We can only assume that because this Chinese man freely accepts the job that no other better alternatives exist. To remove this job opportunity for him may make us feel morally superior, but it won't help him put food on the table.
Because China is a communist dictatorship I think its safe to assume that no one in China is doing anything freely. They've relaxed away from "true" communism (whatever that is), but the government of the PRC is still one of the nastier dictatorships around. I personally find the US government's attitude towards Cuba darkly humorous. Fidel is a nasty little dictator, no doubt, but you can't tell me that somehow he's worse than Wen Jiabao (Premier of the PRC). Cuba exists as a communist whipping boy so the various Senators and Congressmen can feel virtuious and anti-Communist, then cut fantastic trade deals with China.
At any rate, the economics of sweat shops don't make sense. In the US the typical garment worker earns around $.25 per T-Shirt manufactured. That means we could double that person's salary by increasing the cost per T-Shirt by another $.25. Somehow I don't think that an extra quarter per T-Shirt is going to be a crippling economic disadvantage to you and me. Hell, we could double your example Chinese worker's salary at a cost of much less than $.25 per T-Shirt. How would this be a bad thing?
My point here is that there is no real economic reason for garment workers to be so economicly screwed. For those who are interested, here in the US a company called SweatX is producing quite nice clothing at prices comparable (maybe $.25 more per item) to other manufactureres. Look at their website here: SweatX
I'd say the more *good* Shirow we can get the better. The first Appleseed movie wasn't really all that good. Not awful, but hardly excellent.
The trailer, what little there was of it looked as if it were following the manga more closely (though I hope they don't try to cram all four currently completed volumes into a single movie). The art, as you say, is fantastic. Bri looked great, Deunan looked marvelous, Olympus looked like Olympus, it's all looking good so far.
The whole point of incorporation is to avoid personal legal liability
Well, yeah, that was kind of what I was objecting to, actually.
We've tried a "no liability" corporate model, and I honestly can understand the need for a "limited liability" corporate model. But I don't think the "no liability" model really works in practice.
Its not just a female thing. I'm a gamer, male, and FPS and fighting games bore me. I suspect that there are several men who have my attitude towards those types of games. I do wonder what the breakdown is on strategy and god sim games (my two favorite game styles). I know that the female market is strong towards games like The Sims (which I enjoyed as well, I class it as a god sim), but what about StarCraft, WC3, Massive Assault, etc?
However before I would buy I would have to be ensured that if SCOX went broke that McBrib^des personal retirement account is attachable.
I would be so happy if the personal fortunes of CEOs and board members were subject to penalties in the event of corporate misbehavior. It isn't going to happen any time soon, but it would be absolutely fantastic. Give 'em an incentive to not comit crimes.
Even if what you say is true, which I dispute, it still doesn't make my primary observation: they aren't computer virus, they're Windows virus, any less true. A "computer virus" would be one which operated on computers as a general class, regardless of hardware configuration or operating system. Actually, I wonder if such a beastie is possible, it'd have to be a *BIG* monster...
Also, while my box may well have overrun vulnerabilities (doubtless true), I disagree completely with your statement that if *NIX machines had the marketshare there would be as many virus for them. I think you are vastly underestimating the user/root separation. At the very least it prevents a single user infection from affecting the entire machine. Yes, a single user could infect his own home directory tree and of course this could be used to DDoS someone. However, there would not be a situation similar to the Outlook/Outlook Express situation where simply recieving a viral mail would infect the system; *NIX apps aren't designed that stupidly.
I have no doubt that if/when *NIX becomes more common there will be more *NIX virus, but to say that its "just as bad" is to buy into MS's own FUD.
My case in point here is Mac OS X, it has a fairly large userbase, and most of that userbase is not computer expert (one of the Mac selling points is that it is (theoretically) simpler to use than Windows). Yet there has not been a significant number of Mac OS X virus (virus for older Mac OSes are more common by far). Why? Because Mac OSX is mostly BSD UNIX.
Until unix has more than a tiny share of the computers that the readers interact with, it will always be a computer virus. Get over it.
