I agree with giving the students a laptop, but there's a flaw in their logic. They state that "all laptops should have web filtering." Stop right there! That requirement makes no sense! Once the laptops leave the campus and go elsewhere, they have absolutely no control over that laptop. They have no control, and no say, as to what they do with those laptops. What's stopping them from wiping the OS and reinstalling? And as far as surfing the web, the college has no control over what the kids do online if they are not on the campus network, so the college should not be held liable. If I was the person in charge of IT at that college I would push back like crazy. What they need to do is handle it like a company does: install a web filter on the CAMPUS NETWORK! That way they can filter all the internet activity coming from the campus network, and the college's liability is limited only to on-campus activity. Anything going on off campus is not their problem to solve. As for students tampering with their laptops, have the students sign a statement that they will not tamper with it, or they will be charged for the full price of the laptop immediately, will not be issued another one, and for the remainder of their time at the college, their laptop is immediate unsupported by the college's help desk. PROBLEM SOLVED!
He was a lawyer. Part of filling a role as a lawyer in a government capacity is to take an oath in a courtroom that he/she will uphold the Constitution. The same is for police officers, military, etc, etc.
From my perspective, the man is a hero. The Constitution was put in place to protect the people from a tyrannical government. In the spirit of the Constitution, he saw a tyrannical government on the horizon, and with a sworn duty to protect the Constitutional rights of the people, he made a sacrifice to stop it. That's the definition of an American hero. Anything else that the Bush administration tries to state about him and is actions is nothing more than the Bush administration trying to cover their own asses.
That is age discrimination. You shouldn't mention anything about age, nor should you immediately judge based on age. There are a lot of older people that are still doing the same damn thing they did 15 years ago because they haven't grown. And there are a lot of "younger" guys out there that are real rock stars, learn very fast, and contribute a whole lot more. theYou should base your judgment on their actual skills. And if you can't tell that from an interview, then its not the candidate's fault; your interview skills just suck.
The bottom line is the employer needs to provide the employees with the tools to do the job. If those are inferior tools, is that the employee's fault? If the employer wants the employee to start working as soon as they're in the door, either put in a mechanism that starts up the computers 30 minutes before work, or find a computer that boots faster. The employees can only work with what they've been given. The lost productivity is a direct result of the choosing that product, and it is up to the company to absorb that cost. The company should either push back on Microsoft to make it better, or simply just switch to a different OS.
You are trying to sharp shoot me just to see if I actually know what I'm talking about, to see whether my opinion is based on fact or if I'm talking out my ass. Well, I do know what I'm talking about. I know of all the names you mentioned. I don't know them personally, but I do know their contributions, and I know more about their relationship with free software than what is listed on their Wikipedia pages. I never said Stallman was THE source of free software. Nor did I try to make him out to be the messiah of open software. In fact, I already said that he has been considered by many as a kook. However, the GPLv2 was critical in getting open source to the masses (Linux). The FSF was a critical part of that. Every time there was some corporation that tried to edge their way into it to squeeze out a few bucks, the FSF pushed back and protected the license. Sometimes it takes a fanatic to hold up the walls (think "Marines"). You can agree or disagree with his ideals and approach, but you cannot ignore the fact that he and his FSF has been an influencing factor into the world of open software (not the only factor, but a big one). Unfortunately, Stallman's open fanaticism will be his own undoing. His personal vendetta is affecting the FSF's ability to execute its own manifesto. Argent, apart from some semantics around Stallman and his intentions, I believe you and I are on the same page here.
Thank you for the history lesson, but I never stated anything about FSF being around back then. I didn't even say he was the focal point of pushing open software. I said "people like Stallman". Not just him, but many others as well. I meant people who really wanted open software and were willing to create software and share it with others. I was talking about like-minded individuals who wanted to make sure they could use software without being forced to abide by anybody else rules. It was a noble cause. Unfortunately, the FOSS world is now up and running, the licenses are in place, and free software is legally protected. Unfortunately, Stallman has gradually become less and less "pro-open software" and more and more "anti-corpoate". The two should not coincide. He's already viewed by many as hippie throwback and a kook, so politically he's not gaining any ground. In the long run, he will alienate the very community he is supposed to be protecting.
Stallman was not talking about cost in $$$ or effort. He was talking about "freedom" (free as in speech). He believes that there must be some piece of code in Firefox that is tied into some corporate governance which does not allow people to take, use, modify, distribute, etc, etc.
