubtedly shy people away from getting other docs from them. If you consider usability and even stupid things like spelling corrections (why can't most people that post things on the net spell anyway?) to be "willy nilly", then I suppose we should probably encourage authors to not write free documentation that they hope will be helpful and, instead, encourage them to publish them in books that we all have to pay for (after all, you can't modify those without asking permission either).
Why is that, every time a school cries out for computers or asks about how to better serve the students with what limited resources they have, everyone here rants about how technology should be more prevalent in schools. Now that yet another state has decided to actually get laptops for the kids, you all start bitching about how the money would be better spent? Please...get your opinions straight, people.
First off, I can virtually guarantee that a portion of the money that Maine is spending comes from federal grants and other such sources..and very rarely does the goverment just give money to a state saying "spend it how you want to". It's usually earmarked for a program such as providing computers to students (or at least access to computers), etc. If the state doesn't find a way to spend that money for the designated purpose, they lose it the next time the government comes around looking to hand out more cash. Obviously, very few people who post here have worked for the Federal (or even a state) government, otherwise you would understand this very basic operating principle: spend the money if they give it to you...all of it...and spend it on whatever they tell you to. If you don't, good luck getting anything out of them next year.
Next off, from what I've seen of Maine so far, it's a largely rural state that doesn't have many of the technological perks that the rest of us enjoy (I live in New Hampshire and, despite our proximity to Massachussetts, it's the tech "sticks" out here too, with very few real choices for even decent bandwidth). No offence to Maine folk, but even you have to admit that it's not exactly the richest state out there and many kids growing up there can only hope to afford a good college education (it's also not the most populated state either, but it sure is pretty up there). If they have or received the money to do this, then why not? Someone give me a really good argument against buying the laptops, please! Unlike the many urban folk that seem to live on /., less-populated states need to spend money on things like this just to help the kids in their states compete with the rest of the nation. Yes, teacher salaries are important and, yes, improving classroom materials helps as well, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a college professor today that actually accepts a handwritten term paper (hell, some won't even accept them on physical paper)...how are these kids supposed to learn and get comfortable on computers and word processors if they only get 10 mins a day on a computer and have to share that with 15 of their classmates?
Also, even if Maine put up all of the money from the state's budget, which I seriously doubt, who cares? That kinda cash is a drop in the bucket compared to what most states spend on law enforcement and beurocratic bullshit. It's also a small amount compared to what many COUNTIES spend on their schools. And, unless you live in Maine yourselves, who cares? It's not your state deciding to spend the money.
I know many teachers, both in public and private schools (in fact, my mother-in-law is a middle-school teacher) and every one of them that gives a shit about their students and their education are begging for more computers and programs like this one. Yes, they do realise that it will probably cost them a raise here and there, but they also realise that it'll make their jobs easier in many ways and will also help the kids adjust better in the modern world (not to mention, prepare them for what they will need to do in college, if they choose to go). So, while you all can talk about how much better it would be to buy books and such, try actually listening to what the teachers in your area are saying rather than just assuming that they want more money. Many of them are just as concerned about the quality of education (or lack of) that they're being forced to give to students and how deficient the curriculums and materials are in the face of this tech-centric era. And what's to say that buying electronically published books to put on those laptops may not be cheaper in the long run than buying paper books themselves...
So why would you want to take a step backwards and make these poor saps use somethign that will make them hate computers even more?
Perhaps we shouldn't try to make the like computers at all...maybe we should just ignore them. Put your argument into a different context for a moment and say that driving a car is too difficult for 95% of the population of the world (which it was back when cars were first around) because of the complex actions needed to drive (let's face it, to a five-year-old, there's too much to keep track of and too much to do). Now, according to your argument, we should try to make driving simpler for the average person and if we have to modify the car to do that, we should, correct? Well, then, why have cars become increasingly complex since their inception, yet many more people are capable of driving them now?
