I don't mean to break up the pitchfork party, but I wanted to share a couple of thoughts that occurred to me...
I'll preface this whole thing by saying that I don't love/hate any specific operating system. I've used most of the popular ones: Windows, Linux (Red Hat, SuSE, Fedora, and Slackware), FreeBSD (pre 5 is my fav.), OS X, etc. I run all three major OSes at home (Win/Linux/OS X). I come from a lone line of both IT consulting and programming, so I've had experience with Windows enterprise networks, BSD clusters, X-Serv farms, etc.
It's been my experience that each operating system has its place in a specific environment. Each one has its strengths and weaknesses when applied to a scenario. Instead of one choosing an operating system based on a visceral reaction, one should find the one that is the best solution to the particular problem.
Now, I have no doubt that Microsoft wanted to get its foot in the door and draw a whole populous of people over to its side. It's a great corporate strategy; tap a whole group of impressionable people and introduce them to your product. Now, when they grow up, they'll be used to and comfortable with your product, and will want to use that instead of something new.
However, I think there's something else here as well. There *is* a certain value to putting Windows on these machines: it's what the majority of the world uses. Linux is no longer that obscure "red-headed stepchild" operating system, but it's far away from broad public adoption. There are many reasons for this, none of which I believe are relevant to this argument. The idea here is that you'd be hard-pressed to find even a Linux evangelist from admitting that Windows holds the world OS marketshare. So why on *earth* shouldn't these children be introduced to something that the vast majority of this world uses? The experience they'll walk away with will allow them to use a "real" computer with ease once they get into that environment.
I understand the counter-argument: Linux is an open-source operating system, and it's not adopted because people are simply either not familiar with it, are afraid of it, or are willfully ignorant of what it provides. This is partially true; be that as it may, I don't see why these impressionable folk should be the test-bed, or the seeds, for a change in the world. Why? Because in the end, the places they'll go will most likely not be using Linux, and they'll be at a disadvantage.
Do I think the world needs to use Linux more? Absolutely. Do I think that the OLPC is the best way to do it? No.
There are other good things about this, too: The variety of applications that could become available for the machine has exponentially increased. Windows is a popular platform to develop on; so popular, in fact, that the majority of software developers don't develop on any other platform. Given that the OLPC will now run Windows, many more developers can jump on the bandwagon and develop intuitive, fun, and educational programs that could influence these kids for a lifetime.
I know many of you will disagree with me; that's fine, I expect that. Just remember that I don't intend be a troll; I simply wanted to share my thoughts on this matter.
He did say they had man traps, and only one person is allowed *in* the thing at once, and it requires a retinal scan... so the guard can't really help them get through it; he can only get himself through it.
Former Exodus datacenter (now C&W) down in Irvine where I co-located some servers had the same setup, except with hand scanner instead of retinal scanner. They had bulletproof glass on the mantraps, so you'd have to shoot with a fairly large caliber gun to get through it. And by large I mean, one that would have to be obtained illegally in California. Sure, an M1 Garand, which is legal in CA, can shoot through inch-thick bullet-proof glass, but it only makes a small hole, and it takes several thousand holes to weaken that thing.
That, and even the walls were reinforced.
So if I were the guard and that happened, I'd say, "yeah sure, there's a release switch on the other side of the wall here... let me just get through this man trap..." And when on the other side, behind bullet-proof glass, I'd hit the alarm and run into the back area. They'd have a tough time getting me after that, plus they'd have to worry about the cops.
For example, slavery was once legal. Does that mean it's also a moral practice?
Marijuana is illegal. Does that mean possessing it is morally wrong ("evil")?
This is called "appeal to authority" and is a logical fallacy.
Laws should not be the moral barometer for a person. Certainly, they should help assist in forming moral standpoints, but since laws originate with people, and people have the capacity to do evil, laws may not be good 100% of the time.
It's late; hope that made sense.
If you display AdWords on your site, you can still block certain "keywords" from appearing, or certain sites altogether. This is companies bitching at Google for displaying competitor ads in search results on Google's site.
Displaying a link to a competitor when running AdWords on your website was always a concern (considering the whole technology behind AdWords to begin with), so Google has always given you the option of blocking certain content from appearing in ads that are displayed on your site.
I find it ridiculous that companies would think that they control the display of competitor ads on a search engine result that doesn't even originate with them.
I thought everyone knew that by now all drive manufacturers list capacities in ISO units instead of the traditional binary method? I don't think I've ever gone to the store and bought a 250gb drive expecting to get exactly 250gb.
Do we have to start putting disclaimers now for different filesystems too? "Depending on the filesystem used on this drive, and the block size specified when formatting, actual capacity of this drive may be affected."
I can see it now... "Microsoft accused of 'favoring' hardware industry by making 1 byte files take up nearly 1kb! Oh the conspiracy!"
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean to break up the pitchfork party, but I wanted to share a couple of thoughts that occurred to me...
