Would you be opposed to the filtering if it were part of the Terms Of Service...
Yes I would. I feel it would be similar in principle to having a contract that requires you to give up your freedom of speech in return for the right to attend the university.
I don't feel that universities are required to offer internet access in the dorms (lots of luck getting many students to attend, though). If they want to turn it off completely, I say fine; there's no Constitutional right to internet access. But once they determine to offer internet access, I don't think they should filter it.
What LinuxOne are more vulnerable to is the possibility that people might figure out that...the STOCK isn't a very good buy.
Why would this be a problem? If I make $20 million in an IPO, why should I care if people later decide that buying my stock was a bad idea? They got screwed, I got rich. Where's the vulnerability?
The movie was Little Man Tate; Jodie Foster played the boy's mother. The pencil and rubber band structure is based on different principles than Hoberman objects. The pencil and rubber band structure is more closely related to tensegrity structures, which are addressed elsewhere in this discussion.
The "One Important Question" link is broken (typo).
It's not a typo.
Here's the original link: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl' sid=00/01/17/1119222&cid=110
Here's the fixed link: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl? sid=00/01/17/1119222&cid=110
Note that instead of a ?, the broken link has a '. There's a bug in the script that converts the question marks in Roblimo's postings to tick marks. The script exists so that Roblimo's articles don't look like JonKatz?s. There's clearly some logic to prevent a ? at the end of a sentence from being converted, but it doesn't check to see if the ? is inside a URL.
Do you think the Gnu people would be doing the same thing?
Have you not heard of RMS's obnoxious correction of "Linux" to "GNU/Linux"? I don't blame or fault him for this at all, but he's obviously VERY concerned with "names and labels", as you put it.
If Microsoft started selling GNU 2000, how do you think RMS would respond? It's a hypothetical, I know. MS would NEVER do such a thing - it would engender too much strife and distrust of the company.
But if he starts claiming that he's doing it for the good of the community. (I'm not suggesting that he is, BTW.)
He doesn't suggest he's doing it for the good of the community. You're the one who brought that up. He does seem to be claiming to do it for the good of Linux. Note that Linux is not the linux community (whatever that may be).
I think Bill Gates does believe himself to be a benevolent despot.
That's an interesting viewpoint, one that I'd never considered, but which seems accurate. However, benevolent despots who are so convinced of their benevolence that they try to conquer the world (hoping to bring all peoples to the light of their gentle rulership) are missing the point. A benevolent despot leaves people alone unless they are hurting other people. A sicko-freaked-out-sadistic benevolent despot messes with peoples' lives for their own good.
Did Clarke even write 3001? I was under the impression that Gentry Lee had done that work under Clarke's name. I could easily be wrong; this post is a question, not a statement.
Surfing the net and looking at porn does not kill your child There are worse things than dying. Every time I have to deal with a total jerk, I just remember that the worst possible thing I could do to that person is to let them continue to be themselves, every minute of every day for the rest of their pathetic lives.
I don't want my kids to become someone like that. There are a lot of limits I place on their behavior and activities, because I want them to become happy, well-adjusted individuals. I don't think that that pictures which cater to the masturbatory fantasies of adolescent males will accomplish that.
Hi there. Let's pretend that I administer a server. My bosses know what spam is; they chew me out when I get some. They tell me my job is to prevent spam from reaching them. So, I implement UDPs when they come out. I tell my bosses I'm stopping spam. They commend me. They own the server. Who are you to tell me what to do? Who are you to tell me I'm wrong for abiding by my contract and doing what the boss tells me?
Take that and multiply it by however many servers carry news feeds, and you've got the UDP. This isn't a central authority. This is lots of individual sysadmins who don't want to deal with posts from a domain, so they block that domain on the servers that they have a legal, ethical, and moral right and obligation to administer.
