Does Switzerland have a direct popular referendum on every piece of legislation? I find this hard to believe. I can imagine a small jurisdiction (rural New England township, local chess club, etc) having total democracy, but I'm having trouble swallowing the idea that a nation like Switzerland does.
Yes, Frist is a fox in the henhouse, but that does not excuse Boxer! Republican sins do not excuse Democrat evils. As someone living under her rule, I can tell you first hand that she's a living example of Hypocrisaurus.
You would have a point, except that I've never seen the corresponding "Proprietary Software" class, or any of the corresponding topics. Granted I'm a developer and completely ignorant of those fluff classes managers take to pad out their MS, but I still can't imagine a proprietary software track in a school.
Ditto. I've never felt the need to block ads, until about two months ago. That's when Linux Today started running flash ads. Jeepers Cripes and his mother Jeez Louise! Don't they realize some people are still using dialup?
Seeing bandwith waste like this is like seeing some fat guy inhaling the shrimp at a buffet. Even though I'm not paying for his food, it still makes me sick.
OSS is about licensing. Period. While the subject may make a good topic for one class session in a larger course, an entire course devoted to it is overkill. It would be like having an entire class on "Shareware". In other words, pointless.
Instead, teach a class on Linux or BSD device drivers, or Unix system architecture, or Xorg programming, or LAMP, or Python scripting, etc., etc.
OSS isn't going to go anywhere as a result of quality issues
No, it will go away because its developers will be unwilling to put themselves financially at risk by distributing it.
I'm not speaking out my ass here, as I *AM* a F/OSS developer. There's no way in hell I'll let the public access my creation if I think I'll get sued over it. I could of course sell my software at a price to cover my insurance costs, but in order to make sure everyone who gets my software also pays for it, I would have to cease making it Open Source.
So expect Open Source to go away, and expect your small commercial offerings to significantly increase in price. I you think Microsoft is a monopoly know, wait until all the small software companies have been run off the market. All because you think consumers are too stupid to make the "right" decisions.
Name one regulartory control that seeks to govern quality rates that has not come about as a result of consumer injury; either fiscal or physical.
When you manage to get this intrusion enacted, then the subsequent increase in prices, lack of Open Source Software, and other market reactions, will be the real fiscal damage to consumers.
But I still believe that the current situation is unsustainable, and that we should be working harder to improve the quality of the code out there.
This is a very different thing that legislating mandatory guarantees on software. Yes, we SHOULD be working harder to improve the quality of our code. But not at the price of authoritarian government.
There are few things in life that are truly a free market, but software comes close. It's no surprise then that spoilsports want to come in and regulate it. That happens wherever freedom begins to bloom. Let me clue you in: the marketplace has decided on a low (as in almost non-existant) demand for guarantees and warranties on consumer software. It's not developers doing this, it's the users.
I've seen the movie twice now, and I can attest that the first nine minutes acts is a preview to the rest of the movie. My point still stands: Universal isn't doing anything radical.
It's a freaking PREVIEW! That it's nine minutes instead of two make no difference. MPAA members have been released two minute previews on the internet for years.
The point is in all respects that Wikipedia is a community-driven effort. This is scary and different...
I'm using a community-driven operating system that predates Linux, so the concept of community is not scary or different to me. That's not my beef with Wikipedia. My beef is not Wikipedia itself, which at times can be useful for casual lookups, but with the mysticism surrounding it.
There is a "BSD UNIX" and it was distributed by the University of California. I don't know if it ever had a registered trademark, but it does exist, and that is its name. Some people, particularly lawyers, might not like the name, but facts are facts.
But that's neither here nor there. FreeBSD isn't using the UNIX trademark. They're saying it's "based on" which is factually accurate and does not violate trademark. It's not that much different from a generic pain killer saying "Same active ingredient as in Fruzrin(tm)!".
To quote your reply to a rationed and insightful post: "This is just bullshit." I'm sorry, but I'm finding it difficult to distinguish between you and the fanatics...
Except that Linux happens to be a stable robust kernel while Wikipedia remains of dubious quality. What's the difference? Simple: Linus Torvalds doesn't accept contributions by anonymous users. Heck, I don't even use Linux and I know that much!
Nonsense! I cry over the sorry state of civics education today when I see stupid comments like this. A "right" does not give you a privilege of being catered to. Your right to download does not compel HBO to make your downloading easy and effortless.
If it was an individual doing this to a corporation, Im sure that person would be arrested.