It's really a sorry thing. Back in the day when FOSS was getting started, people like Stallman were critical. The community needed people like him to ensure that FOSS started free and stayed free. It kept the corporate money mongers at bay and made sure free software (as in speech) had a place to grow and mature. Every time there was an encroachment by somebody trying to corrupt that, the GPL and other such licenses were there to push back. Unfortunately, it seems that lately Stallman and his crew have gone beyond simply "protecting the idea" and have moved into fanaticism. This could be potentially dangerous for the community. While many view Stallman as a crackpot, he really has been critical to the open source community. Sometimes, an idea needs an empassioned person to keep the fire alive for the good of all. But if he really does go further around the bend and really does become a raving lunatic, conspiracy theorist, a true wackpot: then he will simply be ignored, even by his own FOSS community. Then he will be irrelevant, and the staunch support of the open source ideal will be marginalized, and then FOSS will have no protectorate. Stallman is hurting his own cause, which does make me concerned for the community as a whole.
You can't protect software by disabling it. Corporations underestimate the community's ability to understand, and work around, any software problem they come across.
Apple will eventually learn, the same way Microsoft has, that the freedom to innovate does not belong solely to them. If you lock out the masses, they will eventually go someplace else (hear Android calling?)
I challenge the accuracy of this information, and its relevance. I work in technology, and I can say first hand that at the places where I have worked the majority of the "non-work" sites visited are NOT file sharing sites. Usually, its sports, news, shopping and free email services (GMail, Yahoo, etc). And for the number of emails, most of that is done through the free email services and not the corporate email system. I do agree that a portion of time is spent on personal things, but in these days of multi-tasking, how much has that really affected productivity? I would say that it has INCREASED productivity by allowing the employees some breathing room, rather than hovering over them like a slave driver. Corporate America needs to chill, and treat their employees like humans, not robots.
I think that what is wrong is that you still adamantly stick to your bible as "truth", and refuse to believe that anything it it could be wrong. Ask yourself this question: What did Jesus look like? He was born in the middle east, of middle eastern parents. Why is it that when you see pictures of him, he looks European? Probably because the church changed his image to be more appealing to Europeans. Jesus is supposed to be "the" central figure of Christianity. If the church was bold enough to change their savior's appearance, what would stop them from changing anything else in the bible? The purpose of Christianity is not to follow Jesus, but to assimilate your mind. You are owned by them and you don't even realize it. You preach peace but instill hate and intolerance. You fear hell, but damn others to it. To me, your rant is meaningless, but to you it is your diatribe of "truth". And with that, I sign off....
I think you are as blind as the other one. You simply state one reason after another why your religion is better than the others. However, what I have said is that I believe all religions have had their own share of atrocities in the past. But, I did defend most religious people as being NOT of they barbaric type. You see, I think people who are overly religious are ignorant and close-minded. However, I respect their right to be so. If you want to live in the dark ages, be my guest.
I never claimed moral equivalence. I claimed "immoral equivalence". All religious are equally f*cked up, and all should be banned. The manner in which people interpret their religions simply adds to the madness. In short: ignorance should be intolerable. Which probably includes your posts.
You cite sources, admit they are weak, and then say "look them up yourself". Sorry, you don't have a leg to stand on. Modern Islam rarely takes on a form for "forced militant behavior" other than extremism we have seen in cults and terrorist groups. And as I have said, all religious groups, ALL, have had their share of human rights abuse in the past.
I was grouping Catholicism and Christianity, to include Protestanism. Christians are Christians, from my perspective.
I think the only group I can think of that hasn't committed major atrocities are the Amish, unless you consider "technology deprivation" an abuse.
You, my friend, have made probably the most ignorant comment I've seen on Slashdot. I'll be the first to say that major problems with the world today are based in religion. And me being an atheist, I have no loyalties to a single one. However, every single religion has had their share of atrocities, including Catholicism / Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, etc. Not a single one is without fault. Singling out Islam as being the only one is shortsighted. By the way "jihad" means "struggle" not "holy war". If you actually make intelligent comments, maybe you wouldn't be modded down.
As usual, some lawmakers, who know next to nothing about technology, create a half-assed law to govern something they know nothing about. You would think that they would at least bring on an expert adviser to tell them what his realistic and what is not. Don't they understand that such a law will create millions upon millions of costs on their own local businesses, which will gain them next to nothing in security, and only hurt their competitiveness?
I'm very curious to see where this goes. The biggest issue I see is with adoption. There are so many distros out there, each with their own purpose and personality, and each one is focused on developing functionality first and foremost. I think it will be hard to convince all of them to pause that and shift their entire back end onto a standardized framework. Plus, the biggest strength in Linux is its diversity and flexibility. Adding such a standardized base might kill some of that flexibility.
As I said, we'll see where it goes...
Slashdot Mirror
Let's review: COLLEGE!!! That means that most, if not all, are over 18.