Others, wiser than I, have commented that Xerox hasn't gotten $$$ or recognition for many of the inventions you mention (at least not in the public's view) because the higher-ups in the company weren't interested in exploiting most of the technology. PARC was run as a sort of skunk-works - give a bunch of researchers a free hand and eventually one of them will make SOMETHING useful. While we can nitpick this strategy (and clearly, there's some BIG nits), you've got to admit it paid off handsomely. Among all that work on GUIs, and mice, and Ethernet (which didn't fit Xerox's existing business), somebody came up with laser printing (or photoconducters, or whatever is the key technology involved in photocopying/laser printing). They ran with that...
1. The universe could be a vast cellular automata, too, run on a Beowulf cluster in an alien lab.
2. Impossible to prove or disprove existence of ANYTHING in the real world. See #1.
3. In 50 years (+/- a few), biotechnology will have advanced more than we can imagine today. We will create life. We will cure death, with the exception of severe head trauma or oxygen deprivation. Hunger will be a thing of the past, as the entire ecosystem is transformed into tasty treats for our consumption.
Here's a much more interesting version of this question.
No offense intended, but I'm not really interested in your personal beliefs on the existence of deity/deities; there's 6E9 people out there with personal beliefs. I am however, interested in your professional appraisal of the following questions.
1. Is it possible that an entity could exist and affect on events, yet be undetectable by scientific methods?
2. What would it take to prove or disprove the existence of such an entity?
3. How long before humanity achieves a godlike state (however you wish to define it)? How long before individual humans achieve such a state?
I've been reading The Microsoft File : The Secret Case Against Bill Gates (don't buy it here!). There's some interesting tidbits about MSDOS vs DRDOS, MS vs Novell, and Bill Gates vs Ray Noorda in there (Also lots of boring bits; I give the book two stars out of five - I didn't hurl it from me, but I have to force myself to read it). Noorda was the CEO of Novell in the early 90s. He retired from Novell and founded Caldera. This article summarizes the history of Noorda and Caldera. The current CEO of Caldera is also from Novell. I'd guess that Noorda brought him over, and that he has a fair amount of personal loyalty to Noorda, his values, and his goals.
Noorda has it in for MS, and I would say deservedly so. MS proposed a merger with Novell and basically pillaged all kinds of inside business and technical information before saying "Nevermind." Novell bought DRDOS, only to have MS...well, you can read that history yourself. A couple of passages in the book indicate that Noorda felt that Bill Gates had lied to him personally.
Noorda doesn't think that MS is good for the software industry. A benign dictator can be acceptable, but an blood-crazed psychopathic tyrant is a Bad Thing (tm). De facto industry standards are fine as long as they don't come from the end of a gun.
I think that your opinion (about business plans)is tactically sound but strategically wrong. If Microsoft is taken apart - or at least taken down a few notches - there will be more opportunities for everyone in the software industry. If EVERYONE said "Our plan is to take something away from Microsoft," MS would find itself assaulted from all sides and unable to compete effectively without choosing some battles and losing some battles. Noorda is doing his part, and if everyone else would do the same, the software industry would be a different place. Better or worse, I honestly can't say, but definitely different.
Their forms show they knew they were at risk in CA and OR.
REALLY...that's fascinating. Would you mind posting the relevant bits of the form? I've not ever seen their rebate forms. I'd suggest posting it as a reply to the main part of the story. Some (more?) actual evidence of MS's stupidity would be worth showing everyone.
You don't, or don't want to? I don't see the difference. Did I stutter?:)
There's a big difference here. A better analogy would be if someone were passing out $100 bills if you agree to buy some $200 item. If you say "Sure, I'll go buy that", and then pocket the money, you are taking advantage of them, and that's wrong. Well, sure. What you suggest is absolutely unethical. I'd agree my analogy left out most of the details; I merely meant to point out that legally speaking, MS was offering free money. Let me modify your analogy (fair, I think, since you modified mine:).
You're a street vendor, selling $200 watches. You have twenty lawyers standing behind you. I walk up with my one lawyer. You make your offer. My lawyer leans over and tells me "The deal is bogus; just keep the money." So I take your money. You turn around and ask your lawyers "Can he do that?" and they say "Yes." I ask you, who was at a disadvantage for legal advice in this situation?