Rank defeatism:) It may be true *today* that non-Windows systems account for a small percentage of computers people have direct contact with (though I should point out that indirectly they encounter pleanty of non-MS machines), that does not mean it will always be that way. MS is not some undefeatable monolith which we shall always have around, they're a corporation. Corporations have gone bankrupt in the past, corporations have fallen from preminance to post-eminance [heh] in the past. I say again that it will not "always be a computer virus". Things change and our actions can assist those changes.
Troll? Its times like these that I sometimes you could both post and moderate the same thread, because I'd really like to know the rationale for those mods...
I think this is the third time this story has been posted.
And, as always, they refer to the virus as "computer virus", not "Windows virus". I believe that there are, what, two virus for UNIX systems? Yet somehow magically the Windows virus transmogrofy and become known as "computer virus".
Googling reveals that this trend in helping BillG cover up the fact that its his OS, not computers, that are virus laden is quite widespread. Search for "Computer Virus" and you'll get around 1.5 million hits; "Windows Virus", by contrast only turns up around 35 thousand hits.
We really do need to work to spread the meme that its not a computer virus, its a Windows virus. Make more people aware of the fact that its a Windows problem, not a computer problem, and it does two things: firstly it might make them consider alternatives to Windows, and secondly if they know its a Windows specific problem they might try and pressure MS into making Windows more secure.
My reaction to There was quite simple. I know that they don't want me around. How do I know this? Because simply trying to look at their freeking website gets me kicked to a "we dedected that you aren't using IE, go download it right now before we condesend to let you see what's happening". So to heck with them. It just isn't that damn hard to make a web page that works for all browsers.
It did immediately answer my question about what platforms were supported though: Windows and nothing else...
Police have to have some kind of articulable, reasonable suspicion to detain you for ID, and they have to be able to articulate that reasonable suspicion in court, or they lose their evidence, and along with it their case.
Well, not in California and Texas they don't. I don't know about other states, but in California and Texas a police officer can demand ID for no reason at all and it is a crime to refuse. Sig Heil.
There was a report of a witnessed assault/domestic violence, the police officer arrived to find a man matching the description, who appeared potentially intoxicated, and had a real bad attitude towards the police. This constitutes at least reasonable suspicion
Actually, I did RTFA:) I'm something of a rareity on Slashdot that way. I also watched the video on the person's site. I think that this is far from an ideal test case because the deamnd for ID was potentially legitamate. OTOH I do think that there is a very serious problem regarding ID and police demands for the same. Perhaps in this case it was justified, though I remain undecided (leaning against the cop) in this particular case. There were other, less aggressive, ways he could have carried out his duty. My earlier point was directed towards the more general problem.
Cops need a little slack... they deal with antisocial punks all day long, and extending them some simple courtesy may be the first nice thing anyone's said to them all day (in fact, they'll probably wonder what you're up to, and react with suspicion). Cripes, you've had days like that... now imagine an entire career like that.
I've been unswirvingly curtious in my every dealing with the police, and honestly I've never really had bad dealings with the police. However they are power with a capital "P", and as such while I'm more than willing to be personally polite to them (always a good idea to be polite to the man with the gun) I am completely unwilling to allow that power to go unchecked. When they started putting cameras in police cars I was quite happy, and when they start putting cameras on shoulders (or built into badges, or into caps, or wherever) I'll be even happier. No one likes being monitored, but slack in any sense other than being polite I will not give at all. We cannot afford to trust people with power. There are other, much better, means of ensuring that power is not abused, trust is nothing more or less than a quick way to get screwed.
I'll admit freely that some people are simply jerks, and I've always been amazed at how many people act like assholes towards cops. Not denying that at all. Personally I've always assumed it was a fear reaction, fear easily transmutes into anger. However being a jerk isn't a crime, and I do not want to live in a nation where the police can demand that any citizen identify themselves at any time. They worked that way in the Soviet Union, it wasn't a good idea then and it isn't a good idea now.
Conceptually it's similar to what we do with dynamic entries in SWAT; we move in rapidly, take total control, and overwhelm any resistance before they have a chance to think, plan, or regroup.
And occasionally get the wrong address, kill a few innocent people, and never admit that you were wrong.
