Basic rights shouldn't be dependent on friendliness. They should be respected at all times. Being nice is a better way to be than the American caricature you draw, but rights are rights, not privileges for the polite.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but you keep using the word "employeer". I assume you mean "employer". That's kind of an unusual mistake. I'm curious what your native language is.
Your assertion is false. You don't become guilty the moment you're found guilty. You become guilty when you commit a crime.
This isn't a comment on the case at hand, but you're currently modded high as "informative", although your post makes no sense, and reads like a schoolyard taunt.
How is it cognitive dissonance if people are actually being paid to work on free software? A hell of a lot of open source work is volunteer, but that "for you" part makes a big difference.
Don't make light of false information. It's a terrible thing, especially when intentionally promoted.
Being wrong accidentally is unfortunate, but being wrong on purpose is malicious. I can appreciate your point that scientific debate should happen outside the court room, but don't act like it's an overreaction to take legal action in response to libel.
I agree with your point. The very notion of "dangerous sites" sounds to me something like "dangerous newspaper articles". There's something wrong with the concept.
That said, I will point out that it's not necessary to root the machine to leave a back door, and it's not even necessary to gain arbitrary execution as the user to gather private details, passwords to online accounts, etc.
Kind of sounds like business in general. I'd be curious to see statistics directly comparing profitability and failure rates of businesses built around open source (or with units devoted to open source projects) compared to similar businesses that favor closed source.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that early failure rates are particularly high for open source startups. The fact that you can draw on decades of already completed development work could give a serious case of the warm fuzzies to an optimist. That's a legitimate advantage, but the other side of that coin is that the products of that movement are already available to all your customers for free.
Apple seems to do pretty well, taking advantage of open source software (although not necessarily being a big contributor of it, which seems to be more what's being discussed), but I think they'd have real problems just trying to sell OSX, divorced from their prized hardware line. A smaller company, especially a startup, trying to sell a fork of BSD, would be screwed. They'd be competing with the entire existing community, who would be watching everything they release, and saying, "Oh, we can do that. In fact, we can put more hours into it, and do it better. And here's our superior product, for free."
I guess it's a redundant conclusion at this point, but if you're going to make money on open source software, you'd better have a business other than software. Hardware and support are classic options.
Google is a pretty interesting example, even if it's been rehashed to death around here. They're so entrenched in the web that it's just assumed that more people browsing, or browsing more, means more money for Google. They build the server farms, roll out fiber, index content, and pour money into browsers to view it (not to mention Summer of Code and other random FOSS contributions) just to make sure eyeballs meet content, and they have a chance to be in the middle, and inject what must be extremely profitable advertising at below the threshold where the viewer will be annoyed enough to either seek to block it or be inclined to spend less time online. Pretty cool, I think.
But that's not Oracle. While it's true that you can work on open source projects, give them away, and use their existence to promote your hardware or support, if you can get away with it, why not sell hardware, sell the support, and sell the software, too?
Eh. They got the time in the sentence, at least. I did a double take at the line, but I'm willing to assume it means holding that level of output, not holding statically.
I'm not going to pretend I have expertise, but I can spot bad logic. It's entirely possible that the training, the unions, and the parents could be part of the problem. For what it's worth, I agree: nothing is more damaging than bad parenting. You've added the leap that no other causes are valid, though. You've also chosen language that's more likely to provoke emotional responses than a discussion. I'm sure anyone who likes to think rationally can think of a topic with so much crap on both sides that it's hard to find legitimate opinions. Please don't contribute to that problem.
Right. Blaming the criminal and the system are not mutually exclusive. I think most of the people getting pissy about one side or the other would agree that if you steal, you're a criminal, and that the credit card and banking system is broken as hell. I'm kind of sad that girlintraining got modded troll, though. I liked the money in BBQ sauce imagery.
That's probably why he used the phrase "user error". Regardless, if a car has a system in place that's screwing with the operation of the vehicle, there should at least be some kind of idiot light, blinky red thing with a succinct label to the effect of, "I'm saving your ass by not allowing you to run into something. Act accordingly."
I clicked on the asteroid conversation link as sort of a break from more serious issues. (sarcastically): "Asteroids... sounds important.":) Now I'll keep skimming for that discussion about whether to blow it up or gently move it aside, or some other novel idea.
