I don't think that's the only thing MIT considers when they consider whether they want their name associated with something. Nor should it be.
If he's academically good enough for MIT, I'm sure he can find some school somewhere that will tolerate him. Probably. But MIT can afford to be pickier.
FWIW, I usually vote third party, but I've never fooled myself that this had any chance of changing the system. In a plurality wins voting system there are generally only two parties that have a realistic chance of winning.
To illustrate: Assume that there are three parties, two incumbents and (only) one challenger. Also assume that NONE of the vote is rigged. It is possible to win that election with 33.333334% of the vote if the remainder of the vote is divided evenly between the other two parties.
Now notice how unrealistic that scenario was. There are multiple "third parties" that divide the share of the votes that don't go to the two major parties. There is always some degree of voter fraud that benefits one of the two major parties. There is also a large percentage of the populace that might vote for someone else that has been disenfranchised via one means or another.
The only solution I can see that doesn't do away with voting entirely, and replace it with something like a lottery ("Your friends and neighbors have selected YOU...") is to require that the winner receive more than 50% of the vote. This is made practical by voting methods such as Instant Runoff Voting or Condorcet Voting. Even that's not a cure-all as it tends to lead to information overload when multiple candidates are running for multiple offices.
I've also seen non-FOSS systems that I've trusted. One of them read paper tape.
You are asking for evidence that is guaranteed to not be available. I'm sorry, but it's impossible. Some of the users who are sabotaged will refuse a subpoena rather than admit that they had been penetrated. And the software that they are using is irrelevant to their opinion. Their opinion is driven by image.
OTOH, let me point out that it is irrelevant what the average FOSS user does. It's that any FOSS user who chooses CAN check the code. And this does happen. With closed source products, nobody can legally check the code and report on problems except the company (not the individuals) that owns the copyright. This isn't invariably true, but is almost always true. It's also true that there are open source software packages that aren't free. That used to be a very common model. And most of them would also allow any user to report a detected error TO THEM. Only some of them would allow publication of the error. So there do exist intermediate positions.
The fact that you trust a system says much about how you feel about the system, and little about the system, without knowing you. What tests did you run? Etc. (I'm not asking for an answer, this is rhetoric.) I have often encountered systems which many people trusted and which were later found to have SERIOUS security flaws. Thos Sumner, a Systems Programmer at LBL, once asserted that no program longer than 10 lines could he be certain was operating as intended. I'm not sure whether he was thinking of assembler.
Well, there ARE languages that claim to have proofs of program correctness available. One is a subset of Ada. I once looked into it, and what they proved is that the programs match the specifications, but the specifications were required to be so complex that I was unsure that this improved the actual correctness in any but a formal sense.
So Microsoft are ALSO hypocrites. That's no surprise. But whose records are to be produced? If they are those of an EU citizen, then I don't see the US govt. has reasonable grounds. If they are those of an international corporation, then... What if they are those of a foreign government?
I tend to think that MS is correct here...I'm just not sure (possibly because the idea that MS could ever be correct sticks in my throat).
If you want to be a minimalist, run ratpoison or something similar. There's several to chose from. Or even xfce. But not Gnome.
There is not one good thing I can think of to say about Gnome3. Gnome2 made KDE4 look bad, but Gnome3 made it look good. (Mind you, KDE3 was better than any of the aforesaid.) When Gnome2 left the repository I dithered between xfce and KDE4 (and LXDE and...) but finally settled on KDE4 due mainly to a printer management issue, and a little bit to applications getting stuck under the upper screen panel in xfce. I barely considered Gnome3 because it was, and is, truely terrible unless you're using a tablet, or possibly a phone.
Not necessarily true. If the comman resides in a directory that is read protected then you need to have the appropriate privileges to execute it. I've got an early version of Red Hat in a virtual machine where "shutdown" is protected in precisely that way.
A valid point, but this *is* an unusual case. OTOH, we don't necessarily know that a bug isn't being exploited just because nobody had noticed it happening.
FWIW, in my viewpoint Linux gave up a lot of it's security when it allowed files that were expanded from archives to have the executable bit set. And that's a long time ago. (OTOH, even without the executable bit set, you could always execute a file from an explicit shell command [usually "sh"].)
Yes, and I'm not pleased with Cher, either. At the time Sony wasn't a media company, but they merged with, and were taken over by the management of, one of the lobbiests sponsoring the bill.
Yes. That's way I said *relatively* peaceful. Most transitions in history have been worse. The fall of Rome, e.g. (And I'm considering things on a percentage of population/degree affected basis rather than on an absolute numbers basis.)