"Dynamic entries", the fun PC way of saying "home assault", are probably one of the worst ideas we've ever had. You try that on the home of a rabid NRA member and he'll shoot before he even recognizes that the invaders are police. I realize that not many home assaults hit the wrong address, but how many does it take? I know the reasons why some police want to be able to use that power, and I'll admit freely that it can avoid situations leading to stand offs and so forth. Frankly, I'll take a few stand offs instead of a home assault on the wrong address.
1)Try to have as little to do with them as possible
2)Be polite when you do have to deal with them 3)Get to know them, and let them get to know you, in polite, friendly situations
That's the essence of the problem though. I know that's the way it *is* but that isn't the way it *should*be*. We should not be afraid of the police. The sight of a police officer should be a welcome one, not one that makes us nervous.
Even before USA PATRIOT we knew that if a police officer simply didn't like us they could mess our lives up, after USA PATRIOT its even worse of course. It is a problem, and it must be fixed. I rather like Brin's proposal in "The Transparent Society": make every cop wear a webcam at all times while he is on duty [FOOTNOTE]. Get lots of cameras in the hands of everybody so no cop ever feels that he is unrecorded. If I was a cop I wouldn't like this, and frankly I don't like that its necessary. I'm quite sure that the number of bad cops is quite low, but they do exist and as citizens of a free country we must be assured at all times that the police are not out of control.
The other thing we must do is to recognize that making the police's job easy is not always the best course of action. It would be much easier if the police had DNA records for every citizen, as well as finger prints, retinal prints, body profile, etc. It would make their jobs easier if they didn't have to get warrents, if they could arrest anyone at any time for anything. The point is that they have a hard job and unfortunately it isn't always in our best interest to make it easier.
.
FOOTNOTE: Naturally we'd have to make exceptions for police officers preparing for raids and the like; but I want their webcams simply time shifted so that the feed isn't released until after the raid, not simply turned off for that duration. Allowing the powerful to operate in secrecy is simply a bad idea. We must make the police accountable, thus answering the old question: "Who will watch the watchers?" We all will.
...is because of issues like this. Idealistic licensing issues.
Which is why the FSF says, on their page, that this isn't really a problem. Its incompatiable with the GPL, but that doesn't mean the FSF thinks its evil, or wants to see it crushed, or even considers it to be a massive hassle. Its just incomptiable, that's all.
I think some people are overreacting here, a change like the XFree change can be a fairly serious problem, but, as the FSF points out, the Apache license change isn't worrying at all. For that matter, the front page post is misleading, if you look at the FSF compatibility page the old versions of the Apache license are also incompatiable with the GPL.
...is because of issues like this. Idealistic licensing issues.
This is why Propriatary Software isn't taken seriously, because of all the idealistic licensing issues (see SCO vs. IBM, MS vs Everybody, etc).
There is nothing more idealistic about "we want source in exchange for source" than there is about "we want money in exchange for source". Both approacches have problems, both approaches have benefits. The hassles arise when people try to take the source without the payment (the propriatary folks call it "piracy" and everyone nods and agrees that its horrible. Open Source says "licensing violation" and folks like you sneer and lecture about our fruitless idealism). Nice double standard there.
Mac OS X is so much more refined than Linux, and actually has a huge amount of produtivity software. So why should anyone in their right mind want to run Linux on a Mac, unless (s)he is a masochist?
My mother runs a small private school, and she acquired 4 7000 series Macs. The hardware is far too old to run OS X, and the older Mac software that will run on them simply isn't that good by today's standards. If I install Linux they'll run a bit faster, and I can make them use better software.
Now, Linux on newer Macs? I dunno. I've never used OS X, so I can't comment.
I used to be excited about computers and sharing ideas, but when the community dedicated to sharing has become a one note wonder, I find myself dulled by such harping on technicalities rather than technologies.
Ahh, another slashdot poster who doesn't bother reading the article. Had you read the article you would have noticed that out of seven questions, one was about software patents. And it was a damn relivant question, too. Other questions focused on interface design, coder community design, etc.
