Fascism is a natural choice when corporations want to spread their underlying values through the rest of society: Internally corps are rigid authoritarian heirarchies with almost no room for democracy. The CEO acts as strict father figure, so naturally the public sector counterpart to this is 'fuhrer'. These major organs of capitalism deem themselves a 'natural' order, whereas fascists work to shoehorn government into the 'organic' mold of the patriarchal family.
Now examine corporate newspeak and ask what is the single most important qualifier besides profit when evaluating individuals: To me that is "Agressive". In fact there are times when it comes out of corporatists mouths almost once per sentence (sometimes more). "Agressive... agressive... agressively... AGRESSIVE..." Depending on who's speaking, it starts to sound like quacking or barking.
Coming back to network news, note the trend in anchors standing up (even prancing) to deliver the news. This connotes a position of authority (a professor, a team coach, a military commander). They also seem two steps shy of barking or shouting the way a commander would; I don't think 'urgency' quite describes the way they often speak.
1) Form a consortium of major Linux vendors to build and maintain an exhaustive but relatively friendly Hardware Compatability List (HCL).
2) Spread the word that if users don't consult the HCL before purchasing new hardware, they risk a lot of compatability headaches.
3) Invite hardware OEMs to participate directly in maintaining their corner of the HCL. Under each model listing, provide a button to send user feedback (or petition) to the hardware vendor.
4) Watch as hardware vendors begin to take Linux drivers much more seriously, due to constant and coordinated pressure from consumers. Vendors will get a clear message that the days of the haphazard "plug-n-wish" habit are over, since users will avoid buying their products of questionble compatability in the first place.
OS vendors must work to keep their patrons informed about hardware suitability. There is no other way around it in the near-mid term, and we will never get to the point where most OEMs automatically accommodate Linux unless a sturdy bridge is built to organize and convey the users' purchasing interests.
If the OS keeps track of a file's executable status, I have to wonder why this crucial information isn't immediately recognizable in the GUI.
If users had a strong indication of executable status as soon as they look at any file, then I'd bet over time most users would come to avoid opening trojans (no matter how innocently they are named).
A system could also warn people the first time they open a non-bundled executable.
The more I think about this, the more it seems like GUI designers are failing us on malware. It is not the users' role to be mindreaders.
I don't think H2 fuel cells will ever match the practicality of a simple backup alkaline battery pack. Just keep the alkaline pack with you and only plug it into the laptop for those times when you've pushed the internal battery too far.
Most people would probably replace the alkaline cells less than once every 12 months. And even with very long periods between use, the alkalines will stay usable for 8 years.
Contrast this with lugging around methanol cartridges which is A) a seriously scary toxin, B) another way to generate mucho garbage (if these are indeed to be used constantly for primary power), C) probably very expensive over the long haul, given the safety measures required, D) on the whole much bulkier per Wh than simple alkalines.
Should an unusual circumstance arise, I can also get alkaline refills just about anywhere on earth (like a convenience store or a streetvendor stand), whereas methanol or H2 cartridges will probably only be readily available in large urban areas within developed countries for the next 20 years at least.
I think this is a solution looking for a problem. But nevertheless handy when you're venturing into the wilderness, and only at night, and without an automobile/truck, and need 10hrs solid computing time (only 2x what my iBook gets), and have plenty of carrying capacity for a bulky laptop apparatus plus a larger fuel supply. Which means you are hiking/pedaling/stranded near the poles during winter.
You are correct about the debate's semantics being flawed.
Having first experienced the Internet through a large proprietary provider (Compuserve) it became immediately clear to me back then that whatever additional services/features CIS offered didn't matter much to me as long as my TCP/IP link was availble.
That's all that mattered: The Internet Protocol.
IMO raising other higher-level protocols in importance over general IP traffic means that provider is no longer in the Internet business.
Yet, there is scant discussion of the Internet Protocol and its central significance as a product-offering (and the implications of false advertising for providers focusing on other protocols). The wider press is devoid of any technical terms whatsoever, and many pro-neutrality articles leave me feeling that the case hasn't been presented convincingly. It's dumbed-down almost beyond belief.
The more common interpretation of this question is whether chicken eggs existed before chickens themselves. That is the question that TFA seeks to answer.
