I cast a vote for SWT. That's the toolkit developed by IBM et. al. for the eclipse project. It allows you to write your GUI in Java, with native bindings on a variety of platforms for a conventional look and feel (GTK or Motif on Linux/Unix; Windows and Mac too). I've used it a bit and found it very functional and pleasant to code with. It's also very straightforward to yank the SWT out of the eclipse package, and the whole thing is under an LGPL-like license (CPL), as far as I can tell.
I don't understand how hardware solves these problems in ways that software can't. Don't Kerberos and similar authentication schemes verify that users are who they say they are? Don't operating systems with non-root users and applications that don't automatically execute arbirary scripts solve the trojan/virus problems? (Generalizing here.)
It seems that the big advantage of putting security in the hardware as opposed to software is that it creates security that end-users can't circumvent -- which is precisely what RIAA/MPAA/et al need.
Ok, this is a very interesting post, but let's keep a few things clear.
Southwest's online reservation system is not a 'public service,' it's a private service. Nobody has a 'right' to buy tickets online from Southwest.
Not using it is an option, and not just under the rationale that 'voting with your wallet' could make a difference. It's an option because this service simply isn't a necessity (the telephone people).
Not going to extra effort (even if it isn't too difficult) to accomodate a certain class of people is not 'discrimination.' At least, it hardly compares to the positive act of a posting a sign that says 'No (black|blind) people.' Let's not water down the concept too much.
This issue isn't about rights, it's about convenience. And as unfortunate as it is, being blind is an inconvenience. We can try to legislate that dirty fact out of existence, but keep in mind that there will be costs. Does anybody think that the web would have developed as fast as it did if every non-ADA-compliant site had been sued in the process?
Here's a brief summary of anti-nuclear activism in California. The abandonment of plans to build a nuclear power plant in Bodega Bay in 1964 is one example of greens (and others leftists) shooting down a plant. The author who's work is summarized believes environmentalist sentiment was key in fomenting opposition to nuclear power in California (though he is sympathetic w/ the activists).
From what little I know, it seems like nuclear power is unjustly hampered by the stigma which is attached to nuclear weapons. Also, while there are real environmental and logistical concerns, nuclear power seems to be one of the most efficient energy choices available today. I think a lot of environmentalists (and a portion of the public) just like to jump on the bandwagon against anything which represents industrial progress -- they have no qualms about slowing human progress down to a standstill.
Here's a random debate I found on google, with some seemingly informed opinions.
Since I have a feeling that the subjects of internet filtering and media censorship generally may be central to many slashdotter's decision in this election, I'd like to point out that both slates in this campaign -- and Liebermann especially -- have made a big deal about stemming violence in our media. After the latest FTC report, Gore/Liebermann made it pretty clear that they would "do something" about violence in Hollywood. So keep in mind that this is no longer just a Republican issue...
Yay! I just joined. And I'd like to heartily voice my support for a Slashdot nomination process. I'm sure we could do a great job of this, with an open nomination period, profiles on nominees, and a preliminary vote that would hopefully help/. readers unite in the real election.
This issue is pretty interesting for a number of reasons: (1) Its pretty amazing that a French judge would have the gall to pass an (impossible to comply with) injunction against a US internet company -- and fine them to boot.
But, and I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me here, (2) I'm not too impressed with a law that makes it illegal to buy and sell items that could have a real historical significance. Maybe I'm underestimating the emotions involved, but this seems like a bad example of sentimental reactionary politics. I mean, are museums allowed to buy these things?
Ooh, I hate the RealPlayer registration thingy. It pops up and asks you to register, and in order to decline, you actually have to click a button that says "Exit", as if you're going to have to quit the application entirely. Then, to make it worse, a little dialog box comes up and says "Are you sure? Your configuration isn't complete!", or something to that effect. How disingenuous of them.
Hmm, two stock solutions suggest themselves. Either (1) rampant mirroring of the Dialectizer software, or (2) get someone else, with funds and backbone, to officially take responsibility for the site (2600, for example, is willing to take ownership of your copyright-embattled domain names for you, which is really cool, but not exactly the same thing). However, I suppose there are already other, more important battles being fought by those with resources at this point. Jim
Excellent point. I think the real ideological struggle for many of us individualists is understanding just how we can condemn 'corporatism' and the conformity it entails, without attacking the free market principles that made it possible. Capitalism is a game where every individual is an equally free participant. The problem (?) is that the winningest players tend to become mega-coporations -- and economic freedom translates into a new form of subtle, cultural oppression.
But, as dbrutus points out, any restrictions on the free market come via the violence of the state.