A corporation might sue you for that, but then again, anyone can sue anyone for anything, so that's pretty much pointless.
As to getting arrested for sending a corrupted file of content that you hold legal title too, that's laughable. Come back down to earth, there's less risk of your brain boiling away in the vacumn. If you *fraudulently* distributed corrupted content, that's one thing, but screwing up HBO's illegal download of your files is not much different from giving them a fake address to send their junk mail to.
I think you miss the point. No one is trying to eliminate Wikipedia or get it banned or anything like that. We just wish the Wikipedia fanatics would stop being so obnoxiously religious about it. It would be great if there were an accurate and unbiased information source online, but Wikipedia is not it, no matter how sincerely its advocates preach otherwise.
It's Wikipedia that doesn't seem to be able to handle the bloody noses. It certainly isn't capable of standing on its own merits without being constantly propped up by excuses.
You're right. This whole religious thing you guys have about Wikipedia is bullshit. No one is allowed to point out it's flaws without fanatics like you spouting off dogma.
Not all sides are represented, but if there is a controversy, it will be discussed far in excess of its worth. The "rathergate" article is a good example. Even though the article itself is about a controversy, it spares no expense in mentioning every subcontroversy surrounding it. It even quotes a comment to a blog post. Huh? This is not a NPOV policy, it's an "Every Stupid Point of View Imaginable" policy. The very fact that Wikipedia has to include every moonbat and wingnut theory biases the entire article. The idea that Karl Rove wrote the documents to set up the Democrats is laughable, but Wikipedia gives the idea a hearing. Sheesh.
Yes, a lot of students and academic faculty edit these articles. But so do a lot of geeks living in their parent's basement. The reason I don't trust Wikipedia is because the edits of these social dropouts are given equal status as those by university professors.
Slashdot Mirror
Does Switzerland have a direct popular referendum on every piece of legislation? I find this hard to believe. I can imagine a small jurisdiction (rural New England township, local chess club, etc) having total democracy, but I'm having trouble swallowing the idea that a nation like Switzerland does.
Yes, Frist is a fox in the henhouse, but that does not excuse Boxer! Republican sins do not excuse Democrat evils. As someone living under her rule, I can tell you first hand that she's a living example of Hypocrisaurus.
...and she's supposed to be on our side.
Our side? What the fuck is "our side"?!?!? Did Slashdot just become a Democrats-only club while I was away?
You would have a point, except that I've never seen the corresponding "Proprietary Software" class, or any of the corresponding topics. Granted I'm a developer and completely ignorant of those fluff classes managers take to pad out their MS, but I still can't imagine a proprietary software track in a school.
Ditto. I've never felt the need to block ads, until about two months ago. That's when Linux Today started running flash ads. Jeepers Cripes and his mother Jeez Louise! Don't they realize some people are still using dialup?
Seeing bandwith waste like this is like seeing some fat guy inhaling the shrimp at a buffet. Even though I'm not paying for his food, it still makes me sick.
OSS is about licensing. Period. While the subject may make a good topic for one class session in a larger course, an entire course devoted to it is overkill. It would be like having an entire class on "Shareware". In other words, pointless.
Instead, teach a class on Linux or BSD device drivers, or Unix system architecture, or Xorg programming, or LAMP, or Python scripting, etc., etc.
OSS isn't going to go anywhere as a result of quality issues
No, it will go away because its developers will be unwilling to put themselves financially at risk by distributing it.
I'm not speaking out my ass here, as I *AM* a F/OSS developer. There's no way in hell I'll let the public access my creation if I think I'll get sued over it. I could of course sell my software at a price to cover my insurance costs, but in order to make sure everyone who gets my software also pays for it, I would have to cease making it Open Source.
So expect Open Source to go away, and expect your small commercial offerings to significantly increase in price. I you think Microsoft is a monopoly know, wait until all the small software companies have been run off the market. All because you think consumers are too stupid to make the "right" decisions.
Name one regulartory control that seeks to govern quality rates that has not come about as a result of consumer injury; either fiscal or physical.
When you manage to get this intrusion enacted, then the subsequent increase in prices, lack of Open Source Software, and other market reactions, will be the real fiscal damage to consumers.
But I still believe that the current situation is unsustainable, and that we should be working harder to improve the quality of the code out there.
This is a very different thing that legislating mandatory guarantees on software. Yes, we SHOULD be working harder to improve the quality of our code. But not at the price of authoritarian government.
