You will be when they have no real consequences from this whole sordid episode. When they are back at it again spweing out the FUD and dragging people through court having learned no lessons since the system is pretty much in their favor. They can drag this out another ten years and still come out with capital and the exectuives will never have to pay the people they are hurting by doing all this.
Rant/
Just look at all they have learned by going through the courts with no evidence and being laughed at by the people who review the case and get the facts instead of reading their press releases. They are literally filing for bankruptcy and assuring their customers that they are fine and can rely on them at the same time... AT THE SAME TIME! No reasonable company would be so immune to shame, so ignorant of the mocking thats going on right in front of them, and still be able to tell people that everythings OK. That these bottomdwellers are still making a living, still giving themselves bonuses and trying to protect their stock is a slap in the face for american justice. This is another Enron, this is another corporation exec scandle happening right now, at this very moment. They are telling us that they don't care that they are wrong and have taken the courts time and our money and threatened people, intimidated customers, extorted from innocent and ignorant law abiding citicens and companies who only wanted to avoid doing the wrong thing and pay whatever license fees to whoever owned the code they were using. They have either planned this and acted accordingly to draw it out, or they employ the most ignorant legal councel out there to advise them. No proof, no problem, No evidence, no problem, No case, no problem. Lets all make a bunch of money! Dirty rat bastards. And we will as a nation let another one get away with it. The people who made these decisions will walk away with millions. We'll complain and let them walk. Accomplices to the raping of this country./Rant
All of your examples neglect the possibility of being wrongfully accused. If I report your car stolen and the police enforce it blindly, you have venues available to retreive your rightfully purchased things, including your car. In this case it is slightly different. the accusors and enforcers are the same entity. They are also not infallable and are also in a high profile public position to attract virus writers and others who have the means to innitiate a failure of this system. since it has no checks and ballances outside of their control you will be left with only the legal system to argue against this multibillion dollar company with lobbyists and campain funds, let alone legal earmarks far in excess of your income or credit.
It would be at minimum an uphill battle even if you had all the documentation available to prove that you deserve the use of your legally purchased OS. They could always say that your key was leaked and therefore forfit as part of the EULA you agreed to without seeing. You may be able to use technology to retrieve your data because you are tech savy and aware of alternate methods, but are you a valid representation of the general Windows User base? Would your mother or grandmother be able to do these things if they did not have you around? Or would at a minimum have to pay a tech to do it for them, and is that "Right" to punish them monitarily for using the pretty new OS?
Any one of the topics you mention could be a completely valid article but since they were not the topic of the article in question they are moot examples. This is an obit. No other information is present, linked or assembled in the submission. This argument is the equivalent of trying to say that the death of any scientist should be on Slashdot. No mention of how they have furthered the field themselves, no mention of how rare or unique the abilities were among their kind, and no mention of how the loss of an admittedly valuable and cared for friend will actually impact the area of study you seem to care so much for. Those are the things that would invalidate the submission in my opinion for a front page Slashdot article.
Please try not to "Black and White" the argument as a tactic to persuade others. It doesn't come off as intellectually mature. The whole "real science/nerds" rant is a fabrication of your need to convince, not a valid argument addressing the points in this issue.
The fact that this article is in no way furthering the scientific area of which the parrot is famous for contributing to, nor is it broadening the general knowledge of the community by offering information to those previously unnaware, are the issues I take with this posting on Slashdot. Nothing else. Not a narrow appreciation of the field, not a closed view of the definition of the word Nerd or the misunderstanding of the nature of the slashdot community.
Just the simple fact that there is no news other than a death. An obituary. On slashdot. Nothing deeper in the link than a breif description of the parrots media appearances and a short list of abilities:
"As early as 1999, he was able to "identify 50 different objects and understand quantities up to 6; he could distinguish 7 colors and 5 shapes, and understand the concepts of 'bigger', 'smaller', 'same', and 'different', and he was learning 'over' and 'under'," according to the New York Times. By 2002, Alex had a vocabulary of more than 100 words."
Notwithstanding that this was an accomplishment in and of itself for a parrot, it is not news that a parrot died. They die. And if there was an effect on the people in this field, they would have known about it through the more specialized sites and news outlets that they subscribe to since the actual death is a highly significant event to these people.
It is not however the acceptable news article for a site that claims as it's tagline: "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters" Since this is a forum that basically discusses the news articles as they are posted, there is not too much news to discuss here since it is an obit. Nothing more. A single event of the passing of life from a being. The requirements that it fails to meet in my opinion would have been::Reference link to important effects brought about by the study of this particular parrot.:Information of how the study or interaction of this parrot was significantly different than others of its kind.:The inclusion of the effects that the loss of this specimin will have on the future of that study.
Any one of which would have lead to a significantly greater number of people currently posting being more accepting of this article appearing on slashdot. Since this would make it "Matter" to them much more. It is not the greatest qualification for a story on slashdot that you have "...seen him on the evening news once". These obits in the past have been reserved for either much better documented stories about the deceased or much greater general awareness by the readers of slashdot than this. I think you'll see that the tags and general posts support the idea that the death is simply not enough to qualify by itself in this case.
This was, for me at least, the assumption of story submittals being rejected in favor of better documented, linked or referenced submissions. This is now also the expectation that I will waive for kdawson and just skip the stories that this editor posts if this trend continues.
So we're brilliant all of a sudden and use the same system that they use to get the fuel out of the tank in the first place.
It works prefectly well to get the fuel out and adjust the trajectory, since that is the purpose of the tank and it is used for that purpose without gravity as it is designed to. No gravity, no bubles and no issues that are caused by using 4 tanks instead of the 1 that is actually needed in the first place.
Next time spend some thinking before hitting that submit button. Then re-read the post you're responding to.
The spicific quote was: "The store declined to call the cops and so lost the right to make the complaint based on holding a person for arrest by the police."
This is not the same as you have assumed when you write: "By refusing a possible opportunity to involve law enforcement, I hereby waive any right to claim a crime against me?"
