If I use my lousy Egyptian to ask Alaa for a cigarette and accidentally ask him if he has a camel in his pocket
What would be wrong with that? Asking if he has a pack of camels (or marlboros or newports) seems pretty reasonable to me. I believe that in Egypt they have American cigarettes.
If people can tell by your dress and behavior that you are American, it is a bad start, and it is because you haven't tried to appreciate the culture there.
The fact that my clothes can identify me as American means that I haven't "tried to appreciate the culture"? That's ridiculous. Whenever I travel somewhere I need to buy a new wardrobe so that I fit in?
Did you read my post at all?! I acknowledge that they say the GPL is a virus. This is not the same as saying open source is a virus, and isn't at all contradictory with what they are doing here which is releasing code and specifically refusing to put it under the GPL.
Did they really claim this? I'm too lazy to dig up old articles, but I thought the objection was to the GPL in particular. And for projects like this, they are specifically avoiding the GPL, which is consistent with their earlier claims.
My point is, allowing pirate to download service packs would be beneficial for society as a whole
Of course it would. No one disagrees with that. But so what? Why is it Microsoft's job to sacrifice it's own profits for the benefit of society as a whole? That's not a realistic expectation. They think that if they allow only people who pay for their software to get updates, that will make people slightly more willing to pay, which will result in a slightly larger number of sales. You may think they're wrong, but that doesn't really matter as it's their business decision to make.
Skilled people get it because they think they have to, due to the perceptions of employers. Employers require it because they think it indicates some skill.
This is true, except that they are both right. It really does affect the perception of the employer, and it really does indicate skill. So, again, what's the problem? Obviously, going to a crappy school isn't going to require much skill, but guess what? That's why degrees from those schools aren't as helpful for getting good jobs or high salaries.
You call my argument "bogus", but then you don't say anything that disagrees with me. You are primarily saying that "a lot of the most skilled people will have a degree, but the degree itself had nothing to do with it." I agree with this. But I don't see where the problem is. The fact that you've gotten the degree shows that you can work hard and achieve goals and will likely be a good employee. The act of getting the degree serves as a sort of test to show employers that you are competent. Why is this bad? This seems to me to be a good system and is working quite well. The alternative is to hire people essentially at random and then fire them if it turns out that they are incompetent. But figuring this out can take a while, as you need to give them time to learn the job. The current system is more efficient for everyone.
I understand what he is saying just fine. And if he were right that companies who care about degrees are doing a poor job of measuring competence then companies that don't would be able to outperform them. And that's not what happens. That's the only point I was trying to make.
It's all irrelevant anyway because even if they were as competent as the company thought when they hired them and set their salaries (unlikely), they are still liars and the kind of people who lie about something like this are probably not people you want working for you, even if they have technical skill.
size doesn't matter because if it's really a problem, you can just go out and buy a strap-on. The result should hopefully be a huge self-esteem boost for guys who are on the edges of the bell curve
I think the result would be lots of spam advertising strap-ons.
If they were doing the job well enough to command their compensation without getting fired, then that proves the degree is bullshit, by your own argument
If you really believe that they aren't overcompensated, then feel free to start your own company and hire these people at slightly less than the salaries they were previously getting. "By your own argument", if they weren't overcompensated before, you'll be getting a real bargain now and will be able to outcompete the companies that care about college degrees.
But this doesn't prove the program is safe. It only shows that the one time (or however many) you ran it, it wasn't doing anything bad. You have no way of knowing that this program won't try to do something bad (e.g., delete your files) in the future.
This does not, of course, eliminate the chance that your mysterious app won't do something bad the 10th, 100th or 1000th time it's run
This is one of the scenarios I was considering. Of course, it could also be some variant on that, like a destructive payload that only executes after a particular date (allowing the downloader to share the app on a p2p program himself until then sot that it spreads further). Even if this isn't done much (or at all) now, I don't think it's a good security practice to assume an untrusted application is safe based on running it a few times and observing its behavior. This is obviously better than assuming it's safe without testing it all, but still isn't something I would recommend to others.
How do you "test" a file to make sure it doesn't do anything bad? Other than just running it once and saying "yup, I didn't notice any files being deleted" how can you tell if it's safe?
practical (not as good for the economy as some people think; the alternative is better, as demonstrated by Free software).
I don't follow. How is this demonstrated by free software? The large majority of people choose to pay for and use software, music, movies, etc. that are protected by copyright and thus have "government granted monopolies", rather than alternatives that aren't. If most people perfer non-free software, despite the financial cost, this seems to demonstrate that only having free software available would be considerably worse than the current situation.
Why do you think Mac people became/are percieved as being so fanatical? Years of bad publicity
I don't think this is why.
