I fully agree that the stealth installation of unintended software is wrong and, I have had many of the same experiences you have had. I hate it. They are in a very real way, unwelcome tresspassers on your property. They make a mess and you have to clean up after them.
Is it bad enough so that we should lobby congress to pass laws? Would it do any good or would these creeps just move their base of operation to someplace like India?
Are there laws that exist that could help us? And if so, would a class-action lawsuit be one possible solution to try?
Ad-busting software is only a partial solution and, the thing that bothers me about it is that it too uses your resources. But, I'll agree that it has gotten to the point where it may be a necessary evil.
Here is an idea: I have not tried it but I think it may be helpful. When you discover an application that has installed this trash on your system call the support number for the software (or use whatever support resources are available) and insist that they help you remove (not just disable)the stealth-ware from your computer. Support costs companies money and if enough people demand this kind of help, perhaps it would cause the companies to rethink their position on these things.
Finally, maybe a lobbying effort of somesort could cause these stealth applications to be classified as a sort of virus. This would allow AV vendors to detect and clean (or prevent the installation of it).
I work for a large company (a Fortune 1000 company). We do not have any Linux. Why? Because the managment of the company looks at "best practices" and the things that other companies (mostly the ones larger than us) are doing and make their decisions based on that. This is the IS management by the way. Those of us in the backroom are Linux aware and would like to try it but can't. My guess is if we can say AOL is doing it, we may get a bit of an opportunity (at least on a intranet server or something). As recently as last summer I heard a VP say "we won't use any of that unsupported free crap, we can't afford to." This is the mind set in many a company, not just the one I work for. Ammo to fight that position is more than welcome from my perspective. I can tell you from my personal experience that these decisions have a cost component but the primary concern is reliability and support. Having someone like AOL go Linux will help a whole lot in getting managers to realize that "maybe there is something to this Linux thing".
I mever said that the cost of putting AOL on the desktop was their largest expense, just that it was expensive. I'll agree that it is probably less expensive than their TV and direct campaigns but, I bet they still cut hefty checks to someone every month. Getting that icon on the screen costs them.
IS departments have a couple of roles in companies, their primary purpose is to provide the computing that the business units need. But they also recommend the hardware, operating system, and software that the business units use. In this respect IS departments can be selfish, they will recommend the products that they think are easiest to use and support (support dollars are difficult to allocate back to business units fairly). This is why currently so many companies are builing on a NT/NT platform, it is in their view the easiest to integrate and support. If Linux is in the back-room and easy to use there, it is possible that the logic will follow that a Linux/Linux environment will be easier than mixing a NT/Linux environment. Please note that I am not saying that this is fact, I am saying that this the way managers think. I myself would be concerned about the learning curve but after that, I can see Linux on the corporate desktop as a great thing from an administrative standpoint.
AOL does want to sell it's services. That is what they are good at. They see Microsoft targeting their core business. Not just with MSN, but with the.NET framework and the integration of internet services within applications as a whole. One way to fight this would be to do the same thing. There is no need to fight a single front war, they can still develop for the Windows platform too but if there is another player in the market, then Microsoft has to pay attention to what they are doing too. In order to offer a competitive product, MS will need to integrate into that platform much as others have to play by Microsoft's rules today. Kinda like the automotive manufacturers have to respond to the things eachother is doing.
If you were making computers and you had the option of using a free operating system that people would actually accept (being from someone like AOL), or an expensive operating system from Microsoft, what would you do. Considering the level of competition in the marketplace, the low mark-up costs with computer hardware, and the financial pressures that manufacturers face, I would think that the most likely thing to happen would be to offer both Windows and Linux as options and let the market make the choice. If this happens, the consumer will vote. Most individual consumers are very cost concious. Many will pick the cheaper of the options. This could result in extreme growth for Linux at the consumer level. Of course others will stick with what they know. Fear of learning another O/S may dampen the sales of Linux boxes (I have no idea what kind of factor this will be).
Mind you, I am not convinced that any of this will happen. I just think it would be a great thing if it did. I'd say it is a long-shot but, considering what could happen if it did happen, I' love to see it happen.
I know that I just became a target of some pretty nasty flames but hear me out please...
Can you find any company that relies more on it's computers than AOL? The fact is that if they make the switch to Linux internally, it means that they are sold on the features that Linux gives them and the reliability of Linux. For them, this is not a decision they came to without a lot of thought. Other companies, who have resisted Linux because of FUD, will now seriously consider it simply because another large company that relies heavily on their computers did. This opens up the back-rooms of many Fortune 500 companies as well as smaller ones. When these IS departments are sold, they will work on taking Linux to the corporate desktop.
AOL is sensing an opportunity here and are positioning themselves to take advantage of it. Everyone knows that if you can get major computer makers to stick your icon on the desktop, you stand a very good chance of snagging customers. AOL has already been paying to do this for years. I would bet that it is one of their major marketing expenses.
With the Microsoft settlment nearing completion, perhaps AOL sees a different way of "owning the desktop." Perhaps it is less expensive for them to distribute an AOL version of Linux, giving it away to the manufacturers (and providing the necessary support) than it is to pay for space on the desktop as they do now. This would mean the manufacturers would not have to pay M$ for an OS and would only have to give up a few cents per desktop for the AOL placement fee. I'd gladly give up a quarter to save fifty dollars and I'll bet they would too.
AOL does not have the inhouse expertese to accomplish this but, Red Hat does. While Red Hat is an excellent company, they aren't exactly rolling in the dough. This means that in order to survive, they need to be bought by someone who can use them as they are or, they need to change their business model. If I were an executive at Red Hat, I would see AOL as a "White Knight."
This may not be a marriage made in heaven but, when you have a common enemy, it is easy to become friends.
While I give this a less than 50% chance of happening, I'll say that if it does happen, I expect a phenonomal growth in market share for Linux (on the order of 1000%). This makes it a worthwhile gamble.
On a closing note, I'll say I'd love to see Linux disks being given away like the AOL disks are now. That would really trouble Microsoft!
This was most interesting and informitive. It is also a great tool to introduce people to Linux and free software. It gives them a real reason to try it.
I have not seen Lindows but have to say IF (note the big if) it works, it will be a major step forward for the PC computing platform.
Before my current job in a corporate IS environment, I worked for a couple of computer manufacturers. People who build computers are in essence, held hostage by M$. While you really can sell a computer w/o a M$ operating system, it does not do well in the market and probably won't for some time to some. This is too bad, because the mony these manufacturers have to pay Microsoft comes directly out of your pockets.
People demand that their home computers run the same software that their office computers run. This way they can do office work at home, they only need to learn one program, and in many cases, their employer provides their home software. Businesses use M$ products because their business partners and associates use M$ software and using the same software guarantees compatibility.
While I will not argure that some of this logic is flawed, it is what is happening and why.
If a product, like Lindows were to come along and assure compaibility but be able to reduce the manufacturers cost by up to $50.00 per computer they would either switch to it or make it available as an option and would pass on most or all of the savings to the customer. They would have to to keep their position in the market place.
After enough execuitives have it at home, it will find its way into the office. Businesses with multiple computers can save a lot of money IF (there is the big if again) it is stable, easy to use, has no extra support costs, and is of course cheaper to start with.
When MS is finaly beat, this is how it will happen. Mark my words.
Yesterday on the one week anniversary of the attacks on New York and Washington D.C. I visited some veterans. They were in the cemetery near my home. While they didn't say much, their mere presence spoke volumes. In this particular plot, only people who died in service to their country are buried.
These brave men and women served and died for their country and our freedom. They left behind parents, spouses, children and other loved ones. They paid the ultimate price for our freedom. Row on row of simple white marble headstones that simply state the person's name date of birth and death, branch of service and in some cases a little more information.
Some cultures believe your ancestors' spirits talk to you. When you visit a place like this, searching for answers, something happens. Mere thoughts take on a deeper meaning and you gain an introspective that you can't find anyplace else. I guess in a way, I can say that I visited this place with questions and in their own way, the spirits of these solders and sailors helped guide me. I didn't get answers but I gained insight.
