"The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places"
If the camera was on the man's property, then you couldn't hardly say that the installation was unauthorized.
Not only that, but can the outside of someone's property really be considered a private place? Private property, maybe.. but "private place" implies an expectation of privacy. Can you have an expectation of privacy if you are outdoors where anyone can see/hear you?
The government has been doing something similar in Arizona for at least 20 years, in an attempt to control the bot fly population.
This isn't a situation where the sterilized tsetse flies will be dropped once and that'll be the end of it. To be effective the program will have to continue for a significant amount of time.
I find it fascinating that in more than a screenful of text, Eric never touches on one of Stallman's main points: the fact that some open source projects are only partially open source. This business of only allowing access to PART of the code on an open source project is disturbing. If a project is going to be open source let it be open source. Don't do it half way. As an example, imagine an open source unix where everything was open source except for the init package. Or the window manager. Not too cool.
Hm. I use E on my home system, which runs 24/7, and I can't remember it crashing since version 0.14 or so. And that was a LONG time ago. Maybe if you left your email address you could get someone more knowledgable to help you get things set up properly. Charles
It didn't seem to me that Raster wrote anything bad about Redhat in his message. He only stated that he felt his creativity was stifled. I challenge anyone who has worked under another person not to say the same.
This is becoming ludicrous. Now that the hard work has been done and Open Source is in the public eye all sorts of "projects" are popping up vying for control. The "me too" crowd I like to call them. I would be highly suprised if anyone connected with H20 has contributed so much as a single line of code to an open source project. Do they then have the right to have any say in the direction of open source/free software? I would say not. Members of the GNU project, yes. Members of the OSS yes. These wannabe johnny-come-latelies? Hell no. Where were they when the work was being done? phbbbt!
While it is nice to see Linux getting some publicity, it is saddening and somewhat frightening to see the suits all positioning themselves to control and profit from the Open Source movement. Given enough chance the suits will kill Open Source through sheer greed and ignorance. If you didn't get a chance before read this article. (The part about Linux starts about halfway through the article.) Scares the shit out of me.
Can you believe the arrogance of that bunch of suits?
From the article: Intel likes the idea of open source software but is afraid of too many cooks in the kitchen.
What do those idiots think "open source" means, anyway?
For this reason, the company will announce next month the formation of a consortium to help ensure a unified vision and common implementation of the Linux operating system, company officials said last week.
Yeah, right. These assholes finally figured out that the Linux community has something worthwhile, and is trying to position themselves to be in control of it.
While Intel execs believe in the open-source model, they're concerned about potential fragmentation caused by too many disparate implementations.
Bullshit. Fragmentation of what? the kernal? the libs? The beauty of open source is that if something doesn't work with the system that you have you can fix it so it does work.
"Not everything has to be shared all the time," said Ron Curry, Intel's director of marketing.
Now that one really takes the cake. Thinking like this is the reason that Linux is kicking Microsoft's ass.
So now all the bandwagon jumping suits-without-a-clue have decided that the grass just might be greener in Linuxland and have opted to join our parade. Be afraid.
Slashdot Mirror
Power and cooling aside, I've yet to see a toolbox equipped with a biometric scanner.
Physical security is as important as electronic security.
Interesting, I guess.. but what does this have to do with having a datacenter vs. not?
Perhaps it's the companies with tens of thousands of employees who all use RedHat without paying for it that drives the pricing up?
Please show me any RedHat product that doesn't have a yearly license fee. Or did you mean Fedora?
I was my own (current) worst nightmare.
Quite ironic, really.
If he could invent something similar that activates when the panties come off, he might be on to something..
None. Microsoft simply declares that "dark" is now the standard.
I guess it's good to be the king.
*waves goodbye to his good karma*
"The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places" If the camera was on the man's property, then you couldn't hardly say that the installation was unauthorized.
Not only that, but can the outside of someone's property really be considered a private place? Private property, maybe.. but "private place" implies an expectation of privacy. Can you have an expectation of privacy if you are outdoors where anyone can see/hear you?
E-Ink has been developing (and offering) similar technology for quite a long time now.
http://eink.com/company/index.html
I think E-Ink started as an offshoot of someone's research grant at MIT.
After reading the whole introduction written by ESR, my thoughts were "What an overinflated sense of self importance!"
Anyone who has the time to write a 30 page document on how to properly ask a question of a hacker has WAY too much time on his hands.
Quit trying to convert the world, and just use your "delete" key. It's there for a purpose.
The government has been doing something similar in Arizona for at least 20 years, in an attempt to control the bot fly population.
This isn't a situation where the sterilized tsetse flies will be dropped once and that'll be the end of it. To be effective the program will have to continue for a significant amount of time.
I find it fascinating that in more than a screenful of text, Eric never touches on one of Stallman's main points: the fact that some open source projects are only partially open source.
This business of only allowing access to PART of the code on an open source project is disturbing. If a project is going to be open source let it be open source. Don't do it half way. As an example, imagine an open source unix where everything was open source except for the init package. Or the window manager. Not too cool.
Hm. I use E on my home system, which runs 24/7, and I can't remember it crashing since version 0.14 or so. And that was a LONG time ago. Maybe if you left your email address you could get someone more knowledgable to help you get things set up properly. Charles
It didn't seem to me that Raster wrote anything bad about Redhat in his message. He only stated that he felt his creativity was stifled. I challenge anyone who has worked under another person not to say the same.
This is becoming ludicrous. Now that the hard work has been done and Open Source is in the public eye all sorts of "projects" are popping up vying for control. The "me too" crowd I like to call them.
I would be highly suprised if anyone connected with H20 has contributed so much as a single line of code to an open source project. Do they then have the right to have any say in the direction of open source/free software? I would say not. Members of the GNU project, yes. Members of the OSS yes. These wannabe johnny-come-latelies? Hell no. Where were they when the work was being done?
phbbbt!
While it is nice to see Linux getting some publicity, it is saddening and somewhat frightening to see the suits all positioning themselves to control and profit from the Open Source movement. Given enough chance the suits will kill Open Source through sheer greed and ignorance. If you didn't get a chance before read
this article. (The part about Linux starts about halfway through the article.)
Scares the shit out of me.
Can you believe the arrogance of that bunch of suits?
From the article:
Intel likes the idea of open source software but is afraid of too many cooks in the kitchen.
What do those idiots think "open source" means, anyway?
For this reason, the company will announce next month the formation of a consortium to help ensure a unified vision and common implementation of the Linux operating system, company officials said last week.
Yeah, right. These assholes finally figured out that the Linux community has something worthwhile, and is trying to position themselves to be in control of it.
While Intel execs believe in the open-source model, they're concerned about potential fragmentation caused by too many disparate implementations.
Bullshit. Fragmentation of what? the kernal? the libs? The beauty of open source is that if something doesn't work with the system that you have you can fix it so it does work.
"Not everything has to be shared all the time," said Ron Curry, Intel's director of marketing.
Now that one really takes the cake. Thinking like this is the reason that Linux is kicking Microsoft's ass.
So now all the bandwagon jumping suits-without-a-clue have decided that the grass just might be greener in Linuxland and have opted to join our parade. Be afraid.
Symlink