I now have concluded that Richard Stallman is a bit gone. Basically, his 'freedoms' are as constricting to others as certain current licensing practices are now.
I really don't think one gets a full view of Mr. Stallman's opinions or methodology by reading this one link. His freedoms are not concerned with the needs of some developers. His freedoms are aligned with the freedom of users.
I develop a program, spending my time and energy so to do. I need to eat, drink, surf and play Quake - and to do so I need to pay my electricity and grocery bills. How do I then make any money to repay my time and effort to enable me to live? Your so-called needs are not essential to this equation in the sense that user freedoms should be sacrificed in order for you to survive. There are organizational and financial models in existence which provide both incentive for programmers to program (i.e. they get funding in accordance with the service they provide) and users feel sufficiently incented to provide financial compensation to those providing the service (i.e. they send money).
Merely because Mr./Dr./Prof. Stallman and others feel that they can devote their time to developing free software doesn't mean that all should be forced to.He certainly has no interest in forcing you to do anything. He has made this decision for himself. He has explained why he considers this a moral imperative. He has asked you as a developer to join him in this morally based change in behavior. He has beseeched users to accept nothing less than freedom for themselves-- and to support developers who support those freedoms. He certainly does not seek to use coercion (other than perhaps market pressure) to obtain freedom. How simple a contradiction would that be?
As far as I can tell, his politics are merely the other extreme to Microsoft's and therefore just as suspect. Mr. Stallman operates a charitable organization (the Free Software Foundation), which subsists on donations and gives the world Free software and works on issues relating to that. Microsoft is a corporation which seeks to enrich itself and therefore its shareholders as much as possible through whatever means available (and apparently their ethics are quite questionable-- Mr. Stallman's ethics are quite clear, he believes it ethical to support freedom and that there are more important goals than personal wealth). One group works actively to better the world (although some might say that Free software is no great boon, others of us like it in spite of it's shortcomings), the other group seeks only to make a maximum profit. While I might disagree with Mr. Stallman, I certainly think trying to paint him as "suspect" in the same way that Microsoft is (and they are the ones under Federal investigation, mind you), is patently unfair and shows little examination of the topic.
The IE5.0 code is just as bad. Thankfully tidying their code hasn't prevented them from making a really kickin' set of innovative games that push the limits of interactivity and really enhance one's time in the pub
I prefer the short version of this: what difference does it make why we're here or how we got here? Prove to me that these are useful questions to have answered before attempting to answer them-- and especially before engaging in scientific or religious belittling of opposing viewpoints. Thanks.:)
While I agree that the analysis of others is clear as to why this comparison is bunk (i.e. the candidates could know or care less about this particular issue). Ralph Nader was actively seeking a Linux-experienced systems person to work in his campaign. 'nuff said.:)
This is a great point. A port of the Connectix virtual Playstation software running on this box would allow all of us who have Playstation games to buy this box instead of PS2.
On a "pirate" note, I wonder how long it would take to port MAME and burn games with a boatload of ROMs.:)
Re:What Kind of Question Is This?
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
It's a flamebait question! DUH! Which is the best Mr. Katz can do right now. He should get back to working with Wendy Kaminer on projects, she really seems to have had a positive effect on his thinking ability, whereas her solo stuff is not nearly as well written as Katz usually is.
As to his comment that he hasn't found his candidate yet, cripes man! There were at least ten candidates listed in a recent Slashdot interview question story. Out of those ten you can't find a single one that you think would do a reasonable job of representing your views as President? Life cannot be lived without making some compromises. Democracy is not an all or nothing game. This is not really zero sum. Politicians are just people, and maybe you vote for the one you like the most, then you take some time to write them a letter or two about the points on which you disagree. Or, if you prefer to keep the flamebait/troll mode active, go vote for someone admittedly awful, like Slobodon Milosevic or Saddam Hussein.