We agree that the question is really concerned with chicken eggs, not eggs in general.
Therefore, a non-chicken layed a non-chicken egg containing a chicken embryo. The chicken came first, and the first chicken layed the first chicken egg after that.:-)
PCs have always been about having a bit of computing power under the user's control, which can be molded to projects that the MIS team are too busy/sleepy/detached/uppity to implement on big iron. That is the heart of personal computing in the workplace, and it has much less to do with a specific OS's philosophy than with a workplace's need for flexibility and initiative.
So I question whether Microsoft can take admin rights away from their workers and still claim to be in the PC business.
I like a crypto-fascist conspiracy as much as the next guy, but wouldn't that be an awfully big marketing risk for IBM to take?
Backdoors and encryption are seperate things. But adding encryption to the deepest levels of backdoor-laden hardware would be one of the best ways to minimize risk to their brand.
Any device or feature that attempts to put a machine's activities beyond analysis should be treated with deep suspicion. And the corporate elite have already made their intention clear: To create a planetwide nervous system that looks after their interests, starting with DVDs and streaming media.
Think having Tony Blair's people watching you in all the public spaces is bad? Wait til you realize that multinational corps are surveiling you everywhere else!
Why not just highlight the domain in the address bar? That's the important part, is it not?
The domain could be shown in RED lettering (or blink 5 times, etc.) if the user has never visited that site before.
There are lots of non-obnoxious visual cues you can add to maximize the number of people paying attention to the URL they are at....look at your addresss bar right now: the browser is practically trying to HIDE the domain and rest of the URL. It's trying NOT to compete with the page contents... but it NEEDS to!
Very good... Thanks. I see we share a similar outlook on the Linux Desktop.
And I am starting to wonder:
If a group of people decided to address these problems, then which ones would yield most easily to technical refactoring, and which would rely more on political influences? The packaging issue seems political to me: You need to persuade developers to check lsb_release at install or startup, instead of creating a.deb which makes demands on a long list of OS components.
A more thorough analysis would have focused on why these packages are lacking.
Agreed! Linux attracts systems developers and sysadmins. It frightens power-users and application developers.
As for your average Joe/Jane user, they adopt acomputer or an OS for two reasons: 1) To use a specific application, or 2) Because their power-user techie friends recommend it. Linux loses-out on both counts. Power-users like installing apps and utilities they get (as single files) directly from vendors, NOT wrestling with an rpm or dpkg database. They like installing drivers for their devices, NOT recompiling kernels.
If the typical distro had a consistent UI with standardized control panel, plus a consistent programming environment (complete with standard ABIs and the preferred 'Linux IDE')... then Linux might seem like a nice, safe place to play for more users and developers. Throw in a single buzzword-standard like "LSB Desktop" to grow mindshare and allow users, shoppers and merchants to quickly get on the same page... Then get vendors to adopt something like Appdirs for simple 3rd-party software distribution (let dpkg and rpm manage the core OS, not the applications).
I suspect that many desktop-app vendors considering Linux do not feel empowered to provide product support to end-users: Since there is no overarching standard providing a consistent UI, the developer must speak to the user in an acronym-soup of more piecemeal standards like CUPS, W3C, SAMBA, etc. and the user must be experienced enough to translate acronym-speak like "Create a new CUPS entry for your SAMBA-shared printer" into specific actions.
These are BIG hurdles. It will be interesting to see how much of a difference the upcoming LSB Desktop spec will make in addressing them.
When so-called skeptics (i.e. steadfast deniers) will even cite butterfly wings as an alternate explanation, then anything which can properly connect the dots from different perspectives is worthwhile IMO.
Statistical models (used by climatologists) are bound to increase in accuracy as they deal with average temperature of the entire globe over larger time scales.
This is not about determining whether it will snow or rain in Peoria on Dec. 11, 2006.
I prefer freedom and good sense to law or vigilantism.
Then go stand on a corner with placard and bullhorn like Fred Phelps. Or maybe go on radio and have a chitchat with Don Imus you poor, PC-opressed, muzzled, under-represented whiteboy.
Just when you bring that worse-than-useless crap into an environment where people are engaged in learning or earning a wage, then I'd hope you get what you deserve.
One of these days you'll wake up and your 'kind' won't even amount to the largest minority anymore. I'll be much more interested to hear your opinion then.