Most people in most countries involved in WWII survived. And it only lasted 5 years. That's "relatively peaceful".
Well, *I* have a DVD player, and I feel a strong need for it, but I have *never* used it to play a movie, and don't intend to. It's my preferred means of backup (though I do wish DVDs were more durable...I don't really trust them for over a year).
OTOH, I'm beginning to replace DVDs with usb drives. They're much more expensive, but also much more reusable. And they hold more.
IIRC, he also said that if by mistake they destroy a PC that didn't have any infringing software, they should suffer no penalty. Well, that's the way I recall it, but those weren't his words.
Doesn't hacking your toaster require skills with BSD? That's the only OS *I've* ever seen running on a toaster. (Don't remember the year, but it was at the West Coast Computer Faire.)
Why should I forgive them just because they are large companies?
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I can't do much, as I restrict myself to legal protests, but if someone else wishes to take the chance of doing more, I'm not going to condemn them.
Anyone who supports Sony is less than innocent. Anyone who actively supports them is an accomplice (presumably) after the fact. That the law won't punish them does not exonerate them. For that matter, my ideas of justice are not based on laws that are not level across the field.
FWIW, I've been mad at Sony ever since they supported the Sony-Bono copyright extension bill, and don't expect to change my mind soon. I'm also angry with many other media companies, but Sony stands out as a repetitive offender.
"Someone"? Sorry, but that's unacceptably vague. Try responsible parties, including management, and I'll agree with you. Scapegoats don't do a thing for me.
OTOH, I'd also be satisfied if the corporation was just put out of business.
OK, then the Calvinist of today doesn't hold the same beliefs as the Calvinist of the 1700's. And use the label Calvinist. (And, no, they don't hold the same beliefs. Sometimes they use the same words, but even then they mean different things by them.)
Mind you, time isn't the only dimension. You can find the same separation among different people at any one time. When you separate by time you are comparing mean apparent belief (which is heavily biased by public speakers/writers). When you compare individuals you can dig much more deeply into what they are willing to admit to believing.
Personal transport is rightly singled out, because in many locales public transit is powered by electricity, often trolleys. Also, before cars were common, street cars existed that didn't burn fuel, but were powered by electricity (and before that, drawn by horses). So mass transit if feasible without gasoline or diesel.
For that matter, the paving of streets can be considered a massive subsidy to cars and trucks much more than for transit. Buses could be retrofitted to use rails (it's been done). But trucks, or the equivalent, are necessary. Still, we could rebuild the railroads, and make a lot less use of trucks. And railroads can run on electricity.
That said. if you do a bit of redesign, you can make recharging at every traffic light feasible, and then electric cars become arguably superior to gasoline powered cars.
OTOH, any of these approaches would require a massive redesign of our social and transport systems. Perhaps, overall, it would be less of a problem to overbuild the electric generation capability (windmills and solar cells, perhaps nukes) and use the spare capacity to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere to generate synthetic gasoline. It's my understanding, though, that the process if quite inefficient, so you need a considerable generation overcapacity. And that means gas becomes a lot more expensive.
Identifying yourself with a label doesn't mean that you mean the same thing other people did when they used the same label. Consider the difference between a Quaker in 2014 and a Clavinist in 1700. Both call(ed) themselves Christians, but they don't have many beliefs in common. And I left out the Catholic of 1200.
Well, for one thing he had robots, but not personal computers or cell phones. And cell phones have already changed how people react to each other. He also didn't have video games, but he might have just decided to ignore that.
Still, you can argue that the robots don't actuall belong in the Foundation universe, even though he did merge them. But I still don't believe in a Galactic Empire without personal computers in some form or other. The exact form would (partially) determine the social consequences, but they would be major.
OTOH, the purpose of Science Fiction is not to make accurate prophesies, but either to warn or inspire. Foundation was a combination, warning that all empires collapse, and offering a hope that you design a resurgence before the collapse happened. I don't know if anyone is taking that combined message to heart, but the US seems clearly headed for collapse. One may hope that it will take a long time happening, as the period of collapse is terrible to live through. (OTOH, the transition from British dominance to US dominance was relatively peaceful. If China, Japan, Europe, or India become the next dominant power we can hope the transition will be at least equally peaceful...but that's not the way to bet.)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's the only thing MIT considers when they consider whether they want their name associated with something. Nor should it be.
If he's academically good enough for MIT, I'm sure he can find some school somewhere that will tolerate him. Probably. But MIT can afford to be pickier.
Yes.
FWIW, I usually vote third party, but I've never fooled myself that this had any chance of changing the system. In a plurality wins voting system there are generally only two parties that have a realistic chance of winning.
