You have nothing to hide by the rules of today, but if the rules change would you still.
That is what I am afraid isn't my actions, but the giving the power to judge my actions to others, knowing their rules may change. The unpredictable nature of that and the ability for it to impede my life, through no action of my own, is worth defending against.
Our founding fathers knew the evil that their purposes would be used for, but they found those evils less than the evil of abuse that happens when you let a system limit individuals.
It is hard to say since all of our found fathers were traitors. They were British Citizens, they revolted against king and country for freedom.
Our lives are easy in the States. But we should not forget the struggle that made it so, and we would be fools to surrender freedoms, we did not win, but we enjoy, just to avoid hardship and struggle.
Your argument has changed you say you have nothing to hide, nor do I, but you are may have something to hide if the criteria changes. So that is something major.
I have not pulled any scare tactic never once did I say or lay any problem with the Patriotic act. The scare tactic is being played on you and me.
I would be for full disclosure if it were a two way street. If you could look up the information held on your self and verify it.
Have you ever suffered from a mistake in the paperwork for any government document you have ever filed. I have with my drivers license change of address form, it was quite frustrating but was easy to fix. If an agency can mess up a form that has check boxes and OCR character scanning blocks, how can you make sure that conversational context, or even pronouncitational misunderstanding won't happen, and without two way disclousre how would you fix it. The problem with large databases of such nuanced data, like conversations is context is lost quickly and the likely hood of error is much greater than the mistake on my change of address form.
If you trust your government to always work in your best interest, to not make mistakes fine, would you trust that for your children, their children and the future generations. Because that is the legacy we leave. I want my family until the end of time to have the freedoms I have had and that my ancestors struggled for. I will not let a bunch of terrorists scare my fellow country men into destroying their way of life.
In my opinion, if we strangle our liberties with silly laws now, Bin Laden won, and we lost full stop. We may be alive and living in nice houses but we destroyed our future and we starve our children of liberty just to feel safe. The Patriot Act on its own is not evil, but its precedent and its unknown future use can be.
I repeat again
"Give me liberty or give me death"
And you would be a traitor to throw away liberty in your fear of death.
I am not worried about today, I am worried about tomorrow, my children and their children. Many of my ancestors died so I could have liberty, many of them choose death over a loss of liberty, I find it cowardly and wrong that we live in a time where fear of death makes us destroy liberty.
"Give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick Henry
In this day and age we are saying "Take our liberty, just prevent death" and it is a dishonor to everyone who has shed blood creating the freedoms we have. Or our concepts of freedom. American Citizens on American soil is such a narrow and hollow remit, our founding fathers would have laughed at the narrowness of that, as it flew in the face of what they were trying to achieve.
Not true as said before there are a lot of developers who would use this as a means of testing code for PPC without having a PPC. And Mac is not the only PPC system out there.
That is the best phrase I have heard in awhile, I am sure the thought has been about in many forms but that phrase is so simple and straight to the point.
I think I will quote it often now.
"Let them be stupid... the market will correct them." ka9dgx - slashdotorg
I knew a sound engineer who would clean out mixing decks with sprite. He would just dump it down the fader slots. I managed to get him to switch to plain tonic water. The theory being if you did not have it plugged in or on the liquid would not conduct and the carbonation would remove grime sticking the faders. You just let it dry before turning it back on and all would be well.
I only witnessed this act twice and it still gives me shivers.
I would agree, except to argue that one of the problems that has led to what people perceive as bad code in Microsoft is some of the comprises that were put in place to deal with a variety of hardware.
Also by having the large variety, there is a problem with getting "the experience" that Apple sells.
I have always liked Apples product package as a whole, but have disliked the price and the pain to develop on it. With the mac mini and the moving to gcc this has eased to be acceptable for me.
I agree Microsoft gives you more options, but there are some problems with other levels of choice in the upgrade cycles and the compatability. Ever since I have seen companies need to upgrade all copies of Office because a customer was using a newer version of Office and their docuements were not compatable with the old version. After the upgrade hurdles upon hurdles of pain had to be completed to have the older documents viewed properly by the new Office.
