Think about it: if somebody walked up to you on the street, and gave you $1mil and asked you to kill someone where would you draw the line?
Your arch-rival? Your boss? A bum? A random ordinary person? A celebrity? A friend? A loved one? Yourself? What if it was $10mil, or $100mil, or the Presidency of the US?
Doesn't cash have dimishing returns at a certain point? Why would $100mil be much more persuasive than $1mil? And why in the world would you want to be president of the US? Believe it or not, there are many people who just don't desire wealth and power. This is where the "everybody has a price" argument falls apart.
Thankfully, most people never have to put up with that kind of temptation, because I doubt many could resist. I say humans are generally good, because it isn't cost-effective (in a total life, not monetary sense) not to be. The probable cost of societal consequences of unaccepted behavior are higher than the possible gain minus the person's ethical price. The old saying crime doesn't pay is true...unless you have a low ethical price.
You need to factor ones current life situation into that equation. If I have a good job making a good living, there is little chance of me selling out my ethics. Money ceases to be very persuasive after after about $50,000 per year. And I enjoy working for the most part, so the posibility of not having to work isn't persuasive either.
Everybody has their price; some are just higher than others.
That is just not true. It is sad that you see others this way. If I am not willing to do something for $10,000, I am probably not going to do it for $100,000,000 or all the money in the world. I just don't see the point is having that much money. I wouldn't know what to do with it. I don't desire it. The only thing that would put a price on my ethics is desparation. If I didn't have enough cash to get by, there are some ethics I might consider selling out on. But under normal (for me) circumstances, I wouldn't.
I sold cars that were worth about what we were asking for them; I made $200 per car I sold. Simple right? Well I had a lady come in who had 2 BK's on her record and $3K in her pocket. That is enough down on a low end Saturn that I knew the bank would finance her. I tried to sell her a $3K beater rather than the new car she wanted b/c I knew the interest would be brutal. In the end she bought the new car @ 22% APR for 72 months. If you do the math, she was royally screwed. I do not feel good about that, in fact I quit my job the following day.
Well, i don't see what you did wrong. You did your best to sell her what you thought would be best for her. She chose to be screwed. Right? I assuming you let her know that 22% APR is highway robbery.
Thus the $cost$ of my morals that day was food. Killing someone (referenced earlier) is outside of my experience and as such I would refuse the job. Hacking something/someone is well within my work/life skill set and as such that skill is for sale. I have a reasonably good ethical code, but that does not mean I will under no circumstance bend or break it. Enough $$ and I would most certainly attack whatever system you want (some are out of bounds from a self preservation interest).
That's fine. You just can't honestly claim to have a strict etchical code then. I imagine the a good chuck of the population is in this boat. Personally, there is no amount of money you could offer me to attack another's property. There are certain things I might do out of desparation, but if I already have enough money to get by, I won't sell out my ethics for any price. Unfortunately, many people would and do.
So you work at a place where you agree with everything they do?
I work for a place which, in general, operates in a satisfactorily ethical manner. And when they don't, I speak up. If they became unethical, I would quit.
In life there are plenty of things we may not like doing, or even violate our morals at times... but the cost of not doing so may just out weigh the cost of shame that you will feel by doing so.
So what you are saying is that you don't really have a strict code of ethics and are not very moral. I mean, anyone can SAY they have a strict code of ethics, but if they don't pass the test, it is meaningless. What good are ethics if you can't adhere to them in one of the civilized world's more significant institutions... the workplace.
Personally, I think the income tax is wrong and is against my personal beliefs... unfortunately, the beliefs and laws of others (ie the government) enable them to harm me greatly should I not pay said income taxes. Every 2 weeks when I see my paycheck and see the deductions for federal income tax and FICA, my stomach turns... and every year when I file my tax return, the same happens. No matter how much I may hate doing it and supporting the system, just quitting is far worse than the pain involved.