Additionally, I expect you to be at the polls not because of some lame presidential pseudo-election, but because of the very important local elections that are probably occurring where you live. These are elections where single votes have a much greater impact on the outcome. So as long as you're going to be at the polls for those, it's not that hard to take an extra five seconds and tick off someone on the presidential part of the ballot as well.
Let's see. Browsers have no idea of the command line? Isn't the Address field a sort of command line? I admit the "language" is pretty dull right now, but it seems to be a good jump point. In fact, as far as GUIs go, the idea of a single line command line is a great innovation. This would be why there are applets for KDE and GNOME that insert a single command line into the taskbar.
Browsers don't do GUI? What's with all the buttons and rollover effects and stuff then? This is all just text? Even the text is more interactive than standard text, it's so advanced they call it "Hyper-Text". You can point at it and click on it! This is far more than normal text handling. In fact, I'd say that most word processors have begun to add features along this concept of linking within a document because of how much everyone likes it in their browsers.
So instead of carping about the inadequacies of browsers, which in this case would be redundant on top of an X server (you need to run X to run a browser, so why not build the app to run as an X client directly). Or furthermore cursing the usefulness of X on the vaguely requirement defined "thin client" (you are really in danger of starting some sort of client anorexia here, the average client has a fast chip, plenty of memory, and a decent HD these days-- if my local library, businesses, etc are any indication). Why don't you offer some insightful suggestions as to alternatives, and relate that back to the discussion of Internet C++ (which sounds like a good buzzword to attract VC in the wake of C Sharp).
Provided that this car is the same size and shape as the standard race car and all it's doing is driving full-speed ahead, I'd say that a professional driver would have little trouble bumping it off the road or into a wall. A robot car sophisticated enough to control itself in a crash situation would have an AI smart enough to know to avoid the collision in the first place.
I don't see how blind indifference to the other cars in the race would be a positive factor in winning. It is hardly death-defying to use one car to bludgeon another car into a car-wrecking crash. However, demolition derby style racing is prohibited by the rules. Even if it weren't, this car would either be disqualified or be run off the road by human drivers for such behavior. Thus losing. Thus showing no evidence of intelligence, artificial or otherwise. The computer car must have as much a sense of its own mortality as any other car/driver does, a wrecked car cannot win the race.
That's very insightful, thanks for this information. I must say that I tend to agree with the neo-Lockean property view in general. It certainly prevents outright illicit duplication, which is very applicable in the case of books, songs, movies, etc etc. Derivative works would only be "theft" in part, and really this is the major gist of our current Fair Use rules. However, our current US law and societal norms seem to fall under the idea that property is objective, in terms of occupying space moreso than time-- although this is changing (witness DMCA). Sadly, we seem to be inheriting only the intellectual property aspects of the neo-Lockean view (as you describe it). There is still no widespread acceptance of the idea that involuntary taxes, conscription, or exploitation of labor (whether through slavery or less obvious means) is theft in any real way.
Whoa! You have fair use rights as an individual, not as a company. Fair use does not extend to making money off of somebody else's copyrighted work. That is legally defined as theft.
Posts like this make a strong case for having a moderation option like "-1, Blatantly Untrue." First of all, fair use is not limited to individuals. That makes no sense at all. Newspapers take advantage of the Fair Use rules when they quote others, press releases, and books (like in reviews).
Second. Fair use protects all kinds of commercial endeavors. Parodies like Weird Al are an obvious example. A case with a Supreme Court precedent behind it would be the 2 Live Crew "parody" of the song "Pretty Woman". They did not obtain permission or pay a fee (although they appear to have been willing to do so), but they were not liable for any damages nor found to be infringing anything.
Finally, copyright infringement is not theft. Theft involves taking real property from the control of the rightful owner. There is no paradigmatic relationship between theft and the act of reproduction (whether direct or indirect) for illicit profiteering.
As a final note, this article is about a device, no? As such copyright does not apply. A device would require a patent, which has a completely separate set of rules governing time of protection, application, and what is considered fair use.