It is that pain and how it creeps across microsofts products that I feel truly limits their choices.
I am not saying Apple is much better on forced upgrades and compatability issues, but they are bit. A shift in market share and they might both hurt.
So I agree with your points but I don't know if you are locked in more, just locked in a different way.
Yes and I am glad to see the point well taken. It seems our idea of invention has a myth-making sociological side affect. We want the great inventor, a pop star of ideas. We would rather have an Edison, Bell, Berners-Lee, than a society that greats together.
I sometimes wonder if the modern laws of IP come together, if we don't see the nation of Greece suing because all IP can be traced to Greek philosophies already published.
Pete Townsend once said "all musicians are thieves and magpies" implying they kept all the neat and shiny bits in other songs and horded them, churning them together and creating something new. But the same can really be said of all arts. I have never seen anything that you can call new, I think you can see some things that are visionary but even that vision incorporates the past, the now and arranges them to point to an ideal future.
I think my anger at the modern concept of IP rights is coming more and more from the realisation that we do not do this alone. The scientific method needs community and sharing, knowledge is meant to be communal. I like capitalism as a tool, but is the tool be wrongly applied in this modern age. Should we not be looking for other ways of creating capital than trying to own ideas. I know the down side is how do you encourage ideas in a capitalistic system without monetary incentive. But from a neutral perspective the hording of IP rights and controling of ideas is in my opinion beginning to actual create bad IP, ideas are muted and not becoming full.
This is becoming a ramble, I don't mind rambling but I am still learning, I hope to never stop and I like throwing out thoughts to see how others reply.
Thank you to everyone who replied in this discussion because there is just something clicking in my mind on the subject because of this little side discussion.
And yet the true evolutionary success of the human race has been in social structures that create a memory larger than any individual and more complex and subtle in detail than could be dealt with by instinct. Because our ability to share, store and combine information we have progressed as a species. So I think as a society we subconsciously recognise the value of this web thing, though we may not appreciate the ideal potential it holds and we tend to use it for the base common denominator.
So an invention meant to let people share ideas, and communicate ideas, is celebrated as an invention of one person, who admits he built on the ideas of others and his idea would have happened without him, it was a natural progression of the ideas that had come before. I think from all the interviews I have read with Sir Tim, the most important thing I have got from him is his pride in his work on trying to keep the web based on open and free standards so that it will always have a large ideal potential.
No I am not. The people who think he stole part of the web concept from others use the word stole in the wrong way. And I framed my comment more to get a discussion going on actually what does invent mean.
I find the best inventors and scientists recognise the idea that we do stand on the ideas from society and our peers.
Newton's "standing on the back of giants..." quote and all.
Thats odd as one of the points Sir Tim Berners-Lee was making with all the British papers who were asking him how rich he would be if he had patented "his" idea, was it was not his idea, it was just using things already invented together, and tweaking it for sharing. He himself seems to acknowledge the simple principle that science and technology is a building process off the works of our forefathers in our fields.
He is very humble about it as he does not see it as a pure invention, the press on the other hand just can't be bothered to learn. The web needs an inventor. Did Edison invent the light bulb?
Something in the human condition needs this widget here was made by inventor Goosebury. Why I don't know, maybe we understand ideas better when we have a psychology to project the idea onto.
You don't see the point was this isn't great for batteries, no it is the new foil and technology for tinfoil hats. Imagine using the ionization of thought control beams to focus your positive thinking ions by donning a fashionable helmet graced with this amazing technology.
French Connection UK this is article is like the late night infomercials that disguies themselves as documentries.
I'll bite. I think the Newton was way ahead of its time and it was given up just before the PDA shift in the industry. As for the cube, I believe it is what lead to this.
But all in all I think this will be picked up by the PC manufacturer's quickly the question is how will cost affect quality.
A previous poster talked about mem upgrades. I love ripping open my box, my brother on the other hand just wants the bloody thing to work. There are more people like my brother than like us. I know people who take their x86 kit to a pc repair shop just to get memory upgrades, the cost of upgrades will be the same for this as it is now for them.