I agree with giving the students a laptop, but there's a flaw in their logic. They state that "all laptops should have web filtering." Stop right there! That requirement makes no sense! Once the laptops leave the campus and go elsewhere, they have absolutely no control over that laptop. They have no control, and no say, as to what they do with those laptops. What's stopping them from wiping the OS and reinstalling? And as far as surfing the web, the college has no control over what the kids do online if they are not on the campus network, so the college should not be held liable. If I was the person in charge of IT at that college I would push back like crazy. What they need to do is handle it like a company does: install a web filter on the CAMPUS NETWORK! That way they can filter all the internet activity coming from the campus network, and the college's liability is limited only to on-campus activity. Anything going on off campus is not their problem to solve. As for students tampering with their laptops, have the students sign a statement that they will not tamper with it, or they will be charged for the full price of the laptop immediately, will not be issued another one, and for the remainder of their time at the college, their laptop is immediate unsupported by the college's help desk. PROBLEM SOLVED!
He was a lawyer. Part of filling a role as a lawyer in a government capacity is to take an oath in a courtroom that he/she will uphold the Constitution. The same is for police officers, military, etc, etc.
From my perspective, the man is a hero. The Constitution was put in place to protect the people from a tyrannical government. In the spirit of the Constitution, he saw a tyrannical government on the horizon, and with a sworn duty to protect the Constitutional rights of the people, he made a sacrifice to stop it. That's the definition of an American hero. Anything else that the Bush administration tries to state about him and is actions is nothing more than the Bush administration trying to cover their own asses.
Ok, so now somebody is trying to condition us to think that the concept of privacy isn't even real? They can kiss my private ass.....
That is age discrimination. You shouldn't mention anything about age, nor should you immediately judge based on age. There are a lot of older people that are still doing the same damn thing they did 15 years ago because they haven't grown. And there are a lot of "younger" guys out there that are real rock stars, learn very fast, and contribute a whole lot more. theYou should base your judgment on their actual skills. And if you can't tell that from an interview, then its not the candidate's fault; your interview skills just suck.
The bottom line is the employer needs to provide the employees with the tools to do the job. If those are inferior tools, is that the employee's fault? If the employer wants the employee to start working as soon as they're in the door, either put in a mechanism that starts up the computers 30 minutes before work, or find a computer that boots faster. The employees can only work with what they've been given. The lost productivity is a direct result of the choosing that product, and it is up to the company to absorb that cost. The company should either push back on Microsoft to make it better, or simply just switch to a different OS.
You are trying to sharp shoot me just to see if I actually know what I'm talking about, to see whether my opinion is based on fact or if I'm talking out my ass. Well, I do know what I'm talking about. I know of all the names you mentioned. I don't know them personally, but I do know their contributions, and I know more about their relationship with free software than what is listed on their Wikipedia pages. I never said Stallman was THE source of free software. Nor did I try to make him out to be the messiah of open software. In fact, I already said that he has been considered by many as a kook. However, the GPLv2 was critical in getting open source to the masses (Linux). The FSF was a critical part of that. Every time there was some corporation that tried to edge their way into it to squeeze out a few bucks, the FSF pushed back and protected the license. Sometimes it takes a fanatic to hold up the walls (think "Marines"). You can agree or disagree with his ideals and approach, but you cannot ignore the fact that he and his FSF has been an influencing factor into the world of open software (not the only factor, but a big one). Unfortunately, Stallman's open fanaticism will be his own undoing. His personal vendetta is affecting the FSF's ability to execute its own manifesto. Argent, apart from some semantics around Stallman and his intentions, I believe you and I are on the same page here.
Thank you for the history lesson, but I never stated anything about FSF being around back then. I didn't even say he was the focal point of pushing open software. I said "people like Stallman". Not just him, but many others as well. I meant people who really wanted open software and were willing to create software and share it with others. I was talking about like-minded individuals who wanted to make sure they could use software without being forced to abide by anybody else rules. It was a noble cause. Unfortunately, the FOSS world is now up and running, the licenses are in place, and free software is legally protected. Unfortunately, Stallman has gradually become less and less "pro-open software" and more and more "anti-corpoate". The two should not coincide. He's already viewed by many as hippie throwback and a kook, so politically he's not gaining any ground. In the long run, he will alienate the very community he is supposed to be protecting.