God forbid anyone *ever* cast any aspersions toward Apple or pointed out any imperfections in Apple hardware or software. They would get tons of hate-mail, really ridiculous over-the-top stuff.
Ah, there we go. I think that this is why they were perceived as fanatical. Because of the actions and attitudes of lots of individuals. Not because of any "publicity" from the newsmedia.
This argument doesn't "need to go to sleep" becaue it's true. Apple is using DRM to sell more iPods. Yes, the fact that you can rip the cd's you made is a backdoor around it, and there's nothing they can do about it since people wouldn't download stuff if they couldn't put it on cds. But you are acting as if this ridiculously convoluted way of getting mp3s is a "feature", which it's obviuosly not since this story demonstrates that they don't want you removing the DRM.
And "The 'compression' argument" as you call it is a simple fact: this is going to lose sound quality. Your argument is equivalent to: I don't mind DRM because I can just hold a cassette recorder in front of my computer speakers and get a copy of the music I can listen to anywhere.
I would be very very surprised if it weren't already the case that you as a passenger are prohibitted from doing any sort of unauthorized broadcasting while on a plane by federal law, as well as airline regulations. The airlines will now be setting up this wireless access for passengers, which is nice, but I really doubt that that means that someone is going to change the existing rules for doing your own unapproved broadcasting.
Understood but you still aren't answering the question of how are they going to know you are doing this.
That's because I never said they are going to know if you do this. I'm not saying the rule is enforcable, just that's one that they can and will make. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were serious penalties for breaking it if you were caught.
Today, they don't let you use electronics during takeoff and landing. What possible reason do they have not to let me use my gameboy or my discman? None. But they don't want to deal with certifying every possible piece of electronics that might or might not be safe because it's not worth the trouble and the risk of being wrong is so high. Similarly, anything involving broadcasting over radio frequencies is going to make them uncomfortable, unless it's the specific application they've set up.
My objection was to the original claim was that they "can't refuse to let you do this", as if this were some innate right that they were incapable of denying you. Which is why I said needed to point out that they of course can deny it if they want.
As for "What possible reason would they have to do this other then pure greed?" Isn't "pure greed" enough? They are providing you a way to have wireless that they have set up and verified is safe. You are trying to get around paying for it in a way that they are not confident is safe. They aren't going to like that.
I agree. The suggestions others are giving are not only ridiculous, but don't even work because his roommates have physical access to his machine when he's not home, meaning that strictly speaking he can't have complete security anway.
What the hell are you talking about? His original post said that he refuses to use openoffice unless it will open all of his documents correctly. How can he be wrong about that? That sounds very reasonable to me. Whether or not word can still open word 1.0 documents is completely offtopic. He's describing his requirement for using open office. How can be wrong about that?
Slashdot Mirror
What would be wrong with that? Asking if he has a pack of camels (or marlboros or newports) seems pretty reasonable to me. I believe that in Egypt they have American cigarettes.
The fact that my clothes can identify me as American means that I haven't "tried to appreciate the culture"? That's ridiculous. Whenever I travel somewhere I need to buy a new wardrobe so that I fit in?
Did you read my post at all?! I acknowledge that they say the GPL is a virus. This is not the same as saying open source is a virus, and isn't at all contradictory with what they are doing here which is releasing code and specifically refusing to put it under the GPL.
Did they really claim this? I'm too lazy to dig up old articles, but I thought the objection was to the GPL in particular. And for projects like this, they are specifically avoiding the GPL, which is consistent with their earlier claims.
Would you care to cite an actual example of them "denouncing OS" in a way that contradicts what they're doing here? I haven't seen any.
Of course it would. No one disagrees with that. But so what? Why is it Microsoft's job to sacrifice it's own profits for the benefit of society as a whole? That's not a realistic expectation. They think that if they allow only people who pay for their software to get updates, that will make people slightly more willing to pay, which will result in a slightly larger number of sales. You may think they're wrong, but that doesn't really matter as it's their business decision to make.
This is true, except that they are both right. It really does affect the perception of the employer, and it really does indicate skill. So, again, what's the problem? Obviously, going to a crappy school isn't going to require much skill, but guess what? That's why degrees from those schools aren't as helpful for getting good jobs or high salaries.
You call my argument "bogus", but then you don't say anything that disagrees with me. You are primarily saying that "a lot of the most skilled people will have a degree, but the degree itself had nothing to do with it." I agree with this. But I don't see where the problem is. The fact that you've gotten the degree shows that you can work hard and achieve goals and will likely be a good employee. The act of getting the degree serves as a sort of test to show employers that you are competent. Why is this bad? This seems to me to be a good system and is working quite well. The alternative is to hire people essentially at random and then fire them if it turns out that they are incompetent. But figuring this out can take a while, as you need to give them time to learn the job. The current system is more efficient for everyone.