I make it a point to keep my word. If I say I'll do it, I'll do it. When I sign a contract, I execute my half. I expect the other party to do the same. However, if they try to rip me off by putting some illegal clause in a contract (and I would consider ANY unenforceable clause to be illegal - why else would the government say it's unenforceable?), then all bets are off. What MS was doing in this case was IMNSHO deceptive, and was intended to take advantage of people. CA and OR clearly agree with this opinion; I don't know why else they'd outlaw this kind of agreement.
As much as I dislike Microsoft, is it really right to take their money in this fashion? Yes.
I mean, it's kind of like stealing candy from a baby. ROTFL! This is the company who, when prosecuted by DOJ, lobbied to reduce DOJ's funding. This is the company that will sue you for piracy if you sell their OEM mouse separate from a PC. This is the company who wants to control the market for PC software. They're more like a 400 pound gorilla than a baby.
And the clear intent of the agreement was that you have MSN service for three years -- some lawyer at MSN's corporate offices made a mistake -- which was compounded by some flunky believing in the good will of the citizens of California. I think you're right. The only time I have a problem with one party to a contract using their knowledge of the law to outwit the other party to the contract is when the outwitted party has vastly fewer legal resources than the outwitting party. In this case it's exactly the opposite. MS's legal team is bigger than China. They wrote a flawed contract, and they had every opportunity to recognize the flaw before the fact. In essence, they wrote a contract, and the essential parts were unenforceable, and they should have known better.
And everyone took advantage of their vulnerability and kicked them while they were down. I will reiterate that I don't believe that there is anything wrong with letting Microsoft give you money. I don't think it's comparable to assault. But look at the larger picture. MS is fighting HARD to kill free software. If someone really wants to kill you, do you give them a fair fight? Or do you knock them down with a 2x4 and kick them in the ribs until they stop breathing?
Granted, Microsoft is not exactly the nicest company on the planet. And absolute zero is not exactly warm...
But should we really stoop to their level? Yeah, you're right. We shouldn't force Microsoft to obey the law. We should let them enforce illegal clauses in their contracts. We shouldn't ask for our money back when they try to cheat us.
True, but probably irrelevant. It's not irrelevant to a discussion of morality. Stealing from Bill Gates' home is wrong. It is also illegal. Accepting a grant of immunity means that you understand this fact.
I'm of the opinion that there's nothing wrong with understanding contract law, as long as the other party to the contract understands the law. MS has a corporate law team that's pretty big; i think it can be assumed that they should understand the law in the states where they do business. Ergo, it is NOT taking advantage of them.
the debatable morality of taking advantage of a loophole like this
I question the debatable morality involved in advertising a computer for $399 when it actually costs $799. I question the morality of shrink-wrap licenses. I question the morality of lying, cheating, and stealing (harsh words, but I believe accurate) to make a profit. I question the morality of lobbying the government to cut the funding of the department that's trying to prosecute you. I don't think that MS has a leg to stand on if they complain about people taking advantage of them. (Aside - I'd love to know if the SV News article had its roots in Redmond.)
Many would argue "Two wrongs don't make a right." This presupposes that forcing Microsoft to obey the law is wrong, which is a laughable proposition. Some might suggest that this is taking advantage of Microsoft's ignorance of California and Oregon law. Given the size of their legal department, and given the fact that they've lobbied nearly every state government to change laws to favor shrink-wrap licenses, I'd have to laugh at this suggestion, too.
If someone was passing out $100 bills on the street, would it be taking advantage of them to accept the money? I don't see any difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you be opposed to the filtering if it were part of the Terms Of Service...
Yes I would. I feel it would be similar in principle to having a contract that requires you to give up your freedom of speech in return for the right to attend the university.
I don't feel that universities are required to offer internet access in the dorms (lots of luck getting many students to attend, though). If they want to turn it off completely, I say fine; there's no Constitutional right to internet access. But once they determine to offer internet access, I don't think they should filter it.