But to be honest the mini and micro itx crowd are just starting to come mainstream and this is how it looks.
I just want to see more power in the individual devices so I can free up my cpu for heavier crunching.
I also think when you look at the employment figure for IBM and realise it is an employee account akin to the population of a small country, you can realise the transition will take some time.
Then when you have coded all your core processes you have a large workforce of programmers that understand your business that you are going to have to let go. And they will go straight to your competition. At least with service based IT purchasing you can get that resource pool immediately, you get programmers who have mainly worked in your industry sector. The cuts a large part of the conversation down. But then again I am talking about the CSC, Accentia, IBM's of outsourcing. Not ComputerGuy Tech services in the mall.
These large companies have an understanding of the industries they are servicing. The only thing you would have to do as a business is make sure your IT managers know IT and your business needs clearly.
I am not sure where I really stand on it. I have seen waste and bad programming in large industry, I have seen very efficinet use of programmers internally, to the point where the put themselves out of a job. I think the services model is good for the programmers. And good for the non IT industries. Though you are getitng rid of the ability to have eureaka moments. The question as I stated before is you have to look at the balance sheet and is it worth managing a large IT force hoping for a Eureak moment in your sector. If you are like most large Enterprises an IT Eureaka moment will only be a blip in your operations and you gain more long term if you loose some control to gain more focus. But for any business it is looking at the balance sheet. Costs vs Returns.
I have seen major companies with bad IT hiring policies create custom software nightmares. A company I worked in created VB applications for all their needs, but to get a programmer, they hired internally based off a test. What they got where college grads, mostly liberal arts majors, who could fill out forms. This created a culture of tonnes of custom solutions for each process that needed addressed. No real it vision and a multi million pound clean up when they outsourced their it.
I have also seen in the same company money wasted on COTS software that didn't run on their base platform, and then effort gone into updating the platform to get the COTS software to work. This broke in house and other COTS software, and at the end of the day this piece of software was only pushed by the Finance department.
COTS is good for general business purposes. Custom is good for your business specific processes.
If you are not an IT company don't do either.
Get an IT company to do this for you.
The outsourcing of IT, in the sense of the service model that is happening I believe will actually save some of the horrible waste I have seen in non IT companies hiring the wrong people, pushing the wrong projects and wasting focus on their core business.
I agree COTS will never cover all the computing needs of companies. But for bespoke solutions you have the service vendors there to give you that without any of the hassles of doing it completely in house.
And occasionally depending on the timing of the piece of software you are affected by, it is not in the abilities of ad-aware or spybot to remove. If you are one of the first ones bit with a new technique.
No we usually get called in to fix the PHB's machine and we explain the situation we somehow find that our proxy servers are more restrictive and we can't download drivers and support files, yet the PHB a month later will call in with more problems, and his connection has the rights to make it through the firewall.
And we explain the issue again and we can only view the company intranet now. And still the PHB can view manhole or suicidegirls or hamsters in love.com or whatever his fetish of the week is.
The suggestion always means the tech's and regular staff need locked down but it never applies to the idiots that actually cause the most problems.
Maybe he sat at the display for 24 hours 20 minutes now and can't realise the passing of a day. I feel sorry if it is that slow and suspect he may have hardware problems as well as social and psychological problems. (No one has talked to him in the last 24 hours for him to realise a day has passed, and he is so obsessed with this computer that he doesn't like that a day has passed and he hasn't noticed.)
So we should all be nice to this person.
Remember don't make fun of those with special needs.
But the theory is an open standard when used to the standard could create a situation that is insecure.
The broad statements of your initial post is not completely true.
I prefer Linux for the access rights control which I believe gives me better security. As programs run with least privelege which helps save my system.
The open nature just has a more quick turn around time on fixes. Theoretically it could me there is a much more quick time to exploit. Which is why other aspects of free software security model help.
Slashdot Mirror
You have nothing to hide by the rules of today, but if the rules change would you still.
That is what I am afraid isn't my actions, but the giving the power to judge my actions to others, knowing their rules may change. The unpredictable nature of that and the ability for it to impede my life, through no action of my own, is worth defending against.