Ok, I see the confusion here. You are not talking about morals and ethics. You are talking about economics. I don't see what your dislike of income taxes have ANYTHING to do with ethics and morals. You just dont' like having your money taken from you. Do you know anyone who does? Even the most immoral and despicable person dislikes being taxed.
Now trying to change the system is a great outlet for such problems. After all, why just ignore a problem when you can try to fix it?
So are you suggesting that you woudl sell out your sense of ethics to work for a company with the intent on changing said company?
It is one thing to just write a tool that could be used for illegal activities. It is quite another to profit from its use in illegal and unethical (not always the same thing) activities. That is where I draw the line.
PearPC is REALLY slow. Pretty much unusable for anything other than loading a webpage to see if it displays properly in OS X. ALthough I bet PearPC will work much better if/when there is a special PearPC OS X video driver... like VMWare has for Linux and Windows.
Gee, aren't you special. Not everyone wants to change their email address every time they get on some list.. and it will happen. I know plenty of people who've bragged about not getting spam and then, WHAM!, it all comes flooding in one day. I'm sorry, but you haven't found a solution to the spam problem. You're just lucky and probably more careful than one should have to be.
Also, you might find you have a problem when sender verification starts becoming standard practice. Soon, servers will not accept mail from user myname@gmail.com coming from server mail.myisp.com. We already implement this sort of thing for hotmail.com and yahoo.com sourced email. If the sender claims to be a hotmail user, the SMTP server better be a hotmail server.
Instead Apple customers are encouraged to spend $2000 for "workstation" machine. If one does not need dualprocs, PCI-X, or a crapload of RAM slots, it is a fair complaint that you shouldn't have to pay for them.
Let me get this straight... you are COMPLAINING that Apple sells only quality, well designed hardware that leverages the latest standards in the world of personal computing? That is like complaining that BMW doesn't offer a $9,000 automobile.
If I was going to sell a line of computers, I wouldn't offer anything but quality even if it meant losing the business of people who just want something cheap and fast. Apple is doing the right thing. They are sticking to what they do best by not pandering to the masses who just want any ol' crap that will run their games. I sincerely hope Apple doesn't release OS X for x86. It would be the ultimate sellout (not to mention a support and driver writing nightmare). The brand would suffer.
Embedded Sound and either Embedded video or a lower end video card and you can build an x86 PC with high quality/name brand parts and high specs for under $800 without a problem. Granted, thats without an uber monitor. Upgrade to a nice LCD and you'll probably end up fairly close to $1000.
Yeah, but that $800 is probabaly gonna look and feel like a $800 computer and the Mac is going to look and feel like a $2000 computer. Macs are just that classy. And not just on the outside. PCs always have been and always will be clumsy hacks by comparison.
I'd say that a large majority of open source proponents think they are superior because they use and promote open source software.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't see how this arrogance is demonstrated by your rather exagerated restatement of their sentiments/claims.
Pointing out faults in your development model of choice does not constitute whining. Stop trying to gloss over the issue by throwing insults.
Pointing out the whininess in your tone of choice doesn't constitute an insult. So there are some people out there who REALLY like open-source software and would like to see more people using open-source software, big deal! Get over it.
Again, pointing out faults of open source software does not constitute whining. Did I ever once say that people should make software for me personally? No. I said that if people are going to try to "take over the desktop" and attract end users to open source, then they should follow through and support these users.
They do support those end users. THere are thousands of forums out there and millions of people volunteering support. I'm sorry that it doesn't live up to your personal expectations which were apparently created by some overzealous advocates. How many times has a commercial entity advertise "world class support" just to find out that "world class" just means they use call centers overseas?
So first you say that open source is not like communism.Then you conclude that open source is just like communism. Make up your mind. And consider that the 'idea' of communism is not nesserily bad, but the historical implmentations of it certainly were.
I didn't say open source is a lot like communism, you implied it through your allusion. Unfortunately, both your allusion and analogy were faulty because both communism and open-source offer help. Pehaps not the kind and magnitude of help you desire, but help nontheless.