The key is to your argument is that the average computer user's skill (and intimidation level) will always remain the same. I disagree and say that the "average user that is afraid of anything but Windows" is around 35+ years old and have much less of a "career lifespan" in today's world anyway. Eventually, the knowledge base shared by that generation will be replaced by the younger, more computer-friendly generations that have followed. It's very rare that I find kids that don't at least know (or have tried) Linux yet, but I'd be hard-pressed to find an over-40 businessman that has even heard of Linux. The key thing is, how much longer do you think the over-40 businessman will be running the show? The mentality of that generation is already fading fast and being replaced by the more technology-aware principles of the 20+ generation. My grandmother is afraid of email...should I try to make a friendly email client for her, or just write her a letter on paper? There's no need to force technology at all on those who fear it, but this is what you're attempting to do by dumbing down software in a vain attempt to satisfy the aging generation's mindset and fears. Let them use typewriters or WordPerfect, if they want...it still gets the job done for 99% of today's office tasks...as would just about any text editor (let's face it, only 8% of the Word users actually use more than just the basic functionality of the software anyway...they wouldn't care if you gave them a text editor, so long as they could bold or italicise characters, spell-check, and indent paragraphs here and there). As for me, I'd prefer something a bit more advanced because I can cope with changing technology better than most of them can.
Times change..as does the world and the "basic" skillset of the working populace. I don't see adopting Linux as "taking a step back", as you put it, but rather in adding a bit more complexity to everyday office tasks, but it's the complexity that will eventually allow them to be even more productive than the supposedly idiot-proof MS interfaces (in other words, there are people that use more than just the basic features of MS software...for those people, it takes infinitely more time to get work done simply because MS has purposely hidden those needed, but advanced features in an effort to make it simple for the novice user). When it comes to idiot-proofing things, it just can't be done. Every time you think you've idiot-proofed something, society will come up with a bigger idiot and you will also end up alienating the more savvy users. Now, if you force the curve up a bit, then perhaps we'll actually reduce the amount of idiots rather than encouraging them to develop.
they just need to get out there and see how """normal""" people think.
Last time that I checked, we were normal people. Unfortunately, Debian isn't like the "other guys" in that we don't have either people with extensive UI design background nor have we consulted with expensive usability experts (and I use that term loosely...hence the expensive argument).
I, myself, am rather tired of people taking shots at the installer without providing specific feedback on how to make it better. All that I ever hear is people saying such constructive comments like "it sucks" or "it's confusing", which do not help improve the situation. Perhaps one of the critics should sit down with someone from the install team (or the whole team via phone) and hammer out a better UI for installation. Hell, consider this a challenge to anyone who doesn't like Debian's installer to improve it with us.
I've been in this field for too many years to count at this point, and I have never been confused by Debian's install process. I'm not ignorant enough to think other should be like me, but I do feel that the apparent complexity of the install process as it is today provides folks like me with more options and let's us get our system installed the way that we like it the first time (rather than having to go back and remove or upgrade 75% of the packages like I have to do with some RH systems that have been in my charge professionally). I'm all for providing a simpler interface with an option to get more advanced for people like me, but until someone steps up and helps streamline the process rather than waiting for the existing Debian folks to fix it without input (and criticise when things don't change enough for their liking), then you may be waiting a very long time.
Bear in mind that the entire Debian distribution is produced by volunteers, not some company with investors and/or revenue. Most of what we get accomplished is done without corporate support at all (95% of the potato alpha distribution, for example, compiled on my personal system that I paid for and keep on the net at my own expense). Donations usually only encompass hardware, which is made available to the developers as a whole and rarely (if at all) include services such as UI design or development assistance with regards to hardware (hardware docs, etc).
In short, I'm no huge fan of our installer, but it serves its purpose and does it well with very few bugs that the user sees (behind the scenes is another story...it's a pain to add new archs to the existing system). Hell, I personally thank Adam for doing such a good job given the flawed initial design of the boot-floppies system.