The point was that they lost the opportunity to claim they were holding the individual for police when they refused to call the police. That specific claim only. Now they have to argue that they were acting within the law as a store detaining a customer without notifying the police when the customer asked them to be called. If the immediate answer was not "OK" then they are wide open for hostage based lawsuits being brought against them. you cannot hold another citizen against their will, without cause, when they request law enforcement be involved. That's pretty much the definition of kidnapping. Now unless they can claim cause with video tape or eye witnesses, they're in big trouble since they refused to call the police. They have no standing in court or in the eyes of the law.
The store declined to call the cops and so lost the right to make the complaint based on holding a person for arrest by the police. It's in the article. They refused to call the cops.
Subsidies and bail outs in times of so-called "crisis" like I have been trying to discuss are entirely different things. When a Govt encourages areas of growth in it's infrastructure with encentives it is a good thing, like solar energy rebates. The "heart is in the right place" When they circumvent the basic causalities of capitalism it's a little different, like giving telcos additional tax discounts and removing the mandate to discounted phone service in impoverished areas(still above cost btw), removing the requirement to have coverage between prime market cities and providing service to the towns that won't be as profitable in between when expanding their market. You're discussing a different topic than you are responding to.
"why do you think cut-rate airlines are the most profitable?" So the cut rate airlines are profitable and therefore need bailouts? By giving them an edge with government money that they dod not earn and do not deserve you are encouraging the trends that got them there in the first place. You let them fail and remove the natural free market consequences that should follow, that indeed follow with other companies that fail to use their profits for improving the business model. If they make these cut rate decisions and then fail to make enough profits, where is the competition? What do the intelligently managed airlines have to compete with? That's a disadvantage to the people.
"But we all gain in the increased commerce generated by airlines. Air travel is essential to support such industries as tourism" So we should all pay to have people travel to pay with less money because they had to pay higher taxes to support the airlines that brought them to pay us who have to pay taxes for their flights here? What kind of logic is that? The money comes from somewhere. Directly from our pockets in one case and indirectly from our pockets in another. I'm saying that it is a free market that we get to make the decision as to where our money goes. And this bail out is not an example of a free market. It's artificial to think that the bail outs are helping anything. If there is something that builds strength and incourages economy it's the free market model that rewards prudent and effecient running of a business. To skew that equation and arbitrarily alter the natural ballancing of that system is to weaken it. It will not withstand such things forever and each time you do so will only hurt the people in the long run.
You can take any current crisis of infrastructure you want as an example. Broadband, Electricity, Natural Gas, Roads and highways, Shipping of commercial and private goods. Competition works when it is left alone and simply kept in check by the basic antitrust, monopoly, and merger laws that are set in place to ensure the competition is running in full force. When these ballancing effects are removed and artificially unballanced by lobbyists and corporation influence, then bad things happen to the public. Broadband in the richest country in the world is inadaquate to supply our leasure activities like Video on Demand, Rolling blackouts are the result of the lacking infrastructure maintenance because of profit hording companies that are the only game in town not having to compete with other suppliers and getting complacent in the checks they get every month for a service that is controlled and not dynamic. Etc etc etc....
The basis of competition is to even out supply and demand with the economy at the time. By altering that competition it hinders the advancement of the field. I don't hear that often that a government regulated industry gained a lot of advancements and breakthroughs and came out as a better competitor that it was before. This is because the competition element is removed. Bail outs are even worse. When the regulatory effect has a benifit of reducing the disproportionate profits and lowering the overall cost to citizens, bail outs are not a long term solution and are a short term net loss since the thing that got them there in the first place to ne
So when you say that "government bailouts amount to subsidies to encourage less profitable routes, and increased competition" you mean that when the airline owners are making air travel more uncomfortable for the customers and raking in profits for all senior management and paying less money to the pilots and crew the govt should pay them to keep them happy and not change anything?
When you say "A truly free market environment would result in less airlines, higher prices, and less service" You mean that unlike all other essential forms of commerce it should be helped out when they aren't making enough profits to give out the multimillion dollar bonuses to management, instead of maybe making a better service to attract customers, instead of acknowledging that we are not cattle but people that need some leg room and pushing the seats back to where they were, instead of those things that the surveys all point to that people want from the airlines, the govt should just give them money out of our pocket. Since the money comes from all the citizens that pay taxes instead of just those who fly the planes, thats so much more fair isn't it. So the ones who use the service don't have to pay a slightly higher price when they fly, but all of us do, through taxes. Great solution. Thanks.
Now go look on the Apple or iTunes forums and see all the happy people complaining why they can't use their music they paid for in their car or other computers. These are not just a few outspoken people, these are noobs and vetran Mac and MS users alike wanting to "use their music that they paid for how they want". The fact that so many people are using a service isn't justification that they are happy with the service. Just look at air travel. Constant complaining by the vast majority and no alternative has created a market where the Govt will bail the companies out after years of profit when people try to apply the free market principles that this country is founded on./tangent
That "just work" mentality is directly related to the DRM that you say they don't care about.
If the DRM was dropped and people found that buying from seller "A" let them use their purchase however they wanted and it "just worked" but purchasing it from seller "B" didn't. Then they would have a very high encentive to buy from seller "A" and the word of mouth between general users would be: "Buy from these guys, it just works!"
That's "So long as the CD "works,"" not "Most people don't care about DRM"
Then shut up about this not being a help forum and you not having to help someone.
Then you try and change the whole issue in this post: What was the specific lie in the original article/the original post that you're complaining about now?
Just admit that the whole purpose in FOSS community software is to use the talents of the masses to make software better. That's not too wide a generalization for you is it? The philosophy of the GPL? The mentality of releasing the code so others can improve on the foundation of others work? These things in your opinion are generalizations when the conclusion that people could possibly look at problems others face as possible issues instead of just dismissing them as user stupidity and pointing at the competition and whining that "They don't do it better so why should we try? They don't help the user, they make them dumber, stupid Windoze Loser"
What the hell good are you to the world if you can't even admit that others can see opportunity in the failure of some while you only see a chance to deny and mock. I never asked you to help, I never asked you to care. I only asked that some open their eyes to the constant disrespect of people not as experienced as you, while advocating a choice, proposing an alternative, that is held as a banner above Slashdot on a daily basis, that Linux is better, but hypocritically denying the simple fact that it has flaws that could be easily addressed if one but listen instead of jeer.