There is no information about this company itself being a hoax on Altavista (at least the three pages of a search on "ucentric & host"), nor Metacrawler, nor Google.
Your vote is not wasted. If you do not like Gore as much as Nader, why vote for Gore, just because you like Bush even less? If you vote for Gore on the assumption that your single vote will swing your state over the edge (thus awarding all electoral college votes thereof to Gore), then you will have probably wasted your vote. Where I live (MN), a vote for Bush is wasted-- the state is almost guaranteed to end up a Gore state in the EC (this was, I think, the only Dukakis state in 1988). So, given the facts of the mechanics of the Electoral College, what happens when you don't vote for 3rd party candidates that you support is that the 3rd party continues to be prevented from being given federal election funding in the next election... effectively limiting your choices in that election as well.
All I can say in response is that I'm glad the newspaper and most voter's guide producers don't take the same narrow view of what information is important for the voters to have access to. But on the other hand, how many voters actually read those things? Then how many non-voters? How many voters watch the TV debates? How many non-voters? How many voters and non-voters read the quick blurbs about the debates on the front pages? How many voters and non-voters see the 30 second spots about the debates on the morning and evening TV news? It's not the debates themselves that are significant. It's all the subsequent discussion about them. It's the assumption that the polls are accurate, fair, and meaningful in a way that should affect our civil right to information about candidates. The way it's operated there is no real election in November. All the real voting was done in "public opinion polls". And honestly, if someone can't get it through their thick skulls that people died so they can vote for a president every four years, and therefore consider it a duty to vote-- and this describes a huge number of Americans. Then do you expect these people to really take the time to answer phone surveys? The one phone survey I was subjected to was hardly fair, I was given only three presidential choices, and only two state senator choices. And I still have to wonder about the privacy of my answers, my vote is confidential. A phone survey carries no such gaurantee. Considering the treatment afforded to political radicals in this country (Red Scare for instance), could you blame anyone for not answering that they'd vote for the Socialist on the ticket to a stranger over the phone-- if that choice was even given in a way that made it clear that a Socialist was an option?
I'm not arguing against a standard. But Ralph Nader, for example, is on the ballot in most states (link is to map showing which states) in the country. Yet the vast majority of people heading to the polls will have to form their opinion about the choices on their ballot through some means other than having seen him in the debates (or the relentless onslaught of post-debate deconstruction). This amounts to free publicity for the two candidates who need it the least. In fact, stations that did not carry the debates have been chastised by the chairman of the FCC for not doing so. This is not only unfair, but dangerous to democracy. I have a right as a citizen to more information than I was given about my choices on the ballot this Novemeber-- and the government and the broadcasters behind these debates have a responsibility to provide it in a more even handed way. The effect is almost censorship, in that the loud chorus of Republicrats has the fundamental effect of drowning out the other voices.
The number is at 15% for the debates. 5% of the popular vote is the amount you need for tax-based funding (this may vary by jurisdiction). Incidentally, the whole idea of this exclusion based on such a percentage basis is crap. It's self-perpetuating. He doesn't resonate with people without free access to the people, therefore he won't resonate with the people even if we let him talk? Talk about assuming the conclusion. It's a no-win situation. How can he possibly expect to gain support when they won't share airtime with a man whose 4 or 5% represents literally millions of citizens? You know why the Republicrats did this? Jesse Ventura. He was showing 5 to 10% in Minnesota polls prior to being asked to join the debates by the Democratic (DFL in MN) candidate (who felt that Ventura would be a spoiler for the Republicans, thereby enhance the DFL showing). However, Minnesotans of all stripes had a chance to hear this man speak (and much of what he said was off the wall, legalization of victimless crimes being a biggie). And lo, the polls were packed with new voters who felt that their opinions had a chance. And he won.
So, um, why shouldn't we let these "minor" candidates speak? Oh yeah, they might win by accident.