Is this war on terrorism going to be a war like Viet-Nam, or will it be like the war on drugs or the war on poverty? Or will it be something else that we have never seen before? I understand that this attack needs to be answered and frankly, I think we owe that to those that paid the ultimate price in all the wars that came before this one. They deserve that. So do the innocent victims and their families. So do the rest of us. I am no hawk and I find it hard to believe that I feel this way but damn-it, I do. Deep down in my soul, I do.
One of my fears is that our military is ill-prepared to fight this kind of war. I am afraid that the military will spend a lot of time chasing the shadows of invisible enemies. I fear that the generals will use their force when finesse is called for. I am afraid that this war calls for new methods, new polices, and special kinds of intelligence that the military will be slow or unwilling to adopt. I am afraid that innocent people will die. I am afraid too many solders will die.
It is clear to me that the terrorists have already scored a victory. They have successfully interrupted commerce in the free world and driven some important businesses to the brink of bankruptcy. I think that was their primary goal. The Statue of Liberty would have been a better symbolic target and the U.N. would have been a better political target. The terrorists depend on predictable reactions to further their damage. These reactions are costly and serve to destabilize our economy even further. Governments and business' take security seriously at times like this. While security is necessary, it is not "productive employment" in the sense that security guards, alarm companies, and other security related business' do not produce anything yet they do cost. These costs are ultimately passed along to the consumer of the products or in the case of government security, in the form of taxes. It does not take a genius to see that if this continues for long we will be in for a bout of recession and inflation. As a nation we will become less productive and our dollar worth less. If we allow this to happen, the terrorists will have scored another significant victory.
Another thing that concerns me is that it is possible that we as citizens of the most free nation on the face of the earth, we may be willing to give up some of our liberty in exchange for a feeling of greater security. There are a myriad small ways that this can happen. Perhaps the police will be more free to stop and check-out people meeting specific profiles. Maybe we start to allow ourselves to be subject to more significant searches before we fly or go to a sporting event. Maybe in the interest of security, schools implement security procedures that make classrooms less accessible to parents. Maybe our freedoms will be impinged on in less obvious ways, like "data-mining" used by government agencies in an effort to detect potential terrorists based on profiles developed by researching the habits of known and suspected terrorists. Maybe courts in the name of "National Security" will be quicker to issue wiretap and surveillance orders. Technologies like Carnivore and Echelon are truly frightening. The U.S. admits that Carnivore exists (it is used to tap email and other digital communications) but they do not admit the existence of Echelon despite the fact that the European Union recently voted to condemn it after being presented with overwhelming evidence of its existence. The day after the attacks the government acknowledged that they had tapes of the conversations between passengers on the hijacked planes and their families. How could this be if not for something like Echelon (and this would also indicate that Echelon is being use on domestic communications). I would not even be surprised to see the federal government tighten laws regarding the purchase, ownership and perhaps even registration of firearms of all types. I'm also concerned that the government may require recording information related to the purchase of some legal products that can be used for terrorism.
On top of all of this we will see new regulations in many industries designed to make them less attractive to terrorists. We are already seeing some of this. There are now more restrictions on airline travel. Knives and even nail clippers are now prohibited on aircraft! I think most of these procedures really do little to deter a determined terrorist but simply are a panacea designed to make travelers feel safer. In order to make aircraft more hijack proof they would have to remove all of the weapons that would be available to a terrorist on the aircraft itself. That would mean having to remove the fire extinguishers (which can be used as clubs) as well as the Champaign bottles from first-class which can be used as a club or when broken as a sharp object.
Are we willing to give up liberties to feel a little safer? Should we do this? No, those that fought and died in previous wars did so to guarantee the freedom that we are almost willing to give up today. We need to fight this war but just as importantly, we need to do so on our terms. We can not let the terrorists dictate these conditions. In order to be successful, we need to get back to business as usual as quickly as possible. We can not change who we are or what we do because of an invisible enemy. If we do not do this we will no longer be a free people and then the terrorists will have won. This is what I believe the spirits of the solders would want.
Is it a no win? In some respects, yes it is. In other respects, we have already lost but in another way, we have an opportunity to win and win big.
It is possible that our government can react to this wave of terror in a way that will discourage future terrorist acts in a big way. Deterance is a powerful military concept and is the single greatest reason why there has never been a nuclear war.
If done perfectly, we can deal with these terrorists in a way that will deter future terrorists from even considering another attack on the free world. To do this, our government has to score a grand-slam home run with a single swing of the bat. It needs to be perfectly executed and each of the terrorists has to be hunted down and dealt with all without causing any loss of innocent life. After this is done, the terrorists need to know that our level of vigilance is high enough so that it will be certain that they are caught in the planning process. If they are caught planning an act of terrorisim we need to deal with them as if the act had been carried out.
This is the only way we can win!
This will be a labor intensive war!
on
A New Kind of War
·
· Score: 1
Here are my predictions on this new "war" and what it will mean to us:
1. This was will be very labor intensive. It will use humans for intellegence gathering, spies to try to infiltrate the terrorist cells, troops to raid the different cells.
2. It will be costly by almost any measure - lives, dollars, time, freedom.
3. It will have a greater impact on most people around the world than WWII did. The world will change, travel will become more difficult and for people who are in any way different from their neighbors, they will be targets of suspicion and investigation on a level we never imagined before!
Police will us this new war as an excuse to investigate anyone from somewhere else, they will as a matter of routine run plates from out-of-state. They will use enhanced powers to tap phone lines and read email. Employers will perform broader and deeper background checks. Stores will identify people buying things that may concieveably be used by terrorists. Congress will finally pass legislation requiring the registration of firearms. We will be subject to search entering anyplace where there are a lot of people (concerts, sporting events, malls). Schools will lock-down.
Security will change. This will add cost to nearly every good and service provided in the world.
Taxes will go up, in part to pay for the new security and in part to add people to the armed forces.
Normal people will not be empowered by these acts but few if any of them will actually do much to prevent a determined terrorist from doing something (it may however change what they do).
In short, the free will be less free and the criminals will be as free as ever. This means the terrorists will accomplish their goal.
Having said all of this, I want you to know that I do not think that this act should go unanswered. I believe it needs to be answered loudly and with force.
The U.S. government is probably one of Microsoft's biggest customers. I am sure that there are some people in charge of procuring the computers that feared that M$ would charge more if they were broke up. I'm also sure that they figured that the government itself would have a harder time negotiating with M$ if a breakup were to happen.
I'm also sure that there have been significant back-room deals made. There always are.
The "right-wing" is and always has been pro-business.
All of the proceedings were done under the Clinton administration. They can't undo the results of the trial but they sure can minimize it.
This is nothing new. GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil essencially put mass transit out of business in the US a few decades ago, they were found guilty and paid a fine of one dollar.
I wouldn't be shocked if M$ had to do the same at this point.
Broke my back when I was 19 and have lived with the pain for 26 years now. To me, "learning to live with it" means finding ways to minimize the pain, finding alternitives to the way that I do things that is less painful and finding things that actually help the pain.
My job keeps me at a keyboard for most of the day. My desk is set up so I can sit or stand and type. I alternate between posititons. When I am on the phone and do not need access to the computer I wear a headset with an extenstion cord so I can get up and move around.
When I find I have been sitting too long and I start to tighten up, I twist right and left in my seat, stand up and bend over like I am picking up a pen. Sometimes I go for a walk even if I don't need to go anywhere at the moment. It only takes a minute to get some relief.
Ater a rough day, when I get home I sit on the floor with my legs out straight and my back against the couch or I lay on the floor and push my back into the floor. Either thing helps.
I do not refuse to use pain killers but I find them pretty useless against lower back pain. Those nights where nothing else helps, a shot of scotch and a glass of ice water goes down well and lets me fall asleep. Please note that I rarely drink and do not feel that I am abusing alcohol when I do this, but I guess that it could be seen that way by some. If I did this weekly I'd be concerned but I do this way less than that.