I've played with one of these boards before...really nice performance thanks to DDR:-)
At the time, we were still using the Irongate chipset configs in the kernel (since the 761 is aka Irongate II) and it wasn't as stable as I hear that it has become.
As for the processor, they were using EV68 833MHz Alpha on the board (same exact processor as in the CS-20, fyi). I'm pretty sure that they haven't varied from this since that is what they were halfway through QA with
If SafeSurf somehow manages to get a politician's ear on this, I say that every web designer out there label ALL of their pages as obscene. This would basically nullify their software's effectiveness and have the side benefit of minimising suits against web designers under the premises of their proposal. At the very least, it'll put a gaping hole in the argument that their software should be required and isn't a form of censorship. I especially like how they are preaching voluntary labeling in their FAQ while proposing a compulsory system in that document. Truly classic...
What they seem to forget is that the existing ratings schemes (motion pictures, music, and video games) are largely voluntary and industry driven. The only penalties that are imposed on products in those markets are that some stores may not carry their product if they aren't labeled. What SafeSurf wants is a mandatory rating by law, which is just ridiculous, especially given the international nature of the net.
For the best explanation of ion propulsion that's used in the DS1 probe, see the Ion Propulsion FAQ at NASA's JPL site.
For more information on the DS1 probe itself (and the technologies that it tested), see the DS1 Home Page, also on the JPL site.
Our "defense" industry is largely what caused this debacle -- the number one export for the United States is weapons. Think about that for a second -- we make more money selling weapons to the rest of the world than any other thing that we make.
I disagree. Actually, the number one export for the United States is the U.S. Dollar. We give more money in foreign aid than we could ever ship weapons. There is no one reason that anyone can point to that would invoke such actions as we have witnessed recently. Instead, a multitude of reasons are apparent to anyone who has travelled a bit throughout the world.
Foreign policy ranks at or near the top. It's a known fact that no matter what the U.S. does, SOMEONE will still hate us. It should be obvious that you can't support someone without pissing off someone else (anyone that's tried to be a friend to both parties of a split-up couple can tell you that). There are times that the U.S. has chosen to support both sides of a conflict, which hasn't always bitten us in the tail and, in fact, proved to be quite the success. The Iran-Contra situation wasn't necessarily about getting money from the sale of arms to Iran, it was more about choosing the greater "bad" in that region: Iran or Iraq. Iraq's military might was threatening to totally unbalance the region and threaten U.S. interests there (and, yes, there are more things in that area that interest us besides oil, believe it or not). As a result, the sale of arms to Iran was the best move the U.S. could make at the time, especially considering the fact that Iran had depleted their military forces and hardware so much that Iraq threatened their very existence (plus, Iran just plain hates Iraq...). Without such a sale, I venture to say that the Kuwait situation would've happened years before it did, and Iraq probably would've continued into Saudi Arabia in the same push.
American wealth is another major irritant to the world. Let's face it, while our currency may not be very strong, the U.S. business community has a very real impact on foreign nations and governments. To less resource-rich countries, we appear to be greedy and rich jerks who thumb their noses at most of the problems of those countries. Public addresses in the former Soviet Union, Libya, and Iraq have almost always labelled the U.S. as rich and greedy and the lack of foreign aid to some of these countries usually evokes that kind of sentiment (which can be turned violent if a few zealots are added to the mix).
The last big issue (and there are many more, but too many to list) is that we carry the biggest stick on the block, but won't use it. I liken the world as similar to being in prison: if you don't want to be messed with by most of the population, beat up the largest guy that you can find on the first day in prison and you'll get respect. The U.S.'s sheer might and importance makes for an easy target for anyone looking to enter the world stage. To make matters worse, the commitment to the use of military might by the U.S. has softened drastically since Vietnam and Korea, so anyone who wants to start trouble may be more inclined to do so figuring that we'll pursue diplomatic means in almost all cases.