So have your mindless tangents about this not being a support forum while in the same post stating that anybody asked for help.
Keep referencing that your car confuses you and that's ok since you don't know of a site of car enthusiasts that praise the car you drive as the most wonderful thing and wonder why others don't get one because it's so much better.
Keep others from having the hope you must once have had. That they could, one day, understand the requirements of such a superior OS and how they ever lived without it. Reject their observations since you think that they are the problem, and besides, the other guys don't do it better.
Rationalize your closed mindedness to an empty room.
Damn your a jackass. Rather than actually address something you make flippant, ignorant comments and put on an air of derisive mocking.
"Why doesn't my car start sometimes?" Because you're a jackass. Have some respect for others if you want it yourself. Otherwise expect these kind of responses in kind. I never picked you out in my post as the one who had to help others, I just thought that the whole idealist mindset of the Linux community was that people contributed to the improvement of the whole, made things better for themselves and others and released it back to the community. No, you don't HAVE to help others. You can be a jackass and even ssay that to their face when they ask for help. But don't think you look like a decent person or a good example of what other Linux developers want to be.
The whole comment: "Just because I am a Linux user (someone who uses Linux) doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to develop applications for free, doesn't mean I have to promote Linux, doesn't mean I have to help others for no compensation." means that you are a leech. Just another User. Just like the person you are dismissing for not being able to get through the installer because they are just a windows user. Not a programmer or computer science guru. Just a user like you.
The next time you post that Gimp is comparable to Photoshop, remember that you have no obligation to help others for free and the people that wrote the code that makes those types of programs better/comparable think otherwise. They take user comments and try and help them. Not shoot them down when they say they don't understand something. If you're promoting another piece of software as better or at least comparable to another, it's ignorant to ignore the reason it's even a discussion. FOSS is supposed to be for all of us. Not just leeches like you who advocate the software written by others and mock the users that still have trouble when they take your advice and try and use it.
This is Slashdot, where they have a section called "Ask Slashdot" for opinions and reccomendations. So the site is not all news or windows bashing all the time non stop like cynical people like you probably want from the sound of your comments. This is an open forum for discussion and your comments do nothig but show that there are discusting selfish hurtful leeches out there that can type. So just like you can post whatever you want, so can others. Even if it's not in the "Ask Slashdot" catagory, like a story about trying to use linux and being confused. And others are free to try and make it better instead of being selfish leeches and telling him that he is stupid since the Linux community touts that they are a collective making things better, but not for him or people like him. You post that you won't help. Good for you.
"Here is the thing, Ubuntu/Kubuntu already do this, it's been in the installer for ages."
Then why did he not understand if his data was going to be accessable? I've never seen the installer assure someone that this will be the case and I've never seen an Ubuntu installer with a "just make it work" dual boot option.
"He is told: "You are the problem, not Linux." No, he has been told that Windows is more difficult to setup with preinstalled Linux system than Windows being preinstalled and Linux being setup after."
The specific quote was: Try dual booting between windows XP & Vista & you'll find that your lack of knowledge about partitions was the problem, not linux itself. The comment was used to show that the same user would find the same difficulty in using another OS in the same manner because the problem was their knowledge not the Software. I also said that pointing at another OS and saying "They don't do it better" isn't an excuse if you're trying to advocate your choice as the better.
The whole point of my post was to get the Linux users off their high horses and actually look at the general public as their user base and make the software comfortable to use. Perhaps if you did that instead of spending the time exacerbating the frustration of the users by showing them that they know nothing, then you would be able to have an OS that is not only powerful but also easy to use by the people at large. That's the way to gain market share if you want to. But instead you decide to pick apart arguments and use the inadequacies of computer users against them.
This is the exact reason that people get put off using Linux. The response from most Linux users is condescension when people tell them that using Linux is too hard. You dismiss the users ability to use computers because he doesn't understand partitions and qualify his ability as only "Windows" proficiency. You fail to see that he has been using windows and didn't need to understand more about partitioning to get the tasks he uses his computer for done.
Why does someone who wants to use an OS for daily office tasks have to know more about partitions when using your operating system than they already know about your competitors. This is a major failing on the perspective of the "Linux pushers" that try and compare their software to others. You can have security, you can have multiple user level access, and you can have in depth micro options, as long as you can also get the job done.
In this case an unnecessary partition issue kept yet another user from switching and finding out how nice it is to have some control. The response to his lamenting? He is told: "You are the problem, not Linux." And the comment about dual booting another two operating systems, That's classic. Vista tells you that it will or won't work and makes most of the choices for you because they understand that you just want it to work. Any failings in that area you should be looking at to improve your Linux distro installer so that it's better than theirs, not pointing at them and saying that they don't do it better.
Come on. You don't think that you can make a perl script that chooses from a few parameters like drive size and used partition space and makes a reasonable judgement call. Put a "just make it work" button on the installer and tell noobs to click it if they want a dual boot with their old stuff accessable to both operating systems. I thought Linux was better.
Starch is also used for a wide variety of purposes currently. The food industry alone uses it to make the molds for almost all the jelly like candies on the market. It's used as an additive for most mixes that thicken, and quite a few quick recipies that are becomming more and more popular. The bulk rate at which these companies currently buy and consume starch is astonishing. We pay mostly for the carton and shipping when we buy a box. It's quite close to a surplus waste item right now. If the demand rises, the extraction would easily be ramped up and production trippled in a matter of months. This gives the infrastructure of vehicles that can run on it a chance to grow easier than any other alternative fuel besides wall chargeable electric cars.
