Because if you didn't make the simple install insecure, the user would complain that "feature X" doesn't work. Well, of course it doesn't work. Security doesn't allow you to do something stupid like that.
If I've learned anything, it's that most people would rather pay someone to do something for them than do it themselves. The only time they are motivated is when the price reaches a certain threshold that they cannot justify paying.
However, using "common" words is not a reason for dismissing it. Einstein used some of the same phrases himself. The part that makes it lame is that the article seems to be a black hole from which no information can escape....
In some ways, it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. You won't get more drivers without more people using the OS -- but it's not worth spending thousands of dollars to create a driver that dozens of people are going to use... on the other hand, people aren't going to use the OS unless you have the drivers. . . . .
rinse and repeat as necessary.
That is why Linux has so many drivers because they spent thousands of dollars to create that.... oh wait... my bad...
1) Most people surf from work, which has a high concentration of Win...
2) Most Linux people that go to certain sites have to tell their browser to report as something else to even get in the door. ( I know I have to set Konqueror to tell everyone that it's WinNT and IE in order to get to BellSouth, my telco).
So they should charge more for gas if it's a business trip you're taking in your own car?
They should charge you more for water that you're drinking if you're drinking it during a business meeting?
They should charge you more for an alarm system on your home because you bring your briefcase home from work?
Are you saying that not a single invention in the last 50 years was made by some geek engineer watching ST and saying "Oh, I could make something like that!"...???
Not even 1 (one) engineer/researcher/inventor took a single, solitary idea from some form of science fiction, conciously or subconciously? Not one of them has ever seen or been exposed to film or literature that included some concept or device that they later used?
would be truly free education for everyone... using these means, we could cut down on things like "university campuses", etc. for professions that don't require actual lab environments... cutting costs to the point where government can fund teachers that design and update coursework, providing it freely to the public. (education and defense are about the only things government should be involved in anyway.. ok, tack on justice system... fine...)
in my code, I can guarantee that someone else has that same line in their code. It has to do with interfacing with hardware. There is only a VERY limited number of ways of doing it. In fact, the argument is based on C structs that interface with hardware, which means they pretty much are going to be the same every time no matter what. They could have both independantly reverse-engineered the interface and would have come up with the exact same structs.... duh!!!
Your first point is right on. The second point is a pile of steaming crap. We don't need to try to "feel their pain" or "understand" them. We understand them completely, and hate what they are. We should not be "playing nice" with people whose very ideals include our destruction, the slaughter of our people. That is what is referred to as EVIL. And as such they should be removed from the planet. They not only do evil acts, but they encourage others to do the same things! It's outrageous to think that we should bow to such perverted thinking! It is disgusting to think that anyone can entertain such thoughts with any seriousness.
This has been a thorn in my side for a long time. I've been a performing musician for quite a while. If you can't make money doing concerts, you have no business trying to be a professional musician. Selling CDs as the ONLY way or the MAIN way you make money is stupid. No one should have to pay to listen to a recorded piece of music. I find the mainstream market of making money solely on record sales infuriating.
Only in the somewhat odd-ball ( if you'll excuse the phrase ) American way of thought does being a wealthy powerful first world nation go hand in hand with denying such basic services to its citizens.
"Basic Services" that other nations provide include removal of property from citizens, punishment for speaking one's mind, etc. These "Basic Services" I, as an American, would gladly do without. Just because another country does it, or even a lot of countries, does not make it a good idea.
After reading that article link, I was disappointed that he totally missed the entire point. We act that way and tell our kids those things in order to show them our disapproval, not because we think that they aren't going to see it or hear it. We want them to know, not only by our words, but by how we react to those things, that they are unacceptable and inappropriate for anyone, not just children. Or that there is a certain amount of privacy to be associated with certain activities.
Any parent that thinks they are actually keeping there kids from hearing f**k or s**t, is just fooling themselves. But you can make sure they know how you feel about it. Kids don't respond well to words. They respond very well, and very deeply, to actions. So if they hear YOU, as the parent, saying that, or see that you have a certain magazine, or that you view certain web sites, etc. they will understand deep inside that those are acceptable, no matter what you say about it.
It's not about censorship, it's about setting a good example. Don't let YOUR personal failings affect your children. Be a better person because of them. Don't try to spy on them or hound them 24/7, instead just set a good example. And if they do something blatant, punish them for it. I can't believe this is a new concept to some people, since it's how good parents have always acted, and how bad parents never act. Don't just say "You shouldn't do that", actions speak more poigniantly than words every could. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a recipe for failure in parenting. As is complete permissiveness.
Set boundaries, stick to them with action, and stick to those boundaries yourself in order to set an example. Are you giving up your freedom by doing that? Of course, but you should have known that having children would restrict your freedom. Grow up.
Yes.... all government funded food programs are tracked in detail. Have been for a long time. They are giving you money to buy food and they want to make damn sure that you're not spending it on the football team, or new cheerleader outfits.