The news loves to also pick on the CIA because of the lack of forewarning. I wish they would also remember that Congress crucified the Agency not too long ago and virtually removed their ability to conduct just about any involved field operations. Prior to yesterday, I guarantee you that a majority of Americans would have been seriously opposed to black ops and assassinations in other countries by the Agency. Today, however, I'm sure that most of their minds would have been changed. I, personally, believe that the Agency's old practices were vital and necessary in most cases, and should never have been called into question. Instead, Congress forced the Agency to rely heavily on electronic surveillance and communications-based espionage rather than actual field operations using agents. They also pushed quite a bit of the CIA's power (and funding) over to the NSA, whose job is more to monitor the citizens of the U.S. than those in other countries. Fact is, "impersonal" espionage does not work by itself. It can be a great adjunct to the flow of info from field agents, but it definitely is not a substitute (if police solely relied on phone calls to 911 to detect crime rather than putting patrols out on the streets, can you imagine what it would be like out there?).
In summation, there are quite a few reasons why these things could've possibly happened to the U.S. with no warning at all. In reality, only the perpetrators know the real reasons and we can only guess. But, if I were a betting man, I would bet on at least a few of the above reasons before I would ever bet on arms sales to foreign powers as a possible reason.
But the point is that it's very easy to accuse any software company that they have broken GPL. You don't really need any proof, you can just say "hey, your implementation looks a little bit like ours, I bet you stole some of our stuff", and the software company doesn't really have any way to defend itself.
The converse is also true. Anyone or any company can be sued because another company or developer decided that someone's implementation looks a lot like theirs. It's happened in the past (once to a friend of mine) and will probably continue. Flip through some case law books and you probably will find a few suits where Microsoft was the plaintiff in such cases (I know they filed one such suit and won, but can't remember which it was), so why would the point be any less valid on the other side of the GPL "fence"?
Honestly, anyone can sue anyone else for anything in the USA...it's whether or not they win and how much it costs the defendant that matters.
One thing I think everyone is missing about Internet-based voting in a national election is the possibility of DoS or similar attacks by terrorist organisations in order to delay or thwart the election process. Not an issue, you say? I disagree. There are many groups out there interested in thwarting just about any governmental process, as evidenced by the rampant voter fraud and denial of access issues that seem to crop up in every election (even local). Endless attacks on US military computers also speak volumes to me.
No matter how secure you make a system, there are always the possibility for an attack method that nobody counted on. Unfortunately, this is a harsh fact of life on the Net these days. I think it's pretty sad when teenagers can hack even the most high-profile and secure sites out there. What does this say about the possibility of making a relatively safe Internet voting system? Again, there are many groups out there that obviously will do just about anything to achieve their goals...
Privacy issues are another concern altogether. IPv6 will undoubtedly be making a strong appearance by 2004. I doubt I have to say more on that subject :-). Also, it seems that everyone hates the government to have information about them or to even have the possibility of having that info. Frankly, I'm surprised that nobody has popped up saying that the FBI might use electronic voting log files as a way to track people. I'm not a privacy zealot, so I don't think that the info would be abused or even kept beyond what is currently kept (basic voter records), but the possibility is there. So, what the argument for electronic voting is saying to me about privacy concerns is that "we all vigorously protect our private information from possible abuse by the government/third parties UNLESS giving it up makes things more convenient for us".
I, personally, like the idea of Internet voting, but any information relay between the voting locations and any central location should be verified in triplicate, complete with supporting evidence being hand-carried (eventually). Basically, they could transmit the locations' voting records to the county offices via a closed network, verify the results by phone, and hand-carry printouts and media to the offices (in due time). Relaying this information further up the chain (to the state offices, etc) should be conducted in the same manner. Proper checksums and encryption should be used on any media being hand-carried to prevent any tampering which may cause irregularities, but that goes without saying :-)
As for the voting process itself and interface, that should be determined through studies and testing. I doubt that the "more senior, but less tech-savvy" Americans would really be receptive towards electronic voting, but times have changed before in their lifetime and I think that they would adapt (they would bitch, but adapt).