Doctors have pushed useless pills and lame exercises on me. Chiropractors have given me occasional temporary relief but I think that after I've visited them, I get more pain faster. An Osterpath has told me that surgery may help but would more than likely hurt and that he advises against it for now. Someday a surgery may be something to consider but that someday will come only after I have reached a point where I can no longer function well on a daily basis. Of all the doctors I've seen for this condition, his has been the best advice thus far: "If you find things that help do them, avoid things that hurt and do not over exert your back." Uh, yea? Doh! But guess what, the body is like code, the simple things work the best!
Okay, I admit it. As a bleeding heart liberal, if I had been in the teachers shoes I may have made the same decision that they made.
On the otherhand, I can see the issue from the freedom of speech side too. And, I agree that censorship is seldom an answer to any problem.
Tonight, my daughter came home complaining to me, the kids in her school are calling her "white girl" and other "names." I informed her she is a white girl who sometimes wears a tee-shirt that says "Swede" on it. Even though kids can pretend that being white is not a good thing, it is just a difference, like boys and girls are different and that we should be happy that there are different people. I have not raised her to treat people differently because of color or gender or anything but to give each person a fair shake and allow them to earn your respect (or lose it).
The teachers did not intend to censor, they wanted to avoid bad feelings from growing and interfering with the educational process in the school. For that, I don't blame them. If one student suffers - but the entire school benefits then more power too 'em. Maybe the kid will learn a lesson more valuable than the science lesson. Maybe she will learn about discression, and the way that social politics work. In the future, that could prove to be far more important than the science lesson.
Perhaps, the teachers will learn an important lesson too. That not everything is socially correct and that the fringes are the areas that need the most protection.
I am not without my bias' as an adult, I have had a long time to learn them. But I also know that sometimes, my discomfort in a situation is unwarranted and that I need to shed some of my own baggage before I draw conclusions. If I did not confront these issues from time to time, I would shop differently, I would live in a different place, and I would have fewer friends. To me, self-examination has to come before I accuse others. I can not accuse the student of being racist based on what I have read, but equally, I can not accuse the teachers of unfairly censoring her.
I do hope that this issue opened dialog on a deeper level though the community and I hope that it does the same thing here on Slashdot. But we need to start by looking at our own issues.
I'm 44 my boss is younger than me and I am about in the middle of the age group with my co-workers.
One of my most valued co-worker's is a teen-aged intern. He is efficient, smart, unfailingly polite, and interacts well with everyone. His plans are different or I would love for him to be my boss.
I've worked with other younger co-workers who have been good, and many, many more who have thought they were God's gift but were in reality insufferable. There are few ways to earn respect but many, many ways to lose respect. Once you have lost respect, it is very, very hard to earn it back. Paitence, hard work, and giving a lot of resepect are the best ways to get past that.
As I have gotten older, I have come to understand that older people do not have the same tolereance for annoyances that younger people have. I don't appreciate hyper-activity, loud music (in the workplace), or any sort of attitude. People that exhibit this stuff or interupt me while I am doing my job lose my respect and pay hell to get it back.
The culture of a company is very important to the people that are there. While bosses may cultivate the culture, it is the people that make it. Observe the culture, never try to change it and go along with it every way that you can. If you can not fit in to the culture, find another job.
Face it, Linux isn't usually an easy install. There are drivers for almost everything out there but you really have to know your internals and do your research before you install. Too much work for most people.
Here is how I'd like Linux to install:
Insert bootable CD in drive.
Turn computer on.
Answer a few basic questions (language, location, and that kind of stuff).
CLICK on OK
Take a coffee break
Come back to computer and reboot.
Enter your USERID and PASSWORD and enter your desktop.
Find a collection of applications, games, and tools that are point and click friendly, easy, and reliable to use.
If this sounds remarkably like a Windows installation you are correct. But I want more and better in the applications/tools/games arena.
I believe in Linux but am working from a Windows desktop right now. Why? Because for work I need to. Why? Because thats the way it is - for now. Someday I suspect that will change. Hopefully to Linux or BSD and KDE (or similar). Hopefully sooner rather than later. But like so many companies, we run a variety of standard systems, 98% Compaq or IBM. Frankly support costs still dictate the Windows standard. That will not change until the install is as easy and as automatic as Windows and the hardware detection better than Windows. Sorry but that is a fact.
I think the IS department is a bigger factor than the end user. Right now the end user can get more comfortable with an X desktop environment than the IS department can - mostly because they see the support of it as a nightmare. Being in the IS department I can agree. Being a Linux advocate, I disagree. It isn't the same, it is different but it does the job in pretty much the same way. I could sell this. What I can't sell is the install and upgrade nightmare. Until that is solved I can't justify or sell it. Period.
From the time we enter school we are taught how free our country is and how hard our fore-fathers fought to get us this freedom. If another country did this (and we disagreed with their position) we would call this "propoganda." I firmly believe that much of what we have been told is pure unadultrated hog-wash. However, it is useful hog-wash, it helps the leaders control the masses. We would not want a repeat of 1776!
Society needs ruled to function, those rules when sanctioned by a government become laws. As a member of society, we are told we must obey the laws to be good citizens and to retain our freedom.
Good laws attempt to weigh one persons rights against another (murder is against the law because it deprives another of their right to live). Most of us would agree that laws that protect a greater right are valid issues for a society to regulate. Most of us don't have problems with these laws - or at least the intent of the laws. A well run society needs an established set of rules that allows it to run and grants people rights.
But there is little doubt that our society is corrupt. Money and power are the primary tools of corruption here and almost anywhere else. The powerful can have laws written, sponsored, and enacted that protect them yet restrict others. This is where our system is broken, perhaps beyond repair.
Companies hire lobbiests and lawyers who convince our lawmakers that this bill (that they wrote and supplied to the representitive or senator) are good things, and they work hard to get the bill enacted into law to serve their best interests, or provides them with something that they want and that is that. If the bill becomes law, we the little guy lose some of our rights and the rich and powerful gain.
It is a subtle process that nibbles away at our rights and freedoms a little but at a time. Each bit is so small that we don't even notice it but when you look at the larger picture, we are already a much less free country than we were twenty years ago and twenty years ago we were less free than we were twenty years before that!
One would think that if we give a little here we would gain a little there but because of the nature of the beast, we don't. Our streets are less safe today than they were yesterday but we are spending more to protect them now than ever before. Our schools cost more but kids are getting less and less education. The elderly are less well cared for in this generation than in previous generations. Despite advances in health care some of the people that need it the most don't get it - because the insurance they pay for won't cover it.
Having said all that, I think we still live in a great country. The problem I have is that we are giving too much of it away, a bit and piece at a time. I hope we can fix it.
Can someone find some spec's on this toy?
Maybe figure out some alternitive uses for it?
I don't expect the quality to be good enough for snapshots or stuff like that but the wireless aspect of it causes me to think that this could be a really fine geek toy!
Like most wireless things, I am sure that it will have many weaknesses and drawbacks but for those uses that can compensate for them, wireless is a God-send.
Anyone take one apart yet? I'm wondering what else could be added to the signal.
I sure hope that the grassroots part doesn't fail. I see it as the key to success! It would be my hope that the network access is the "tip of the iceberg" There really isn't much to keep this technology from doing a lot more (like GPS location services, telephony and so on).
From what I see, they key to success would be to keep the nodes small and local like digital cellular. If that isn't done things could get slow fast. Unfortunately, the last mile isn't the only component in the system.
My concern is that even if this works for the last mile, how do you pay for the connection to the rest of the structure? It is currently commercial and is paid for by someone even if you are using a free ISP.
There has seldom been good colabaration between for profit and anarchisic groups. How does this bridge get crossed? I don't have the foggiest.