Thank you. Not many people seem to get it in this thread. I understand the importance of Open Source, and why so many people are upset at micros~1, but it's fundamentally inconsistent for slashdotters to be vehemently pro individual freedom and at the same time anti-capitalism (or anti-corporatism, which amounts to the same thing).
The software industry (or culture, or whatever) is sort of exceptional in the sense that sale of goods is equivalent to the sharing of information. This allows reasonable people to support seemingly anti-capitalist principles such as Open Source, as the free exchange of information helps advance individual liberties. (At any rate, that sounds like a good argument to me.) But meanwhile, we would all do well to remember that capitalism (the free market) and individual autonomy go hand in hand -- and dogmatically vilifying corporations (who, generally speaking, are simply the winners at the game we all agreed to play) only serves to undermine the system that we all benefit from.
I think you'd be hard pressed to show that the average quality of life is higher in France than in the USA, using any objective measures. Offhand, I know that their taxation rates are much higher (being a socialist country), and their unemployment rate is around 12% (which is about 3 times the US rate).
Sure, the french may not be doing the best economically. They may not have the richest 6% of the people who have 51% of the money.
People love to throw around statistics like this about the United States, but they fail to show how a disparity in wealth is necessarily a bad thing for anyone. Sure we might have a few _very_ rich people in America, but that's just a by-product of the free market -- those people are generally the industry leaders who have provided the _greatest_ service to the rest of us. Meanwhile, rising tides really do seem to raise all boats. At least, I'm pretty sure I'd rather be a poor person in America than in most other countries.
Meanwhile, while I'm not sure what all the ramifications of this French law may be (as a security measure, it does sound reasonable), I have to give credit to the remark made by Kaa:
I am highly distrustful of governments and giving more power to them -- and this is a power grab by the government, make no mistake about it -- does not strike me as something to be applauded. I recognize that corporations are not all benevolent either, but I still think that governments are more dangerous.
Not to be paranoid, but it makes sense to view governments as interested in shoring up their power in the face of new technology. The french press release sort of backs this up with the conclusion:
This law reminds that, in a market economy, States can play a significant role on the economy and preserve the public interest.
Sure that sounds benevolent, but it all depends on your perspective.
Actually, I believe that we should all have the freedom to speed -- governance is not about taking freedoms away from individuals, but rather about making the consequences of unlawful actions disagreeable and explicit. A society should be founded on a fundamental respect for the freedom of its individuals -- while it may punish inappropriate behaviour, making inappropriate behaviour physically impossible simply turns men into machines.
All governments pass laws banning their citizens from doing things... I don't think speed controls are more creepy or unjust than speed limits.
I have to disagree -- there is a significant difference between making speeding illegal and engineering cars so that it is impossible to speed. The latter approach robs the citizen of his free choice. While we may debate the value of the 'freedom to speed', in general, when governments circumscribe the autonomy of their populace they undermine the values of responsibility and independence, giving rise to a more pathetic kind of human being.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and what if tomorrow's definition of a 'terrorist', or an unsavory citizen, is no longer your own.
I cast a vote for SWT. That's the toolkit developed by IBM et. al. for the eclipse project. It allows you to write your GUI in Java, with native bindings on a variety of platforms for a conventional look and feel (GTK or Motif on Linux/Unix; Windows and Mac too). I've used it a bit and found it very functional and pleasant to code with. It's also very straightforward to yank the SWT out of the eclipse package, and the whole thing is under an LGPL-like license (CPL), as far as I can tell.
I'd mod you up for this if I could. Good point!
I don't understand how hardware solves these problems in ways that software can't. Don't Kerberos and similar authentication schemes verify that users are who they say they are? Don't operating systems with non-root users and applications that don't automatically execute arbirary scripts solve the trojan/virus problems? (Generalizing here.)
It seems that the big advantage of putting security in the hardware as opposed to software is that it creates security that end-users can't circumvent -- which is precisely what RIAA/MPAA/et al need.
right... nice point
Ok, this is a very interesting post, but let's keep a few things clear.
This issue isn't about rights, it's about convenience. And as unfortunate as it is, being blind is an inconvenience. We can try to legislate that dirty fact out of existence, but keep in mind that there will be costs. Does anybody think that the web would have developed as fast as it did if every non-ADA-compliant site had been sued in the process?
Here's a brief summary of anti-nuclear activism in California. The abandonment of plans to build a nuclear power plant in Bodega Bay in 1964 is one example of greens (and others leftists) shooting down a plant. The author who's work is summarized believes environmentalist sentiment was key in fomenting opposition to nuclear power in California (though he is sympathetic w/ the activists).
From what little I know, it seems like nuclear power is unjustly hampered by the stigma which is attached to nuclear weapons. Also, while there are real environmental and logistical concerns, nuclear power seems to be one of the most efficient energy choices available today. I think a lot of environmentalists (and a portion of the public) just like to jump on the bandwagon against anything which represents industrial progress -- they have no qualms about slowing human progress down to a standstill.