I am getting the impression that you think open source software is only for those capable of filling in the gaps. You don't seem to think it is appropriate for end-users who don't *want* to help, but still need functional software. Yes, Redhat and friends partially fill this role, but there are thousands of open source programs for which payed support is not avaliable.
I offer paid (and sometimes free) support for open-source software on a daily basis. I don't know what you are talking about. No, it isn't as convenient and rewarding as dialing a call center in India, but it is paid support nontheless.
It is arrogant in the following sense. Many people in the open source community go on and on about the wonders of open source and how much better it is than closed source software. It is often these same people who go and yell at end users to "quit whining and do it themselves". Hence it's arrogant. If these elements of the community only want open source software to exist, then they will have to cater to the end users who can't program but need certain features. In the real world, people need all sorts of software, much of it is not "fun" to code.
That isn't arrogance. It is simple zealotry. Arrogance implies a sense of superiority. In this case, it is quite opposite of arrogance as the open-source zealot is assuming others are capable (or willing) of something they are not.
I'm not whining. I can program. I use proprietary software when appropriate, and open source if it's avaliable and works. I'm only pointing out something that annoys me terribly about the open source community.
You were whining about how open-source doesn't deliever good applications to solve every problem.
If the community is going to keep telling people to ditch windows and go completely open source with Linux, then they these same people should be willing to provide the missing pieces.
If they are talking to the management of whatever company they work for, yes. Otherwise, they are under no obligation to provide anything for you personally. Quit whining.
It's kind of like a group of people telling a blue collar worker, "hey, come with us, we have this awsome community where you don't have to kiss your bosses ass and have no life", then turning around when that person DOES come, and saying "you want a HOUSE? HA, get off your ass you lazy shit and go build it yourself. We're not helping."
If I understand you correctly, this is some allusion to communism. As an analogy to open-source it doesn't quite work because the open-source community IS helping. They provide a significant amount of help in the form of an operating system, many utilities, applications, and the corresponding source code. If there is something lackign that you need, you should consider building it youself. That is just how the community works. It doesn't work well if filled with too many freeloaders expecting everything to be done for them... just like communism (or any system for that matter).
Never help each other? Are you kidding me? Most open source projects depend on many libraries and much code written by others. Just putting your code into the public domain is helping others. And it isn't uncommon for programmers on one project to contribute to another. Where in the world do you get the idea that open-source developers don't help each other?
So you are saying open source software is only for programmers? What about non-programmers?
It is for anybody willing to participate in the community. Whether it is helping others or programming. Personally, I don't do much programming, but I do get on IRC or mailinglists or web forums and help others use open-source software. And if others want to just use open-source software without participating, that is fine too, but they shouldn't expect to get help if they don't give it.
They should just use windows and mac? Fine. But they don't go telling them to switch!
If Microsoft doesn't fulfill my needs, should I go complain to the FCC to get Microsft to stop telling me to switch? No, that would be stupid whining.
I've been connected via broadband now for 5 years and have had ZERO virii or worms on any of my machines.
This is probably because you employ and extra level of maintenance in the form of a virus scanner. What about spyware? Don't you have to take steps to maintain a spyware free system? Every Windows user I know does (or should). And if they don't, it isn't long before they become choked with the crap.
However, I *did* have my Linux box rooted once when I was using it as the firewall. I now have a dedicated firewall device.
I've had an OS X box and a Linux box on broadband for years turn on nearly 24/7/365 without a firewall, no virus scanner, and no spyware protection, lazy patch frequency, and no problems. Sure, I might be asking to be rooted eventually, but it hasn't happened yet. You simply can't do that with Windows. Without proper maintenance, a Windows box will be infected with SOMETHING in a matter of minutes... and rendered barely usable in a matter of months.
Anyway, I'm not sure the analogy between a high maintenance girlfriend and Linux is accurate. By most accounts, Linux is more like that geeky, somewhat homely looking girlfriend, who is only compatable with a very small percent of the population. Complicated, mysterious, but very fun if you are into that kind of thing.