Mueseums and co-ops don't fit well into one of the other TLDs. A co-op may be considered a buisness but it is also an orginization. A museum may be dedicated to its educational mission but it isn't a school and does not fit into the.edu mode too well, it may be a for-profit business or it may be a non-profit orginization.
I think what ICANN was trying to address more than anything was the square pegs going into round holes. When you look at it like that, I think that they have made some headway. Not as much as anyone would have liked.
When you look at it like that, it also explains why they rejected TLDs like.kids and.xxx. Like it or not, these sites do fit neatly into existing TLDs.
I'm not saying that I think this is what should have been done, I would have liked to see.kids and.xxx because it would have made it far easier to identify the contents of the site for the typical user that way and that is in my opinion the most important thing that a TLD should do!
I think that for some ambitious people, there is an opportunity here that is just waiting to be addressed. I'd call it the Digital Dewey Decimal System or DDDS. Design it to work in concert with search engines and indexers, AI would devine a DDDS numeric code for each page and then determine its position in the series of related pages and perhaps ascertain the value of its content. Researchers looking for detailed information could then search by the DDDS number allowing for very specific narrow searches.
Please don't advocate modeling it after the US Constitution. I have a nightmare forming in my head already.
The nightmare goes something like this: A popular election is held for the position of President of ICANN, the most popular person in the popular vote does not get enough electorial votes to sew up the election. A small country (say Tonga for instance) has some irregularities with its vote and has to do a recount to determine who wins the swing votes to determine who will win the deciding electorial votes. Because of a server crash it is discoverd that a few thousand votes that were cast have unreliable time/date stamps on them. Data recovery specialists are called in but the governing body does not give them enough time to do all their work and they are only able to do a partial recovery in the allotted time. The Tonganese government certifies the original vote but the loser files appeal after appeal and the results stay up in the air for a long time. Because it is necessary to reach a decision, the ICANN board meets and appoints the winner (who happens to not be the popular vote winner).
As a result of all the bungling, ICANN loses a great deal of credibility with its constituancy and with other governing bodies and standards orginizations. The dwindling power that ICANN can exert throws the cyberworld into disarray. Smaller, weaker factions conspire to usurp the authority that ICANN once weilded with total authority and as a result, the once homogionus internet becomes fractured. People who want full service have to subscribe and pay for multiple accounts.
The War on Drugs has been a consistently neglected topic in discussions
surrounding this federal election. My question is, do you believe the War on
Drugs has been an unqualified success, and if not, what would you change about
it if elected president?
Your answer:
The war on drugs has been a success on several
fronts:
It has allowed police agencies to spend tax
dollars on some really cool tools.
It has given various federal, state, and local
authorities to justify snooping into people's personal lives in a way that
nothing else could.
It has even allowed the federal government to
justify further expenditures for the military and has allowed us to
justify a large naval presence in the Caribbean and other tropical ports
of call which we feel improves the moral of our ship bound troops.
It is a little known fact that the war on drugs was
never intended to be "won" in the conventional sense. If we did
(accidentally) win this war, we would lose the justification for spending so
many tax dollars on really cool toys!
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
What will you do to protect the rights of atheists and those who hold
minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
Your answer:
What makes you think they need protection in the
fist place? They do not represent a sizeable voting block. Many of
them are pacifists and do not want to spend a lot of money on federal causes
(like the military) so I really don't care if they want protection, they hardly
deserve it!
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
With the surplus, everyone has been saying "Let's have a tax cut, Let's
have a tax cut." In the meantime, Alan Greenspan and friends are trying to
keep inflation and the speed of the growing economy in check so it doesn't
burst. Which they are doing by raising interest rates periodically. (6 times
this year)
A tax cut flies in the face of what Greenspan is trying to do. A tax cut will
inject more money into the economy and do what Greenspan is preventing.
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so
when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much
on the debt?
Your answer:
Because to the typical voting schmoe, a tax cut is a
popular campaign promise. I doubt that I could be a contender if I didn't
make the promise. Don't worry, even if I make a cut one place, I can raise
it (and raise it even more) somewhere else.
4) electoral reform
by carleton
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called
for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely
popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each
state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received
43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote),
whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If
memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its
votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2
votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where
someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it
is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
Your answer:
You see, the house, the senate, and the presidency
are all controlled by one of the two "real" political parties.
Since this is the case, do you really expect that there will be a change
made. It only hurts the folks that don't play the game and all of us in a
major party play the game and play it well.
5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
In this age of the Internet, intellectual property has become a very
important concept to many people. Many companies make their living on the
artificial scarcity provided by intellectual property laws, selling information
that they have either created or aggregated. Some others, mostly in the Free
Software world, make their living seemingly in spite of these laws, selling
their services based on information that is freely given.
Do you feel that out current system of intellectual property is a good one?
Which parts of it (e.g. trademarks, patents, copyrights) do you feel are well
suited to the world of the Internet and which do you think need to be changed
(and, if changes are needed, what changes are needed)?
Your answer:
Our current system is a good one. Most of the
property that you are talking about is owned or controlled by major
corporations. Since these companies all help finance the SIGs that help to
finance my campaign, obviously the concept is a good and sound process. 'Nuff
said.
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have
to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve
information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to
have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private.
Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the
use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and
what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of
strong encryption?
Your answer:
This is pretty potent hogwash! Any idiot knows
that the best way to protect our individual freedom is to finance a strong
military and provide our police forces with enough funding (and cool toys) so
that we can leave this protection in the hands of the government and not worry
about it! With enough qualified professionals protecting us from foreign
governments, spies, and crooks. You really do not need to worry about
corporations or the government, we would never do anything to you that would
require encryption.
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
In the last year or so we have seen a tremendous escalation in the quantity
and size of political protests against globalization and the rising power of
corporate multi-nationals. Do you believe that these people have reason to be
concerned? If you do believe that they have reason for concern, what steps would
you take as president to deal with their concerns?
Your answer:
Nah. These companies contribute to the SIG's
that fund my campaign therefore I know they are well intentioned.
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense
systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
Your answer:
Frankly, I haven't given this a lot of
thought. I suppose that I would be receptive to it if the device were a
mega-weapon controlled by the military and constructed by a defense contractor
that contributes to the SIG's that fund my campaign.
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
I'm very concerned with the future of the country, and about what our
national mission seems to be. Looking back through American history, every
period seems to have a defining popular mission - like the "manifest
destiny" movement in the 19th century, the Depression, World War II, and
the Cold War. During these times, there would be one struggle or idea that
captivated the attention of the nation, sort of providing a national mission.
I'm a little confused as I look around today. What is our mission? To me, it
seems to be "to watch TV and use the Internet." What would you say the
defining national mission of today is? What should it be? Furthermore, how would
you show this in your activities as a lawmaker? (For instance, if our national
mission is the pursuit of science, then would you increase funding for
scientific pursuits in the budget?)
Your answer:
I'm a little confused. I have a mission, it is
to be president and to get as many campaign contributions as possible.
I think that the DARE program has laudable goals but is done in a very wrong way. Because of that I have some real concerns about this program.
First, children are easily brain-washable with a rewards system. The DARE program rewards kids with rides in cop cars, fire trucks and in some cases here in MN, even rides in National Guard helocopters!
Kids (I was one once) are desperate to participate, to be part of the group and also fear that if they don't come up with something, they will not get their ride. This is true even if the cops say something else. This causes kids to turn in their parents, siblings, and classmates even if they need to make something up to do it!
I am sure that the police are aware some of this happens but the shadow of suspicion can cause some pretty severe probelms for many people.
Not only that but I believe that this is a privacy issue. In the case where a child reports his parent, he is in effect a police informant in the home.
There is another side of the thing that I don't think many people think about. DARE is financed via contributions. Often this money comes from companies that have business relationships with the police department. This can be very bad business practice.
For instance, the auto dealer who wants to sell the police department is visited by a DARE representitive soliciting a contribution. What happens can almost be seen as extortion. The dealer knows that if he doesn't play the game and his competitor does, the bid request will include specifications that will make it easier for his competition to win the bid. Same thing is true for the raido supplier, the uniform supplier, and all the other vendors the police deal with.