There are few things in life that are truly a free market, but software comes close. It's no surprise then that spoilsports want to come in and regulate it. That happens wherever freedom begins to bloom. Let me clue you in: the marketplace has decided on a low (as in almost non-existant) demand for guarantees and warranties on consumer software. It's not developers doing this, it's the users.
I've seen the movie twice now, and I can attest that the first nine minutes acts is a preview to the rest of the movie. My point still stands: Universal isn't doing anything radical.
Excuse me, but doesn't "the last 3 star trek films" encompass First Contact?
While not as bad as the next two, Serenity still kicks its butt.
Nah, it's become the Democrat party, where we must supress views we don't agree with.
yeah, serenty is ok, but it's no alien or blade runner
True, but compared to the last three Star Wars, last three Star Treks and last two Matrix movies, it's KICKS ASS!
It's a freaking PREVIEW! That it's nine minutes instead of two make no difference. MPAA members have been released two minute previews on the internet for years.
If that's the suggestion, then it's a dumb one. Some of you people need to come back down to earth before your brains boil away in the vacumn.
The point is in all respects that Wikipedia is a community-driven effort. This is scary and different...
I'm using a community-driven operating system that predates Linux, so the concept of community is not scary or different to me. That's not my beef with Wikipedia. My beef is not Wikipedia itself, which at times can be useful for casual lookups, but with the mysticism surrounding it.
Hopefully they will give the handbook a bit of a spring clean next...
Are you volunteering? The FreeBSD Documentation Project is always on the look out for new blood.
There is a "BSD UNIX" and it was distributed by the University of California. I don't know if it ever had a registered trademark, but it does exist, and that is its name. Some people, particularly lawyers, might not like the name, but facts are facts.
But that's neither here nor there. FreeBSD isn't using the UNIX trademark. They're saying it's "based on" which is factually accurate and does not violate trademark. It's not that much different from a generic pain killer saying "Same active ingredient as in Fruzrin(tm)!".
I'm not a Wikipedia fanatic
To quote your reply to a rationed and insightful post: "This is just bullshit." I'm sorry, but I'm finding it difficult to distinguish between you and the fanatics...
Wikipedia zealots are like Linux zealots.
Except that Linux happens to be a stable robust kernel while Wikipedia remains of dubious quality. What's the difference? Simple: Linus Torvalds doesn't accept contributions by anonymous users. Heck, I don't even use Linux and I know that much!
HBO is illegally taking their rights away.
Nonsense! I cry over the sorry state of civics education today when I see stupid comments like this. A "right" does not give you a privilege of being catered to. Your right to download does not compel HBO to make your downloading easy and effortless.
If it was an individual doing this to a corporation, Im sure that person would be arrested.
A corporation might sue you for that, but then again, anyone can sue anyone for anything, so that's pretty much pointless.
As to getting arrested for sending a corrupted file of content that you hold legal title too, that's laughable. Come back down to earth, there's less risk of your brain boiling away in the vacumn. If you *fraudulently* distributed corrupted content, that's one thing, but screwing up HBO's illegal download of your files is not much different from giving them a fake address to send their junk mail to.
I think you miss the point. No one is trying to eliminate Wikipedia or get it banned or anything like that. We just wish the Wikipedia fanatics would stop being so obnoxiously religious about it. It would be great if there were an accurate and unbiased information source online, but Wikipedia is not it, no matter how sincerely its advocates preach otherwise.
It's Wikipedia that doesn't seem to be able to handle the bloody noses. It certainly isn't capable of standing on its own merits without being constantly propped up by excuses.
This is just bullshit.
You're right. This whole religious thing you guys have about Wikipedia is bullshit. No one is allowed to point out it's flaws without fanatics like you spouting off dogma.
Not all sides are represented, but if there is a controversy, it will be discussed far in excess of its worth. The "rathergate" article is a good example. Even though the article itself is about a controversy, it spares no expense in mentioning every subcontroversy surrounding it. It even quotes a comment to a blog post. Huh? This is not a NPOV policy, it's an "Every Stupid Point of View Imaginable" policy. The very fact that Wikipedia has to include every moonbat and wingnut theory biases the entire article. The idea that Karl Rove wrote the documents to set up the Democrats is laughable, but Wikipedia gives the idea a hearing. Sheesh.
Yes, a lot of students and academic faculty edit these articles. But so do a lot of geeks living in their parent's basement. The reason I don't trust Wikipedia is because the edits of these social dropouts are given equal status as those by university professors.
I don't understand why they can't go the Aladdin route, and GPL their old versions while keep the new cutting edge stuff proprietary.