I'll preface this whole thing by saying that I don't love/hate any specific operating system. I've used most of the popular ones: Windows, Linux (Red Hat, SuSE, Fedora, and Slackware), FreeBSD (pre 5 is my fav.), OS X, etc. I run all three major OSes at home (Win/Linux/OS X). I come from a lone line of both IT consulting and programming, so I've had experience with Windows enterprise networks, BSD clusters, X-Serv farms, etc.
It's been my experience that each operating system has its place in a specific environment. Each one has its strengths and weaknesses when applied to a scenario. Instead of one choosing an operating system based on a visceral reaction, one should find the one that is the best solution to the particular problem.
Now, I have no doubt that Microsoft wanted to get its foot in the door and draw a whole populous of people over to its side. It's a great corporate strategy; tap a whole group of impressionable people and introduce them to your product. Now, when they grow up, they'll be used to and comfortable with your product, and will want to use that instead of something new.
However, I think there's something else here as well. There *is* a certain value to putting Windows on these machines: it's what the majority of the world uses. Linux is no longer that obscure "red-headed stepchild" operating system, but it's far away from broad public adoption. There are many reasons for this, none of which I believe are relevant to this argument. The idea here is that you'd be hard-pressed to find even a Linux evangelist from admitting that Windows holds the world OS marketshare. So why on *earth* shouldn't these children be introduced to something that the vast majority of this world uses? The experience they'll walk away with will allow them to use a "real" computer with ease once they get into that environment.
I understand the counter-argument: Linux is an open-source operating system, and it's not adopted because people are simply either not familiar with it, are afraid of it, or are willfully ignorant of what it provides. This is partially true; be that as it may, I don't see why these impressionable folk should be the test-bed, or the seeds, for a change in the world. Why? Because in the end, the places they'll go will most likely not be using Linux, and they'll be at a disadvantage.
Do I think the world needs to use Linux more? Absolutely. Do I think that the OLPC is the best way to do it? No.
There are other good things about this, too: The variety of applications that could become available for the machine has exponentially increased. Windows is a popular platform to develop on; so popular, in fact, that the majority of software developers don't develop on any other platform. Given that the OLPC will now run Windows, many more developers can jump on the bandwagon and develop intuitive, fun, and educational programs that could influence these kids for a lifetime.
I know many of you will disagree with me; that's fine, I expect that. Just remember that I don't intend be a troll; I simply wanted to share my thoughts on this matter.
"Copyright infringement considered harmful"
http://bugmenot.com/ is a pretty effective way of getting past those registration requirements for a lot of sites, including the NYT.
He did say they had man traps, and only one person is allowed *in* the thing at once, and it requires a retinal scan... so the guard can't really help them get through it; he can only get himself through it.
Former Exodus datacenter (now C&W) down in Irvine where I co-located some servers had the same setup, except with hand scanner instead of retinal scanner. They had bulletproof glass on the mantraps, so you'd have to shoot with a fairly large caliber gun to get through it. And by large I mean, one that would have to be obtained illegally in California. Sure, an M1 Garand, which is legal in CA, can shoot through inch-thick bullet-proof glass, but it only makes a small hole, and it takes several thousand holes to weaken that thing.
That, and even the walls were reinforced.
So if I were the guard and that happened, I'd say, "yeah sure, there's a release switch on the other side of the wall here... let me just get through this man trap..." And when on the other side, behind bullet-proof glass, I'd hit the alarm and run into the back area. They'd have a tough time getting me after that, plus they'd have to worry about the cops.
Not in all circumstances. Rarely, in fact.
For example, slavery was once legal. Does that mean it's also a moral practice?
Marijuana is illegal. Does that mean possessing it is morally wrong ("evil")?
This is called "appeal to authority" and is a logical fallacy. Laws should not be the moral barometer for a person. Certainly, they should help assist in forming moral standpoints, but since laws originate with people, and people have the capacity to do evil, laws may not be good 100% of the time. It's late; hope that made sense.
If you display AdWords on your site, you can still block certain "keywords" from appearing, or certain sites altogether. This is companies bitching at Google for displaying competitor ads in search results on Google's site. Displaying a link to a competitor when running AdWords on your website was always a concern (considering the whole technology behind AdWords to begin with), so Google has always given you the option of blocking certain content from appearing in ads that are displayed on your site. I find it ridiculous that companies would think that they control the display of competitor ads on a search engine result that doesn't even originate with them.
I thought everyone knew that by now all drive manufacturers list capacities in ISO units instead of the traditional binary method? I don't think I've ever gone to the store and bought a 250gb drive expecting to get exactly 250gb.
Do we have to start putting disclaimers now for different filesystems too? "Depending on the filesystem used on this drive, and the block size specified when formatting, actual capacity of this drive may be affected."
I can see it now... "Microsoft accused of 'favoring' hardware industry by making 1 byte files take up nearly 1kb! Oh the conspiracy!"
Argh.
It actually reminds me of the hunters from Half-Life 2, Episode 2. Man those things were creepy... Someone fetch me my crowbar.