What exactly are you saying to women that keeps landing you in jail? I think this may be nothing more than a personal problem.
If we could get our free speech back, there wouldn't be anything. That's the point.
And, for the record, it's her problem, not mine. The offended party has to take offense. The speaker has no power over that.
You are being remarkably vague now.
I guess P.I. has its limits as far as intellectual honesty is concerned. Although I'll grant that Fred Phelps wouldn't turn down an opportunity to repeat his views.
Here is a clue for you: Harrassment is real. If you keep saying things in a derrogatory vein to someone, and the comments aren't addressed to the individual's character but some other trait, then it may be needlessly discriminatory.
Part of living in the USA is dealing with things like this. What it comes down to it, if you are suspected by the government of being a terrorist, you have no rights.
When govt agents visit college professors saying "We have derrogatory information on you" and that they're investigating "terrorism" (which puts them outside the Consitution), and that they'll be making frequent visits...... Can we see a pattern of repression here?
America has problems, yes, but when another country demonstrates their similar inperfections to the world, can't we hold them accountable without trashing the US in the same breath?
Well they're part of the same WAR coalition, so I don't see why not. The parody in question is about Iraq, you know.
Here in the awesome USofA such things are protected. You are free to openly disagree with the President and his policies with NO WORRY of retribution. In other countries doing things like that would get you fired from your job, put on the nofly list, or even worse they dig up dirt on you and your family in an attempt to embarass or discredit you if you try to tell the truth.
Except that political retribution happens here anyway. After the Venezuelan govt made inexpensive fuel available to poor Americans, the VZ fuel company CITGO is being put under a microscope by Congress.
Some Venezuelans who normally teach in the US have had their visas revoked, or their classes held-up. Government agents swaggering by your office saying "We have derrogatory information on you". "Blah Blah TERRORISM Blah Blah...", which is the new codeword for "We're not accountable to the Constitution".
If US efforts to dispense aid met with investigations by politicians, or US teachers were prevented from teaching abroad, the foreign country would be labeled "totalitarian" (except if you are fascist like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan-- then you get to buy ad time on our airwaves for propaganda).
That is not Democrat vs Republican, that is politicans vs people.
Agreed. But people put up with it because of brainwashing: Our mass media have become an anti-populist force who are in it with all the other wealthy corporations.
They don't just want our money; They prefer control because they are now so wealthy that they have everything in the world to lose.
We already live in a nation full of prisons. What else can politicians do to make the wealthy feel more secure except putting much of the population under effective house-arrest?
Wow, that's a really broken and limited way to think. Linux has a totally different way of handling drivers AND software packages than Windows, and the Linux way is better by far.
By that line of thinking, it is "Linux" that represents the Cathedral style of development.
Having package-priests stand between developers and their customers results in broken relationships. A distro does not deserve most of the end-users' attentions... the ISV's do! Especially since it is applications (not the OS) that justify computers in the lives of end-users.
Application developers prefer to write for a consistent and accessible environment (a Bazaar), not one that shifts around like a tinkertoy everytime something new is installed. Because as we all know, unless the user has expert knowledge those pieces and their interlocking dependencies are going to JAM. Or they result in crucial components being swapped-out and even removed.
Such is the dead-hand of monstrous package managers, whirring and clicking away to the instructions conceived in vast software-centralization efforts called "repositories". It is the hubris of the Windows registry magnified X3.
The APT/YUM model of software management is not Linux; Is it not FOSS! Linux was intended to enable a PC Unix operating system. Pee-Cee, as in "Personal Computer". PCs (including Macs) lend themselves to drivers and apps which are distributed independantly from the OS vendor, whether that distribution takes the form of a CD-ROM or a ZIP file downloaded straight from the vendor's website.
It certainly can fit into an institutional environment that tends to be locked-down and heavily administered. But don't be surprised when every technician, supervisor and director starts sneaking real PCs back into the picture: As in the past, they will even use sneakernet to route around ossified/damaged infrastructure such as terminals and thin-clients.