Stormix is working on folding their improvements back into Debian. It's a slow process, though, mostly because most of their employees didn't start out as official Debian developers until AFTER they started at Stormix. Also, there has been some maintainer resistance here and there to any of these efforts, but this really isn't an issue overall. A good example of their changes starting to make their way into Debian poper is that stormpkg is now in the woody tree.
I agree. I think the other things that are wrong with his argument are that he's basing the entire argument solely on a two-candidate election, as well as thinking that any grouping by ethnicity, locale, etc would vote in a similar fashion. So much for individuality and protecting it...
My observation of the formation of the electoral college system is that it was created to help otherwise under-represented areas get more power in the vote as well as helping to bridge the physical distance between the voting areas (states). It worked back then and solved the problems it had to solve. Remember, there were only a handful of states and populated states like New York and Pennsylvania would obviously trounce any voting in the vastly idealogically different and less populous Southern states (thus robbing them of their voting voice about issues that really didn't involve them OR were the foundation of their lifestyles). Also, tabulating votes in a national election was very difficult without districting/grouping prior to the telegraph days.
These days, though, it seems almost ridiculous to think that any clearcut voting majority would ever last or oppress the voting minority. The "rules of engagement" in elections is pretty clear-cut and understood, and could easily be established as law rather than relying on an electoral system to effect it. The population of the states still varies greatly, but this is mostly a dumb thing to compensate for in any way(even the electoral college really doesn't do that, but it pseudo-attempts to) since this would mean that some voters are more "powerful" just because they live in a geographical locale (hence, tossing out the "all men are created equal" thing). Lastly, the information age has made it possible for us to relay vast amounts of information almost anywhere rapidly (hence, the /. effect), which eliminates the need to group votes in one locale for relay as a batch.
Regardless of whether or not this guy can mathematically prove that it's a better system, most citizens of the USA are taught that the will of the majority rules in elections. I think people would have an easier time accepting the abolition of the electoral college system than they seem to be having trying to come to grips with the continuing existance of it.
Plus, I really don't like the sports analogies that this author kept making. The Presidential election is NOT a "series" of contests, but rather a "Super Bowl"-like event. Comparing the election to the number of runs vs. number of games won in the World Series in 1960 is like saying that the winner of the 100m dash in the Olympics should be the person who ran each yard with the fewest amount of steps per yard (longer stride length doesn't matter if the runner is just slower than another). That whole analogy was just ridiculous. Sure, it made a point, but it really showed me the weakness in the whole argument, in my eyes.
that the ballots were messed up, and they arne't going to fix that.
If you have some ideas on how to fix that, please call Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth...I'm sure he'd like to know how to do that without calling for another national election.
Seems kind of suspicious considering who runs that state...
I don't know what state you live in, but in Florida, Jeb doesn't have that much power, considering many of the offices involved in elections are controlled by strictly partisan Democrats (including Bob Butterworth). Jeb's only the governor, not the King of Florida. Much like any city/county mayor, that position sounds more lofty and powerful than it really is.
As for the allegations of voting fraud, etc...why is it that every time there's a tight race in an election, everyone automatically assumes that there may be some kind of fraud going on? Usually, this kind of thing is only mentioned by the supporters of the losing candidate, unfortunately. If there was some type of fraud involved, though, then everyone should not only blame the folks that ran the voting centres, but should also blame the observers from each of parties/candidates for not catching the fraud (they are there and it's in their best interest to be honest if they really do support their candidate).
As for past voter fraud, yes it's happened. I would be surprised if you could find a major metropolitan area where it never happened, though, so it's not that unusual. In the only case that I can remember, the City of Miami mayoral election was tainted by a fraud case where votes were registered by people who turned out to be dead and buried. It was quite comical for those of us who live here and, considering who was involved, it wasn't terribly surprising. The scam was quickly exposed, however (it was in our local fishwrapper within a week, meaning they had the info within a day of the election). I seriously doubt that anyone in this state that Florida would end up being this close. I never did, that's for sure...I thought it would be close, but not like this. Therefore, you'd have to be a logical/statistical genius psychic who has something to gain to throw the election by this small of a margin. Does such a person even exist?