I want to be clear, I do not endorse drug use/abuse (especially when kids are involved). I just think that perhaps the DARE program has enough faults so that it can be abused, and can be used for political purposes. I also abhor the fact that it becomes a privacy invasion in a families home.
Slashdot Mirror
I fully agree that the stealth installation of unintended software is wrong and, I have had many of the same experiences you have had. I hate it. They are in a very real way, unwelcome tresspassers on your property. They make a mess and you have to clean up after them.
Is it bad enough so that we should lobby congress to pass laws? Would it do any good or would these creeps just move their base of operation to someplace like India?
Are there laws that exist that could help us? And if so, would a class-action lawsuit be one possible solution to try?
Ad-busting software is only a partial solution and, the thing that bothers me about it is that it too uses your resources. But, I'll agree that it has gotten to the point where it may be a necessary evil.
Here is an idea: I have not tried it but I think it may be helpful. When you discover an application that has installed this trash on your system call the support number for the software (or use whatever support resources are available) and insist that they help you remove (not just disable)the stealth-ware from your computer. Support costs companies money and if enough people demand this kind of help, perhaps it would cause the companies to rethink their position on these things.
Finally, maybe a lobbying effort of somesort could cause these stealth applications to be classified as a sort of virus. This would allow AV vendors to detect and clean (or prevent the installation of it).
I work for a large company (a Fortune 1000 company). We do not have any Linux. Why? Because the managment of the company looks at "best practices" and the things that other companies (mostly the ones larger than us) are doing and make their decisions based on that. This is the IS management by the way. Those of us in the backroom are Linux aware and would like to try it but can't. My guess is if we can say AOL is doing it, we may get a bit of an opportunity (at least on a intranet server or something). As recently as last summer I heard a VP say "we won't use any of that unsupported free crap, we can't afford to." This is the mind set in many a company, not just the one I work for. Ammo to fight that position is more than welcome from my perspective. I can tell you from my personal experience that these decisions have a cost component but the primary concern is reliability and support. Having someone like AOL go Linux will help a whole lot in getting managers to realize that "maybe there is something to this Linux thing".
.NET framework and the integration of internet services within applications as a whole. One way to fight this would be to do the same thing. There is no need to fight a single front war, they can still develop for the Windows platform too but if there is another player in the market, then Microsoft has to pay attention to what they are doing too. In order to offer a competitive product, MS will need to integrate into that platform much as others have to play by Microsoft's rules today. Kinda like the automotive manufacturers have to respond to the things eachother is doing.
I mever said that the cost of putting AOL on the desktop was their largest expense, just that it was expensive. I'll agree that it is probably less expensive than their TV and direct campaigns but, I bet they still cut hefty checks to someone every month. Getting that icon on the screen costs them.
IS departments have a couple of roles in companies, their primary purpose is to provide the computing that the business units need. But they also recommend the hardware, operating system, and software that the business units use. In this respect IS departments can be selfish, they will recommend the products that they think are easiest to use and support (support dollars are difficult to allocate back to business units fairly). This is why currently so many companies are builing on a NT/NT platform, it is in their view the easiest to integrate and support. If Linux is in the back-room and easy to use there, it is possible that the logic will follow that a Linux/Linux environment will be easier than mixing a NT/Linux environment. Please note that I am not saying that this is fact, I am saying that this the way managers think. I myself would be concerned about the learning curve but after that, I can see Linux on the corporate desktop as a great thing from an administrative standpoint.
AOL does want to sell it's services. That is what they are good at. They see Microsoft targeting their core business. Not just with MSN, but with the
If you were making computers and you had the option of using a free operating system that people would actually accept (being from someone like AOL), or an expensive operating system from Microsoft, what would you do. Considering the level of competition in the marketplace, the low mark-up costs with computer hardware, and the financial pressures that manufacturers face, I would think that the most likely thing to happen would be to offer both Windows and Linux as options and let the market make the choice. If this happens, the consumer will vote. Most individual consumers are very cost concious. Many will pick the cheaper of the options. This could result in extreme growth for Linux at the consumer level. Of course others will stick with what they know. Fear of learning another O/S may dampen the sales of Linux boxes (I have no idea what kind of factor this will be).
Mind you, I am not convinced that any of this will happen. I just think it would be a great thing if it did. I'd say it is a long-shot but, considering what could happen if it did happen, I' love to see it happen.
I know that I just became a target of some pretty nasty flames but hear me out please...
Can you find any company that relies more on it's computers than AOL? The fact is that if they make the switch to Linux internally, it means that they are sold on the features that Linux gives them and the reliability of Linux. For them, this is not a decision they came to without a lot of thought. Other companies, who have resisted Linux because of FUD, will now seriously consider it simply because another large company that relies heavily on their computers did. This opens up the back-rooms of many Fortune 500 companies as well as smaller ones. When these IS departments are sold, they will work on taking Linux to the corporate desktop.
AOL is sensing an opportunity here and are positioning themselves to take advantage of it. Everyone knows that if you can get major computer makers to stick your icon on the desktop, you stand a very good chance of snagging customers. AOL has already been paying to do this for years. I would bet that it is one of their major marketing expenses.
With the Microsoft settlment nearing completion, perhaps AOL sees a different way of "owning the desktop." Perhaps it is less expensive for them to distribute an AOL version of Linux, giving it away to the manufacturers (and providing the necessary support) than it is to pay for space on the desktop as they do now. This would mean the manufacturers would not have to pay M$ for an OS and would only have to give up a few cents per desktop for the AOL placement fee. I'd gladly give up a quarter to save fifty dollars and I'll bet they would too.
AOL does not have the inhouse expertese to accomplish this but, Red Hat does. While Red Hat is an excellent company, they aren't exactly rolling in the dough. This means that in order to survive, they need to be bought by someone who can use them as they are or, they need to change their business model. If I were an executive at Red Hat, I would see AOL as a "White Knight."
This may not be a marriage made in heaven but, when you have a common enemy, it is easy to become friends.
While I give this a less than 50% chance of happening, I'll say that if it does happen, I expect a phenonomal growth in market share for Linux (on the order of 1000%). This makes it a worthwhile gamble.
On a closing note, I'll say I'd love to see Linux disks being given away like the AOL disks are now. That would really trouble Microsoft!
This was most interesting and informitive. It is also a great tool to introduce people to Linux and free software. It gives them a real reason to try it.
Please, pretty please, more of this kinds stuph!
I have not seen Lindows but have to say IF (note the big if) it works, it will be a major step forward for the PC computing platform.
Before my current job in a corporate IS environment, I worked for a couple of computer manufacturers. People who build computers are in essence, held hostage by M$. While you really can sell a computer w/o a M$ operating system, it does not do well in the market and probably won't for some time to some. This is too bad, because the mony these manufacturers have to pay Microsoft comes directly out of your pockets.
People demand that their home computers run the same software that their office computers run. This way they can do office work at home, they only need to learn one program, and in many cases, their employer provides their home software. Businesses use M$ products because their business partners and associates use M$ software and using the same software guarantees compatibility.
While I will not argure that some of this logic is flawed, it is what is happening and why.
If a product, like Lindows were to come along and assure compaibility but be able to reduce the manufacturers cost by up to $50.00 per computer they would either switch to it or make it available as an option and would pass on most or all of the savings to the customer. They would have to to keep their position in the market place.
After enough execuitives have it at home, it will find its way into the office. Businesses with multiple computers can save a lot of money IF (there is the big if again) it is stable, easy to use, has no extra support costs, and is of course cheaper to start with.
When MS is finaly beat, this is how it will happen. Mark my words.
"He who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither" -- Ben Franklin
Please use it!
Yesterday on the one week anniversary of the attacks on New York and Washington D.C. I visited some veterans. They were in the cemetery near my home. While they didn't say much, their mere presence spoke volumes. In this particular plot, only people who died in service to their country are buried.