Is Linux very pretty? Not unless you limit yourself to a small subset of applications that comply with your desktop environment.
Windows is what I would call high maintainance... gotta keep the virus scanner, firewall, and spyware detection tools up to date. Gotta do periodic manual scans to make sure everything is clean. Reinstall periodically when things get clogged up. That is high maintainance.
How is Linux expensive?
The only way Linux is like the girlfriend I think you are describing is that it is complicated, needs manual to get basic things done, and perhaps not worth the trouble. I'm not sure your analogy works.
Exactly how is it arrogant to suggest someone make something themselves if they want it so bad? It may not be productive or helpful, but it certainly isn't "arrogant." Perhaps the non-programmer should have considered that what is better to a programmer is not necessarily better to everyone else. I mean, I don't go making my car buying decisions based on the suggestion of a truck driver. Otherwise I might end up with a Mack tractor and nothing to haul...
Non-programmer can't code it. Arrogant-open-source-programmer continues to scratch his itch. As a result, we have 10 thousand poor ass themes and numerous barely functional programs for each task. But what would be best is at least ONE good, working, application for each task.
Why not just be grateful for what you *can* get out of open-source software? It is free, isn't it? Quit whining.
So to you a "community" is a bunch of people who only do things which they themselves want and never help each other? Weird.
Never help each other? Are you kidding me? Most open source projects depend on many libraries and much code written by others. Just putting your code into the public domain is helping others. And it isn't uncommon for programmers on one project to contribute to another. Where in the world do you get the idea that open-source developers don't help each other?
It isn't that I work some place that doesn't have an idea of real security. I work some place that trusts it's employees (a luxury these days, for sure). If workstations are to be locked down, it would only be to reduce support costs, not increase security.
You should look into encrypted filesystems. Also, I believe USB memory devices already have some kind of encryption built in. Although I am not familiar with how it works.
Can someone explain to me why you can't just include access to USB devices as part of a user's policy in Windows? In linux, you can easily set permissions on devices just like files. Why does there need to be some hardware level standard? Is it so people can't boot off the USB/CD/floppy and grab data that way? Seems like a losing battle to me. If someone has access to data at work, there are any number of ways to get it offsite. Somehow I doubt the convenience of USB will encourage people to steal data that they wouldn't otherwise take. There are any number of security issues that should be considered before USB storage.
Why wasn't this an issue years ago (when data were small) with floppy drives? Couldn't people also burn sensitive data to CDs and take that home? Most PCs and Macs come with CD burning capabilities as a matter of course. Want to get the data offsite? Drop the CD/floppy into the mail and send it.
Then again, maybe USB storage is just that convenient and hard to detect. Still, it seems as though if someone has access to the data and wants to get it offsite, they'll find a way. Maybe USB devices will be the next "microfilm" of future spy/thriller movies.
Hydrogen? Replacement for power lines? You've got to be kidding. Electricity is SO much more valuable as electricity. Once you convert it to some other form, you basically throw half the energy away.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't cash have dimishing returns at a certain point? Why would $100mil be much more persuasive than $1mil? And why in the world would you want to be president of the US? Believe it or not, there are many people who just don't desire wealth and power. This is where the "everybody has a price" argument falls apart.
Thankfully, most people never have to put up with that kind of temptation, because I doubt many could resist. I say humans are generally good, because it isn't cost-effective (in a total life, not monetary sense) not to be. The probable cost of societal consequences of unaccepted behavior are higher than the possible gain minus the person's ethical price. The old saying crime doesn't pay is true...unless you have a low ethical price.
You need to factor ones current life situation into that equation. If I have a good job making a good living, there is little chance of me selling out my ethics. Money ceases to be very persuasive after after about $50,000 per year. And I enjoy working for the most part, so the posibility of not having to work isn't persuasive either.