To illustrate:
Assume that there are three parties, two incumbents and (only) one challenger. Also assume that NONE of the vote is rigged. It is possible to win that election with 33.333334% of the vote if the remainder of the vote is divided evenly between the other two parties.
Now notice how unrealistic that scenario was. There are multiple "third parties" that divide the share of the votes that don't go to the two major parties. There is always some degree of voter fraud that benefits one of the two major parties. There is also a large percentage of the populace that might vote for someone else that has been disenfranchised via one means or another.
The only solution I can see that doesn't do away with voting entirely, and replace it with something like a lottery ("Your friends and neighbors have selected YOU...") is to require that the winner receive more than 50% of the vote. This is made practical by voting methods such as Instant Runoff Voting or Condorcet Voting. Even that's not a cure-all as it tends to lead to information overload when multiple candidates are running for multiple offices.
I've also seen non-FOSS systems that I've trusted. One of them read paper tape.
You are asking for evidence that is guaranteed to not be available. I'm sorry, but it's impossible. Some of the users who are sabotaged will refuse a subpoena rather than admit that they had been penetrated. And the software that they are using is irrelevant to their opinion. Their opinion is driven by image.
OTOH, let me point out that it is irrelevant what the average FOSS user does. It's that any FOSS user who chooses CAN check the code. And this does happen. With closed source products, nobody can legally check the code and report on problems except the company (not the individuals) that owns the copyright. This isn't invariably true, but is almost always true. It's also true that there are open source software packages that aren't free. That used to be a very common model. And most of them would also allow any user to report a detected error TO THEM. Only some of them would allow publication of the error. So there do exist intermediate positions.
The fact that you trust a system says much about how you feel about the system, and little about the system, without knowing you. What tests did you run? Etc. (I'm not asking for an answer, this is rhetoric.) I have often encountered systems which many people trusted and which were later found to have SERIOUS security flaws. Thos Sumner, a Systems Programmer at LBL, once asserted that no program longer than 10 lines could he be certain was operating as intended. I'm not sure whether he was thinking of assembler.
Well, there ARE languages that claim to have proofs of program correctness available. One is a subset of Ada. I once looked into it, and what they proved is that the programs match the specifications, but the specifications were required to be so complex that I was unsure that this improved the actual correctness in any but a formal sense.
So Microsoft are ALSO hypocrites. That's no surprise. But whose records are to be produced? If they are those of an EU citizen, then I don't see the US govt. has reasonable grounds. If they are those of an international corporation, then... What if they are those of a foreign government?
I tend to think that MS is correct here...I'm just not sure (possibly because the idea that MS could ever be correct sticks in my throat).
What kind of oversight do you suggest they provide? Is either party that has a chance any better than the other? All the evidence I've seen says no.
Minimalist? Gnome? You're joking, right?
If you want to be a minimalist, run ratpoison or something similar. There's several to chose from. Or even xfce. But not Gnome.
There is not one good thing I can think of to say about Gnome3. Gnome2 made KDE4 look bad, but Gnome3 made it look good. (Mind you, KDE3 was better than any of the aforesaid.) When Gnome2 left the repository I dithered between xfce and KDE4 (and LXDE and...) but finally settled on KDE4 due mainly to a printer management issue, and a little bit to applications getting stuck under the upper screen panel in xfce. I barely considered Gnome3 because it was, and is, truely terrible unless you're using a tablet, or possibly a phone.
Not necessarily true. If the comman resides in a directory that is read protected then you need to have the appropriate privileges to execute it. I've got an early version of Red Hat in a virtual machine where "shutdown" is protected in precisely that way.
A valid point, but this *is* an unusual case. OTOH, we don't necessarily know that a bug isn't being exploited just because nobody had noticed it happening.
FWIW, in my viewpoint Linux gave up a lot of it's security when it allowed files that were expanded from archives to have the executable bit set. And that's a long time ago. (OTOH, even without the executable bit set, you could always execute a file from an explicit shell command [usually "sh"].)
What evidence would you find convincing? (I can't assess this, as I'm already convinced.)
So you believe that to forget history is to grow up?
If not, then I don't understand the premise of your assertion.
Yes, and I'm not pleased with Cher, either. At the time Sony wasn't a media company, but they merged with, and were taken over by the management of, one of the lobbiests sponsoring the bill.
Yes. That's way I said *relatively* peaceful. Most transitions in history have been worse. The fall of Rome, e.g. (And I'm considering things on a percentage of population/degree affected basis rather than on an absolute numbers basis.)
Most people in most countries involved in WWII survived. And it only lasted 5 years. That's "relatively peaceful".