Our founding fathers knew the evil that their purposes would be used for, but they found those evils less than the evil of abuse that happens when you let a system limit individuals.
It is hard to say since all of our found fathers were traitors. They were British Citizens, they revolted against king and country for freedom.
Our lives are easy in the States. But we should not forget the struggle that made it so, and we would be fools to surrender freedoms, we did not win, but we enjoy, just to avoid hardship and struggle.
Your argument has changed you say you have nothing to hide, nor do I, but you are may have something to hide if the criteria changes. So that is something major.
I have not pulled any scare tactic never once did I say or lay any problem with the Patriotic act. The scare tactic is being played on you and me.
I would be for full disclosure if it were a two way street. If you could look up the information held on your self and verify it.
Have you ever suffered from a mistake in the paperwork for any government document you have ever filed. I have with my drivers license change of address form, it was quite frustrating but was easy to fix. If an agency can mess up a form that has check boxes and OCR character scanning blocks, how can you make sure that conversational context, or even pronouncitational misunderstanding won't happen, and without two way disclousre how would you fix it. The problem with large databases of such nuanced data, like conversations is context is lost quickly and the likely hood of error is much greater than the mistake on my change of address form.
If you trust your government to always work in your best interest, to not make mistakes fine, would you trust that for your children, their children and the future generations. Because that is the legacy we leave. I want my family until the end of time to have the freedoms I have had and that my ancestors struggled for. I will not let a bunch of terrorists scare my fellow country men into destroying their way of life.
In my opinion, if we strangle our liberties with silly laws now, Bin Laden won, and we lost full stop. We may be alive and living in nice houses but we destroyed our future and we starve our children of liberty just to feel safe. The Patriot Act on its own is not evil, but its precedent and its unknown future use can be.
I repeat again
"Give me liberty or give me death"
And you would be a traitor to throw away liberty in your fear of death.
I am not worried about today, I am worried about tomorrow, my children and their children. Many of my ancestors died so I could have liberty, many of them choose death over a loss of liberty, I find it cowardly and wrong that we live in a time where fear of death makes us destroy liberty.
"Give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick Henry
In this day and age we are saying "Take our liberty, just prevent death" and it is a dishonor to everyone who has shed blood creating the freedoms we have. Or our concepts of freedom. American Citizens on American soil is such a narrow and hollow remit, our founding fathers would have laughed at the narrowness of that, as it flew in the face of what they were trying to achieve.
Yeah great and when the .01% is you what good does that do.
Not true as said before there are a lot of developers who would use this as a means of testing code for PPC without having a PPC. And Mac is not the only PPC system out there.
That is the best phrase I have heard in awhile, I am sure the thought has been about in many forms but that phrase is so simple and straight to the point.
I think I will quote it often now.
"Let them be stupid... the market will correct them." ka9dgx - slashdotorg
Oracle's stubborness says, time to start looking at DB2.
possibly
I knew a sound engineer who would clean out mixing decks with sprite. He would just dump it down the fader slots. I managed to get him to switch to plain tonic water. The theory being if you did not have it plugged in or on the liquid would not conduct and the carbonation would remove grime sticking the faders. You just let it dry before turning it back on and all would be well.
I only witnessed this act twice and it still gives me shivers.
I would agree, except to argue that one of the problems that has led to what people perceive as bad code in Microsoft is some of the comprises that were put in place to deal with a variety of hardware.
Also by having the large variety, there is a problem with getting "the experience" that Apple sells.
I have always liked Apples product package as a whole, but have disliked the price and the pain to develop on it. With the mac mini and the moving to gcc this has eased to be acceptable for me.
I agree Microsoft gives you more options, but there are some problems with other levels of choice in the upgrade cycles and the compatability. Ever since I have seen companies need to upgrade all copies of Office because a customer was using a newer version of Office and their docuements were not compatable with the old version. After the upgrade hurdles upon hurdles of pain had to be completed to have the older documents viewed properly by the new Office.
It is that pain and how it creeps across microsofts products that I feel truly limits their choices.