What LinuxOne are more vulnerable to is the possibility that people might figure out that...the STOCK isn't a very good buy.
Why would this be a problem? If I make $20 million in an IPO, why should I care if people later decide that buying my stock was a bad idea? They got screwed, I got rich. Where's the vulnerability?
Not only that, but it can be argued that single-celled organisms never die of natural causes.
The movie was Little Man Tate; Jodie Foster played the boy's mother. The pencil and rubber band structure is based on different principles than Hoberman objects. The pencil and rubber band structure is more closely related to tensegrity structures, which are addressed elsewhere in this discussion.
The "One Important Question" link is broken (typo).
It's not a typo.
Here's the original link:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl ' sid=00/01/17/1119222&cid=110
Here's the fixed link:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid=00/01/17/1119222&cid=110
Note that instead of a ?, the broken link has a '. There's a bug in the script that converts the question marks in Roblimo's postings to tick marks. The script exists so that Roblimo's articles don't look like JonKatz?s. There's clearly some logic to prevent a ? at the end of a sentence from being converted, but it doesn't check to see if the ? is inside a URL.
That's my two cents, and I'm sticking to it...
What else would you do in jail?
Prepare your defense. I understand that this is what Mitnick spent most of his time on.
OK, I'll take you up on that. I have a SERIOUS problem with how the judicial system treats violent criminals. They let them live.
So you're saying that kiosks could be run using vacuum tube technology, with all the heat they produce and power they require? :)
Do you think the Gnu people would be doing the same thing?
Have you not heard of RMS's obnoxious correction of "Linux" to "GNU/Linux"? I don't blame or fault him for this at all, but he's obviously VERY concerned with "names and labels", as you put it.
If Microsoft started selling GNU 2000, how do you think RMS would respond? It's a hypothetical, I know. MS would NEVER do such a thing - it would engender too much strife and distrust of the company.
But if he starts claiming that he's doing it for the good of the community. (I'm not suggesting that he is, BTW.)
He doesn't suggest he's doing it for the good of the community. You're the one who brought that up. He does seem to be claiming to do it for the good of Linux. Note that Linux is not the linux community (whatever that may be).
I think Bill Gates does believe himself to be a benevolent despot.
That's an interesting viewpoint, one that I'd never considered, but which seems accurate. However, benevolent despots who are so convinced of their benevolence that they try to conquer the world (hoping to bring all peoples to the light of their gentle rulership) are missing the point. A benevolent despot leaves people alone unless they are hurting other people. A sicko-freaked-out-sadistic benevolent despot messes with peoples' lives for their own good.
Did Clarke even write 3001? I was under the impression that Gentry Lee had done that work under Clarke's name. I could easily be wrong; this post is a question, not a statement.
National security can will probable trump this...
Yup. That's a real bugaboo. If NSA says don't distribute the source under penaalty of treason, that would be a Bad Thing...
Surfing the net and looking at porn does not kill your child
There are worse things than dying. Every time I have to deal with a total jerk, I just remember that the worst possible thing I could do to that person is to let them continue to be themselves, every minute of every day for the rest of their pathetic lives.
I don't want my kids to become someone like that. There are a lot of limits I place on their behavior and activities, because I want them to become happy, well-adjusted individuals. I don't think that that pictures which cater to the masturbatory fantasies of adolescent males will accomplish that.
Hi there. Let's pretend that I administer a server. My bosses know what spam is; they chew me out when I get some. They tell me my job is to prevent spam from reaching them. So, I implement UDPs when they come out. I tell my bosses I'm stopping spam. They commend me. They own the server. Who are you to tell me what to do? Who are you to tell me I'm wrong for abiding by my contract and doing what the boss tells me?
Take that and multiply it by however many servers carry news feeds, and you've got the UDP. This isn't a central authority. This is lots of individual sysadmins who don't want to deal with posts from a domain, so they block that domain on the servers that they have a legal, ethical, and moral right and obligation to administer.