I agree. Tipper makes me suspicious. Especially with the grandstanding around who's a Born-Again Christian and who's an Orthodox Jew.
But I hardly think GW is in favor of less government. Does he not call for more police? Does he not call for more military? Does he not insist that government continue to regulate morality (think smut, prostitution, drug use)? Will he not willingly go along with the "Ay-rabs are terrorists" line, and thereby continue to aid discrimination against Muslims (of all colors) and immigrants? Will he support a woman's right to privacy between herself and her doctor? Does he really care about racial profiling (and can you back this up with statistics that show Texas leads the nation in removing bias from the police and justice departments)? GIVE UP. The idea that any Republican wants less government interference in our private lives is total nonsense. The idea that by regulating business less that they are the patriotic protectors of Freedom is total nonsense. For hundreds of years, businesses have been the prime American concern, where freedom is at stake. The USA has enjoyed a relatively long string of freedom from government (outright) oppression and has spent most of the last century trying to balance the needs of the population with those of business. It is to the point where many political analysts see business as being more relevant than government. And I challenge you to show us one large scale example of any business doing something in the public interest when it wasn't regulated or related to tax-deductible charity.
Even in prison they have forced exercise yard time and a free cafeteria. This beats the hell out of the occasional walk around the block and eating fast food at your desk.
I think they look like non-candy colored ripoffs of the iBook design. Which is a good thing. They have a handle. They are not translucent-- although they could do without the eyesore grey accents and could be matte instead of glossy. My biggest beef is with the lame trackpad. I hate those. It is worse than a mouse in that it requires the fingers to leave the keyboard AND is extremely sensitive to things like double contact and accidental clicks.
If they haven't jumped all over Linux at this point, what exactly would they be using as an office suite (and on which OS) that already gives them the feature of being open source? As it is, I'm not sure how a company can justify to its stockholders the fact that they spent hundreds of dollars on Windows/Office software, when free (beer) alternatives existed-- the free (speech) status of said alternatives really being tangential (not that I'm complaining, freedom of speech is important to me, and that's what the GPL is about).
Forget comparing this to live animals, what a waste of grey matter. How does this compare to other semi-interactive electronic pet types of things or robotic amusements? Is this cooler than remote control cars? Does this beat the hackeresque Palm robot? Is this more fun than Lego Mindstorm? Does this thing even come close to being as fun as a Tamagotchi (which is really setting the bar pretty low)?
I want to second this thought and add to it. Not only is the reason why Red Hat is a company that is worthwhile in the world, but this is exactly what is so great about Open Source and Free software. I'm just a user, for the most part, and while I think Microsoft has written a few really great applications over the years, I've never once had an experience with them that made me (as a customer/donor/user) feel like I would really want to buy anything from them ever, because they are so incredibly dodgy in the licensing and CYA areas. But when I've taken the time to subscribe to a mailing list for an OS application or distribution, I've found that the developers themselves read those lists and while they might not answer newby questions, they certainly participated in the discussion. I've yet to see an OS developer/company/foundation take the easy way out of anything. This is a highly ethical way of doing business that we could all learn from. And it's a hard business to be in, especially when many on Slashdot seem to expect to get their Free software without ever giving back in some way (either by donating/buying or by coding something useful). Developers gotta eat, and I know I'd much rather give my money to developers who valued my freedom and me as a customer-- something that Red Hat puts a lot of effort into (in my opinion).
I'm not arguing that the testing wasn't incomplete, just that this particular aspect of it would have been hard to check for. They probably did make test updates to run this through, but who would think to set this in motion for X number of weeks, just to check for this type of issue? I mean. What if you set the test period for four weeks, and the problem hit on the 33rd day? As long as I'm using my head, why is this running as a daemon at all? Wouldn't this type of thing be better as a cron job? Isn't it sound security to limit the number of daemons running at any given time as much as possible?
Slashdot Mirror
I now have concluded that Richard Stallman is a bit gone. Basically, his 'freedoms' are as constricting to others as certain current licensing practices are now.