My one fear is the process that releases the hydrogen gas might not be as fast as we can demand it from a red light and once the process is started can we shut off the car and not have it wasted. If there is a storage tank that meters in hydrogen to keep a constant reserve available for quick use and a way to store the excess after pulling into the driveway, then it might be ok. This all adds weight and complexity not discussed in the article. They make it sound like all you'd have to have is a tank full of starch. Where are the reacting agents stored and how do we refill those? What waste products to the chemical reactions give off and are they containable or toxic? What about the liquids that would be needed to move the starch and reactive agents around the system, or are we dealing with pellets of starch and have to have a hopper system like in pellet stoves? I think that these are the concerns that people should be asking rather than will Walmart have enough starch to run my new starch SUV. That's jumping the gun a bit in my opinion. Or in slashdot pun style, putting the cart before the horse.
Again, "...pretty serious tresspassing problem." would need to have a sign stating the conditions to which he must comply before the parking lot becomes a conditional parking lot. This is the whole premise on parking lots that charge people by the hour or day to park in the big cities. If they didn't post the conditions of the parking lot, like the price, time limit, and consequences, there would be no case to bring if people parked there and didn't follow the owners wishes that they pay them. Since there are no posted signs stating the terms, no one can break those terms, because no one knows them.
This is why people have "Parking for XY corp only, all others will be towed." signs. Because otherwise people can park there. This is a simple responsibility of businesses to state terms of any service they are offering.
As to your theory that the result is requiring hourly password changes or the alternative of giving up WIFI. That's their choice if they can't handle some simple maintenance of a service they are using for advertising and to drum up more business. If it's not making them more money, they shouldn't keep doing it. And if they are making more money by using this marketing tactic, then they need to be able to maintain some basic control of their marketing method so it gives them a return and stops freeloaders. A manager could change the WEP key once in the morning and have it posted on a blackboard in the coffie shop. That would cost them all of 20 bucks for the chalkboard and about 60 secs in the morning.
People need to take responsibility for what they do. Companies included. If they offer a service like other placed do all the time, they need to take care of that system, just like the other companies do already. Posted signs, small print, notices, all of these are standard practice on all other "free" offers by the other companies, and since they are using it to make more money, they should have to implement at least the basic safeguards that come built in to the router to stop unauthorized use. Turning them off is in invitation, posting "Free WIFI" is an invitation, and when someone takes them up on that invitation, they can take responsibility for the situation they helped create, or they can let people use their service by the terms they provided, which was "Free WIFI" with no conditions.
And the fact that they give the service away for free is the explicit permission that they allow you to use the "wire" in this case. Since they did not post a user agreement prior to this man using the free service, there was no agreement that required him to purchase something within the store. For that matter since they advertise "Free WIFI" like most places around here do, they are inviting people to use the service. If they had put up a sign that said "Free WIFI with purchase" or implemented a gateway page that stated the terms of the free offer like all other businesses have to do with their promotions, then they would have a case.
This is just a matter of people not understanding their responsibility when it comes to a technology.
If you see a promotion for free stuff in a magazine, on a window of a store, or on tv, they have to give you some "small print" as to the conditions of the offer. These people didn't offer their service with conditions like all the other bsinesses out there and now they are complaining and using ignorant laws that address this technology differently than the already established business practices that have worked just fine.
That's why there are speed limit signs that say what speed you may go in that area.
In this case I have yet to hear that the wifi owner posted any signs telling people that they could not use the network unless they were in the building. Also since you can access the network outside the building, the notice must be noticible at the point of access, hence the suggestion of a password gateway or at least some page that comes up giving the terms for access and allowing you to read them.
This is like having a no tresspassing sign inside your house and then yelling at people that come onto your land. Since they didn't have the sign at the point of access they could not make the decision to break the law by ignoring the sign. If there is no sign, then there is a certain limit to which people may come on your property. Like making a delivery, soliciting, etc. If you have no sign and offer lemonade free on your property, that's where I bring up the entrapment idea since it entices people to use the free service and then punishes them for doing so.
What responsibility does the wifi owner have in all this? At what point do I have to take care of his network and specifically avoid it?
If a laptop has been connected to the wireless network "Linksys" with no WEP before and is set to automatically connect to it, and a coffee shop has no wep enabled and the same SSID then a laptop will automatically connect to it! I would have to activly stop my laptop from connecting to it. Now this is either entrapment or criminal negligence. Since I would face penalties from the act.
It's a simple process to give out a key at the register on the reciepts each day, or set up a basic gateway with a password. You could even turn off the SSID broadcast function and have people type it in manually.
These places try and make as easy as possible for people to access their network and then have a problem when their efforts result in people using the network.
Take some responsibility. The law shouldn't protect those too ignorant of their own actions from facing the consequences of those actions. After all, that's why the man in the car had to pay a fine and do community service!
Lawmakers need to get a clue, hold people accountable, and hold themselves to the same standard while they're at it! Quit lagging behind the curve, we're supposed to be a great nation and we constantly act like a bunch of neanderthals.
I think that the only part of the quote that would need to be clairified would be the "with permission" part of "...and we spoke, with permission, to your own Director of IT..." Who gave permission is the question. The obvious answer would be, the only people who would either give or not give permission to a conversation specifically intended for a press release. And that would be PR.
When Intel is selling a competing product for more money and competing with a not for porfit in a critical stage, how does this help Intel make money by fostering goodwill? It pretty much pissed me off when I read the article.
They dismiss the idea itself openly and then target the market that has so little profit anyway let alone in a third world country. This isn't a great business plan, since it doesn't give the impression they're persuing a charity mission and not going into a profitable venture either. What about their stockholders?
How is comparing a profitable product to the efforts of something akin to the Red Cross in brochures a good thing?
Intel: "Look, we have a better bread that's tastier than the bread those guys are selling at no profit but ours costs twice as much! And needs more water!"
