Well, I like how everyone here is taking a good thing and spinning it as if it were a personal attack. Have you even complained that the free anti-virus software is for Windows? This is called progress people and you can't get to point a to b without taking steps. Also, how many people really use Linux here for their desktop? The answer is most likely a fraction of a percent. What if they include Linux and Mac support? Should everyone with Commodores, Solaris, and non-networked PCs complain? Give the administration a break for trying to make students happy.
"Oh no! They offer Internet and I don't have a network card! I demand network services shut off for everyone until they get the sneaker net up!"
See how silly that sounds? Windows is a majority people. If Napster could make money supporting Linux and Mac, I'm sure they wouldn't neglect that portion of the market.
Well, I like how everyone here is taking a good thing and spinning it as if it were a personal attack. Have you even complained that the free anti-virus software is for Windows? This is called progress people and you can't get to point a to b without taking steps. Also, how many people really use Linux here for their desktop? The answer is most likely a fraction of a percent. What if they include Linux and Mac support? Should everyone with Commodores, Solaris, and non-networked PCs complain? Give the administration a break for trying to make students happy.
"Oh no! They offer Internet and I don't have a network card! I demand network services shut off for everyone until they get the sneaker net up!"
See how silly that sounds? Windows is a majority people. If Napster could make money supporting Linux and Mac, I'm sure they wouldn't neglect that portion of the market.
Before you start verbally attacking random people, I think you need a clue.
socialism - 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital
I don't exactly know what you are trying to get at here. Republicans tend to be against state ownership of anything, except for things such as military. Most Republican (note I don't stereotype conservatives as liberals, ever heard of libertarians?). A socialist advocates socialism. You should reference a dictionary before you decide what English words stand for.
As for your random attacks on Republicans not supporting education, that is emperically denied. State sponsored education is one component that most people believe is necessary to eventually attaining autonomy from the state. Most Republicans believe that autonomy from the state is necessary for a healthy state. Liberal views tend to incorporate much more dependence upon the state.
In fact, this Al Franken wasn't even sorry that he lied just to get the information. He was sorry that he used Harvard's stationary to seem more legitimate.
I guess that's why many people refer to NPR as "National Proletariat Radio". If you don't get it, the joke is that the radio tone usually borders on extreme liberalism (communism).
Have you ever heard of appeasement theory? It not only applies to things like international politics, but it also works with things like the media. One good example of this is the Philadelphia Inquirer where either once or twice a week they run a feature called the "Conservative Corner" in the editorial section. First of all, there is nothing worse than making it sound like conservative's opinions need to be placed in the corner as if they did something bad. Second of all, why don't they regularly run these features without having to feature a "balance" of the news?
Here's an article from the National Review too talking about New York Times bias:
It's also hard to hold the New York Times in very high regard after the whole scandal they had with their reporter.
I'm not saying that FOX News isn't biased, but I think it's about time that the other side of things should be heard.
If you need more information on this subject, I suggest you read the following book by Bernard Goldberg. He couldn't stand the liberal bias of the media even though he is a liberal himself. Some of the examples he uses are undeniably accurate and universal. It's very interesting to say the least.
Parody isn't a democratic right. Parody would be a right under the free speech section of the Constituion. This means that it is a Constitutional right. Democracy only secures the right of people to be represented. Democracy doesn't secure as much as people think it does. By the way, this country is more of a republic than anything (or a democratic republic). True democracy ensures that everyone gets to vote on everything. In America, representatives are elected.
I think it's funny that people have no problem with extremely liberal news, but when you have something that is right of center it is automatically terrible. In case you didn't know, most news shows that aren't on CNBC or FOX tend to be quite liberal. Just try reading most major news papers. Note article placement too. If you can't see the bias then you shouldn't be posting stuff like this.
The article clearly said that it is not likely to be passed fully this year. The summary of the article is incredibly misleading and makes it seem as though the House or President will reject the bill.
There are TONS of regulations on American companies, despite how beneficial or negative they may be. Minimum wage, environmental regulation, Social Security taxes, SEC rules, anti-trust laws, etc, etc, etc...
I know I named a few of the big ones that have (mostly) positive externalities to the United States but there are a LOT of little laws that drive companies crazy (and out of cities and/or the United States). When you get down to it, there are a ton of regulations, but because freedom is so large in the United States it just SEEMS like we have a very free market. Extremes of any economic system just don't work, whether it is true Marxist communism or true laissez-faire. The United States seems to have found the nice middle ground for the most part.