In short, let's just let the recount happen and live with it sans bitching. I mean, Gore supporters will be disappointed and Bush supporters will be elated, should the recount confirm the current numbers, but that's life. Overall, it was a tight election all across the country, so why should Florida be any different?
Gore easily won the exit polls in Florida, which is why the Major networks declared a Gore victory in Florida early on.
One thing that I think a lot of people are forgetting about the exit polls is that most people (at least in South Florida) don't speak English as their first language. Simply addressing some of those people in English first will cause them to avoid you and not talk to you (take it from me, I live here and speak both English and Spanish luckily). While the Hispanic community tends to have a great voter turnout percentage, they're usually not very keen on dealing with just about anyone from outside of their community. They also tend to take the "secret ballot" thing very seriously. In all, at least in two counties in South Florida, Hispanics make up over 25% of the population of the state (estimate on my part). If this population was under-represented in the exit polls, it could easily account for the initial false estimates of Gore taking Florida 3-1.
All things considered, though, I seriously doubt that we should take exit polls very seriously. There have been many occasions where their validity and accuracy was in question (with good reason). It's also not a very scientific method of determining an accurate representation of voting trends. But, since people see it on the news, they assume it is. Hell, I had to stay up for hours trying to explain why the differences between AP estimates and actually vote tallies were so large at times and why the media flip-flopped so often.
Does this mean that dear hunter will be ported to linux? oh yeah thats what we really want :(
I happen to like Deer Hunter! And, yes, I actually make patches for the kernel every so often. Not everyone who likes to hunt is a person of low intelligence. Hey, after all, at least I'm not killing real animals if I'm playing Deer Hunter on the computer :-)
I noticed the same (and was disappointed about it). I'm looking for an old DEC 3000 (or any TURBOChannel bus Alpha) so that I can start getting TC working in Linux for them. I have a user that wants to buy me one, but I'd rather try to score a donated or free box since I don't want to burden anyone financially. If you happen to find a couple free DEC 3000's, please let me know also...
FYI, I've repackaged the Netscape RPMs offered by Compaq as debs for Debian and have resubmitted them to Compaq and alphalinux.org. Compaq has yet to post the debs, but a.l.o should have them (it's really one deb, fyi, dunno why I said "debs" plural). The Tru64 Netscape runs very nicely on all of my Alphas running Debian.
No? You didn't even know that? You haven't even looked at the data? You didn't realise that the most accurate temperature measurements we have show that absolutely nothing out of the ordinary is happening to the planet today?
First off, I never claimed to be a climatologist, so don't be such a jerk about it. Secondly, yes, I have seen that data and I am aware of that information (and I don't mean that I just looked at it before writing this reply). Climatologists and meteorologists all have their own theories on the future and perhaps I spoke to one that actually agrees with the global warming idea, but it still begs a point: what would happen if we the Earth did become uninhabitable due to climatic changes or other reasons? I seriously doubt that, even if global warming is not a real phenomenon at this point, it couldn't be in the future. We humans have a habit of destroying natural balances. It almost certainly is a probability that we will eventually force ourselves off of the Earth.
Caused by a meteor impact, supposedly. Or do you believe that dinosaurs were all roaring around the planet in their convertible 57-liter V64 Dino-Buggies, running on non-existent oil reserves?
I'm quite aware of the current theories regarding the climatic changes that brought about the extintion of the dinosaurs (note that I said theory...it's still not a scientifically proven fact, although there is a mass of evidence to support such a conclusion). But you missed the overall point: despite the method that caused such a climatic change, the result was the same: large-scale death of countless species because of a change in the climate on Earth. Can you deny that?
And, in the future, try just sticking to presenting the facts that you're aware of. Being a smart-ass doesn't help to present your case.