Software patents are important, that's why people talk about them. If software patents are granted universally it won't do much good to talk about the other things, software engineering breakthroughs, etc, because it will be *ILLEGAL* for us to make any such breakthroughs. But, and again I really do have to recommend reading articles before posting like this, the article was hardly an example of FOSS becoming a "one note wonder".
But as far as encouraging open development, attracting the attention of more developers, and maximizing the benefits of an open source OS... it seems that Linux (GPL) would be the way to go.
Yup. Not trying to be anti BSD here, but from a developer standpoint if I release my code under the BSD license I get nothing but recognition. Under the GPL I get back more code, and more code is always good. I don't think I'm philanthropic enough to release under BSD, I want something back. Dunno if that says something bad about me as a person or not, but its the truth.
Only if 1) there is significant advantage (in this case, monetary) from possessing users, and 2) it's a zero sum game. Simply because that is the current strategy, the only monetary benefit to IM is as a value add (I don't know anywone who's paying for IM specifically, do you?), and that value add would become more valuable (paradoxically) if it had fewer limitations.
True. It does cost money to operate an IM system though, at least the way we do it currently. I've always suspected we could use P2P techniques to produce a workable system without the need for big central servers. The use of semi-servers would be quite helpful, of course... Something like Jabber, but even less centralized.
Have you considered the possibility that there might have been an antitrust case where the coorporation being sued was not guilty of monopoly practices?
Its vaguely possible, I suppose. I rather doubt it, but its possible. I'm inclined to think the worst in any corporate situation, I'll admit that up front. I tend to think my attitude is backlash against the rather obscene amount of power that the megacorporations have, but it might cloud my judgement sometimes.
Let's say that instead of automatically disqualifying anyone who has ever defended a corporation against anti-trust charges we simply subject him to microscopic scrutany and toss him out if there is, and I believe that this is in fact the standard that judges and so forth are held to, "appearance of impropriety". But if they've been associated with a megacorporation I want the microscope turned on them.
.
It is worth noting that the entire executive branch (for the past four presidents, not merely the current one) has been composed exclusively of board members and CEOs of megacorporations. When they've got that much clout I have a difficult time believing that they really need any support or help to keep themselves going. Still, I suppose automatic disqualification isn't fair.
I somehow doubt he's still on MS's payroll anymore.
I'd rather have more proof of that than your doubts, thank you. How much MS stock does he own? If not him, how about his wife and/or children? Maybe he's hiding his stock with his parents? Etc, etc, etc... The simple fact is that due to his former (if indeed it is former) employment with a corporation facing major antitrust investigations his appointment is improper.
Truth told, I'd rather that all public officials, regardless of weather they are appointed or elected or whatever, be forbidden from owning stock in any corporation. When Senator X has stock in corporation Y I can't help but assume that he's going to be keeping an eye on his own best ineterest, not that of his constituants. If their own economic wellbeing is tied to a company than I can't trust them to do their jobs, its that simple. Step one after taking any office should be "sell all stock".
(Not to mention, are there any antitrust lawyers out there who, at one point, *didn't* work for MS?;)
Personally I'd rather that no one who was ever involved in defending against an antitrust case be allowed to decide which antitrust cases can go forward. He's already chosen his side, and it isn't ours. If that sounds rather "us/them", it is. Monopoly is the single greatest threat that exists to a capitalist economy, and its the reason our economy suffering. I have absolutely no sympathy for, and I am completely unwilling to give any benefit of the doubt to, *anyone* who has ever defended a monopoly. They've chosen to side with those who want to destroy our economy.
Re:Even the mirror is Slashdotted.
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Such slogans fail to regongize the complixities of those ideas, for instance, corporations that are led by truly ethical people, WWII ending the Nazi's death camps, etc).
Slogans inevitably oversimplify, its part of their very nature. Unfortunately you can't put the intracacies of rational argument into a 120 character sig block. Or at least I can't:)
As far as "a large chunk of the Republican party being dedicated to religious fanaticism", I'm not sure I see that. Certainly a large chunk of republicans are religious... but does being religious make one a fanatic? I certainly don't think so.