The idea is not to get you buy a Windows PC eventually. The idea is keep the government's first implementation of a voting system as simple, smooth, and easy to debug as possible. Also, if you are at all familiar with the American legal system, you would know that extreme liability is a problem that plagues our courts. What if the government makes a voting system but 100 people can't use it because they some crazy browser? Disclaimers seem to even hardly matter anymore - the fact is that the government would be sued AND there is a low probability that they would win the case. BOUNDS almost HAVE to be placed until every client is actually verified by the government and then expanded as testing continues.
All the technical details of computers, the Internet, and networking protocols are nice, but the government MUST take care of millions of people. Legal and bureaucratic issues also come into play, that is what you have to remember. It doesn't matter if it should work because when.00000001% of the people have problems, the media and other agents make them a very vocal minority.
Why is Mozilla, Opera, and every other browser not supported? Very simple. People in the government aren't going to research every single obscure web browser that exists. I know what you are saying. "But Mozilla IS NETSCAPE and it isn't that small!" The fact is that Netscape is Mozilla for the populace. And what about Phoenix and all of the Mozilla derivatives? There are just too many to list AND support.
Secondly, it is a MUCH better idea to build a widespread system as important as this on the lowest common denominator if you expect the public to provide their own hardware and software. What if some weird bug is ONLY cause by an unknown web browser? Online voting has enough problems as it is right now, you can't throw all the variables of OSS into the mix. The fact that you said *nix proves my point - too many variables that would easily overwhelm an already daunting task.
"But it's all the same, HTTP is supported by all web browsers and the server-side application is the source of insecurity." Yes, this is mostly true. The fact is the developers of this system HAVE to cover themselves and limit the clients of the application in order to isolate problems as actually being server-side. The goverment has nothing to gain by allowing tons of different clients to use this system. They are not a for profit business looking to maximize profits. All they need is a secure and functioning model that is extremely accessible. I use Linux, but I also have Windows PCs - I think most people on slashdot at least have ONE Windows/IE install somewhere.
I think that this is a good thing, but flat panel technology still has to improve drastically for me to use it over my nice Samsung 955df. The newest flat panel I have used was a laptop screen, but I have seen some of the nice flat panels at CompUSA. From my experience, view angles are still a big issue for me to upgrade. While more people site in front of their computer, I like using my monitor with my TV Tuner and I don't want to sit in front of my monitor all the time. Speaking of 19" monitors, I can't take out a loan to buy a 19" flat panel.
The laptop monitors and flat panels that I have use are not highly advanced like CRTs are, but this will come in time. They don't like resolutions other than their native resolution, they don't have nice full colors all the time, and they some panels still have ghosting! This is all ok for web browsing, but for image editing, web design, programming, anything to do with graphical design, and gaming flat panels are not adeqaute for my need. Maybe I am just bitter because my laptop doesn't go over 800x600 unless I want to scroll the actual screen.:-)
Flat panels surely have their advantages. The technology just needs to mature a little.
I think that this article pretty well proves how stupid people in our government can be. They always seems to make these little interjections of "communal well-being" at such crucial points. And what happens in the post-bill world? The encryption will be cracked (DeCSS anyone?) AND one of the best things for computing will be severly hurt. Quite frankly, Linux would be hobbled in the process by such inept technology. People are always going to try to obtain certain things illegally, but why should the vast majority of Americans be punishedin the meantime? Maybe we should ENFORCE the laws that are currently on the books instead of making new ones that will just make matters worse.
While the points in this may be true, I feel that there is a very good chance that the author wished that this piece would be viewed as satrical, not a proclamation of truth. I mean, the most common analogy between Star Wars and history is that the Emipre parallel Nazi ways. Ever notice that the Empire people are always humans? What about the complete control that the emperor has, much like Hitler did during WWII. Both of these people demanded absolute power (at all times, but most specifically at times of conflict), which led to mistakes being made because they only had one specific goal. It is possible to equate Dunkurk with Yavin or Endor? Yes it is.
So, one must look at this situation differently. I really don't think the writer meant to side with the Empire 100%, mainly because that justifies Nazi-esque policies. And if he did, well I hope he has a good time refuting all the/. flames.:-)
I think that this merger will obviously cause some downsizing of OSes but this will have bad side effects. One, it could hurt corperate culture and cause alot of internal stability problems. No good programmer is going to want to give up his or her job and baby (their flavor of UNIX). It will cause them to leave or cause competing UNIXes within HP (everyone remember at Apple - Mac people had buttons "we are the future" and the Apple people had "we are the cash"). This is obviously a great risk that came with aquiring Compaq.