Slashdot Mirror
You will be when they have no real consequences from this whole sordid episode. When they are back at it again spweing out the FUD and dragging people through court having learned no lessons since the system is pretty much in their favor. They can drag this out another ten years and still come out with capital and the exectuives will never have to pay the people they are hurting by doing all this.
/Rant
Rant/
Just look at all they have learned by going through the courts with no evidence and being laughed at by the people who review the case and get the facts instead of reading their press releases. They are literally filing for bankruptcy and assuring their customers that they are fine and can rely on them at the same time... AT THE SAME TIME! No reasonable company would be so immune to shame, so ignorant of the mocking thats going on right in front of them, and still be able to tell people that everythings OK. That these bottomdwellers are still making a living, still giving themselves bonuses and trying to protect their stock is a slap in the face for american justice. This is another Enron, this is another corporation exec scandle happening right now, at this very moment. They are telling us that they don't care that they are wrong and have taken the courts time and our money and threatened people, intimidated customers, extorted from innocent and ignorant law abiding citicens and companies who only wanted to avoid doing the wrong thing and pay whatever license fees to whoever owned the code they were using. They have either planned this and acted accordingly to draw it out, or they employ the most ignorant legal councel out there to advise them. No proof, no problem, No evidence, no problem, No case, no problem. Lets all make a bunch of money! Dirty rat bastards. And we will as a nation let another one get away with it. The people who made these decisions will walk away with millions. We'll complain and let them walk. Accomplices to the raping of this country.
All of your examples neglect the possibility of being wrongfully accused. If I report your car stolen and the police enforce it blindly, you have venues available to retreive your rightfully purchased things, including your car. In this case it is slightly different. the accusors and enforcers are the same entity. They are also not infallable and are also in a high profile public position to attract virus writers and others who have the means to innitiate a failure of this system. since it has no checks and ballances outside of their control you will be left with only the legal system to argue against this multibillion dollar company with lobbyists and campain funds, let alone legal earmarks far in excess of your income or credit.
It would be at minimum an uphill battle even if you had all the documentation available to prove that you deserve the use of your legally purchased OS. They could always say that your key was leaked and therefore forfit as part of the EULA you agreed to without seeing. You may be able to use technology to retrieve your data because you are tech savy and aware of alternate methods, but are you a valid representation of the general Windows User base? Would your mother or grandmother be able to do these things if they did not have you around? Or would at a minimum have to pay a tech to do it for them, and is that "Right" to punish them monitarily for using the pretty new OS?
Any one of the topics you mention could be a completely valid article but since they were not the topic of the article in question they are moot examples. This is an obit. No other information is present, linked or assembled in the submission.
This argument is the equivalent of trying to say that the death of any scientist should be on Slashdot. No mention of how they have furthered the field themselves, no mention of how rare or unique the abilities were among their kind, and no mention of how the loss of an admittedly valuable and cared for friend will actually impact the area of study you seem to care so much for. Those are the things that would invalidate the submission in my opinion for a front page Slashdot article.
Please try not to "Black and White" the argument as a tactic to persuade others. It doesn't come off as intellectually mature. The whole "real science/nerds" rant is a fabrication of your need to convince, not a valid argument addressing the points in this issue.
The fact that this article is in no way furthering the scientific area of which the parrot is famous for contributing to, nor is it broadening the general knowledge of the community by offering information to those previously unnaware, are the issues I take with this posting on Slashdot. Nothing else. Not a narrow appreciation of the field, not a closed view of the definition of the word Nerd or the misunderstanding of the nature of the slashdot community.
:Reference link to important effects brought about by the study of this particular parrot. :Information of how the study or interaction of this parrot was significantly different than others of its kind. :The inclusion of the effects that the loss of this specimin will have on the future of that study.
Just the simple fact that there is no news other than a death. An obituary. On slashdot. Nothing deeper in the link than a breif description of the parrots media appearances and a short list of abilities:
"As early as 1999, he was able to "identify 50 different objects and understand quantities up to 6; he could distinguish 7 colors and 5 shapes, and understand the concepts of 'bigger', 'smaller', 'same', and 'different', and he was learning 'over' and 'under'," according to the New York Times. By 2002, Alex had a vocabulary of more than 100 words."
Notwithstanding that this was an accomplishment in and of itself for a parrot, it is not news that a parrot died. They die. And if there was an effect on the people in this field, they would have known about it through the more specialized sites and news outlets that they subscribe to since the actual death is a highly significant event to these people.
It is not however the acceptable news article for a site that claims as it's tagline: "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters"
Since this is a forum that basically discusses the news articles as they are posted, there is not too much news to discuss here since it is an obit. Nothing more. A single event of the passing of life from a being. The requirements that it fails to meet in my opinion would have been:
Any one of which would have lead to a significantly greater number of people currently posting being more accepting of this article appearing on slashdot. Since this would make it "Matter" to them much more. It is not the greatest qualification for a story on slashdot that you have "...seen him on the evening news once". These obits in the past have been reserved for either much better documented stories about the deceased or much greater general awareness by the readers of slashdot than this. I think you'll see that the tags and general posts support the idea that the death is simply not enough to qualify by itself in this case.
This was, for me at least, the assumption of story submittals being rejected in favor of better documented, linked or referenced submissions. This is now also the expectation that I will waive for kdawson and just skip the stories that this editor posts if this trend continues.
Will someone tell me what kdawson is smoking? Why do I find myself looking at that name every time I see an article that has no business on Slashdot?
So we're brilliant all of a sudden and use the same system that they use to get the fuel out of the tank in the first place.
It works prefectly well to get the fuel out and adjust the trajectory, since that is the purpose of the tank and it is used for that purpose without gravity as it is designed to. No gravity, no bubles and no issues that are caused by using 4 tanks instead of the 1 that is actually needed in the first place.
Dude, seriously.... Run a tube between them, the fuel will be equal in them all. WTFN? (What the F*** Nasa?)
Next time spend some thinking before hitting that submit button. Then re-read the post you're responding to.
The spicific quote was: "The store declined to call the cops and so lost the right to make the complaint based on holding a person for arrest by the police."