Of course religious belief doesn't automatically make one fanatic. But we must face the fact that every religion has its share of fanatics, and that's where the problems set in. I consider fundamentalism/fanaticism (call it whichever you prefer) to be the single most dangerous force in existance. True fanatics are not evil, but their fanaticism can lead them to do evil things. I'm certain that Torqmada honestly and genuinely believed that the Inquisition was a force of good. Similarly I do not think that the 19 terrorists of September 11 cackled maniacally at the thought of the evil they were wreaking. Fanaticism can blind people to the point that they truly believe that their evil is good. Frankly, that terrifies me.
For instance, the "king fanatic" opponents of the Rebulican Party often point to is John Ashecroft. Yet this man is an ideal governmental leader, whether or not you agree with his personal convictions, since he doesn't let his religious beliefs dictate his enforcement of the law
Here I think I'll have to disagree with you, and I believe the facts back me up on this one. During the time when anthrax scares were sweeping the nation a group which has been subject to numerous terrorist attacks over the years offered its help and advice to Mr. Ashcroft's Justice Department. The group was Planned Parenthood, and they have pleanty of experience dealing with mailbombs, assissans, etc. Mr. Ashcroft told them to go away and never call him again. Hardly the action of a man who keeps his personal beliefs out of the way of political necessity. Similarly, Mr. Ashcroft has long been a vocal advocate of "State's Rights", he has been interviewed by several pro-Confederate magazines, etc. Yet as head of the Justice Department he has used ever erg of his power to fight the decisions of the people of California to legalize medical marajuana, and the people of Oregon to allow doctor assisted suicide. Again, I'd say that he was definately allowing his religious convictions to override his enforcement of the law.
Groups who bomb abortion clinics are still not classified as terrorist groups. Et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Ashcroft seems, to me, to be a perfect example of how a religious fanatic (and what else can you call a person who apparently thinks he's a King in ancient Israel rather than an appointee in the modern USA? No rumor here, he himself has stated that whenever he is appointed or elected to a public office he has himself anointed with oil (he specified that he used Wessen cooking oil), just like the ancient Kings of Israel did. Fanatic is perhaps too mild a word, delusional comes to my mind here) can, and does, govern by religion rather than law.
Not that I'm saying that the entire Republican party is governed by religious fanatics, not at all. The Democrats have their own fanatics as well of course. I'm a political agnostic, I vote for people, not parties and in the past I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats. But lately the fanatics seem to have the power in the Republican party. The current furror over gay marriage seems to be a good indicator of that. I can see absolutely no practical benefit to keeping homosexuals from having the same tax benefits, health care benefits, etc, as streight people have, and I can see hundreds, if not thousands, of things in
Re:Even the mirror is Slashdotted.
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't mean to troll... your sig of course applies in some situations, but there are actually some people out there who take it to the extreme.
Well, some history here, the quote comes from the 1960's when the US Government was busy pushing the (absurd) "Domino Theory" and sending slave soldiers out to die for no apparent gain. The ironic thing is that quite a few of the people chanting that slogan participated in some majorly non-peaceful protests. Always interesting to see irony in action like that. As for the quote in general, I'd say it isn't as absurd as it seems. I don't think we could really say that we were fighting for peace during WWII; survival maybe, but not peace. As with all slogans it has its merits and flaws.
On the broader topic, most geeks would say that your "liberal/conservative" dichotomy is too limited, or limiting, to describe what geeks believe. In general geeks tend towards rationalism, which pushes them away from religious fanaticism (except in the case of computer based religious fanaticism (KDE vs. Gnome for example) in which case rationalism gets tossed out the window. Most people tend to have a "ha ha, only serious" attitude about computer holy wars). Since a large chunk of the Republican party is dedicated to religious fanaticism, most conservative geeks I've met tend to be into Libertarianism.
On the whole though, geeks tend to be rather socially accepting. Not to deny that bigoted geeks exist, but they do seem to be a minority (except for a rather nasty strain of male chauvinist gamers, who don't really count as geeks IMO). This does tend to produce what might be termed "social liberalism". Personally I think it has nothing to do with social liberalism. Its more of a matter of focus: hacking ability is so rare that it doesn't much matter of the person with the ability is a different race/religion/sexual orientation/whatever. What matters is the ability.