Slashdot Mirror
Your mention of violence reminds me of a similar description of fascism:
h owtopic=30633&st=15#
http://www.peopleforchange.net/forums/index.php?s
Fascism is a natural choice when corporations want to spread their underlying values through the rest of society: Internally corps are rigid authoritarian heirarchies with almost no room for democracy. The CEO acts as strict father figure, so naturally the public sector counterpart to this is 'fuhrer'. These major organs of capitalism deem themselves a 'natural' order, whereas fascists work to shoehorn government into the 'organic' mold of the patriarchal family.
Now examine corporate newspeak and ask what is the single most important qualifier besides profit when evaluating individuals: To me that is "Agressive". In fact there are times when it comes out of corporatists mouths almost once per sentence (sometimes more). "Agressive... agressive... agressively... AGRESSIVE..." Depending on who's speaking, it starts to sound like quacking or barking.
Coming back to network news, note the trend in anchors standing up (even prancing) to deliver the news. This connotes a position of authority (a professor, a team coach, a military commander). They also seem two steps shy of barking or shouting the way a commander would; I don't think 'urgency' quite describes the way they often speak.
1) Form a consortium of major Linux vendors to build and maintain an exhaustive but relatively friendly Hardware Compatability List (HCL).
2) Spread the word that if users don't consult the HCL before purchasing new hardware, they risk a lot of compatability headaches.
3) Invite hardware OEMs to participate directly in maintaining their corner of the HCL. Under each model listing, provide a button to send user feedback (or petition) to the hardware vendor.
4) Watch as hardware vendors begin to take Linux drivers much more seriously, due to constant and coordinated pressure from consumers. Vendors will get a clear message that the days of the haphazard "plug-n-wish" habit are over, since users will avoid buying their products of questionble compatability in the first place.
OS vendors must work to keep their patrons informed about hardware suitability. There is no other way around it in the near-mid term, and we will never get to the point where most OEMs automatically accommodate Linux unless a sturdy bridge is built to organize and convey the users' purchasing interests.
This only works if media conglomerates develop a preference for inflammatory rightwing invective in the first place.
If the OS keeps track of a file's executable status, I have to wonder why this crucial information isn't immediately recognizable in the GUI.
If users had a strong indication of executable status as soon as they look at any file, then I'd bet over time most users would come to avoid opening trojans (no matter how innocently they are named).
A system could also warn people the first time they open a non-bundled executable.
The more I think about this, the more it seems like GUI designers are failing us on malware. It is not the users' role to be mindreaders.
I don't think H2 fuel cells will ever match the practicality of a simple backup alkaline battery pack. Just keep the alkaline pack with you and only plug it into the laptop for those times when you've pushed the internal battery too far.
Most people would probably replace the alkaline cells less than once every 12 months. And even with very long periods between use, the alkalines will stay usable for 8 years.
Contrast this with lugging around methanol cartridges which is A) a seriously scary toxin, B) another way to generate mucho garbage (if these are indeed to be used constantly for primary power), C) probably very expensive over the long haul, given the safety measures required, D) on the whole much bulkier per Wh than simple alkalines.
Should an unusual circumstance arise, I can also get alkaline refills just about anywhere on earth (like a convenience store or a streetvendor stand), whereas methanol or H2 cartridges will probably only be readily available in large urban areas within developed countries for the next 20 years at least.
I think this is a solution looking for a problem. But nevertheless handy when you're venturing into the wilderness, and only at night, and without an automobile/truck, and need 10hrs solid computing time (only 2x what my iBook gets), and have plenty of carrying capacity for a bulky laptop apparatus plus a larger fuel supply. Which means you are hiking/pedaling/stranded near the poles during winter.
You are correct about the debate's semantics being flawed.
Having first experienced the Internet through a large proprietary provider (Compuserve) it became immediately clear to me back then that whatever additional services/features CIS offered didn't matter much to me as long as my TCP/IP link was availble.
That's all that mattered: The Internet Protocol.
IMO raising other higher-level protocols in importance over general IP traffic means that provider is no longer in the Internet business.
Yet, there is scant discussion of the Internet Protocol and its central significance as a product-offering (and the implications of false advertising for providers focusing on other protocols). The wider press is devoid of any technical terms whatsoever, and many pro-neutrality articles leave me feeling that the case hasn't been presented convincingly. It's dumbed-down almost beyond belief.
Yes, and we see that the original question is too limited to be taken seriously except as a good way to get people to discuss semantics.