You are basing your assumptions on current storage requirements. Applications will be developed that push those limits, even if they aren't here yet.
I don't know about you, but I refuse to install flash, and adblock is a requirement for having javascript enabled.
OTOH, there are already a lot of sites I won't visit, so I'm clearly not a large section of their audience.
Well, *I* have a DVD player, and I feel a strong need for it, but I have *never* used it to play a movie, and don't intend to. It's my preferred means of backup (though I do wish DVDs were more durable...I don't really trust them for over a year).
OTOH, I'm beginning to replace DVDs with usb drives. They're much more expensive, but also much more reusable. And they hold more.
IIRC, he also said that if by mistake they destroy a PC that didn't have any infringing software, they should suffer no penalty. Well, that's the way I recall it, but those weren't his words.
Doesn't hacking your toaster require skills with BSD? That's the only OS *I've* ever seen running on a toaster. (Don't remember the year, but it was at the West Coast Computer Faire.)
Why should I forgive them just because they are large companies?
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I can't do much, as I restrict myself to legal protests, but if someone else wishes to take the chance of doing more, I'm not going to condemn them.
Anyone who supports Sony is less than innocent. Anyone who actively supports them is an accomplice (presumably) after the fact. That the law won't punish them does not exonerate them. For that matter, my ideas of justice are not based on laws that are not level across the field.
FWIW, I've been mad at Sony ever since they supported the Sony-Bono copyright extension bill, and don't expect to change my mind soon. I'm also angry with many other media companies, but Sony stands out as a repetitive offender.
"Someone"? Sorry, but that's unacceptably vague. Try responsible parties, including management, and I'll agree with you. Scapegoats don't do a thing for me.
OTOH, I'd also be satisfied if the corporation was just put out of business.
OK, then the Calvinist of today doesn't hold the same beliefs as the Calvinist of the 1700's. And use the label Calvinist. (And, no, they don't hold the same beliefs. Sometimes they use the same words, but even then they mean different things by them.)
Mind you, time isn't the only dimension. You can find the same separation among different people at any one time. When you separate by time you are comparing mean apparent belief (which is heavily biased by public speakers/writers). When you compare individuals you can dig much more deeply into what they are willing to admit to believing.
Personal transport is rightly singled out, because in many locales public transit is powered by electricity, often trolleys. Also, before cars were common, street cars existed that didn't burn fuel, but were powered by electricity (and before that, drawn by horses). So mass transit if feasible without gasoline or diesel.
For that matter, the paving of streets can be considered a massive subsidy to cars and trucks much more than for transit. Buses could be retrofitted to use rails (it's been done). But trucks, or the equivalent, are necessary. Still, we could rebuild the railroads, and make a lot less use of trucks. And railroads can run on electricity.
That said. if you do a bit of redesign, you can make recharging at every traffic light feasible, and then electric cars become arguably superior to gasoline powered cars.
OTOH, any of these approaches would require a massive redesign of our social and transport systems. Perhaps, overall, it would be less of a problem to overbuild the electric generation capability (windmills and solar cells, perhaps nukes) and use the spare capacity to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere to generate synthetic gasoline. It's my understanding, though, that the process if quite inefficient, so you need a considerable generation overcapacity. And that means gas becomes a lot more expensive.
Identifying yourself with a label doesn't mean that you mean the same thing other people did when they used the same label. Consider the difference between a Quaker in 2014 and a Clavinist in 1700. Both call(ed) themselves Christians, but they don't have many beliefs in common. And I left out the Catholic of 1200.
Well, for one thing he had robots, but not personal computers or cell phones. And cell phones have already changed how people react to each other. He also didn't have video games, but he might have just decided to ignore that.
Still, you can argue that the robots don't actuall belong in the Foundation universe, even though he did merge them. But I still don't believe in a Galactic Empire without personal computers in some form or other. The exact form would (partially) determine the social consequences, but they would be major.
OTOH, the purpose of Science Fiction is not to make accurate prophesies, but either to warn or inspire. Foundation was a combination, warning that all empires collapse, and offering a hope that you design a resurgence before the collapse happened. I don't know if anyone is taking that combined message to heart, but the US seems clearly headed for collapse. One may hope that it will take a long time happening, as the period of collapse is terrible to live through. (OTOH, the transition from British dominance to US dominance was relatively peaceful. If China, Japan, Europe, or India become the next dominant power we can hope the transition will be at least equally peaceful...but that's not the way to bet.)
C.L.Moore often didn't take gender roles for granted. Consider Jirel of Joiry. But she also often did. E.g. Northwest Smith.