I think there is a big difference between small children ( age 5 ) and school age kids. I would be the first to say that babies NEED constant supervision and control. But as they get older you should be "lengthening the leash" so to speak, giving them more and more freedom so that they can learn to handle making decisions on their own, even when *gasp* no one is watching them.
Basically I think trying to draw a correlation between webcams in daycare (watching babies) and tracking a teenager's every move is quite a bit of a stretch.
Stallman has a vision and is unrepentant about it. He truly believes in that vision, no compromises.
To put it another way, look at it from the other perspective: Why should you be rewarded for doing something that someone else is willing to do for free? ( I don't subscribe to this, just making a point ). The argument is the same from both sides, only with the perspective skewed one way or another. The commercial side unrepentantly claims that they have a right to be compensated (much in the way that the poor have a right to welfare) for their work, whether or not people consider it valuable. And in order to secure that right, they must lock in the public to only using one version of a product through copyrights and patents. However, with a little foresight, we have always limited these rights not only in time, but also in scope, such that consumers can be guaranteed a choice and competition can thrive.
This view, that is the standard view of the law before all this, has been openly attacked by companies like Microsoft. They want to limit in every way the rights of individual consumers so that people are locked into a single solution rather than having a choice. So far we have been able to dodge this bullet by clever maneuvering, but without direct opposition to these attempts to restrict our rights, we will be left with nothing but what they spoon-feed us.
This does not preclude commercial software. It may make it more competitive, especially as regards the OS arena, but that's life in America. Ask Ford how it makes so much money in cars when there is such numerous and healthy competition. I mean, they use open-source ( wheels, etc. ) in their products and yet make lots of money. I'm sure a little real, honest business-sense might help what is essentially a new industry.
Vietnam? I know for a fact that the Vietnam government just hired 4 people to enter the country to teach BASIC farming techniques, BASIC health-care and community planning. Things that they see as desperate needs in that country for the "average" "citizen" in Vietnam. Literacy aside, those people need help in ways that are hard for us (Americans) to imagine.
Leave computers aside and teach them how to take care of that farm that is their only source of food first.
I'm asking this in ignorance, but is it even possible/feasible to clone only "part" of a person? I'm not talking about transplants, but actually just growing an eye, for instance... And wasn't the Genome project pretty much a failure? What makes us think this is anywhere near possible for us in our lifetimes?
It's not always about "afford". Very often these things are about desire. I desire to hold a paper book in my hands when I read for pleasure. I won't touch an e-book. (OTOH I read all my manuals on-line.) I appreciate payphones, not because they're cheap (because they aren't), but because they are accessible where cell is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if you didn't make the simple install insecure, the user would complain that "feature X" doesn't work. Well, of course it doesn't work. Security doesn't allow you to do something stupid like that.
What? Women denying men sexual favors? Have you ever thought, maybe, you're just ugly?
Yes, and when I want a cola I say "Coke". Even if it's Pepsi, I still say I want a "Coke".
What's your point?
"Well, it's one more, now, isn't it?"
If I've learned anything, it's that most people would rather pay someone to do something for them than do it themselves. The only time they are motivated is when the price reaches a certain threshold that they cannot justify paying.
Quoting from a source (I forget exactly):
You can get around the Constitution if you place the word "Schmonstitution" right after it.
There's just not a lot there.
However, using "common" words is not a reason for dismissing it. Einstein used some of the same phrases himself. The part that makes it lame is that the article seems to be a black hole from which no information can escape....
That is why Linux has so many drivers because they spent thousands of dollars to create that.... oh wait... my bad...
Two more things that skew the equation:
1) Most people surf from work, which has a high concentration of Win...
2) Most Linux people that go to certain sites have to tell their browser to report as something else to even get in the door. ( I know I have to set Konqueror to tell everyone that it's WinNT and IE in order to get to BellSouth, my telco).
So they should charge more for gas if it's a business trip you're taking in your own car?
They should charge you more for water that you're drinking if you're drinking it during a business meeting?
They should charge you more for an alarm system on your home because you bring your briefcase home from work?
Get real.
Are you saying that not a single invention in the last 50 years was made by some geek engineer watching ST and saying "Oh, I could make something like that!"...???
Not even 1 (one) engineer/researcher/inventor took a single, solitary idea from some form of science fiction, conciously or subconciously? Not one of them has ever seen or been exposed to film or literature that included some concept or device that they later used?
Not even one?
What companies are you looking at? Everywhere I turn, IT departments are either being stifled ( no new growth ) or downsized.
This is the wrong economy to start charging for this stuff.
would be truly free education for everyone... using these means, we could cut down on things like "university campuses", etc. for professions that don't require actual lab environments... cutting costs to the point where government can fund teachers that design and update coursework, providing it freely to the public. (education and defense are about the only things government should be involved in anyway.. ok, tack on justice system... fine...)
If I put:
MOV AX,0
in my code, I can guarantee that someone else has that same line in their code. It has to do with interfacing with hardware. There is only a VERY limited number of ways of doing it. In fact, the argument is based on C structs that interface with hardware, which means they pretty much are going to be the same every time no matter what. They could have both independantly reverse-engineered the interface and would have come up with the exact same structs.... duh!!!