This is not the same as you have assumed when you write: "By refusing a possible opportunity to involve law enforcement, I hereby waive any right to claim a crime against me?"
The point was that they lost the opportunity to claim they were holding the individual for police when they refused to call the police. That specific claim only. Now they have to argue that they were acting within the law as a store detaining a customer without notifying the police when the customer asked them to be called. If the immediate answer was not "OK" then they are wide open for hostage based lawsuits being brought against them. you cannot hold another citizen against their will, without cause, when they request law enforcement be involved. That's pretty much the definition of kidnapping. Now unless they can claim cause with video tape or eye witnesses, they're in big trouble since they refused to call the police. They have no standing in court or in the eyes of the law.
The store declined to call the cops and so lost the right to make the complaint based on holding a person for arrest by the police. It's in the article. They refused to call the cops.
Subsidies and bail outs in times of so-called "crisis" like I have been trying to discuss are entirely different things. When a Govt encourages areas of growth in it's infrastructure with encentives it is a good thing, like solar energy rebates. The "heart is in the right place" When they circumvent the basic causalities of capitalism it's a little different, like giving telcos additional tax discounts and removing the mandate to discounted phone service in impoverished areas(still above cost btw), removing the requirement to have coverage between prime market cities and providing service to the towns that won't be as profitable in between when expanding their market. You're discussing a different topic than you are responding to.
"why do you think cut-rate airlines are the most profitable?"
So the cut rate airlines are profitable and therefore need bailouts? By giving them an edge with government money that they dod not earn and do not deserve you are encouraging the trends that got them there in the first place. You let them fail and remove the natural free market consequences that should follow, that indeed follow with other companies that fail to use their profits for improving the business model. If they make these cut rate decisions and then fail to make enough profits, where is the competition? What do the intelligently managed airlines have to compete with? That's a disadvantage to the people.
"But we all gain in the increased commerce generated by airlines. Air travel is essential to support such industries as tourism"
So we should all pay to have people travel to pay with less money because they had to pay higher taxes to support the airlines that brought them to pay us who have to pay taxes for their flights here? What kind of logic is that? The money comes from somewhere. Directly from our pockets in one case and indirectly from our pockets in another. I'm saying that it is a free market that we get to make the decision as to where our money goes. And this bail out is not an example of a free market. It's artificial to think that the bail outs are helping anything. If there is something that builds strength and incourages economy it's the free market model that rewards prudent and effecient running of a business. To skew that equation and arbitrarily alter the natural ballancing of that system is to weaken it. It will not withstand such things forever and each time you do so will only hurt the people in the long run.
You can take any current crisis of infrastructure you want as an example. Broadband, Electricity, Natural Gas, Roads and highways, Shipping of commercial and private goods. Competition works when it is left alone and simply kept in check by the basic antitrust, monopoly, and merger laws that are set in place to ensure the competition is running in full force. When these ballancing effects are removed and artificially unballanced by lobbyists and corporation influence, then bad things happen to the public. Broadband in the richest country in the world is inadaquate to supply our leasure activities like Video on Demand, Rolling blackouts are the result of the lacking infrastructure maintenance because of profit hording companies that are the only game in town not having to compete with other suppliers and getting complacent in the checks they get every month for a service that is controlled and not dynamic. Etc etc etc....
The basis of competition is to even out supply and demand with the economy at the time. By altering that competition it hinders the advancement of the field. I don't hear that often that a government regulated industry gained a lot of advancements and breakthroughs and came out as a better competitor that it was before. This is because the competition element is removed. Bail outs are even worse. When the regulatory effect has a benifit of reducing the disproportionate profits and lowering the overall cost to citizens, bail outs are not a long term solution and are a short term net loss since the thing that got them there in the first place to ne
So when you say that "government bailouts amount to subsidies to encourage less profitable routes, and increased competition" you mean that when the airline owners are making air travel more uncomfortable for the customers and raking in profits for all senior management and paying less money to the pilots and crew the govt should pay them to keep them happy and not change anything?
When you say "A truly free market environment would result in less airlines, higher prices, and less service" You mean that unlike all other essential forms of commerce it should be helped out when they aren't making enough profits to give out the multimillion dollar bonuses to management, instead of maybe making a better service to attract customers, instead of acknowledging that we are not cattle but people that need some leg room and pushing the seats back to where they were, instead of those things that the surveys all point to that people want from the airlines, the govt should just give them money out of our pocket. Since the money comes from all the citizens that pay taxes instead of just those who fly the planes, thats so much more fair isn't it. So the ones who use the service don't have to pay a slightly higher price when they fly, but all of us do, through taxes. Great solution. Thanks.
Now go look on the Apple or iTunes forums and see all the happy people complaining why they can't use their music they paid for in their car or other computers. These are not just a few outspoken people, these are noobs and vetran Mac and MS users alike wanting to "use their music that they paid for how they want". The fact that so many people are using a service isn't justification that they are happy with the service. Just look at air travel. Constant complaining by the vast majority and no alternative has created a market where the Govt will bail the companies out after years of profit when people try to apply the free market principles that this country is founded on. /tangent
That "just work" mentality is directly related to the DRM that you say they don't care about.
If the DRM was dropped and people found that buying from seller "A" let them use their purchase however they wanted and it "just worked" but purchasing it from seller "B" didn't. Then they would have a very high encentive to buy from seller "A" and the word of mouth between general users would be: "Buy from these guys, it just works!"
That's "So long as the CD "works,"" not "Most people don't care about DRM"
You just screwed your whole argument.
"There was no asking for help"
Then shut up about this not being a help forum and you not having to help someone.
Then you try and change the whole issue in this post: What was the specific lie in the original article/the original post that you're complaining about now?