Others, wiser than I, have commented that Xerox hasn't gotten $$$ or recognition for many of the inventions you mention (at least not in the public's view) because the higher-ups in the company weren't interested in exploiting most of the technology. PARC was run as a sort of skunk-works - give a bunch of researchers a free hand and eventually one of them will make SOMETHING useful. While we can nitpick this strategy (and clearly, there's some BIG nits), you've got to admit it paid off handsomely. Among all that work on GUIs, and mice, and Ethernet (which didn't fit Xerox's existing business), somebody came up with laser printing (or photoconducters, or whatever is the key technology involved in photocopying/laser printing). They ran with that...
1. The universe could be a vast cellular automata, too, run on a Beowulf cluster in an alien lab.
2. Impossible to prove or disprove existence of ANYTHING in the real world. See #1.
3. In 50 years (+/- a few), biotechnology will have advanced more than we can imagine today. We will create life. We will cure death, with the exception of severe head trauma or oxygen deprivation. Hunger will be a thing of the past, as the entire ecosystem is transformed into tasty treats for our consumption.
Here's a much more interesting version of this question.
No offense intended, but I'm not really interested in your personal beliefs on the existence of deity/deities; there's 6E9 people out there with personal beliefs. I am however, interested in your professional appraisal of the following questions.
1. Is it possible that an entity could exist and affect on events, yet be undetectable by scientific methods?
2. What would it take to prove or disprove the existence of such an entity?
3. How long before humanity achieves a godlike state (however you wish to define it)? How long before individual humans achieve such a state?
Sure.
"Mr. Roberts - may I call you Oral? Yes? Ok, Oral, do you believe in electrons?"
I've been reading The Microsoft File : The Secret Case Against Bill Gates (don't buy it here!). There's some interesting tidbits about MSDOS vs DRDOS, MS vs Novell, and Bill Gates vs Ray Noorda in there (Also lots of boring bits; I give the book two stars out of five - I didn't hurl it from me, but I have to force myself to read it). Noorda was the CEO of Novell in the early 90s. He retired from Novell and founded Caldera. This article summarizes the history of Noorda and Caldera. The current CEO of Caldera is also from Novell. I'd guess that Noorda brought him over, and that he has a fair amount of personal loyalty to Noorda, his values, and his goals.
Noorda has it in for MS, and I would say deservedly so. MS proposed a merger with Novell and basically pillaged all kinds of inside business and technical information before saying "Nevermind." Novell bought DRDOS, only to have MS...well, you can read that history yourself. A couple of passages in the book indicate that Noorda felt that Bill Gates had lied to him personally.
Noorda doesn't think that MS is good for the software industry. A benign dictator can be acceptable, but an blood-crazed psychopathic tyrant is a Bad Thing (tm). De facto industry standards are fine as long as they don't come from the end of a gun.
I think that your opinion (about business plans)is tactically sound but strategically wrong. If Microsoft is taken apart - or at least taken down a few notches - there will be more opportunities for everyone in the software industry. If EVERYONE said "Our plan is to take something away from Microsoft," MS would find itself assaulted from all sides and unable to compete effectively without choosing some battles and losing some battles. Noorda is doing his part, and if everyone else would do the same, the software industry would be a different place. Better or worse, I honestly can't say, but definitely different.
Their forms show they knew they were at risk in CA and OR.
REALLY...that's fascinating. Would you mind posting the relevant bits of the form? I've not ever seen their rebate forms. I'd suggest posting it as a reply to the main part of the story. Some (more?) actual evidence of MS's stupidity would be worth showing everyone.
This was funny...
You don't, or don't want to? :)
:).
I don't see the difference. Did I stutter?
There's a big difference here. A better analogy would be if someone were passing out $100 bills if you agree to buy some $200 item. If you say "Sure, I'll go buy that", and then pocket the money, you are taking advantage of them, and that's wrong.