Your first point is right on. The second point is a pile of steaming crap. We don't need to try to "feel their pain" or "understand" them. We understand them completely, and hate what they are. We should not be "playing nice" with people whose very ideals include our destruction, the slaughter of our people. That is what is referred to as EVIL. And as such they should be removed from the planet. They not only do evil acts, but they encourage others to do the same things! It's outrageous to think that we should bow to such perverted thinking! It is disgusting to think that anyone can entertain such thoughts with any seriousness.
This has been a thorn in my side for a long time. I've been a performing musician for quite a while. If you can't make money doing concerts, you have no business trying to be a professional musician. Selling CDs as the ONLY way or the MAIN way you make money is stupid. No one should have to pay to listen to a recorded piece of music. I find the mainstream market of making money solely on record sales infuriating.
After reading that article link, I was disappointed that he totally missed the entire point. We act that way and tell our kids those things in order to show them our disapproval, not because we think that they aren't going to see it or hear it. We want them to know, not only by our words, but by how we react to those things, that they are unacceptable and inappropriate for anyone, not just children. Or that there is a certain amount of privacy to be associated with certain activities.
Any parent that thinks they are actually keeping there kids from hearing f**k or s**t, is just fooling themselves. But you can make sure they know how you feel about it. Kids don't respond well to words. They respond very well, and very deeply, to actions. So if they hear YOU, as the parent, saying that, or see that you have a certain magazine, or that you view certain web sites, etc. they will understand deep inside that those are acceptable, no matter what you say about it.
It's not about censorship, it's about setting a good example. Don't let YOUR personal failings affect your children. Be a better person because of them. Don't try to spy on them or hound them 24/7, instead just set a good example. And if they do something blatant, punish them for it. I can't believe this is a new concept to some people, since it's how good parents have always acted, and how bad parents never act. Don't just say "You shouldn't do that", actions speak more poigniantly than words every could. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a recipe for failure in parenting. As is complete permissiveness.
Set boundaries, stick to them with action, and stick to those boundaries yourself in order to set an example. Are you giving up your freedom by doing that? Of course, but you should have known that having children would restrict your freedom. Grow up.
Yes.... all government funded food programs are tracked in detail. Have been for a long time. They are giving you money to buy food and they want to make damn sure that you're not spending it on the football team, or new cheerleader outfits.
I think there is a big difference between small children ( age 5 ) and school age kids. I would be the first to say that babies NEED constant supervision and control. But as they get older you should be "lengthening the leash" so to speak, giving them more and more freedom so that they can learn to handle making decisions on their own, even when *gasp* no one is watching them.
Basically I think trying to draw a correlation between webcams in daycare (watching babies) and tracking a teenager's every move is quite a bit of a stretch.
Is there a way to bring a suit against Gracenote by the people who entered that information? A class-action suit might shut them the hell up.
Stallman has a vision and is unrepentant about it. He truly believes in that vision, no compromises.
To put it another way, look at it from the other perspective: Why should you be rewarded for doing something that someone else is willing to do for free? ( I don't subscribe to this, just making a point ). The argument is the same from both sides, only with the perspective skewed one way or another. The commercial side unrepentantly claims that they have a right to be compensated (much in the way that the poor have a right to welfare) for their work, whether or not people consider it valuable. And in order to secure that right, they must lock in the public to only using one version of a product through copyrights and patents. However, with a little foresight, we have always limited these rights not only in time, but also in scope, such that consumers can be guaranteed a choice and competition can thrive.
This view, that is the standard view of the law before all this, has been openly attacked by companies like Microsoft. They want to limit in every way the rights of individual consumers so that people are locked into a single solution rather than having a choice. So far we have been able to dodge this bullet by clever maneuvering, but without direct opposition to these attempts to restrict our rights, we will be left with nothing but what they spoon-feed us.
This does not preclude commercial software. It may make it more competitive, especially as regards the OS arena, but that's life in America. Ask Ford how it makes so much money in cars when there is such numerous and healthy competition. I mean, they use open-source ( wheels, etc. ) in their products and yet make lots of money. I'm sure a little real, honest business-sense might help what is essentially a new industry.
Vietnam? I know for a fact that the Vietnam government just hired 4 people to enter the country to teach BASIC farming techniques, BASIC health-care and community planning. Things that they see as desperate needs in that country for the "average" "citizen" in Vietnam. Literacy aside, those people need help in ways that are hard for us (Americans) to imagine.
Leave computers aside and teach them how to take care of that farm that is their only source of food first.
I'm asking this in ignorance, but is it even possible/feasible to clone only "part" of a person? I'm not talking about transplants, but actually just growing an eye, for instance... And wasn't the Genome project pretty much a failure? What makes us think this is anywhere near possible for us in our lifetimes?
It's not always about "afford". Very often these things are about desire. I desire to hold a paper book in my hands when I read for pleasure. I won't touch an e-book. (OTOH I read all my manuals on-line.) I appreciate payphones, not because they're cheap (because they aren't), but because they are accessible where cell is not.