Just admit that the whole purpose in FOSS community software is to use the talents of the masses to make software better. That's not too wide a generalization for you is it? The philosophy of the GPL? The mentality of releasing the code so others can improve on the foundation of others work? These things in your opinion are generalizations when the conclusion that people could possibly look at problems others face as possible issues instead of just dismissing them as user stupidity and pointing at the competition and whining that "They don't do it better so why should we try? They don't help the user, they make them dumber, stupid Windoze Loser"
What the hell good are you to the world if you can't even admit that others can see opportunity in the failure of some while you only see a chance to deny and mock. I never asked you to help, I never asked you to care. I only asked that some open their eyes to the constant disrespect of people not as experienced as you, while advocating a choice, proposing an alternative, that is held as a banner above Slashdot on a daily basis, that Linux is better, but hypocritically denying the simple fact that it has flaws that could be easily addressed if one but listen instead of jeer.
So have your mindless tangents about this not being a support forum while in the same post stating that anybody asked for help.
Keep referencing that your car confuses you and that's ok since you don't know of a site of car enthusiasts that praise the car you drive as the most wonderful thing and wonder why others don't get one because it's so much better.
Keep others from having the hope you must once have had. That they could, one day, understand the requirements of such a superior OS and how they ever lived without it. Reject their observations since you think that they are the problem, and besides, the other guys don't do it better.
Rationalize your closed mindedness to an empty room.
Damn your a jackass. Rather than actually address something you make flippant, ignorant comments and put on an air of derisive mocking.
"Why doesn't my car start sometimes?"
Because you're a jackass. Have some respect for others if you want it yourself. Otherwise expect these kind of responses in kind. I never picked you out in my post as the one who had to help others, I just thought that the whole idealist mindset of the Linux community was that people contributed to the improvement of the whole, made things better for themselves and others and released it back to the community. No, you don't HAVE to help others. You can be a jackass and even ssay that to their face when they ask for help. But don't think you look like a decent person or a good example of what other Linux developers want to be.
The whole comment: "Just because I am a Linux user (someone who uses Linux) doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to develop applications for free, doesn't mean I have to promote Linux, doesn't mean I have to help others for no compensation." means that you are a leech. Just another User. Just like the person you are dismissing for not being able to get through the installer because they are just a windows user. Not a programmer or computer science guru. Just a user like you.
The next time you post that Gimp is comparable to Photoshop, remember that you have no obligation to help others for free and the people that wrote the code that makes those types of programs better/comparable think otherwise. They take user comments and try and help them. Not shoot them down when they say they don't understand something. If you're promoting another piece of software as better or at least comparable to another, it's ignorant to ignore the reason it's even a discussion. FOSS is supposed to be for all of us. Not just leeches like you who advocate the software written by others and mock the users that still have trouble when they take your advice and try and use it.
This is Slashdot, where they have a section called "Ask Slashdot" for opinions and reccomendations. So the site is not all news or windows bashing all the time non stop like cynical people like you probably want from the sound of your comments. This is an open forum for discussion and your comments do nothig but show that there are discusting selfish hurtful leeches out there that can type. So just like you can post whatever you want, so can others. Even if it's not in the "Ask Slashdot" catagory, like a story about trying to use linux and being confused. And others are free to try and make it better instead of being selfish leeches and telling him that he is stupid since the Linux community touts that they are a collective making things better, but not for him or people like him. You post that you won't help. Good for you.
Then why did he not understand if his data was going to be accessable? I've never seen the installer assure someone that this will be the case and I've never seen an Ubuntu installer with a "just make it work" dual boot option.
The specific quote was: Try dual booting between windows XP & Vista & you'll find that your lack of knowledge about partitions was the problem, not linux itself.
The comment was used to show that the same user would find the same difficulty in using another OS in the same manner because the problem was their knowledge not the Software. I also said that pointing at another OS and saying "They don't do it better" isn't an excuse if you're trying to advocate your choice as the better.
The whole point of my post was to get the Linux users off their high horses and actually look at the general public as their user base and make the software comfortable to use. Perhaps if you did that instead of spending the time exacerbating the frustration of the users by showing them that they know nothing, then you would be able to have an OS that is not only powerful but also easy to use by the people at large. That's the way to gain market share if you want to. But instead you decide to pick apart arguments and use the inadequacies of computer users against them.
This is the exact reason that people get put off using Linux. The response from most Linux users is condescension when people tell them that using Linux is too hard. You dismiss the users ability to use computers because he doesn't understand partitions and qualify his ability as only "Windows" proficiency. You fail to see that he has been using windows and didn't need to understand more about partitioning to get the tasks he uses his computer for done.
Why does someone who wants to use an OS for daily office tasks have to know more about partitions when using your operating system than they already know about your competitors. This is a major failing on the perspective of the "Linux pushers" that try and compare their software to others. You can have security, you can have multiple user level access, and you can have in depth micro options, as long as you can also get the job done.
In this case an unnecessary partition issue kept yet another user from switching and finding out how nice it is to have some control. The response to his lamenting? He is told: "You are the problem, not Linux." And the comment about dual booting another two operating systems, That's classic. Vista tells you that it will or won't work and makes most of the choices for you because they understand that you just want it to work. Any failings in that area you should be looking at to improve your Linux distro installer so that it's better than theirs, not pointing at them and saying that they don't do it better.
Come on. You don't think that you can make a perl script that chooses from a few parameters like drive size and used partition space and makes a reasonable judgement call. Put a "just make it work" button on the installer and tell noobs to click it if they want a dual boot with their old stuff accessable to both operating systems. I thought Linux was better.
Starch is also used for a wide variety of purposes currently. The food industry alone uses it to make the molds for almost all the jelly like candies on the market. It's used as an additive for most mixes that thicken, and quite a few quick recipies that are becomming more and more popular. The bulk rate at which these companies currently buy and consume starch is astonishing. We pay mostly for the carton and shipping when we buy a box. It's quite close to a surplus waste item right now. If the demand rises, the extraction would easily be ramped up and production trippled in a matter of months. This gives the infrastructure of vehicles that can run on it a chance to grow easier than any other alternative fuel besides wall chargeable electric cars.