Second, the decentralized nature of Linux posses a problem for big wigs in the mega companies today. Beside HP, who just made their "distro," who is behind Linux besides all of the individuals? Where is their ticker symbol? I do realize that HP made HPUX, but was its success really that great? I'm all for Linux, but are most people on the board of directors going to prefer an OS which they can fallback on (like Microsoft), or one which has a rebellious "nature" and following.
Granted, Linux is nice and all, and it will get a boost from this merger, but I'm not sure that it will quite get the boost that this article is talking about. I just can't think of any more points right now.:-)
I love how you said Republicans are trying to take away peoples rights. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Republicans (and other conservatives) don't believe in censorship, they just don't condone things that have very bad meanings. They won't block it, but they don't think peope should see it. By the way, ever heard of Joseph Liberman? He is a DEMOCRAT and believes in a rediculous amount of censorship.
This makes me happy to see that this happened. Quite frankly, I'm one of those Microsoft Linux hybrids... I like both equally (Windows for fun and productivity, Linux for all my servers). I guess I'm one of the few people who likes Microsoft at Slashdot (my Windows crashed about 2-3 months ago, I guess I'm lucky, but then again, neither does my P75 running Windows 98 SE also... that might have crashed a year ago, *knock on wood*).
I feel Microsoft has been done a misjustice in this whole case - and the monopoly? The market evens them out within a few years (i.e. IBM, American cars, American steel, railroads, cable, and MANY oher companies. This will pass and I hope that Microsoft doesn't have to spin Windows off in Windows Inc, because then Windows won't progress as fast. I agree with Netscape's Jim Clark (the article I posted).
Finally, Microsoft gets a break - and I feel that this is great. (here come the flames:-) )
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I like how everyone here is taking a good thing and spinning it as if it were a personal attack. Have you even complained that the free anti-virus software is for Windows? This is called progress people and you can't get to point a to b without taking steps. Also, how many people really use Linux here for their desktop? The answer is most likely a fraction of a percent. What if they include Linux and Mac support? Should everyone with Commodores, Solaris, and non-networked PCs complain? Give the administration a break for trying to make students happy.
"Oh no! They offer Internet and I don't have a network card! I demand network services shut off for everyone until they get the sneaker net up!"
See how silly that sounds? Windows is a majority people. If Napster could make money supporting Linux and Mac, I'm sure they wouldn't neglect that portion of the market.
Well, I like how everyone here is taking a good thing and spinning it as if it were a personal attack. Have you even complained that the free anti-virus software is for Windows? This is called progress people and you can't get to point a to b without taking steps. Also, how many people really use Linux here for their desktop? The answer is most likely a fraction of a percent. What if they include Linux and Mac support? Should everyone with Commodores, Solaris, and non-networked PCs complain? Give the administration a break for trying to make students happy.
"Oh no! They offer Internet and I don't have a network card! I demand network services shut off for everyone until they get the sneaker net up!"
See how silly that sounds? Windows is a majority people. If Napster could make money supporting Linux and Mac, I'm sure they wouldn't neglect that portion of the market.
Before you start verbally attacking random people, I think you need a clue.
socialism - 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital
I don't exactly know what you are trying to get at here. Republicans tend to be against state ownership of anything, except for things such as military. Most Republican (note I don't stereotype conservatives as liberals, ever heard of libertarians?). A socialist advocates socialism. You should reference a dictionary before you decide what English words stand for.
As for your random attacks on Republicans not supporting education, that is emperically denied. State sponsored education is one component that most people believe is necessary to eventually attaining autonomy from the state. Most Republicans believe that autonomy from the state is necessary for a healthy state. Liberal views tend to incorporate much more dependence upon the state.
Is this the same Al Franken that lied to John Ashcroft just to extract certain information from him for his new book?
You might want to read this article.
In fact, this Al Franken wasn't even sorry that he lied just to get the information. He was sorry that he used Harvard's stationary to seem more legitimate.
I guess that's why many people refer to NPR as "National Proletariat Radio". If you don't get it, the joke is that the radio tone usually borders on extreme liberalism (communism).