These brave men and women served and died for their country and our freedom. They left behind parents, spouses, children and other loved ones. They paid the ultimate price for our freedom. Row on row of simple white marble headstones that simply state the person's name date of birth and death, branch of service and in some cases a little more information.
Some cultures believe your ancestors' spirits talk to you. When you visit a place like this, searching for answers, something happens. Mere thoughts take on a deeper meaning and you gain an introspective that you can't find anyplace else. I guess in a way, I can say that I visited this place with questions and in their own way, the spirits of these solders and sailors helped guide me. I didn't get answers but I gained insight.
Is this war on terrorism going to be a war like Viet-Nam, or will it be like the war on drugs or the war on poverty? Or will it be something else that we have never seen before? I understand that this attack needs to be answered and frankly, I think we owe that to those that paid the ultimate price in all the wars that came before this one. They deserve that. So do the innocent victims and their families. So do the rest of us. I am no hawk and I find it hard to believe that I feel this way but damn-it, I do. Deep down in my soul, I do.
One of my fears is that our military is ill-prepared to fight this kind of war. I am afraid that the military will spend a lot of time chasing the shadows of invisible enemies. I fear that the generals will use their force when finesse is called for. I am afraid that this war calls for new methods, new polices, and special kinds of intelligence that the military will be slow or unwilling to adopt. I am afraid that innocent people will die. I am afraid too many solders will die.
It is clear to me that the terrorists have already scored a victory. They have successfully interrupted commerce in the free world and driven some important businesses to the brink of bankruptcy. I think that was their primary goal. The Statue of Liberty would have been a better symbolic target and the U.N. would have been a better political target. The terrorists depend on predictable reactions to further their damage. These reactions are costly and serve to destabilize our economy even further. Governments and business' take security seriously at times like this. While security is necessary, it is not "productive employment" in the sense that security guards, alarm companies, and other security related business' do not produce anything yet they do cost. These costs are ultimately passed along to the consumer of the products or in the case of government security, in the form of taxes. It does not take a genius to see that if this continues for long we will be in for a bout of recession and inflation. As a nation we will become less productive and our dollar worth less. If we allow this to happen, the terrorists will have scored another significant victory.
Another thing that concerns me is that it is possible that we as citizens of the most free nation on the face of the earth, we may be willing to give up some of our liberty in exchange for a feeling of greater security. There are a myriad small ways that this can happen. Perhaps the police will be more free to stop and check-out people meeting specific profiles. Maybe we start to allow ourselves to be subject to more significant searches before we fly or go to a sporting event. Maybe in the interest of security, schools implement security procedures that make classrooms less accessible to parents. Maybe our freedoms will be impinged on in less obvious ways, like "data-mining" used by government agencies in an effort to detect potential terrorists based on profiles developed by researching the habits of known and suspected terrorists. Maybe courts in the name of "National Security" will be quicker to issue wiretap and surveillance orders. Technologies like Carnivore and Echelon are truly frightening. The U.S. admits that Carnivore exists (it is used to tap email and other digital communications) but they do not admit the existence of Echelon despite the fact that the European Union recently voted to condemn it after being presented with overwhelming evidence of its existence. The day after the attacks the government acknowledged that they had tapes of the conversations between passengers on the hijacked planes and their families. How could this be if not for something like Echelon (and this would also indicate that Echelon is being use on domestic communications). I would not even be surprised to see the federal government tighten laws regarding the purchase, ownership and perhaps even registration of firearms of all types. I'm also concerned that the government may require recording information related to the purchase of some legal products that can be used for terrorism.
On top of all of this we will see new regulations in many industries designed to make them less attractive to terrorists. We are already seeing some of this. There are now more restrictions on airline travel. Knives and even nail clippers are now prohibited on aircraft! I think most of these procedures really do little to deter a determined terrorist but simply are a panacea designed to make travelers feel safer. In order to make aircraft more hijack proof they would have to remove all of the weapons that would be available to a terrorist on the aircraft itself. That would mean having to remove the fire extinguishers (which can be used as clubs) as well as the Champaign bottles from first-class which can be used as a club or when broken as a sharp object.
Are we willing to give up liberties to feel a little safer? Should we do this? No, those that fought and died in previous wars did so to guarantee the freedom that we are almost willing to give up today. We need to fight this war but just as importantly, we need to do so on our terms. We can not let the terrorists dictate these conditions. In order to be successful, we need to get back to business as usual as quickly as possible. We can not change who we are or what we do because of an invisible enemy. If we do not do this we will no longer be a free people and then the terrorists will have won. This is what I believe the spirits of the solders would want.
Is it a no win? In some respects, yes it is. In other respects, we have already lost but in another way, we have an opportunity to win and win big.
It is possible that our government can react to this wave of terror in a way that will discourage future terrorist acts in a big way. Deterance is a powerful military concept and is the single greatest reason why there has never been a nuclear war.
If done perfectly, we can deal with these terrorists in a way that will deter future terrorists from even considering another attack on the free world. To do this, our government has to score a grand-slam home run with a single swing of the bat. It needs to be perfectly executed and each of the terrorists has to be hunted down and dealt with all without causing any loss of innocent life. After this is done, the terrorists need to know that our level of vigilance is high enough so that it will be certain that they are caught in the planning process. If they are caught planning an act of terrorisim we need to deal with them as if the act had been carried out.
This is the only way we can win!
Here are my predictions on this new "war" and what it will mean to us:
1. This was will be very labor intensive. It will use humans for intellegence gathering, spies to try to infiltrate the terrorist cells, troops to raid the different cells.
2. It will be costly by almost any measure - lives, dollars, time, freedom.
3. It will have a greater impact on most people around the world than WWII did. The world will change, travel will become more difficult and for people who are in any way different from their neighbors, they will be targets of suspicion and investigation on a level we never imagined before!
Police will us this new war as an excuse to investigate anyone from somewhere else, they will as a matter of routine run plates from out-of-state. They will use enhanced powers to tap phone lines and read email. Employers will perform broader and deeper background checks. Stores will identify people buying things that may concieveably be used by terrorists. Congress will finally pass legislation requiring the registration of firearms. We will be subject to search entering anyplace where there are a lot of people (concerts, sporting events, malls). Schools will lock-down.
Security will change. This will add cost to nearly every good and service provided in the world.
Taxes will go up, in part to pay for the new security and in part to add people to the armed forces.
Normal people will not be empowered by these acts but few if any of them will actually do much to prevent a determined terrorist from doing something (it may however change what they do).
In short, the free will be less free and the criminals will be as free as ever. This means the terrorists will accomplish their goal.
Having said all of this, I want you to know that I do not think that this act should go unanswered. I believe it needs to be answered loudly and with force.
I can just see the writing on the wall.
Dear "Little Brother,"
Thank you for that heart-felt note. I've never thought of it quite like that before but I see your point and appreciate the sentiment.
Big Brother
The U.S. government is probably one of Microsoft's biggest customers. I am sure that there are some people in charge of procuring the computers that feared that M$ would charge more if they were broke up. I'm also sure that they figured that the government itself would have a harder time negotiating with M$ if a breakup were to happen.
I'm also sure that there have been significant back-room deals made. There always are.
The "right-wing" is and always has been pro-business.
All of the proceedings were done under the Clinton administration. They can't undo the results of the trial but they sure can minimize it.
This is nothing new. GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil essencially put mass transit out of business in the US a few decades ago, they were found guilty and paid a fine of one dollar.
I wouldn't be shocked if M$ had to do the same at this point.
Broke my back when I was 19 and have lived with the pain for 26 years now. To me, "learning to live with it" means finding ways to minimize the pain, finding alternitives to the way that I do things that is less painful and finding things that actually help the pain.
My job keeps me at a keyboard for most of the day. My desk is set up so I can sit or stand and type. I alternate between posititons. When I am on the phone and do not need access to the computer I wear a headset with an extenstion cord so I can get up and move around.