I am not saying Apple is much better on forced upgrades and compatability issues, but they are bit. A shift in market share and they might both hurt.
So I agree with your points but I don't know if you are locked in more, just locked in a different way.
Yes and I am glad to see the point well taken.
It seems our idea of invention has a myth-making sociological side affect. We want the great inventor, a pop star of ideas. We would rather have an Edison, Bell, Berners-Lee, than a society that greats together.
I sometimes wonder if the modern laws of IP come together, if we don't see the nation of Greece suing because all IP can be traced to Greek philosophies already published.
Pete Townsend once said "all musicians are thieves and magpies" implying they kept all the neat and shiny bits in other songs and horded them, churning them together and creating something new. But the same can really be said of all arts. I have never seen anything that you can call new, I think you can see some things that are visionary but even that vision incorporates the past, the now and arranges them to point to an ideal future.
I think my anger at the modern concept of IP rights is coming more and more from the realisation that we do not do this alone. The scientific method needs community and sharing, knowledge is meant to be communal. I like capitalism as a tool, but is the tool be wrongly applied in this modern age. Should we not be looking for other ways of creating capital than trying to own ideas. I know the down side is how do you encourage ideas in a capitalistic system without monetary incentive. But from a neutral perspective the hording of IP rights and controling of ideas is in my opinion beginning to actual create bad IP, ideas are muted and not becoming full.
This is becoming a ramble, I don't mind rambling but I am still learning, I hope to never stop and I like throwing out thoughts to see how others reply.
Thank you to everyone who replied in this discussion because there is just something clicking in my mind on the subject because of this little side discussion.
But Love Story was based on him.
And yet the true evolutionary success of the human race has been in social structures that create a memory larger than any individual and more complex and subtle in detail than could be dealt with by instinct. Because our ability to share, store and combine information we have progressed as a species. So I think as a society we subconsciously recognise the value of this web thing, though we may not appreciate the ideal potential it holds and we tend to use it for the base common denominator.
So an invention meant to let people share ideas, and communicate ideas, is celebrated as an invention of one person, who admits he built on the ideas of others and his idea would have happened without him, it was a natural progression of the ideas that had come before. I think from all the interviews I have read with Sir Tim, the most important thing I have got from him is his pride in his work on trying to keep the web based on open and free standards so that it will always have a large ideal potential.
No I am not. The people who think he stole part of the web concept from others use the word stole in the wrong way. And I framed my comment more to get a discussion going on actually what does invent mean.
I find the best inventors and scientists recognise the idea that we do stand on the ideas from society and our peers.
Newton's "standing on the back of giants..." quote and all.
Thats odd as one of the points Sir Tim Berners-Lee was making with all the British papers who were asking him how rich he would be if he had patented "his" idea, was it was not his idea, it was just using things already invented together, and tweaking it for sharing. He himself seems to acknowledge the simple principle that science and technology is a building process off the works of our forefathers in our fields.
He is very humble about it as he does not see it as a pure invention, the press on the other hand just can't be bothered to learn. The web needs an inventor. Did Edison invent the light bulb?
Something in the human condition needs this widget here was made by inventor Goosebury. Why I don't know, maybe we understand ideas better when we have a psychology to project the idea onto.
You don't see the point was this isn't great for batteries, no it is the new foil and technology for tinfoil hats. Imagine using the ionization of thought control beams to focus your positive thinking ions by donning a fashionable helmet graced with this amazing technology.
French Connection UK this is article is like the late night infomercials that disguies themselves as documentries.
Oh well it was a good laugh
I'll bite. I think the Newton was way ahead of its time and it was given up just before the PDA shift in the industry. As for the cube, I believe it is what lead to this.
But all in all I think this will be picked up by the PC manufacturer's quickly the question is how will cost affect quality.
A previous poster talked about mem upgrades. I love ripping open my box, my brother on the other hand just wants the bloody thing to work. There are more people like my brother than like us. I know people who take their x86 kit to a pc repair shop just to get memory upgrades, the cost of upgrades will be the same for this as it is now for them.
But to be honest the mini and micro itx crowd are just starting to come mainstream and this is how it looks.