Have you ever heard of appeasement theory? It not only applies to things like international politics, but it also works with things like the media. One good example of this is the Philadelphia Inquirer where either once or twice a week they run a feature called the "Conservative Corner" in the editorial section. First of all, there is nothing worse than making it sound like conservative's opinions need to be placed in the corner as if they did something bad. Second of all, why don't they regularly run these features without having to feature a "balance" of the news?
s s031403.asp
0 520841/qid=1067618220/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/103-901353 3-0048633?v=glance&n=507846
Here's an article from the National Review too talking about New York Times bias:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-gro
It's also hard to hold the New York Times in very high regard after the whole scandal they had with their reporter.
I'm not saying that FOX News isn't biased, but I think it's about time that the other side of things should be heard.
If you need more information on this subject, I suggest you read the following book by Bernard Goldberg. He couldn't stand the liberal bias of the media even though he is a liberal himself. Some of the examples he uses are undeniably accurate and universal. It's very interesting to say the least.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006
Parody isn't a democratic right. Parody would be a right under the free speech section of the Constituion. This means that it is a Constitutional right. Democracy only secures the right of people to be represented. Democracy doesn't secure as much as people think it does. By the way, this country is more of a republic than anything (or a democratic republic). True democracy ensures that everyone gets to vote on everything. In America, representatives are elected.
I think it's funny that people have no problem with extremely liberal news, but when you have something that is right of center it is automatically terrible. In case you didn't know, most news shows that aren't on CNBC or FOX tend to be quite liberal. Just try reading most major news papers. Note article placement too. If you can't see the bias then you shouldn't be posting stuff like this.
The article clearly said that it is not likely to be passed fully this year. The summary of the article is incredibly misleading and makes it seem as though the House or President will reject the bill.
Laissez-faire market in America? Hardly...
There are TONS of regulations on American companies, despite how beneficial or negative they may be. Minimum wage, environmental regulation, Social Security taxes, SEC rules, anti-trust laws, etc, etc, etc...
I know I named a few of the big ones that have (mostly) positive externalities to the United States but there are a LOT of little laws that drive companies crazy (and out of cities and/or the United States). When you get down to it, there are a ton of regulations, but because freedom is so large in the United States it just SEEMS like we have a very free market. Extremes of any economic system just don't work, whether it is true Marxist communism or true laissez-faire. The United States seems to have found the nice middle ground for the most part.
The idea is not to get you buy a Windows PC eventually. The idea is keep the government's first implementation of a voting system as simple, smooth, and easy to debug as possible. Also, if you are at all familiar with the American legal system, you would know that extreme liability is a problem that plagues our courts. What if the government makes a voting system but 100 people can't use it because they some crazy browser? Disclaimers seem to even hardly matter anymore - the fact is that the government would be sued AND there is a low probability that they would win the case. BOUNDS almost HAVE to be placed until every client is actually verified by the government and then expanded as testing continues.
.00000001% of the people have problems, the media and other agents make them a very vocal minority.
All the technical details of computers, the Internet, and networking protocols are nice, but the government MUST take care of millions of people. Legal and bureaucratic issues also come into play, that is what you have to remember. It doesn't matter if it should work because when
Why is Mozilla, Opera, and every other browser not supported? Very simple. People in the government aren't going to research every single obscure web browser that exists. I know what you are saying. "But Mozilla IS NETSCAPE and it isn't that small!" The fact is that Netscape is Mozilla for the populace. And what about Phoenix and all of the Mozilla derivatives? There are just too many to list AND support.
Secondly, it is a MUCH better idea to build a widespread system as important as this on the lowest common denominator if you expect the public to provide their own hardware and software. What if some weird bug is ONLY cause by an unknown web browser? Online voting has enough problems as it is right now, you can't throw all the variables of OSS into the mix. The fact that you said *nix proves my point - too many variables that would easily overwhelm an already daunting task.
"But it's all the same, HTTP is supported by all web browsers and the server-side application is the source of insecurity." Yes, this is mostly true. The fact is the developers of this system HAVE to cover themselves and limit the clients of the application in order to isolate problems as actually being server-side. The goverment has nothing to gain by allowing tons of different clients to use this system. They are not a for profit business looking to maximize profits. All they need is a secure and functioning model that is extremely accessible. I use Linux, but I also have Windows PCs - I think most people on slashdot at least have ONE Windows/IE install somewhere.