I really don't think one gets a full view of Mr. Stallman's opinions or methodology by reading this one link. His freedoms are not concerned with the needs of some developers. His freedoms are aligned with the freedom of users.
I develop a program, spending my time and energy so to do. I need to eat, drink, surf and play Quake - and to do so I need to pay my electricity and grocery bills. How do I then make any money to repay my time and effort to enable me to live?
Your so-called needs are not essential to this equation in the sense that user freedoms should be sacrificed in order for you to survive. There are organizational and financial models in existence which provide both incentive for programmers to program (i.e. they get funding in accordance with the service they provide) and users feel sufficiently incented to provide financial compensation to those providing the service (i.e. they send money).
Merely because Mr./Dr./Prof. Stallman and others feel that they can devote their time to developing free software doesn't mean that all should be forced to.He certainly has no interest in forcing you to do anything. He has made this decision for himself. He has explained why he considers this a moral imperative. He has asked you as a developer to join him in this morally based change in behavior. He has beseeched users to accept nothing less than freedom for themselves-- and to support developers who support those freedoms. He certainly does not seek to use coercion (other than perhaps market pressure) to obtain freedom. How simple a contradiction would that be?
As far as I can tell, his politics are merely the other extreme to Microsoft's and therefore just as suspect.
Mr. Stallman operates a charitable organization (the Free Software Foundation), which subsists on donations and gives the world Free software and works on issues relating to that. Microsoft is a corporation which seeks to enrich itself and therefore its shareholders as much as possible through whatever means available (and apparently their ethics are quite questionable-- Mr. Stallman's ethics are quite clear, he believes it ethical to support freedom and that there are more important goals than personal wealth). One group works actively to better the world (although some might say that Free software is no great boon, others of us like it in spite of it's shortcomings), the other group seeks only to make a maximum profit. While I might disagree with Mr. Stallman, I certainly think trying to paint him as "suspect" in the same way that Microsoft is (and they are the ones under Federal investigation, mind you), is patently unfair and shows little examination of the topic.
I don't think there is enough booze in the world to make most of these games even mildly exciting.
The IE5.0 code is just as bad. Thankfully tidying their code hasn't prevented them from making a really kickin' set of innovative games that push the limits of interactivity and really enhance one's time in the pub
Oh I totally agree. The only part I liked was the .007 bond number. Mostly I kept thinking, "Someone pays this guy for this crap."
I prefer the short version of this: what difference does it make why we're here or how we got here? Prove to me that these are useful questions to have answered before attempting to answer them-- and especially before engaging in scientific or religious belittling of opposing viewpoints. Thanks. :)
While I agree that the analysis of others is clear as to why this comparison is bunk (i.e. the candidates could know or care less about this particular issue). Ralph Nader was actively seeking a Linux-experienced systems person to work in his campaign. 'nuff said. :)
This is a great point. A port of the Connectix virtual Playstation software running on this box would allow all of us who have Playstation games to buy this box instead of PS2.
:)
On a "pirate" note, I wonder how long it would take to port MAME and burn games with a boatload of ROMs.
It's a flamebait question! DUH! Which is the best Mr. Katz can do right now. He should get back to working with Wendy Kaminer on projects, she really seems to have had a positive effect on his thinking ability, whereas her solo stuff is not nearly as well written as Katz usually is.
As to his comment that he hasn't found his candidate yet, cripes man! There were at least ten candidates listed in a recent Slashdot interview question story. Out of those ten you can't find a single one that you think would do a reasonable job of representing your views as President? Life cannot be lived without making some compromises. Democracy is not an all or nothing game. This is not really zero sum. Politicians are just people, and maybe you vote for the one you like the most, then you take some time to write them a letter or two about the points on which you disagree. Or, if you prefer to keep the flamebait/troll mode active, go vote for someone admittedly awful, like Slobodon Milosevic or Saddam Hussein.