I understand what he is saying just fine. And if he were right that companies who care about degrees are doing a poor job of measuring competence then companies that don't would be able to outperform them. And that's not what happens. That's the only point I was trying to make.
It's all irrelevant anyway because even if they were as competent as the company thought when they hired them and set their salaries (unlikely), they are still liars and the kind of people who lie about something like this are probably not people you want working for you, even if they have technical skill.
I think the result would be lots of spam advertising strap-ons.
If you really believe that they aren't overcompensated, then feel free to start your own company and hire these people at slightly less than the salaries they were previously getting. "By your own argument", if they weren't overcompensated before, you'll be getting a real bargain now and will be able to outcompete the companies that care about college degrees.
But this doesn't prove the program is safe. It only shows that the one time (or however many) you ran it, it wasn't doing anything bad. You have no way of knowing that this program won't try to do something bad (e.g., delete your files) in the future.
This is one of the scenarios I was considering. Of course, it could also be some variant on that, like a destructive payload that only executes after a particular date (allowing the downloader to share the app on a p2p program himself until then sot that it spreads further). Even if this isn't done much (or at all) now, I don't think it's a good security practice to assume an untrusted application is safe based on running it a few times and observing its behavior. This is obviously better than assuming it's safe without testing it all, but still isn't something I would recommend to others.
How do you "test" a file to make sure it doesn't do anything bad? Other than just running it once and saying "yup, I didn't notice any files being deleted" how can you tell if it's safe?
I don't follow. How is this demonstrated by free software? The large majority of people choose to pay for and use software, music, movies, etc. that are protected by copyright and thus have "government granted monopolies", rather than alternatives that aren't. If most people perfer non-free software, despite the financial cost, this seems to demonstrate that only having free software available would be considerably worse than the current situation.
I don't think this is why.
Ah, there we go. I think that this is why they were perceived as fanatical. Because of the actions and attitudes of lots of individuals. Not because of any "publicity" from the newsmedia.
You're neglecting the one who says "I'm a slashdotter, I don't screw anywhere, you insensitive clod!", you insensitive clod!
This argument doesn't "need to go to sleep" becaue it's true. Apple is using DRM to sell more iPods. Yes, the fact that you can rip the cd's you made is a backdoor around it, and there's nothing they can do about it since people wouldn't download stuff if they couldn't put it on cds. But you are acting as if this ridiculously convoluted way of getting mp3s is a "feature", which it's obviuosly not since this story demonstrates that they don't want you removing the DRM.
And "The 'compression' argument" as you call it is a simple fact: this is going to lose sound quality. Your argument is equivalent to: I don't mind DRM because I can just hold a cassette recorder in front of my computer speakers and get a copy of the music I can listen to anywhere.
That's why you need a good firewall.
I would be very very surprised if it weren't already the case that you as a passenger are prohibitted from doing any sort of unauthorized broadcasting while on a plane by federal law, as well as airline regulations. The airlines will now be setting up this wireless access for passengers, which is nice, but I really doubt that that means that someone is going to change the existing rules for doing your own unapproved broadcasting.
That's because I never said they are going to know if you do this. I'm not saying the rule is enforcable, just that's one that they can and will make. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were serious penalties for breaking it if you were caught.
Today, they don't let you use electronics during takeoff and landing. What possible reason do they have not to let me use my gameboy or my discman? None. But they don't want to deal with certifying every possible piece of electronics that might or might not be safe because it's not worth the trouble and the risk of being wrong is so high. Similarly, anything involving broadcasting over radio frequencies is going to make them uncomfortable, unless it's the specific application they've set up.
My objection was to the original claim was that they "can't refuse to let you do this", as if this were some innate right that they were incapable of denying you. Which is why I said needed to point out that they of course can deny it if they want.
As for "What possible reason would they have to do this other then pure greed?" Isn't "pure greed" enough? They are providing you a way to have wireless that they have set up and verified is safe. You are trying to get around paying for it in a way that they are not confident is safe. They aren't going to like that.
I agree. The suggestions others are giving are not only ridiculous, but don't even work because his roommates have physical access to his machine when he's not home, meaning that strictly speaking he can't have complete security anway.
What the hell are you talking about? His original post said that he refuses to use openoffice unless it will open all of his documents correctly. How can he be wrong about that? That sounds very reasonable to me. Whether or not word can still open word 1.0 documents is completely offtopic. He's describing his requirement for using open office. How can be wrong about that?
Is the claim here that OS/2 would have been a huge success if only it didn't run Windows applications? I don't believe that.