As for broader political beliefs, I don't think you can really say that geeks are particularly inclined towards liberalism or conservativeism. They are inclined *away* from herd mentalities, blind following, and anything that seems like it would reduce individual liberty. Several geeks are NRA members and many of them are also members of the ACLU, they see nothing contradictory about this. I've met anti-war geeks and pro-war geeks. I'd guess that your personal beliefs tend towards the "conservative" side, which means that in all likelyhood you tend to notice the "liberal" comments more than the other comments. Look around, there are also "conservative" comments; often in the same post as the "liberal" comments, actually.
See my own sig as an example of the complexity of geek politics. I worry about threats to my liberty from all sources, not merely governmental sources. Therefore I see unrestrained corporate power as a very serious threat to my liberties. But if you assume that this means I'm a communist you'd be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
At any rate, the economics of sweat shops don't make sense. In the US the typical garment worker earns around $.25 per T-Shirt manufactured. That means we could double that person's salary by increasing the cost per T-Shirt by another $.25. Somehow I don't think that an extra quarter per T-Shirt is going to be a crippling economic disadvantage to you and me. Hell, we could double your example Chinese worker's salary at a cost of much less than $.25 per T-Shirt. How would this be a bad thing?
My point here is that there is no real economic reason for garment workers to be so economicly screwed. For those who are interested, here in the US a company called SweatX is producing quite nice clothing at prices comparable (maybe $.25 more per item) to other manufactureres. Look at their website here: SweatX
The trailer, what little there was of it looked as if it were following the manga more closely (though I hope they don't try to cram all four currently completed volumes into a single movie). The art, as you say, is fantastic. Bri looked great, Deunan looked marvelous, Olympus looked like Olympus, it's all looking good so far.
We've tried a "no liability" corporate model, and I honestly can understand the need for a "limited liability" corporate model. But I don't think the "no liability" model really works in practice.
Also, while my box may well have overrun vulnerabilities (doubtless true), I disagree completely with your statement that if *NIX machines had the marketshare there would be as many virus for them. I think you are vastly underestimating the user/root separation. At the very least it prevents a single user infection from affecting the entire machine. Yes, a single user could infect his own home directory tree and of course this could be used to DDoS someone. However, there would not be a situation similar to the Outlook/Outlook Express situation where simply recieving a viral mail would infect the system; *NIX apps aren't designed that stupidly.
I have no doubt that if/when *NIX becomes more common there will be more *NIX virus, but to say that its "just as bad" is to buy into MS's own FUD.
My case in point here is Mac OS X, it has a fairly large userbase, and most of that userbase is not computer expert (one of the Mac selling points is that it is (theoretically) simpler to use than Windows). Yet there has not been a significant number of Mac OS X virus (virus for older Mac OSes are more common by far). Why? Because Mac OSX is mostly BSD UNIX.
Googling reveals that this trend in helping BillG cover up the fact that its his OS, not computers, that are virus laden is quite widespread. Search for "Computer Virus" and you'll get around 1.5 million hits; "Windows Virus", by contrast only turns up around 35 thousand hits.
We really do need to work to spread the meme that its not a computer virus, its a Windows virus. Make more people aware of the fact that its a Windows problem, not a computer problem, and it does two things: firstly it might make them consider alternatives to Windows, and secondly if they know its a Windows specific problem they might try and pressure MS into making Windows more secure.
It did immediately answer my question about what platforms were supported though: Windows and nothing else...
Actually, I did RTFA
I'll admit freely that some people are simply jerks, and I've always been amazed at how many people act like assholes towards cops. Not denying that at all. Personally I've always assumed it was a fear reaction, fear easily transmutes into anger. However being a jerk isn't a crime, and I do not want to live in a nation where the police can demand that any citizen identify themselves at any time. They worked that way in the Soviet Union, it wasn't a good idea then and it isn't a good idea now.
"Dynamic entries", the fun PC way of saying "home assault", are probably one of the worst ideas we've ever had. You try that on the home of a rabid NRA member and he'll shoot before he even recognizes that the invaders are police. I realize that not many home assaults hit the wrong address, but how many does it take? I know the reasons why some police want to be able to use that power, and I'll admit freely that it can avoid situations leading to stand offs and so forth. Frankly, I'll take a few stand offs instead of a home assault on the wrong address.