Additionally, I expect you to be at the polls not because of some lame presidential pseudo-election, but because of the very important local elections that are probably occurring where you live. These are elections where single votes have a much greater impact on the outcome. So as long as you're going to be at the polls for those, it's not that hard to take an extra five seconds and tick off someone on the presidential part of the ballot as well.
Let's see. Browsers have no idea of the command line? Isn't the Address field a sort of command line? I admit the "language" is pretty dull right now, but it seems to be a good jump point. In fact, as far as GUIs go, the idea of a single line command line is a great innovation. This would be why there are applets for KDE and GNOME that insert a single command line into the taskbar.
Browsers don't do GUI? What's with all the buttons and rollover effects and stuff then? This is all just text? Even the text is more interactive than standard text, it's so advanced they call it "Hyper-Text". You can point at it and click on it! This is far more than normal text handling. In fact, I'd say that most word processors have begun to add features along this concept of linking within a document because of how much everyone likes it in their browsers.
So instead of carping about the inadequacies of browsers, which in this case would be redundant on top of an X server (you need to run X to run a browser, so why not build the app to run as an X client directly). Or furthermore cursing the usefulness of X on the vaguely requirement defined "thin client" (you are really in danger of starting some sort of client anorexia here, the average client has a fast chip, plenty of memory, and a decent HD these days-- if my local library, businesses, etc are any indication). Why don't you offer some insightful suggestions as to alternatives, and relate that back to the discussion of Internet C++ (which sounds like a good buzzword to attract VC in the wake of C Sharp).
Provided that this car is the same size and shape as the standard race car and all it's doing is driving full-speed ahead, I'd say that a professional driver would have little trouble bumping it off the road or into a wall. A robot car sophisticated enough to control itself in a crash situation would have an AI smart enough to know to avoid the collision in the first place.
I don't see how blind indifference to the other cars in the race would be a positive factor in winning. It is hardly death-defying to use one car to bludgeon another car into a car-wrecking crash. However, demolition derby style racing is prohibited by the rules. Even if it weren't, this car would either be disqualified or be run off the road by human drivers for such behavior. Thus losing. Thus showing no evidence of intelligence, artificial or otherwise. The computer car must have as much a sense of its own mortality as any other car/driver does, a wrecked car cannot win the race.
That's very insightful, thanks for this information. I must say that I tend to agree with the neo-Lockean property view in general. It certainly prevents outright illicit duplication, which is very applicable in the case of books, songs, movies, etc etc. Derivative works would only be "theft" in part, and really this is the major gist of our current Fair Use rules. However, our current US law and societal norms seem to fall under the idea that property is objective, in terms of occupying space moreso than time-- although this is changing (witness DMCA). Sadly, we seem to be inheriting only the intellectual property aspects of the neo-Lockean view (as you describe it). There is still no widespread acceptance of the idea that involuntary taxes, conscription, or exploitation of labor (whether through slavery or less obvious means) is theft in any real way.
Whoa! You have fair use rights as an individual, not as a company. Fair use does not extend to making money off of somebody else's copyrighted work. That is legally defined as theft.
Posts like this make a strong case for having a moderation option like "-1, Blatantly Untrue." First of all, fair use is not limited to individuals. That makes no sense at all. Newspapers take advantage of the Fair Use rules when they quote others, press releases, and books (like in reviews).
Second. Fair use protects all kinds of commercial endeavors. Parodies like Weird Al are an obvious example. A case with a Supreme Court precedent behind it would be the 2 Live Crew "parody" of the song "Pretty Woman". They did not obtain permission or pay a fee (although they appear to have been willing to do so), but they were not liable for any damages nor found to be infringing anything.
Finally, copyright infringement is not theft. Theft involves taking real property from the control of the rightful owner. There is no paradigmatic relationship between theft and the act of reproduction (whether direct or indirect) for illicit profiteering.