Stallman was not talking about cost in $$$ or effort. He was talking about "freedom" (free as in speech). He believes that there must be some piece of code in Firefox that is tied into some corporate governance which does not allow people to take, use, modify, distribute, etc, etc. It's really a sorry thing. Back in the day when FOSS was getting started, people like Stallman were critical. The community needed people like him to ensure that FOSS started free and stayed free. It kept the corporate money mongers at bay and made sure free software (as in speech) had a place to grow and mature. Every time there was an encroachment by somebody trying to corrupt that, the GPL and other such licenses were there to push back. Unfortunately, it seems that lately Stallman and his crew have gone beyond simply "protecting the idea" and have moved into fanaticism. This could be potentially dangerous for the community. While many view Stallman as a crackpot, he really has been critical to the open source community. Sometimes, an idea needs an empassioned person to keep the fire alive for the good of all. But if he really does go further around the bend and really does become a raving lunatic, conspiracy theorist, a true wackpot: then he will simply be ignored, even by his own FOSS community. Then he will be irrelevant, and the staunch support of the open source ideal will be marginalized, and then FOSS will have no protectorate. Stallman is hurting his own cause, which does make me concerned for the community as a whole.
You can't protect software by disabling it. Corporations underestimate the community's ability to understand, and work around, any software problem they come across.
Apple will eventually learn, the same way Microsoft has, that the freedom to innovate does not belong solely to them. If you lock out the masses, they will eventually go someplace else (hear Android calling?)
I challenge the accuracy of this information, and its relevance. I work in technology, and I can say first hand that at the places where I have worked the majority of the "non-work" sites visited are NOT file sharing sites. Usually, its sports, news, shopping and free email services (GMail, Yahoo, etc). And for the number of emails, most of that is done through the free email services and not the corporate email system. I do agree that a portion of time is spent on personal things, but in these days of multi-tasking, how much has that really affected productivity? I would say that it has INCREASED productivity by allowing the employees some breathing room, rather than hovering over them like a slave driver. Corporate America needs to chill, and treat their employees like humans, not robots.
I think that what is wrong is that you still adamantly stick to your bible as "truth", and refuse to believe that anything it it could be wrong. Ask yourself this question: What did Jesus look like? He was born in the middle east, of middle eastern parents. Why is it that when you see pictures of him, he looks European? Probably because the church changed his image to be more appealing to Europeans. Jesus is supposed to be "the" central figure of Christianity. If the church was bold enough to change their savior's appearance, what would stop them from changing anything else in the bible? The purpose of Christianity is not to follow Jesus, but to assimilate your mind. You are owned by them and you don't even realize it. You preach peace but instill hate and intolerance. You fear hell, but damn others to it. To me, your rant is meaningless, but to you it is your diatribe of "truth". And with that, I sign off....
I think you are as blind as the other one. You simply state one reason after another why your religion is better than the others. However, what I have said is that I believe all religions have had their own share of atrocities in the past. But, I did defend most religious people as being NOT of they barbaric type. You see, I think people who are overly religious are ignorant and close-minded. However, I respect their right to be so. If you want to live in the dark ages, be my guest.
Well, you asked for it. Look here: http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm Your ignorance is showing....
I never claimed moral equivalence. I claimed "immoral equivalence". All religious are equally f*cked up, and all should be banned. The manner in which people interpret their religions simply adds to the madness. In short: ignorance should be intolerable. Which probably includes your posts.
I guess you could say that. But I was intending to say "not just Catholics, but all Christians". I didn't want to go too far off of my point.
I didn't even read your answer, simply because I mentally I tire of your ranting.
You cite sources, admit they are weak, and then say "look them up yourself". Sorry, you don't have a leg to stand on. Modern Islam rarely takes on a form for "forced militant behavior" other than extremism we have seen in cults and terrorist groups. And as I have said, all religious groups, ALL, have had their share of human rights abuse in the past.
I was grouping Catholicism and Christianity, to include Protestanism. Christians are Christians, from my perspective. I think the only group I can think of that hasn't committed major atrocities are the Amish, unless you consider "technology deprivation" an abuse.
Amen.
You, my friend, have made probably the most ignorant comment I've seen on Slashdot. I'll be the first to say that major problems with the world today are based in religion. And me being an atheist, I have no loyalties to a single one. However, every single religion has had their share of atrocities, including Catholicism / Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, etc. Not a single one is without fault. Singling out Islam as being the only one is shortsighted. By the way "jihad" means "struggle" not "holy war". If you actually make intelligent comments, maybe you wouldn't be modded down.
As usual, some lawmakers, who know next to nothing about technology, create a half-assed law to govern something they know nothing about. You would think that they would at least bring on an expert adviser to tell them what his realistic and what is not. Don't they understand that such a law will create millions upon millions of costs on their own local businesses, which will gain them next to nothing in security, and only hurt their competitiveness?
I'm very curious to see where this goes. The biggest issue I see is with adoption. There are so many distros out there, each with their own purpose and personality, and each one is focused on developing functionality first and foremost. I think it will be hard to convince all of them to pause that and shift their entire back end onto a standardized framework. Plus, the biggest strength in Linux is its diversity and flexibility. Adding such a standardized base might kill some of that flexibility. As I said, we'll see where it goes...