Well, sure. What you suggest is absolutely unethical. I'd agree my analogy left out most of the details; I merely meant to point out that legally speaking, MS was offering free money. Let me modify your analogy (fair, I think, since you modified mine
You're a street vendor, selling $200 watches. You have twenty lawyers standing behind you. I walk up with my one lawyer. You make your offer. My lawyer leans over and tells me "The deal is bogus; just keep the money." So I take your money. You turn around and ask your lawyers "Can he do that?" and they say "Yes." I ask you, who was at a disadvantage for legal advice in this situation?
I make it a point to keep my word. If I say I'll do it, I'll do it. When I sign a contract, I execute my half. I expect the other party to do the same. However, if they try to rip me off by putting some illegal clause in a contract (and I would consider ANY unenforceable clause to be illegal - why else would the government say it's unenforceable?), then all bets are off. What MS was doing in this case was IMNSHO deceptive, and was intended to take advantage of people. CA and OR clearly agree with this opinion; I don't know why else they'd outlaw this kind of agreement.
As much as I dislike Microsoft, is it really right to take their money in this fashion?
Yes.
I mean, it's kind of like stealing candy from a baby.
ROTFL! This is the company who, when prosecuted by DOJ, lobbied to reduce DOJ's funding. This is the company that will sue you for piracy if you sell their OEM mouse separate from a PC. This is the company who wants to control the market for PC software. They're more like a 400 pound gorilla than a baby.
And the clear intent of the agreement was that you have MSN service for three years -- some lawyer at MSN's corporate offices made a mistake -- which was compounded by some flunky believing in the good will of the citizens of California.
I think you're right. The only time I have a problem with one party to a contract using their knowledge of the law to outwit the other party to the contract is when the outwitted party has vastly fewer legal resources than the outwitting party. In this case it's exactly the opposite. MS's legal team is bigger than China. They wrote a flawed contract, and they had every opportunity to recognize the flaw before the fact. In essence, they wrote a contract, and the essential parts were unenforceable, and they should have known better.
And everyone took advantage of their vulnerability and kicked them while they were down.
I will reiterate that I don't believe that there is anything wrong with letting Microsoft give you money. I don't think it's comparable to assault. But look at the larger picture. MS is fighting HARD to kill free software. If someone really wants to kill you, do you give them a fair fight? Or do you knock them down with a 2x4 and kick them in the ribs until they stop breathing?
Granted, Microsoft is not exactly the nicest company on the planet.
And absolute zero is not exactly warm...
But should we really stoop to their level?
Yeah, you're right. We shouldn't force Microsoft to obey the law. We should let them enforce illegal clauses in their contracts. We shouldn't ask for our money back when they try to cheat us.
True, but probably irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant to a discussion of morality. Stealing from Bill Gates' home is wrong. It is also illegal. Accepting a grant of immunity means that you understand this fact.
I'm of the opinion that there's nothing wrong with understanding contract law, as long as the other party to the contract understands the law. MS has a corporate law team that's pretty big; i think it can be assumed that they should understand the law in the states where they do business. Ergo, it is NOT taking advantage of them.
the debatable morality of taking advantage of a loophole like this
I question the debatable morality involved in advertising a computer for $399 when it actually costs $799. I question the morality of shrink-wrap licenses. I question the morality of lying, cheating, and stealing (harsh words, but I believe accurate) to make a profit. I question the morality of lobbying the government to cut the funding of the department that's trying to prosecute you. I don't think that MS has a leg to stand on if they complain about people taking advantage of them. (Aside - I'd love to know if the SV News article had its roots in Redmond.)
Many would argue "Two wrongs don't make a right." This presupposes that forcing Microsoft to obey the law is wrong, which is a laughable proposition. Some might suggest that this is taking advantage of Microsoft's ignorance of California and Oregon law. Given the size of their legal department, and given the fact that they've lobbied nearly every state government to change laws to favor shrink-wrap licenses, I'd have to laugh at this suggestion, too.
If someone was passing out $100 bills on the street, would it be taking advantage of them to accept the money? I don't see any difference.