They already own the search market. The next step, I guess, is to build a bigger, better market place. Diversifying their own tools/skills/assets also isn't a bad idea, and happens to be an overlapping goal, including designing software and offering services, in an effort to make the web/net better. If all's as it seems (always keep an eye out) I'm impressed with this strategy -- and it works out well for me, too. Anything that helps the internet helps google. Better DNS helps their browser, that combination helps users, and users get further "g-this" and "g-that" exposure, and warm fuzzy feelings toward Google.
Given that the problem would be immediately apparent, I wouldn't have to explain it (let alone repeat the explanation) to any observers, and even if left without legal recourse I could fix the problem myself for a relatively low one time cost, I think I might rather get shorted the tire than have my internet service subtly broken -- which it is.
The best part of conversations on education is that every time someone makes a mistake, you get to jump him and declare how unfit he is to talk about education.
I think if you're willing to work that hard to get the OS you want, you're probably already running something like Linux. Not that Linux distros are typically lean and mean out of the box, but if you're a hacker, Linux wants to be hacked. Windows will fight you.
Both authentication and encryption are valuable. Why make the later depend on the former ???
Because without the former, the latter is not valuable. You're just using an obscure encoding mechanism, not actually securing anything.
I don't have a problem with self-signed certificates, but you do need to have some mechanism to make sure it belongs to the entity you think it belongs to, or you're not hiding anything from anyone but yourself.
If it has a tank, turn off the water, then flush, then let the kid pee. It's (sort of) an interesting puzzle, but creating an edge situation where it's very difficult to do the right thing doesn't mean it isn't the right thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we're assholes. Hilarious.
Basic rights shouldn't be dependent on friendliness. They should be respected at all times. Being nice is a better way to be than the American caricature you draw, but rights are rights, not privileges for the polite.
Assholes have rights, too.
Yep. You're a real genius.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but you keep using the word "employeer". I assume you mean "employer". That's kind of an unusual mistake. I'm curious what your native language is.
Your assertion is false. You don't become guilty the moment you're found guilty. You become guilty when you commit a crime.
This isn't a comment on the case at hand, but you're currently modded high as "informative", although your post makes no sense, and reads like a schoolyard taunt.
How is it cognitive dissonance if people are actually being paid to work on free software? A hell of a lot of open source work is volunteer, but that "for you" part makes a big difference.
Don't make light of false information. It's a terrible thing, especially when intentionally promoted.
Being wrong accidentally is unfortunate, but being wrong on purpose is malicious. I can appreciate your point that scientific debate should happen outside the court room, but don't act like it's an overreaction to take legal action in response to libel.
I agree with your point. The very notion of "dangerous sites" sounds to me something like "dangerous newspaper articles". There's something wrong with the concept.
That said, I will point out that it's not necessary to root the machine to leave a back door, and it's not even necessary to gain arbitrary execution as the user to gather private details, passwords to online accounts, etc.
Working? I guess "working against you" is technically "working"...
Kind of sounds like business in general. I'd be curious to see statistics directly comparing profitability and failure rates of businesses built around open source (or with units devoted to open source projects) compared to similar businesses that favor closed source.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that early failure rates are particularly high for open source startups. The fact that you can draw on decades of already completed development work could give a serious case of the warm fuzzies to an optimist. That's a legitimate advantage, but the other side of that coin is that the products of that movement are already available to all your customers for free.
Apple seems to do pretty well, taking advantage of open source software (although not necessarily being a big contributor of it, which seems to be more what's being discussed), but I think they'd have real problems just trying to sell OSX, divorced from their prized hardware line. A smaller company, especially a startup, trying to sell a fork of BSD, would be screwed. They'd be competing with the entire existing community, who would be watching everything they release, and saying, "Oh, we can do that. In fact, we can put more hours into it, and do it better. And here's our superior product, for free."
I guess it's a redundant conclusion at this point, but if you're going to make money on open source software, you'd better have a business other than software. Hardware and support are classic options.