When I find I have been sitting too long and I start to tighten up, I twist right and left in my seat, stand up and bend over like I am picking up a pen. Sometimes I go for a walk even if I don't need to go anywhere at the moment. It only takes a minute to get some relief.
Ater a rough day, when I get home I sit on the floor with my legs out straight and my back against the couch or I lay on the floor and push my back into the floor. Either thing helps.
I do not refuse to use pain killers but I find them pretty useless against lower back pain. Those nights where nothing else helps, a shot of scotch and a glass of ice water goes down well and lets me fall asleep. Please note that I rarely drink and do not feel that I am abusing alcohol when I do this, but I guess that it could be seen that way by some. If I did this weekly I'd be concerned but I do this way less than that.
Doctors have pushed useless pills and lame exercises on me. Chiropractors have given me occasional temporary relief but I think that after I've visited them, I get more pain faster. An Osterpath has told me that surgery may help but would more than likely hurt and that he advises against it for now. Someday a surgery may be something to consider but that someday will come only after I have reached a point where I can no longer function well on a daily basis. Of all the doctors I've seen for this condition, his has been the best advice thus far: "If you find things that help do them, avoid things that hurt and do not over exert your back." Uh, yea? Doh! But guess what, the body is like code, the simple things work the best!
Okay, I admit it. As a bleeding heart liberal, if I had been in the teachers shoes I may have made the same decision that they made. On the otherhand, I can see the issue from the freedom of speech side too. And, I agree that censorship is seldom an answer to any problem. Tonight, my daughter came home complaining to me, the kids in her school are calling her "white girl" and other "names." I informed her she is a white girl who sometimes wears a tee-shirt that says "Swede" on it. Even though kids can pretend that being white is not a good thing, it is just a difference, like boys and girls are different and that we should be happy that there are different people. I have not raised her to treat people differently because of color or gender or anything but to give each person a fair shake and allow them to earn your respect (or lose it). The teachers did not intend to censor, they wanted to avoid bad feelings from growing and interfering with the educational process in the school. For that, I don't blame them. If one student suffers - but the entire school benefits then more power too 'em. Maybe the kid will learn a lesson more valuable than the science lesson. Maybe she will learn about discression, and the way that social politics work. In the future, that could prove to be far more important than the science lesson. Perhaps, the teachers will learn an important lesson too. That not everything is socially correct and that the fringes are the areas that need the most protection. I am not without my bias' as an adult, I have had a long time to learn them. But I also know that sometimes, my discomfort in a situation is unwarranted and that I need to shed some of my own baggage before I draw conclusions. If I did not confront these issues from time to time, I would shop differently, I would live in a different place, and I would have fewer friends. To me, self-examination has to come before I accuse others. I can not accuse the student of being racist based on what I have read, but equally, I can not accuse the teachers of unfairly censoring her. I do hope that this issue opened dialog on a deeper level though the community and I hope that it does the same thing here on Slashdot. But we need to start by looking at our own issues.
I'm 44 my boss is younger than me and I am about in the middle of the age group with my co-workers.
One of my most valued co-worker's is a teen-aged intern. He is efficient, smart, unfailingly polite, and interacts well with everyone. His plans are different or I would love for him to be my boss.
I've worked with other younger co-workers who have been good, and many, many more who have thought they were God's gift but were in reality insufferable. There are few ways to earn respect but many, many ways to lose respect. Once you have lost respect, it is very, very hard to earn it back. Paitence, hard work, and giving a lot of resepect are the best ways to get past that.
As I have gotten older, I have come to understand that older people do not have the same tolereance for annoyances that younger people have. I don't appreciate hyper-activity, loud music (in the workplace), or any sort of attitude. People that exhibit this stuff or interupt me while I am doing my job lose my respect and pay hell to get it back.
The culture of a company is very important to the people that are there. While bosses may cultivate the culture, it is the people that make it. Observe the culture, never try to change it and go along with it every way that you can. If you can not fit in to the culture, find another job.
Face it, Linux isn't usually an easy install. There are drivers for almost everything out there but you really have to know your internals and do your research before you install. Too much work for most people.
Here is how I'd like Linux to install:
Insert bootable CD in drive.
Turn computer on.
Answer a few basic questions (language, location, and that kind of stuff).
CLICK on OK
Take a coffee break
Come back to computer and reboot.
Enter your USERID and PASSWORD and enter your desktop.
Find a collection of applications, games, and tools that are point and click friendly, easy, and reliable to use.
If this sounds remarkably like a Windows installation you are correct. But I want more and better in the applications/tools/games arena.
I believe in Linux but am working from a Windows desktop right now. Why? Because for work I need to. Why? Because thats the way it is - for now. Someday I suspect that will change. Hopefully to Linux or BSD and KDE (or similar). Hopefully sooner rather than later. But like so many companies, we run a variety of standard systems, 98% Compaq or IBM. Frankly support costs still dictate the Windows standard. That will not change until the install is as easy and as automatic as Windows and the hardware detection better than Windows. Sorry but that is a fact.
I think the IS department is a bigger factor than the end user. Right now the end user can get more comfortable with an X desktop environment than the IS department can - mostly because they see the support of it as a nightmare. Being in the IS department I can agree. Being a Linux advocate, I disagree. It isn't the same, it is different but it does the job in pretty much the same way. I could sell this. What I can't sell is the install and upgrade nightmare. Until that is solved I can't justify or sell it. Period.
... for nothin left to lose - Janice
From the time we enter school we are taught how free our country is and how hard our fore-fathers fought to get us this freedom. If another country did this (and we disagreed with their position) we would call this "propoganda." I firmly believe that much of what we have been told is pure unadultrated hog-wash. However, it is useful hog-wash, it helps the leaders control the masses. We would not want a repeat of 1776!
Society needs ruled to function, those rules when sanctioned by a government become laws. As a member of society, we are told we must obey the laws to be good citizens and to retain our freedom.
Good laws attempt to weigh one persons rights against another (murder is against the law because it deprives another of their right to live). Most of us would agree that laws that protect a greater right are valid issues for a society to regulate. Most of us don't have problems with these laws - or at least the intent of the laws. A well run society needs an established set of rules that allows it to run and grants people rights.
But there is little doubt that our society is corrupt. Money and power are the primary tools of corruption here and almost anywhere else. The powerful can have laws written, sponsored, and enacted that protect them yet restrict others. This is where our system is broken, perhaps beyond repair.
Companies hire lobbiests and lawyers who convince our lawmakers that this bill (that they wrote and supplied to the representitive or senator) are good things, and they work hard to get the bill enacted into law to serve their best interests, or provides them with something that they want and that is that. If the bill becomes law, we the little guy lose some of our rights and the rich and powerful gain.
It is a subtle process that nibbles away at our rights and freedoms a little but at a time. Each bit is so small that we don't even notice it but when you look at the larger picture, we are already a much less free country than we were twenty years ago and twenty years ago we were less free than we were twenty years before that!
One would think that if we give a little here we would gain a little there but because of the nature of the beast, we don't. Our streets are less safe today than they were yesterday but we are spending more to protect them now than ever before. Our schools cost more but kids are getting less and less education. The elderly are less well cared for in this generation than in previous generations. Despite advances in health care some of the people that need it the most don't get it - because the insurance they pay for won't cover it.
Having said all that, I think we still live in a great country. The problem I have is that we are giving too much of it away, a bit and piece at a time. I hope we can fix it.
Can someone find some spec's on this toy?
Maybe figure out some alternitive uses for it?
I don't expect the quality to be good enough for snapshots or stuff like that but the wireless aspect of it causes me to think that this could be a really fine geek toy!
Like most wireless things, I am sure that it will have many weaknesses and drawbacks but for those uses that can compensate for them, wireless is a God-send.
Anyone take one apart yet? I'm wondering what else could be added to the signal.
Far more potential than a Furby.