My one fear is the process that releases the hydrogen gas might not be as fast as we can demand it from a red light and once the process is started can we shut off the car and not have it wasted. If there is a storage tank that meters in hydrogen to keep a constant reserve available for quick use and a way to store the excess after pulling into the driveway, then it might be ok. This all adds weight and complexity not discussed in the article. They make it sound like all you'd have to have is a tank full of starch. Where are the reacting agents stored and how do we refill those? What waste products to the chemical reactions give off and are they containable or toxic? What about the liquids that would be needed to move the starch and reactive agents around the system, or are we dealing with pellets of starch and have to have a hopper system like in pellet stoves? I think that these are the concerns that people should be asking rather than will Walmart have enough starch to run my new starch SUV. That's jumping the gun a bit in my opinion. Or in slashdot pun style, putting the cart before the horse.
Again, "...pretty serious tresspassing problem." would need to have a sign stating the conditions to which he must comply before the parking lot becomes a conditional parking lot. This is the whole premise on parking lots that charge people by the hour or day to park in the big cities. If they didn't post the conditions of the parking lot, like the price, time limit, and consequences, there would be no case to bring if people parked there and didn't follow the owners wishes that they pay them. Since there are no posted signs stating the terms, no one can break those terms, because no one knows them.
This is why people have "Parking for XY corp only, all others will be towed." signs. Because otherwise people can park there. This is a simple responsibility of businesses to state terms of any service they are offering.
As to your theory that the result is requiring hourly password changes or the alternative of giving up WIFI. That's their choice if they can't handle some simple maintenance of a service they are using for advertising and to drum up more business. If it's not making them more money, they shouldn't keep doing it. And if they are making more money by using this marketing tactic, then they need to be able to maintain some basic control of their marketing method so it gives them a return and stops freeloaders. A manager could change the WEP key once in the morning and have it posted on a blackboard in the coffie shop. That would cost them all of 20 bucks for the chalkboard and about 60 secs in the morning.
People need to take responsibility for what they do. Companies included.
If they offer a service like other placed do all the time, they need to take care of that system, just like the other companies do already. Posted signs, small print, notices, all of these are standard practice on all other "free" offers by the other companies, and since they are using it to make more money, they should have to implement at least the basic safeguards that come built in to the router to stop unauthorized use. Turning them off is in invitation, posting "Free WIFI" is an invitation, and when someone takes them up on that invitation, they can take responsibility for the situation they helped create, or they can let people use their service by the terms they provided, which was "Free WIFI" with no conditions.
The picture of the place just has a sign outside that says "Free WIFI"
And the fact that they give the service away for free is the explicit permission that they allow you to use the "wire" in this case. Since they did not post a user agreement prior to this man using the free service, there was no agreement that required him to purchase something within the store. For that matter since they advertise "Free WIFI" like most places around here do, they are inviting people to use the service. If they had put up a sign that said "Free WIFI with purchase" or implemented a gateway page that stated the terms of the free offer like all other businesses have to do with their promotions, then they would have a case.
This is just a matter of people not understanding their responsibility when it comes to a technology.
If you see a promotion for free stuff in a magazine, on a window of a store, or on tv, they have to give you some "small print" as to the conditions of the offer.
These people didn't offer their service with conditions like all the other bsinesses out there and now they are complaining and using ignorant laws that address this technology differently than the already established business practices that have worked just fine.
That's why there are speed limit signs that say what speed you may go in that area.
In this case I have yet to hear that the wifi owner posted any signs telling people that they could not use the network unless they were in the building. Also since you can access the network outside the building, the notice must be noticible at the point of access, hence the suggestion of a password gateway or at least some page that comes up giving the terms for access and allowing you to read them.
This is like having a no tresspassing sign inside your house and then yelling at people that come onto your land. Since they didn't have the sign at the point of access they could not make the decision to break the law by ignoring the sign. If there is no sign, then there is a certain limit to which people may come on your property. Like making a delivery, soliciting, etc. If you have no sign and offer lemonade free on your property, that's where I bring up the entrapment idea since it entices people to use the free service and then punishes them for doing so.
The completely missed issue:
What responsibility does the wifi owner have in all this?
At what point do I have to take care of his network and specifically avoid it?
If a laptop has been connected to the wireless network "Linksys" with no WEP before and is set to automatically connect to it, and a coffee shop has no wep enabled and the same SSID then a laptop will automatically connect to it! I would have to activly stop my laptop from connecting to it. Now this is either entrapment or criminal negligence. Since I would face penalties from the act.
It's a simple process to give out a key at the register on the reciepts each day, or set up a basic gateway with a password. You could even turn off the SSID broadcast function and have people type it in manually.
These places try and make as easy as possible for people to access their network and then have a problem when their efforts result in people using the network.
Take some responsibility. The law shouldn't protect those too ignorant of their own actions from facing the consequences of those actions. After all, that's why the man in the car had to pay a fine and do community service!
Lawmakers need to get a clue, hold people accountable, and hold themselves to the same standard while they're at it! Quit lagging behind the curve, we're supposed to be a great nation and we constantly act like a bunch of neanderthals.
I think that the only part of the quote that would need to be clairified would be the "with permission" part of "...and we spoke, with permission, to your own Director of IT..." Who gave permission is the question. The obvious answer would be, the only people who would either give or not give permission to a conversation specifically intended for a press release.
And that would be PR.
So here's the rub.
When Intel is selling a competing product for more money and competing with a not for porfit in a critical stage, how does this help Intel make money by fostering goodwill? It pretty much pissed me off when I read the article.
They dismiss the idea itself openly and then target the market that has so little profit anyway let alone in a third world country. This isn't a great business plan, since it doesn't give the impression they're persuing a charity mission and not going into a profitable venture either. What about their stockholders?
How is comparing a profitable product to the efforts of something akin to the Red Cross in brochures a good thing?
Intel:
"Look, we have a better bread that's tastier than the bread those guys are selling at no profit but ours costs twice as much! And needs more water!"