Google is a pretty interesting example, even if it's been rehashed to death around here. They're so entrenched in the web that it's just assumed that more people browsing, or browsing more, means more money for Google. They build the server farms, roll out fiber, index content, and pour money into browsers to view it (not to mention Summer of Code and other random FOSS contributions) just to make sure eyeballs meet content, and they have a chance to be in the middle, and inject what must be extremely profitable advertising at below the threshold where the viewer will be annoyed enough to either seek to block it or be inclined to spend less time online. Pretty cool, I think.
But that's not Oracle. While it's true that you can work on open source projects, give them away, and use their existence to promote your hardware or support, if you can get away with it, why not sell hardware, sell the support, and sell the software, too?
Eh. They got the time in the sentence, at least. I did a double take at the line, but I'm willing to assume it means holding that level of output, not holding statically.
No one but Sony can produce and distribute copies of a movie for which Sony owns the copyright...
The word is "may". Not that it just tears apart the rest of your case or anything, but many can and do.
Accidentally modded you troll. My bad. Posting to undo.
A problem can have more than one cause.
I'm not going to pretend I have expertise, but I can spot bad logic. It's entirely possible that the training, the unions, and the parents could be part of the problem. For what it's worth, I agree: nothing is more damaging than bad parenting. You've added the leap that no other causes are valid, though. You've also chosen language that's more likely to provoke emotional responses than a discussion. I'm sure anyone who likes to think rationally can think of a topic with so much crap on both sides that it's hard to find legitimate opinions. Please don't contribute to that problem.
Right. Blaming the criminal and the system are not mutually exclusive. I think most of the people getting pissy about one side or the other would agree that if you steal, you're a criminal, and that the credit card and banking system is broken as hell. I'm kind of sad that girlintraining got modded troll, though. I liked the money in BBQ sauce imagery.
That's probably why he used the phrase "user error". Regardless, if a car has a system in place that's screwing with the operation of the vehicle, there should at least be some kind of idiot light, blinky red thing with a succinct label to the effect of, "I'm saving your ass by not allowing you to run into something. Act accordingly."
I clicked on the asteroid conversation link as sort of a break from more serious issues. (sarcastically): "Asteroids ... sounds important." :) Now I'll keep skimming for that discussion about whether to blow it up or gently move it aside, or some other novel idea.
So I can buy the eggs, milk, and flour, but I can't sell the cake?
I don't have a clue what the answer is, nor can I even suggest a solution.
Socrates would be proud.
They already own the search market. The next step, I guess, is to build a bigger, better market place. Diversifying their own tools/skills/assets also isn't a bad idea, and happens to be an overlapping goal, including designing software and offering services, in an effort to make the web/net better. If all's as it seems (always keep an eye out) I'm impressed with this strategy -- and it works out well for me, too. Anything that helps the internet helps google. Better DNS helps their browser, that combination helps users, and users get further "g-this" and "g-that" exposure, and warm fuzzy feelings toward Google.
...as simple as M&M sorting and as sophisticated as Shakespeare...
15th century TV? "Star crossed lovers" is sophisticated? I hope they're selling this crap so they can buy these poor kids a math book to share.
Given that the problem would be immediately apparent, I wouldn't have to explain it (let alone repeat the explanation) to any observers, and even if left without legal recourse I could fix the problem myself for a relatively low one time cost, I think I might rather get shorted the tire than have my internet service subtly broken -- which it is.
Also, that would be Aristotle.
The best part of conversations on education is that every time someone makes a mistake, you get to jump him and declare how unfit he is to talk about education.
I think if you're willing to work that hard to get the OS you want, you're probably already running something like Linux. Not that Linux distros are typically lean and mean out of the box, but if you're a hacker, Linux wants to be hacked. Windows will fight you.
Both authentication and encryption are valuable. Why make the later depend on the former ???
Because without the former, the latter is not valuable. You're just using an obscure encoding mechanism, not actually securing anything.
I don't have a problem with self-signed certificates, but you do need to have some mechanism to make sure it belongs to the entity you think it belongs to, or you're not hiding anything from anyone but yourself.
If it has a tank, turn off the water, then flush, then let the kid pee. It's (sort of) an interesting puzzle, but creating an edge situation where it's very difficult to do the right thing doesn't mean it isn't the right thing.