-matthew
That is just not true. It is sad that you see others this way. If I am not willing to do something for $10,000, I am probably not going to do it for $100,000,000 or all the money in the world. I just don't see the point is having that much money. I wouldn't know what to do with it. I don't desire it. The only thing that would put a price on my ethics is desparation. If I didn't have enough cash to get by, there are some ethics I might consider selling out on. But under normal (for me) circumstances, I wouldn't.
-matthew
Well, i don't see what you did wrong. You did your best to sell her what you thought would be best for her. She chose to be screwed. Right? I assuming you let her know that 22% APR is highway robbery.
Thus the $cost$ of my morals that day was food. Killing someone (referenced earlier) is outside of my experience and as such I would refuse the job. Hacking something/someone is well within my work/life skill set and as such that skill is for sale. I have a reasonably good ethical code, but that does not mean I will under no circumstance bend or break it. Enough $$ and I would most certainly attack whatever system you want (some are out of bounds from a self preservation interest).
That's fine. You just can't honestly claim to have a strict etchical code then. I imagine the a good chuck of the population is in this boat. Personally, there is no amount of money you could offer me to attack another's property. There are certain things I might do out of desparation, but if I already have enough money to get by, I won't sell out my ethics for any price. Unfortunately, many people would and do.
-matthew
I work for a place which, in general, operates in a satisfactorily ethical manner. And when they don't, I speak up. If they became unethical, I would quit.
In life there are plenty of things we may not like doing, or even violate our morals at times... but the cost of not doing so may just out weigh the cost of shame that you will feel by doing so.
So what you are saying is that you don't really have a strict code of ethics and are not very moral. I mean, anyone can SAY they have a strict code of ethics, but if they don't pass the test, it is meaningless. What good are ethics if you can't adhere to them in one of the civilized world's more significant institutions... the workplace.
Personally, I think the income tax is wrong and is against my personal beliefs... unfortunately, the beliefs and laws of others (ie the government) enable them to harm me greatly should I not pay said income taxes. Every 2 weeks when I see my paycheck and see the deductions for federal income tax and FICA, my stomach turns... and every year when I file my tax return, the same happens. No matter how much I may hate doing it and supporting the system, just quitting is far worse than the pain involved.
Ok, I see the confusion here. You are not talking about morals and ethics. You are talking about economics. I don't see what your dislike of income taxes have ANYTHING to do with ethics and morals. You just dont' like having your money taken from you. Do you know anyone who does? Even the most immoral and despicable person dislikes being taxed.
Now trying to change the system is a great outlet for such problems. After all, why just ignore a problem when you can try to fix it?
So are you suggesting that you woudl sell out your sense of ethics to work for a company with the intent on changing said company?
-matthew
And this guy is making a profit selling the tool to spammers. That is what he is doing with it.
It is one thing to just write a tool that could be used for illegal activities. It is quite another to profit from its use in illegal and unethical (not always the same thing) activities. That is where I draw the line.
I hope you were being facetious. I mean, if you can't maintain a strict code of ethics in teh workplace, you aren't really a very moral person.
Only because Bush is a moral and intellectual simpleton, yes.
-matthew
-matthew
Gee, aren't you special. Not everyone wants to change their email address every time they get on some list.. and it will happen. I know plenty of people who've bragged about not getting spam and then, WHAM!, it all comes flooding in one day. I'm sorry, but you haven't found a solution to the spam problem. You're just lucky and probably more careful than one should have to be.
Also, you might find you have a problem when sender verification starts becoming standard practice. Soon, servers will not accept mail from user myname@gmail.com coming from server mail.myisp.com. We already implement this sort of thing for hotmail.com and yahoo.com sourced email. If the sender claims to be a hotmail user, the SMTP server better be a hotmail server.
-matthew
You might as well be comparing a souped up Honda Civic to a BMW Z3.
Let me get this straight... you are COMPLAINING that Apple sells only quality, well designed hardware that leverages the latest standards in the world of personal computing? That is like complaining that BMW doesn't offer a $9,000 automobile.