Here's a random debate I found on google, with some seemingly informed opinions.
Since I have a feeling that the subjects of internet filtering and media censorship generally may be central to many slashdotter's decision in this election, I'd like to point out that both slates in this campaign -- and Liebermann especially -- have made a big deal about stemming violence in our media. After the latest FTC report, Gore/Liebermann made it pretty clear that they would "do something" about violence in Hollywood. So keep in mind that this is no longer just a Republican issue...
Jim
Yay! I just joined. And I'd like to heartily voice my support for a Slashdot nomination process. I'm sure we could do a great job of this, with an open nomination period, profiles on nominees, and a preliminary vote that would hopefully help /. readers unite in the real election.
Jim
Karma be damned, that is a great quote from a great movie!! Everyone go see Road Trip.
This issue is pretty interesting for a number of reasons: (1) Its pretty amazing that a French judge would have the gall to pass an (impossible to comply with) injunction against a US internet company -- and fine them to boot.
But, and I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me here, (2) I'm not too impressed with a law that makes it illegal to buy and sell items that could have a real historical significance. Maybe I'm underestimating the emotions involved, but this seems like a bad example of sentimental reactionary politics. I mean, are museums allowed to buy these things?
Ooh, I hate the RealPlayer registration thingy. It pops up and asks you to register, and in order to decline, you actually have to click a button that says "Exit", as if you're going to have to quit the application entirely. Then, to make it worse, a little dialog box comes up and says "Are you sure? Your configuration isn't complete!", or something to that effect. How disingenuous of them.
Jim
Hmm, two stock solutions suggest themselves. Either (1) rampant mirroring of the Dialectizer software, or (2) get someone else, with funds and backbone, to officially take responsibility for the site (2600, for example, is willing to take ownership of your copyright-embattled domain names for you, which is really cool, but not exactly the same thing). However, I suppose there are already other, more important battles being fought by those with resources at this point. Jim
Excellent point. I think the real ideological struggle for many of us individualists is understanding just how we can condemn 'corporatism' and the conformity it entails, without attacking the free market principles that made it possible. Capitalism is a game where every individual is an equally free participant. The problem (?) is that the winningest players tend to become mega-coporations -- and economic freedom translates into a new form of subtle, cultural oppression.
But, as dbrutus points out, any restrictions on the free market come via the violence of the state.
Thank you. Not many people seem to get it in this thread. I understand the importance of Open Source, and why so many people are upset at micros~1, but it's fundamentally inconsistent for slashdotters to be vehemently pro individual freedom and at the same time anti-capitalism (or anti-corporatism, which amounts to the same thing).
The software industry (or culture, or whatever) is sort of exceptional in the sense that sale of goods is equivalent to the sharing of information. This allows reasonable people to support seemingly anti-capitalist principles such as Open Source, as the free exchange of information helps advance individual liberties. (At any rate, that sounds like a good argument to me.) But meanwhile, we would all do well to remember that capitalism (the free market) and individual autonomy go hand in hand -- and dogmatically vilifying corporations (who, generally speaking, are simply the winners at the game we all agreed to play) only serves to undermine the system that we all benefit from.
I think you'd be hard pressed to show that the average quality of life is higher in France than in the USA, using any objective measures. Offhand, I know that their taxation rates are much higher (being a socialist country), and their unemployment rate is around 12% (which is about 3 times the US rate).
Sure, the french may not be doing the best economically. They may not have the richest 6% of the people who have 51% of the money.
People love to throw around statistics like this about the United States, but they fail to show how a disparity in wealth is necessarily a bad thing for anyone. Sure we might have a few _very_ rich people in America, but that's just a by-product of the free market -- those people are generally the industry leaders who have provided the _greatest_ service to the rest of us. Meanwhile, rising tides really do seem to raise all boats. At least, I'm pretty sure I'd rather be a poor person in America than in most other countries.
Meanwhile, while I'm not sure what all the ramifications of this French law may be (as a security measure, it does sound reasonable), I have to give credit to the remark made by Kaa:
Not to be paranoid, but it makes sense to view governments as interested in shoring up their power in the face of new technology. The french press release sort of backs this up with the conclusion:
Sure that sounds benevolent, but it all depends on your perspective.Actually, I believe that we should all have the freedom to speed -- governance is not about taking freedoms away from individuals, but rather about making the consequences of unlawful actions disagreeable and explicit. A society should be founded on a fundamental respect for the freedom of its individuals -- while it may punish inappropriate behaviour, making inappropriate behaviour physically impossible simply turns men into machines.