From my recollection of Earths history, the climate has been through some pretty dramatic changes over the ages, and in general the age of the dinosaurs was warmer than it is now, so how come all this doom and gloom?
Remind me again...what happened to the dinosaurs? They're basically all dead due to the extreme climatic changes that they went on. Sure, some minor species managed to survive, but a large portion of the species all died off. It was once estimated that the genetic variety of the species that existed during those times was at least ten times what we know of throughout recorded history, meaning that even if 10% of the species survived back then, 90 times our current genetic variety died. I think this is cause for some doom and gloom.
There is no denying that global warming will have some pretty catastrophic affects, and may cause famine disease hunger flooding etc. but I doubt it will go as far as Mr Hawking suggests.
Last thing that I heard while chatting about global warming with a climatologist was that, if the current trend continues, conditions on this planet will have reached the intolerable within 750-1000 years. Remember, global warming isn't something that is increasing at a fixed rate. Every day, more and more "greenhouse gases" are being released into the atmosphere, meaning this effect is multiplying slowly. There are always organisms which help reduce this kind of insulating effect (mostly plant life), but in general, we're reducing their effectiveness by reducing the forest areas and also increasing the amount of man-made pollutants that are released.
Maybe space colonisation isn't the way to go and maybe we can somehow stop the current trend of pollution without thought and start to repair the damage that's already done....but I seriously doubt it. Let's face it, we're all pretty comfortable these days with cars, refrigeration, plastics, etc, so who would want to do without even a portion of the quantity of products that fill our daily lives? Not many, I can tell you that. Unfortunately, I think that mankind is too selfish at times to survive for a long period of time (we're talking on a celestial scale...I don't mean 30-10000 years). What could it hurt to try something new? Perhaps we should try to colonise a new planet. Who knows, it might bring out the best in the species...
After all, anything you can do on an expensive Sparc, you can do faster/better on an x86 at a lower cost.
I disagree with this type of statement when it comes to comparing just about any other architecture to x86 (and I've heard this kind of thing from countless x86-centric people). First off, contrary to popular belief, there are still uses for "big iron" in today's world. Understand this, not everything is a desktop-class system, and I haven't seen a good large-scale server come from Intel since they were first experimenting with their Hypercubes. Uses of big iron include data warehouses (which are big within larger corporations, mostly), scientific research, meteorological research/prediction, etc. For some of these uses, using Beowulf technology can work well using what Intel likes to refer to as "servers" as nodes (usually, these are just desktop or workstation motherboards with increased RAM capacity and a bit more cache), but in many cases, big iron is still the way to go. Ever try to bring up a 10TB data warehouse server under Linux using x86-class components? Good luck.
Compaq and Sun have MUCH more experience with large servers than almost any PC manufacturer. Unfortunately, in the case of Sun equipment, Solaris is the only choice if you need to get a large-scale system running in a very short time. Compaq (and partners) are improving Linux for their Alpha servers to make sure that it can handle such tasks. It may not seem too profitable to do this, especially since they produce a "competing" product in Tru64, but the marketing issues skew a bit when the hardware manufacturer is the same company as the primary OS manufacturer. To Compaq, selling hardware and support contracts on that hardware is #1, Tru64 is a close second, but offsetting R&D and fab costs on hardware is often much more difficult than it is to recover OS development costs. Unfortunately, Sun drops the ball in this regard. They have not given enough to the Linux community for them to entertain the same favour amongst the Sparc-Linux users as Compaq has with the Alpha-Linux users (granted, quite a few Alpha-Linux users still have tenuous relationships with Compaq, but it's not as bad as those with/against Sun). This is sad, but true. Had Sun been more forthcoming, both on an informational level as well as a pricing level, they could've enjoyed more success with Sparc-Linux. So, IMO, it has nothing to do, though, with the quality or speed of their hardware, though, that RedHat hasn't seen great numbers out of the Sparc releases. I mean, NOBODY can tell me that there aren't a ton of sparcs out there...