If I was going to sell a line of computers, I wouldn't offer anything but quality even if it meant losing the business of people who just want something cheap and fast. Apple is doing the right thing. They are sticking to what they do best by not pandering to the masses who just want any ol' crap that will run their games. I sincerely hope Apple doesn't release OS X for x86. It would be the ultimate sellout (not to mention a support and driver writing nightmare). The brand would suffer.
-matthew
Yeah, but that $800 is probabaly gonna look and feel like a $800 computer and the Mac is going to look and feel like a $2000 computer. Macs are just that classy. And not just on the outside. PCs always have been and always will be clumsy hacks by comparison.
-matthew
I thought he was including the cost for the Adobe software and whatnot that was included with the Mac. That made the PC $3940.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't see how this arrogance is demonstrated by your rather exagerated restatement of their sentiments/claims.
Pointing out faults in your development model of choice does not constitute whining. Stop trying to gloss over the issue by throwing insults.
Pointing out the whininess in your tone of choice doesn't constitute an insult. So there are some people out there who REALLY like open-source software and would like to see more people using open-source software, big deal! Get over it.
Again, pointing out faults of open source software does not constitute whining. Did I ever once say that people should make software for me personally? No. I said that if people are going to try to "take over the desktop" and attract end users to open source, then they should follow through and support these users.
They do support those end users. THere are thousands of forums out there and millions of people volunteering support. I'm sorry that it doesn't live up to your personal expectations which were apparently created by some overzealous advocates. How many times has a commercial entity advertise "world class support" just to find out that "world class" just means they use call centers overseas?
So first you say that open source is not like communism.Then you conclude that open source is just like communism. Make up your mind. And consider that the 'idea' of communism is not nesserily bad, but the historical implmentations of it certainly were.
I didn't say open source is a lot like communism, you implied it through your allusion. Unfortunately, both your allusion and analogy were faulty because both communism and open-source offer help. Pehaps not the kind and magnitude of help you desire, but help nontheless.
I am getting the impression that you think open source software is only for those capable of filling in the gaps. You don't seem to think it is appropriate for end-users who don't *want* to help, but still need functional software. Yes, Redhat and friends partially fill this role, but there are thousands of open source programs for which payed support is not avaliable.
I offer paid (and sometimes free) support for open-source software on a daily basis. I don't know what you are talking about. No, it isn't as convenient and rewarding as dialing a call center in India, but it is paid support nontheless.
-matthew
That isn't arrogance. It is simple zealotry. Arrogance implies a sense of superiority. In this case, it is quite opposite of arrogance as the open-source zealot is assuming others are capable (or willing) of something they are not.
I'm not whining. I can program. I use proprietary software when appropriate, and open source if it's avaliable and works. I'm only pointing out something that annoys me terribly about the open source community.
You were whining about how open-source doesn't deliever good applications to solve every problem.
If the community is going to keep telling people to ditch windows and go completely open source with Linux, then they these same people should be willing to provide the missing pieces.
If they are talking to the management of whatever company they work for, yes. Otherwise, they are under no obligation to provide anything for you personally. Quit whining.
It's kind of like a group of people telling a blue collar worker, "hey, come with us, we have this awsome community where you don't have to kiss your bosses ass and have no life", then turning around when that person DOES come, and saying "you want a HOUSE? HA, get off your ass you lazy shit and go build it yourself. We're not helping."
If I understand you correctly, this is some allusion to communism. As an analogy to open-source it doesn't quite work because the open-source community IS helping. They provide a significant amount of help in the form of an operating system, many utilities, applications, and the corresponding source code. If there is something lackign that you need, you should consider building it youself. That is just how the community works. It doesn't work well if filled with too many freeloaders expecting everything to be done for them... just like communism (or any system for that matter).
Never help each other? Are you kidding me? Most open source projects depend on many libraries and much code written by others. Just putting your code into the public domain is helping others. And it isn't uncommon for programmers on one project to contribute to another. Where in the world do you get the idea that open-source developers don't help each other?