As a final note, this article is about a device, no? As such copyright does not apply. A device would require a patent, which has a completely separate set of rules governing time of protection, application, and what is considered fair use.
There is no information about this company itself being a hoax on Altavista (at least the three pages of a search on "ucentric & host"), nor Metacrawler, nor Google.
Your vote is not wasted. If you do not like Gore as much as Nader, why vote for Gore, just because you like Bush even less? If you vote for Gore on the assumption that your single vote will swing your state over the edge (thus awarding all electoral college votes thereof to Gore), then you will have probably wasted your vote. Where I live (MN), a vote for Bush is wasted-- the state is almost guaranteed to end up a Gore state in the EC (this was, I think, the only Dukakis state in 1988). So, given the facts of the mechanics of the Electoral College, what happens when you don't vote for 3rd party candidates that you support is that the 3rd party continues to be prevented from being given federal election funding in the next election... effectively limiting your choices in that election as well.
All I can say in response is that I'm glad the newspaper and most voter's guide producers don't take the same narrow view of what information is important for the voters to have access to. But on the other hand, how many voters actually read those things? Then how many non-voters? How many voters watch the TV debates? How many non-voters? How many voters and non-voters read the quick blurbs about the debates on the front pages? How many voters and non-voters see the 30 second spots about the debates on the morning and evening TV news? It's not the debates themselves that are significant. It's all the subsequent discussion about them. It's the assumption that the polls are accurate, fair, and meaningful in a way that should affect our civil right to information about candidates. The way it's operated there is no real election in November. All the real voting was done in "public opinion polls". And honestly, if someone can't get it through their thick skulls that people died so they can vote for a president every four years, and therefore consider it a duty to vote-- and this describes a huge number of Americans. Then do you expect these people to really take the time to answer phone surveys? The one phone survey I was subjected to was hardly fair, I was given only three presidential choices, and only two state senator choices. And I still have to wonder about the privacy of my answers, my vote is confidential. A phone survey carries no such gaurantee. Considering the treatment afforded to political radicals in this country (Red Scare for instance), could you blame anyone for not answering that they'd vote for the Socialist on the ticket to a stranger over the phone-- if that choice was even given in a way that made it clear that a Socialist was an option?
I'm not arguing against a standard. But Ralph Nader, for example, is on the ballot in most states (link is to map showing which states) in the country. Yet the vast majority of people heading to the polls will have to form their opinion about the choices on their ballot through some means other than having seen him in the debates (or the relentless onslaught of post-debate deconstruction). This amounts to free publicity for the two candidates who need it the least. In fact, stations that did not carry the debates have been chastised by the chairman of the FCC for not doing so. This is not only unfair, but dangerous to democracy. I have a right as a citizen to more information than I was given about my choices on the ballot this Novemeber-- and the government and the broadcasters behind these debates have a responsibility to provide it in a more even handed way. The effect is almost censorship, in that the loud chorus of Republicrats has the fundamental effect of drowning out the other voices.
The number is at 15% for the debates. 5% of the popular vote is the amount you need for tax-based funding (this may vary by jurisdiction). Incidentally, the whole idea of this exclusion based on such a percentage basis is crap. It's self-perpetuating. He doesn't resonate with people without free access to the people, therefore he won't resonate with the people even if we let him talk? Talk about assuming the conclusion. It's a no-win situation. How can he possibly expect to gain support when they won't share airtime with a man whose 4 or 5% represents literally millions of citizens? You know why the Republicrats did this? Jesse Ventura. He was showing 5 to 10% in Minnesota polls prior to being asked to join the debates by the Democratic (DFL in MN) candidate (who felt that Ventura would be a spoiler for the Republicans, thereby enhance the DFL showing). However, Minnesotans of all stripes had a chance to hear this man speak (and much of what he said was off the wall, legalization of victimless crimes being a biggie). And lo, the polls were packed with new voters who felt that their opinions had a chance. And he won.