So now that we've established that Sun is partially to blame here, let's talk about RedHat's shortcomings in this situation and how it will affect the future of both their distribution and Linux in general. First off, I think that RedHat dropped the ball on this as well and could have enjoyed much more success with the sparc release than they did. Anyone that knows anything about the average Sparc customer knows one thing: they will not buy a server without a support contract on the hardware and the OS component...end of story, no discussion. After all, corporations are Sun's biggest customers and corporations not only cover their ass, but also the rest of their body with armour when they purchase something computer-related. Now, we all know how much crap RedHat has its hands in now (seems like every week, they're releasing PR about acquiring, agreeing with, or partnering with SOMEONE). I honestly think they've diversified too much for their own good, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, if they're going to work on/with all of these other companies, why not try to get in bed with Sun? A small contract and perhaps a small personnel exchange could've easily made a deal between the two that allowed Sun to only focus on Solaris, while deferring the Linux question to RedHat (which would allow it to be nurtured by someone other than Joe User). RedHat could also allow Sun to sell Linux support contracts on Sun equipment and just kick back some money to Sun for the administration involved in doing the sales (this kind of deal is made every single day in the IT industry...it's just contracting out for a support service). RedHat and Sun could've practically owned the Sparc OS market (sorry, BSD folks, you do count, but the research shows you're still in the vast minority).
This all should seem easy to come up with for any marketing person or corporate executive, and it really should be that easy (hell, I came up with it and I didn't even finish college), but let's face facts: non-x86 archs are practically shunned by the core Linux community, especially the corporate side of Linux. This is a shame because there are valid contributions that could be made to the kernel and the distributions by listening to the other-port folks. Sure, you don't find tons of large-scale servers in the hands of most kernel programmers, but there are people out there that have access to these systems and have valuable scalability issues that should be addressed by the Linux community as a whole. Also, I feel that Linux should present on a unified front and say collectively that "Linux doesn't equal x86-only". If you want to drive people and corporate software products away from other archs, treating ports the way that they are now is a good start.
Marketing and logistics are too often cited as being reasons for dropping ports like sparc, but I think that those issues are not to blame for the situation. The problem is that RedHat (in this case) is using traditional business models and isn't trying to forge new (additional) revenue streams. They seem to love jumping onto the hot issues of today (like embedded systems, etc), which are guaranteed money-makers, but won't attempt an alliance with a company like Sun for some reason. IMO, they should've done this before even releasing a sparc port. I mean, why release a product for a few cycles, then drop it? corporate image can be more important than income reports somtimes (ask IBM) and they're only serving to alienate the users of that port (many of whom are probably also x86 RedHat users). RedHat: do your research BEFORE releasing the port.
But, at any rate, don't be so quick to write off Sparc or any other non-x86 arch just because your applications run faster/cheaper on them. Obviously, there are customers for these other architectures and they buy them for a reason. Not everyone's problems can be solved on an x86. For many of the consumers in the non-x86 market, though, prices of software can be huge because it's over-and-above the higher cost of the hardware, which makes Linux a nice alternative for some of those folks. So, don't assume that practically nobody uses the sparc port (or any other) because the native OS is just too indiginous to be ousted. Besides, Linux is beginning to replace MS, who was the odds-on favourite for awhile simply because of their huge install base. But, until someone like RedHat seriously tries to make it profitable to support a port like Sparc, it won't happen. This is not Field of Dreams...if you build it, but don't advertise it, they won't come.
Personally, I'm kinda glad RedHat is slimming down their product offerings. I've watched the quality control drop drastically on non-x86 platform releases. Maybe now they can turn some attention towards improving the ones that they still support.
IIRC, the damages awarded were based on lost royalties, so she's entitled to those "lost royalties" if they would've been otherwise paid to her. So, despite the basis of the suit arguments (copyright), part of the damages are theoretically hers. Since she's got good lawyers, I'm sure she'll get a percentage or at least make a big enough stink about it to make Universal look greedy and like they're not acting in the artists' best interests.