So you are saying open source software is only for programmers? What about non-programmers?
It is for anybody willing to participate in the community. Whether it is helping others or programming. Personally, I don't do much programming, but I do get on IRC or mailinglists or web forums and help others use open-source software. And if others want to just use open-source software without participating, that is fine too, but they shouldn't expect to get help if they don't give it.
They should just use windows and mac? Fine. But they don't go telling them to switch!
If Microsoft doesn't fulfill my needs, should I go complain to the FCC to get Microsft to stop telling me to switch? No, that would be stupid whining.
-matthew
This is probably because you employ and extra level of maintenance in the form of a virus scanner. What about spyware? Don't you have to take steps to maintain a spyware free system? Every Windows user I know does (or should). And if they don't, it isn't long before they become choked with the crap.
However, I *did* have my Linux box rooted once when I was using it as the firewall. I now have a dedicated firewall device.
I've had an OS X box and a Linux box on broadband for years turn on nearly 24/7/365 without a firewall, no virus scanner, and no spyware protection, lazy patch frequency, and no problems. Sure, I might be asking to be rooted eventually, but it hasn't happened yet. You simply can't do that with Windows. Without proper maintenance, a Windows box will be infected with SOMETHING in a matter of minutes... and rendered barely usable in a matter of months.
Anyway, I'm not sure the analogy between a high maintenance girlfriend and Linux is accurate. By most accounts, Linux is more like that geeky, somewhat homely looking girlfriend, who is only compatable with a very small percent of the population. Complicated, mysterious, but very fun if you are into that kind of thing.
-matthew
Windows is what I would call high maintainance... gotta keep the virus scanner, firewall, and spyware detection tools up to date. Gotta do periodic manual scans to make sure everything is clean. Reinstall periodically when things get clogged up. That is high maintainance.
How is Linux expensive?
The only way Linux is like the girlfriend I think you are describing is that it is complicated, needs manual to get basic things done, and perhaps not worth the trouble. I'm not sure your analogy works.
-matthew
Hey, nobody said it would be easy to hit a target with it...
Non-programmer can't code it. Arrogant-open-source-programmer continues to scratch his itch. As a result, we have 10 thousand poor ass themes and numerous barely functional programs for each task. But what would be best is at least ONE good, working, application for each task.
Why not just be grateful for what you *can* get out of open-source software? It is free, isn't it? Quit whining.
So to you a "community" is a bunch of people who only do things which they themselves want and never help each other? Weird.
Never help each other? Are you kidding me? Most open source projects depend on many libraries and much code written by others. Just putting your code into the public domain is helping others. And it isn't uncommon for programmers on one project to contribute to another. Where in the world do you get the idea that open-source developers don't help each other?
-matthew
It isn't that I work some place that doesn't have an idea of real security. I work some place that trusts it's employees (a luxury these days, for sure). If workstations are to be locked down, it would only be to reduce support costs, not increase security.
-matthew
You should look into encrypted filesystems. Also, I believe USB memory devices already have some kind of encryption built in. Although I am not familiar with how it works.
-matthew
I bet business card sized CDROMs are just as easy to smuggle in and out. This whole USB storage fuss is sounding more an more silly...
Why wasn't this an issue years ago (when data were small) with floppy drives? Couldn't people also burn sensitive data to CDs and take that home? Most PCs and Macs come with CD burning capabilities as a matter of course. Want to get the data offsite? Drop the CD/floppy into the mail and send it.
Then again, maybe USB storage is just that convenient and hard to detect. Still, it seems as though if someone has access to the data and wants to get it offsite, they'll find a way. Maybe USB devices will be the next "microfilm" of future spy/thriller movies.
-matthew
Hydrogen? Replacement for power lines? You've got to be kidding. Electricity is SO much more valuable as electricity. Once you convert it to some other form, you basically throw half the energy away.