I think that this is a good thing, but flat panel technology still has to improve drastically for me to use it over my nice Samsung 955df. The newest flat panel I have used was a laptop screen, but I have seen some of the nice flat panels at CompUSA. From my experience, view angles are still a big issue for me to upgrade. While more people site in front of their computer, I like using my monitor with my TV Tuner and I don't want to sit in front of my monitor all the time. Speaking of 19" monitors, I can't take out a loan to buy a 19" flat panel.
:-)
The laptop monitors and flat panels that I have use are not highly advanced like CRTs are, but this will come in time. They don't like resolutions other than their native resolution, they don't have nice full colors all the time, and they some panels still have ghosting! This is all ok for web browsing, but for image editing, web design, programming, anything to do with graphical design, and gaming flat panels are not adeqaute for my need. Maybe I am just bitter because my laptop doesn't go over 800x600 unless I want to scroll the actual screen.
Flat panels surely have their advantages. The technology just needs to mature a little.
I think that this article pretty well proves how stupid people in our government can be. They always seems to make these little interjections of "communal well-being" at such crucial points. And what happens in the post-bill world? The encryption will be cracked (DeCSS anyone?) AND one of the best things for computing will be severly hurt. Quite frankly, Linux would be hobbled in the process by such inept technology. People are always going to try to obtain certain things illegally, but why should the vast majority of Americans be punishedin the meantime? Maybe we should ENFORCE the laws that are currently on the books instead of making new ones that will just make matters worse.
While the points in this may be true, I feel that there is a very good chance that the author wished that this piece would be viewed as satrical, not a proclamation of truth. I mean, the most common analogy between Star Wars and history is that the Emipre parallel Nazi ways. Ever notice that the Empire people are always humans? What about the complete control that the emperor has, much like Hitler did during WWII. Both of these people demanded absolute power (at all times, but most specifically at times of conflict), which led to mistakes being made because they only had one specific goal. It is possible to equate Dunkurk with Yavin or Endor? Yes it is.
/. flames. :-)
So, one must look at this situation differently. I really don't think the writer meant to side with the Empire 100%, mainly because that justifies Nazi-esque policies. And if he did, well I hope he has a good time refuting all the
I think that this merger will obviously cause some downsizing of OSes but this will have bad side effects. One, it could hurt corperate culture and cause alot of internal stability problems. No good programmer is going to want to give up his or her job and baby (their flavor of UNIX). It will cause them to leave or cause competing UNIXes within HP (everyone remember at Apple - Mac people had buttons "we are the future" and the Apple people had "we are the cash"). This is obviously a great risk that came with aquiring Compaq.
:-)
Second, the decentralized nature of Linux posses a problem for big wigs in the mega companies today. Beside HP, who just made their "distro," who is behind Linux besides all of the individuals? Where is their ticker symbol? I do realize that HP made HPUX, but was its success really that great? I'm all for Linux, but are most people on the board of directors going to prefer an OS which they can fallback on (like Microsoft), or one which has a rebellious "nature" and following.
Granted, Linux is nice and all, and it will get a boost from this merger, but I'm not sure that it will quite get the boost that this article is talking about. I just can't think of any more points right now.
I love how you said Republicans are trying to take away peoples rights. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Republicans (and other conservatives) don't believe in censorship, they just don't condone things that have very bad meanings. They won't block it, but they don't think peope should see it. By the way, ever heard of Joseph Liberman? He is a DEMOCRAT and believes in a rediculous amount of censorship.
Let's face it, can you play Solitare or Minesweeper on a Commodore?
Yup, read above
This makes me happy to see that this happened. Quite frankly, I'm one of those Microsoft Linux hybrids... I like both equally (Windows for fun and productivity, Linux for all my servers). I guess I'm one of the few people who likes Microsoft at Slashdot (my Windows crashed about 2-3 months ago, I guess I'm lucky, but then again, neither does my P75 running Windows 98 SE also... that might have crashed a year ago, *knock on wood*).
:-) )
I feel Microsoft has been done a misjustice in this whole case - and the monopoly? The market evens them out within a few years (i.e. IBM, American cars, American steel, railroads, cable, and MANY oher companies. This will pass and I hope that Microsoft doesn't have to spin Windows off in Windows Inc, because then Windows won't progress as fast. I agree with Netscape's Jim Clark (the article I posted).
Finally, Microsoft gets a break - and I feel that this is great. (here come the flames
Judge Pinhead Jackson strikes again.