I just want to see more power in the individual devices so I can free up my cpu for heavier crunching.
I also think when you look at the employment figure for IBM and realise it is an employee account akin to the population of a small country, you can realise the transition will take some time.
Have you tried ICT instead of sanity?
And at a conference every machine I saw had the Linux Client on it. Is that the difference between the technical departments and the Sales team?
Then when you have coded all your core processes you have a large workforce of programmers that understand your business that you are going to have to let go. And they will go straight to your competition. At least with service based IT purchasing you can get that resource pool immediately, you get programmers who have mainly worked in your industry sector. The cuts a large part of the conversation down. But then again I am talking about the CSC, Accentia, IBM's of outsourcing. Not ComputerGuy Tech services in the mall.
These large companies have an understanding of the industries they are servicing. The only thing you would have to do as a business is make sure your IT managers know IT and your business needs clearly.
I am not sure where I really stand on it. I have seen waste and bad programming in large industry, I have seen very efficinet use of programmers internally, to the point where the put themselves out of a job. I think the services model is good for the programmers. And good for the non IT industries. Though you are getitng rid of the ability to have eureaka moments. The question as I stated before is you have to look at the balance sheet and is it worth managing a large IT force hoping for a Eureak moment in your sector. If you are like most large Enterprises an IT Eureaka moment will only be a blip in your operations and you gain more long term if you loose some control to gain more focus. But for any business it is looking at the balance sheet. Costs vs Returns.
yep...
but I still think it is better for most businesses. You have to weigh the expenses vs the gains. As with all business decisions.
I have seen major companies with bad IT hiring policies create custom software nightmares. A company I worked in created VB applications for all their needs, but to get a programmer, they hired internally based off a test. What they got where college grads, mostly liberal arts majors, who could fill out forms. This created a culture of tonnes of custom solutions for each process that needed addressed. No real it vision and a multi million pound clean up when they outsourced their it.
I have also seen in the same company money wasted on COTS software that didn't run on their base platform, and then effort gone into updating the platform to get the COTS software to work. This broke in house and other COTS software, and at the end of the day this piece of software was only pushed by the Finance department.
COTS is good for general business purposes.
Custom is good for your business specific processes.
If you are not an IT company don't do either.
Get an IT company to do this for you.
The outsourcing of IT, in the sense of the service model that is happening I believe will actually save some of the horrible waste I have seen in non IT companies hiring the wrong people, pushing the wrong projects and wasting focus on their core business.
I agree COTS will never cover all the computing needs of companies. But for bespoke solutions you have the service vendors there to give you that without any of the hassles of doing it completely in house.
And occasionally depending on the timing of the piece of software you are affected by, it is not in the abilities of ad-aware or spybot to remove. If you are one of the first ones bit with a new technique.
No we usually get called in to fix the PHB's machine and we explain the situation we somehow find that our proxy servers are more restrictive and we can't download drivers and support files, yet the PHB a month later will call in with more problems, and his connection has the rights to make it through the firewall.
.com or whatever his fetish of the week is.
And we explain the issue again and we can only view the company intranet now. And still the PHB can view manhole or suicidegirls or hamsters in love
The suggestion always means the tech's and regular staff need locked down but it never applies to the idiots that actually cause the most problems.
Not that I am bitter or anything.
Maybe he sat at the display for 24 hours 20 minutes now and can't realise the passing of a day. I feel sorry if it is that slow and suspect he may have hardware problems as well as social and psychological problems. (No one has talked to him in the last 24 hours for him to realise a day has passed, and he is so obsessed with this computer that he doesn't like that a day has passed and he hasn't noticed.)
So we should all be nice to this person.
Remember don't make fun of those with special needs.
It was javascript not java.
Which is an open standard.
But the theory is an open standard when used to the standard could create a situation that is insecure.
The broad statements of your initial post is not completely true.
I prefer Linux for the access rights control which I believe gives me better security. As programs run with least privelege which helps save my system.
The open nature just has a more quick turn around time on fixes. Theoretically it could me there is a much more quick time to exploit. Which is why other aspects of free software security model help.