The more common interpretation of this question is whether chicken eggs existed before chickens themselves. That is the question that TFA seeks to answer.
:-)
We agree that the question is really concerned with chicken eggs, not eggs in general.
Therefore, a non-chicken layed a non-chicken egg containing a chicken embryo. The chicken came first, and the first chicken layed the first chicken egg after that.
http://mrl.nyu.edu/~jhan/
"Multi-Touch Interaction Research
"Bi-manual, multi-point, and multi-user input on graphical interaction surfaces"
PCs have always been about having a bit of computing power under the user's control, which can be molded to projects that the MIS team are too busy/sleepy/detached/uppity to implement on big iron. That is the heart of personal computing in the workplace, and it has much less to do with a specific OS's philosophy than with a workplace's need for flexibility and initiative.
So I question whether Microsoft can take admin rights away from their workers and still claim to be in the PC business.
Backdoors and encryption are seperate things. But adding encryption to the deepest levels of backdoor-laden hardware would be one of the best ways to minimize risk to their brand.
Any device or feature that attempts to put a machine's activities beyond analysis should be treated with deep suspicion. And the corporate elite have already made their intention clear: To create a planetwide nervous system that looks after their interests, starting with DVDs and streaming media.
Think having Tony Blair's people watching you in all the public spaces is bad? Wait til you realize that multinational corps are surveiling you everywhere else!
Why not just highlight the domain in the address bar? That's the important part, is it not?
...look at your addresss bar right now: the browser is practically trying to HIDE the domain and rest of the URL. It's trying NOT to compete with the page contents... but it NEEDS to!
The domain could be shown in RED lettering (or blink 5 times, etc.) if the user has never visited that site before.
There are lots of non-obnoxious visual cues you can add to maximize the number of people paying attention to the URL they are at.
Very good... Thanks. I see we share a similar outlook on the Linux Desktop.
.deb which makes demands on a long list of OS components.
And I am starting to wonder:
If a group of people decided to address these problems, then which ones would yield most easily to technical refactoring, and which would rely more on political influences? The packaging issue seems political to me: You need to persuade developers to check lsb_release at install or startup, instead of creating a
A more thorough analysis would have focused on why these packages are lacking.
Agreed! Linux attracts systems developers and sysadmins. It frightens power-users and application developers.
As for your average Joe/Jane user, they adopt acomputer or an OS for two reasons: 1) To use a specific application, or 2) Because their power-user techie friends recommend it. Linux loses-out on both counts. Power-users like installing apps and utilities they get (as single files) directly from vendors, NOT wrestling with an rpm or dpkg database. They like installing drivers for their devices, NOT recompiling kernels.
If the typical distro had a consistent UI with standardized control panel, plus a consistent programming environment (complete with standard ABIs and the preferred 'Linux IDE')... then Linux might seem like a nice, safe place to play for more users and developers. Throw in a single buzzword-standard like "LSB Desktop" to grow mindshare and allow users, shoppers and merchants to quickly get on the same page... Then get vendors to adopt something like Appdirs for simple 3rd-party software distribution (let dpkg and rpm manage the core OS, not the applications).
I suspect that many desktop-app vendors considering Linux do not feel empowered to provide product support to end-users: Since there is no overarching standard providing a consistent UI, the developer must speak to the user in an acronym-soup of more piecemeal standards like CUPS, W3C, SAMBA, etc. and the user must be experienced enough to translate acronym-speak like "Create a new CUPS entry for your SAMBA-shared printer" into specific actions.
These are BIG hurdles. It will be interesting to see how much of a difference the upcoming LSB Desktop spec will make in addressing them.
Didn't we already know this?
When so-called skeptics (i.e. steadfast deniers) will even cite butterfly wings as an alternate explanation, then anything which can properly connect the dots from different perspectives is worthwhile IMO.
Statistical models (used by climatologists) are bound to increase in accuracy as they deal with average temperature of the entire globe over larger time scales.
1 517946,00.html= plain
This is not about determining whether it will snow or rain in Peoria on Dec. 11, 2006.
Some links that may interest you:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,
http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climatebasics/?style
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=270
I prefer freedom and good sense to law or vigilantism.