So, um, why shouldn't we let these "minor" candidates speak? Oh yeah, they might win by accident.
I agree. Tipper makes me suspicious. Especially with the grandstanding around who's a Born-Again Christian and who's an Orthodox Jew.
But I hardly think GW is in favor of less government. Does he not call for more police? Does he not call for more military? Does he not insist that government continue to regulate morality (think smut, prostitution, drug use)? Will he not willingly go along with the "Ay-rabs are terrorists" line, and thereby continue to aid discrimination against Muslims (of all colors) and immigrants? Will he support a woman's right to privacy between herself and her doctor? Does he really care about racial profiling (and can you back this up with statistics that show Texas leads the nation in removing bias from the police and justice departments)? GIVE UP. The idea that any Republican wants less government interference in our private lives is total nonsense. The idea that by regulating business less that they are the patriotic protectors of Freedom is total nonsense. For hundreds of years, businesses have been the prime American concern, where freedom is at stake. The USA has enjoyed a relatively long string of freedom from government (outright) oppression and has spent most of the last century trying to balance the needs of the population with those of business. It is to the point where many political analysts see business as being more relevant than government. And I challenge you to show us one large scale example of any business doing something in the public interest when it wasn't regulated or related to tax-deductible charity.
Even in prison they have forced exercise yard time and a free cafeteria. This beats the hell out of the occasional walk around the block and eating fast food at your desk.
I think they look like non-candy colored ripoffs of the iBook design. Which is a good thing. They have a handle. They are not translucent-- although they could do without the eyesore grey accents and could be matte instead of glossy. My biggest beef is with the lame trackpad. I hate those. It is worse than a mouse in that it requires the fingers to leave the keyboard AND is extremely sensitive to things like double contact and accidental clicks.
If they haven't jumped all over Linux at this point, what exactly would they be using as an office suite (and on which OS) that already gives them the feature of being open source? As it is, I'm not sure how a company can justify to its stockholders the fact that they spent hundreds of dollars on Windows/Office software, when free (beer) alternatives existed-- the free (speech) status of said alternatives really being tangential (not that I'm complaining, freedom of speech is important to me, and that's what the GPL is about).
Forget comparing this to live animals, what a waste of grey matter. How does this compare to other semi-interactive electronic pet types of things or robotic amusements? Is this cooler than remote control cars? Does this beat the hackeresque Palm robot? Is this more fun than Lego Mindstorm? Does this thing even come close to being as fun as a Tamagotchi (which is really setting the bar pretty low)?
I want to second this thought and add to it. Not only is the reason why Red Hat is a company that is worthwhile in the world, but this is exactly what is so great about Open Source and Free software. I'm just a user, for the most part, and while I think Microsoft has written a few really great applications over the years, I've never once had an experience with them that made me (as a customer/donor/user) feel like I would really want to buy anything from them ever, because they are so incredibly dodgy in the licensing and CYA areas. But when I've taken the time to subscribe to a mailing list for an OS application or distribution, I've found that the developers themselves read those lists and while they might not answer newby questions, they certainly participated in the discussion. I've yet to see an OS developer/company/foundation take the easy way out of anything. This is a highly ethical way of doing business that we could all learn from. And it's a hard business to be in, especially when many on Slashdot seem to expect to get their Free software without ever giving back in some way (either by donating/buying or by coding something useful). Developers gotta eat, and I know I'd much rather give my money to developers who valued my freedom and me as a customer-- something that Red Hat puts a lot of effort into (in my opinion).
I'm not arguing that the testing wasn't incomplete, just that this particular aspect of it would have been hard to check for. They probably did make test updates to run this through, but who would think to set this in motion for X number of weeks, just to check for this type of issue? I mean. What if you set the test period for four weeks, and the problem hit on the 33rd day? As long as I'm using my head, why is this running as a daemon at all? Wouldn't this type of thing be better as a cron job? Isn't it sound security to limit the number of daemons running at any given time as much as possible?