Even before USA PATRIOT we knew that if a police officer simply didn't like us they could mess our lives up, after USA PATRIOT its even worse of course. It is a problem, and it must be fixed. I rather like Brin's proposal in "The Transparent Society": make every cop wear a webcam at all times while he is on duty [FOOTNOTE]. Get lots of cameras in the hands of everybody so no cop ever feels that he is unrecorded. If I was a cop I wouldn't like this, and frankly I don't like that its necessary. I'm quite sure that the number of bad cops is quite low, but they do exist and as citizens of a free country we must be assured at all times that the police are not out of control.
The other thing we must do is to recognize that making the police's job easy is not always the best course of action. It would be much easier if the police had DNA records for every citizen, as well as finger prints, retinal prints, body profile, etc. It would make their jobs easier if they didn't have to get warrents, if they could arrest anyone at any time for anything. The point is that they have a hard job and unfortunately it isn't always in our best interest to make it easier.
.
FOOTNOTE: Naturally we'd have to make exceptions for police officers preparing for raids and the like; but I want their webcams simply time shifted so that the feed isn't released until after the raid, not simply turned off for that duration. Allowing the powerful to operate in secrecy is simply a bad idea. We must make the police accountable, thus answering the old question: "Who will watch the watchers?" We all will.
I think some people are overreacting here, a change like the XFree change can be a fairly serious problem, but, as the FSF points out, the Apache license change isn't worrying at all. For that matter, the front page post is misleading, if you look at the FSF compatibility page the old versions of the Apache license are also incompatiable with the GPL.
There is nothing more idealistic about "we want source in exchange for source" than there is about "we want money in exchange for source". Both approacches have problems, both approaches have benefits. The hassles arise when people try to take the source without the payment (the propriatary folks call it "piracy" and everyone nods and agrees that its horrible. Open Source says "licensing violation" and folks like you sneer and lecture about our fruitless idealism). Nice double standard there.
Now, Linux on newer Macs? I dunno. I've never used OS X, so I can't comment.
Software patents are important, that's why people talk about them. If software patents are granted universally it won't do much good to talk about the other things, software engineering breakthroughs, etc, because it will be *ILLEGAL* for us to make any such breakthroughs. But, and again I really do have to recommend reading articles before posting like this, the article was hardly an example of FOSS becoming a "one note wonder".
Let's say that instead of automatically disqualifying anyone who has ever defended a corporation against anti-trust charges we simply subject him to microscopic scrutany and toss him out if there is, and I believe that this is in fact the standard that judges and so forth are held to, "appearance of impropriety". But if they've been associated with a megacorporation I want the microscope turned on them.
.
It is worth noting that the entire executive branch (for the past four presidents, not merely the current one) has been composed exclusively of board members and CEOs of megacorporations. When they've got that much clout I have a difficult time believing that they really need any support or help to keep themselves going. Still, I suppose automatic disqualification isn't fair.
Truth told, I'd rather that all public officials, regardless of weather they are appointed or elected or whatever, be forbidden from owning stock in any corporation. When Senator X has stock in corporation Y I can't help but assume that he's going to be keeping an eye on his own best ineterest, not that of his constituants. If their own economic wellbeing is tied to a company than I can't trust them to do their jobs, its that simple. Step one after taking any office should be "sell all stock".
Personally I'd rather that no one who was ever involved in defending against an antitrust case be allowed to decide which antitrust cases can go forward. He's already chosen his side, and it isn't ours. If that sounds rather "us/them", it is. Monopoly is the single greatest threat that exists to a capitalist economy, and its the reason our economy suffering. I have absolutely no sympathy for, and I am completely unwilling to give any benefit of the doubt to, *anyone* who has ever defended a monopoly. They've chosen to side with those who want to destroy our economy.Slogans inevitably oversimplify, its part of their very nature. Unfortunately you can't put the intracacies of rational argument into a 120 character sig block. Or at least I can't :)
Of course religious belief doesn't automatically make one fanatic. But we must face the fact that every religion has its share of fanatics, and that's where the problems set in. I consider fundamentalism/fanaticism (call it whichever you prefer) to be the single most dangerous force in existance. True fanatics are not evil, but their fanaticism can lead them to do evil things. I'm certain that Torqmada honestly and genuinely believed that the Inquisition was a force of good. Similarly I do not think that the 19 terrorists of September 11 cackled maniacally at the thought of the evil they were wreaking. Fanaticism can blind people to the point that they truly believe that their evil is good. Frankly, that terrifies me.