Then go stand on a corner with placard and bullhorn like Fred Phelps. Or maybe go on radio and have a chitchat with Don Imus you poor, PC-opressed, muzzled, under-represented whiteboy.
Just when you bring that worse-than-useless crap into an environment where people are engaged in learning or earning a wage, then I'd hope you get what you deserve.
One of these days you'll wake up and your 'kind' won't even amount to the largest minority anymore. I'll be much more interested to hear your opinion then.
You are being remarkably vague now.
I guess P.I. has its limits as far as intellectual honesty is concerned. Although I'll grant that Fred Phelps wouldn't turn down an opportunity to repeat his views.
Here is a clue for you: Harrassment is real. If you keep saying things in a derrogatory vein to someone, and the comments aren't addressed to the individual's character but some other trait, then it may be needlessly discriminatory.
I wasn't sure, but it seemed like an apt response nevertheless. Sarcasm can still be a good opportunity for further 'counterpoint'.
Thanks.
Part of living in the USA is dealing with things like this. What it comes down to it, if you are suspected by the government of being a terrorist, you have no rights.
I think these people would agree.
When govt agents visit college professors saying "We have derrogatory information on you" and that they're investigating "terrorism" (which puts them outside the Consitution), and that they'll be making frequent visits...... Can we see a pattern of repression here?
Can you tell the difference between criticisizing an individual, and generalizing about a minority? No?? I could tell...
Well they're part of the same WAR coalition, so I don't see why not. The parody in question is about Iraq, you know.
Here in the awesome USofA such things are protected. You are free to openly disagree with the President and his policies with NO WORRY of retribution. In other countries doing things like that would get you fired from your job, put on the nofly list, or even worse they dig up dirt on you and your family in an attempt to embarass or discredit you if you try to tell the truth.
Except that political retribution happens here anyway. After the Venezuelan govt made inexpensive fuel available to poor Americans, the VZ fuel company CITGO is being put under a microscope by Congress.
Some Venezuelans who normally teach in the US have had their visas revoked, or their classes held-up. Government agents swaggering by your office saying "We have derrogatory information on you". "Blah Blah TERRORISM Blah Blah...", which is the new codeword for "We're not accountable to the Constitution".
If US efforts to dispense aid met with investigations by politicians, or US teachers were prevented from teaching abroad, the foreign country would be labeled "totalitarian" (except if you are fascist like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan-- then you get to buy ad time on our airwaves for propaganda).
That is not Democrat vs Republican, that is politicans vs people.
Agreed. But people put up with it because of brainwashing: Our mass media have become an anti-populist force who are in it with all the other wealthy corporations.
They don't just want our money; They prefer control because they are now so wealthy that they have everything in the world to lose.
We already live in a nation full of prisons. What else can politicians do to make the wealthy feel more secure except putting much of the population under effective house-arrest?
Wow, that's a really broken and limited way to think. Linux has a totally different way of handling drivers AND software packages than Windows, and the Linux way is better by far.
By that line of thinking, it is "Linux" that represents the Cathedral style of development.
Having package-priests stand between developers and their customers results in broken relationships. A distro does not deserve most of the end-users' attentions... the ISV's do! Especially since it is applications (not the OS) that justify computers in the lives of end-users.
Application developers prefer to write for a consistent and accessible environment (a Bazaar), not one that shifts around like a tinkertoy everytime something new is installed. Because as we all know, unless the user has expert knowledge those pieces and their interlocking dependencies are going to JAM. Or they result in crucial components being swapped-out and even removed.
Such is the dead-hand of monstrous package managers, whirring and clicking away to the instructions conceived in vast software-centralization efforts called "repositories". It is the hubris of the Windows registry magnified X3.
The APT/YUM model of software management is not Linux; Is it not FOSS! Linux was intended to enable a PC Unix operating system. Pee-Cee, as in "Personal Computer". PCs (including Macs) lend themselves to drivers and apps which are distributed independantly from the OS vendor, whether that distribution takes the form of a CD-ROM or a ZIP file downloaded straight from the vendor's website.
It certainly can fit into an institutional environment that tends to be locked-down and heavily administered. But don't be surprised when every technician, supervisor and director starts sneaking real PCs back into the picture: As in the past, they will even use sneakernet to route around ossified/damaged infrastructure such as terminals and thin-clients.