Here I think I'll have to disagree with you, and I believe the facts back me up on this one. During the time when anthrax scares were sweeping the nation a group which has been subject to numerous terrorist attacks over the years offered its help and advice to Mr. Ashcroft's Justice Department. The group was Planned Parenthood, and they have pleanty of experience dealing with mailbombs, assissans, etc. Mr. Ashcroft told them to go away and never call him again. Hardly the action of a man who keeps his personal beliefs out of the way of political necessity. Similarly, Mr. Ashcroft has long been a vocal advocate of "State's Rights", he has been interviewed by several pro-Confederate magazines, etc. Yet as head of the Justice Department he has used ever erg of his power to fight the decisions of the people of California to legalize medical marajuana, and the people of Oregon to allow doctor assisted suicide. Again, I'd say that he was definately allowing his religious convictions to override his enforcement of the law.
Groups who bomb abortion clinics are still not classified as terrorist groups. Et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Ashcroft seems, to me, to be a perfect example of how a religious fanatic (and what else can you call a person who apparently thinks he's a King in ancient Israel rather than an appointee in the modern USA? No rumor here, he himself has stated that whenever he is appointed or elected to a public office he has himself anointed with oil (he specified that he used Wessen cooking oil), just like the ancient Kings of Israel did. Fanatic is perhaps too mild a word, delusional comes to my mind here) can, and does, govern by religion rather than law.
Not that I'm saying that the entire Republican party is governed by religious fanatics, not at all. The Democrats have their own fanatics as well of course. I'm a political agnostic, I vote for people, not parties and in the past I've voted for both Republicans and Democrats. But lately the fanatics seem to have the power in the Republican party. The current furror over gay marriage seems to be a good indicator of that. I can see absolutely no practical benefit to keeping homosexuals from having the same tax benefits, health care benefits, etc, as streight people have, and I can see hundreds, if not thousands, of things in
On the broader topic, most geeks would say that your "liberal/conservative" dichotomy is too limited, or limiting, to describe what geeks believe. In general geeks tend towards rationalism, which pushes them away from religious fanaticism (except in the case of computer based religious fanaticism (KDE vs. Gnome for example) in which case rationalism gets tossed out the window. Most people tend to have a "ha ha, only serious" attitude about computer holy wars). Since a large chunk of the Republican party is dedicated to religious fanaticism, most conservative geeks I've met tend to be into Libertarianism.
On the whole though, geeks tend to be rather socially accepting. Not to deny that bigoted geeks exist, but they do seem to be a minority (except for a rather nasty strain of male chauvinist gamers, who don't really count as geeks IMO). This does tend to produce what might be termed "social liberalism". Personally I think it has nothing to do with social liberalism. Its more of a matter of focus: hacking ability is so rare that it doesn't much matter of the person with the ability is a different race/religion/sexual orientation/whatever. What matters is the ability.
As for broader political beliefs, I don't think you can really say that geeks are particularly inclined towards liberalism or conservativeism. They are inclined *away* from herd mentalities, blind following, and anything that seems like it would reduce individual liberty. Several geeks are NRA members and many of them are also members of the ACLU, they see nothing contradictory about this. I've met anti-war geeks and pro-war geeks. I'd guess that your personal beliefs tend towards the "conservative" side, which means that in all likelyhood you tend to notice the "liberal" comments more than the other comments. Look around, there are also "conservative" comments; often in the same post as the "liberal" comments, actually.
See my own sig as an example of the complexity of geek politics. I worry about threats to my liberty from all sources, not merely governmental sources. Therefore I see unrestrained corporate power as a very serious threat to my liberties. But if you assume that this means I'm a communist you'd be wrong.