I sure hope that the grassroots part doesn't fail. I see it as the key to success! It would be my hope that the network access is the "tip of the iceberg" There really isn't much to keep this technology from doing a lot more (like GPS location services, telephony and so on).
From what I see, they key to success would be to keep the nodes small and local like digital cellular. If that isn't done things could get slow fast. Unfortunately, the last mile isn't the only component in the system.
My concern is that even if this works for the last mile, how do you pay for the connection to the rest of the structure? It is currently commercial and is paid for by someone even if you are using a free ISP.
There has seldom been good colabaration between for profit and anarchisic groups. How does this bridge get crossed? I don't have the foggiest.
Mueseums and co-ops don't fit well into one of the other TLDs. A co-op may be considered a buisness but it is also an orginization. A museum may be dedicated to its educational mission but it isn't a school and does not fit into the .edu mode too well, it may be a for-profit business or it may be a non-profit orginization.
.kids and .xxx. Like it or not, these sites do fit neatly into existing TLDs.
.kids and .xxx because it would have made it far easier to identify the contents of the site for the typical user that way and that is in my opinion the most important thing that a TLD should do!
I think what ICANN was trying to address more than anything was the square pegs going into round holes. When you look at it like that, I think that they have made some headway. Not as much as anyone would have liked.
When you look at it like that, it also explains why they rejected TLDs like
I'm not saying that I think this is what should have been done, I would have liked to see
I think that for some ambitious people, there is an opportunity here that is just waiting to be addressed. I'd call it the Digital Dewey Decimal System or DDDS. Design it to work in concert with search engines and indexers, AI would devine a DDDS numeric code for each page and then determine its position in the series of related pages and perhaps ascertain the value of its content. Researchers looking for detailed information could then search by the DDDS number allowing for very specific narrow searches.
Please don't advocate modeling it after the US Constitution. I have a nightmare forming in my head already.
The nightmare goes something like this: A popular election is held for the position of President of ICANN, the most popular person in the popular vote does not get enough electorial votes to sew up the election. A small country (say Tonga for instance) has some irregularities with its vote and has to do a recount to determine who wins the swing votes to determine who will win the deciding electorial votes. Because of a server crash it is discoverd that a few thousand votes that were cast have unreliable time/date stamps on them. Data recovery specialists are called in but the governing body does not give them enough time to do all their work and they are only able to do a partial recovery in the allotted time. The Tonganese government certifies the original vote but the loser files appeal after appeal and the results stay up in the air for a long time. Because it is necessary to reach a decision, the ICANN board meets and appoints the winner (who happens to not be the popular vote winner).
As a result of all the bungling, ICANN loses a great deal of credibility with its constituancy and with other governing bodies and standards orginizations. The dwindling power that ICANN can exert throws the cyberworld into disarray. Smaller, weaker factions conspire to usurp the authority that ICANN once weilded with total authority and as a result, the once homogionus internet becomes fractured. People who want full service have to subscribe and pay for multiple accounts.
...Is a good thing.
(Parphrase of T. Jefferson)
The label should look like a pumpkin with the word Linux carved as the mouth. Orange and black.
Should include an easy to install Windows compatible version like Winlinux 2000.
1) War on Drugs
by Tim Doran
The War on Drugs has been a consistently neglected topic in discussions surrounding this federal election. My question is, do you believe the War on Drugs has been an unqualified success, and if not, what would you change about it if elected president?
Your answer:
The war on drugs has been a success on several fronts:
It is a little known fact that the war on drugs was never intended to be "won" in the conventional sense. If we did (accidentally) win this war, we would lose the justification for spending so many tax dollars on really cool toys!
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
What will you do to protect the rights of atheists and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
Your answer:
What makes you think they need protection in the fist place? They do not represent a sizeable voting block. Many of them are pacifists and do not want to spend a lot of money on federal causes (like the military) so I really don't care if they want protection, they hardly deserve it!
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
With the surplus, everyone has been saying "Let's have a tax cut, Let's have a tax cut." In the meantime, Alan Greenspan and friends are trying to keep inflation and the speed of the growing economy in check so it doesn't burst. Which they are doing by raising interest rates periodically. (6 times this year)
A tax cut flies in the face of what Greenspan is trying to do. A tax cut will inject more money into the economy and do what Greenspan is preventing.
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much on the debt?
Your answer:
Because to the typical voting schmoe, a tax cut is a popular campaign promise. I doubt that I could be a contender if I didn't make the promise. Don't worry, even if I make a cut one place, I can raise it (and raise it even more) somewhere else.
4) electoral reform
by carleton
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
Your answer:
You see, the house, the senate, and the presidency are all controlled by one of the two "real" political parties. Since this is the case, do you really expect that there will be a change made. It only hurts the folks that don't play the game and all of us in a major party play the game and play it well.
5)How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
In this age of the Internet, intellectual property has become a very important concept to many people. Many companies make their living on the artificial scarcity provided by intellectual property laws, selling information that they have either created or aggregated. Some others, mostly in the Free Software world, make their living seemingly in spite of these laws, selling their services based on information that is freely given.
Do you feel that out current system of intellectual property is a good one? Which parts of it (e.g. trademarks, patents, copyrights) do you feel are well suited to the world of the Internet and which do you think need to be changed (and, if changes are needed, what changes are needed)?
Your answer:
Our current system is a good one. Most of the property that you are talking about is owned or controlled by major corporations. Since these companies all help finance the SIGs that help to finance my campaign, obviously the concept is a good and sound process. 'Nuff said.
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private. Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
Your answer:
This is pretty potent hogwash! Any idiot knows that the best way to protect our individual freedom is to finance a strong military and provide our police forces with enough funding (and cool toys) so that we can leave this protection in the hands of the government and not worry about it! With enough qualified professionals protecting us from foreign governments, spies, and crooks. You really do not need to worry about corporations or the government, we would never do anything to you that would require encryption.
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
In the last year or so we have seen a tremendous escalation in the quantity and size of political protests against globalization and the rising power of corporate multi-nationals. Do you believe that these people have reason to be concerned? If you do believe that they have reason for concern, what steps would you take as president to deal with their concerns?
Your answer:
Nah. These companies contribute to the SIG's that fund my campaign therefore I know they are well intentioned.
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
Your answer:
Frankly, I haven't given this a lot of thought. I suppose that I would be receptive to it if the device were a mega-weapon controlled by the military and constructed by a defense contractor that contributes to the SIG's that fund my campaign.
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
I'm very concerned with the future of the country, and about what our national mission seems to be. Looking back through American history, every period seems to have a defining popular mission - like the "manifest destiny" movement in the 19th century, the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. During these times, there would be one struggle or idea that captivated the attention of the nation, sort of providing a national mission.
I'm a little confused as I look around today. What is our mission? To me, it seems to be "to watch TV and use the Internet." What would you say the defining national mission of today is? What should it be? Furthermore, how would you show this in your activities as a lawmaker? (For instance, if our national mission is the pursuit of science, then would you increase funding for scientific pursuits in the budget?)
Your answer:
I'm a little confused. I have a mission, it is to be president and to get as many campaign contributions as possible.
I think that the DARE program has laudable goals but is done in a very wrong way. Because of that I have some real concerns about this program.
First, children are easily brain-washable with a rewards system. The DARE program rewards kids with rides in cop cars, fire trucks and in some cases here in MN, even rides in National Guard helocopters!
Kids (I was one once) are desperate to participate, to be part of the group and also fear that if they don't come up with something, they will not get their ride. This is true even if the cops say something else. This causes kids to turn in their parents, siblings, and classmates even if they need to make something up to do it!
I am sure that the police are aware some of this happens but the shadow of suspicion can cause some pretty severe probelms for many people.
Not only that but I believe that this is a privacy issue. In the case where a child reports his parent, he is in effect a police informant in the home.
There is another side of the thing that I don't think many people think about. DARE is financed via contributions. Often this money comes from companies that have business relationships with the police department. This can be very bad business practice.
For instance, the auto dealer who wants to sell the police department is visited by a DARE representitive soliciting a contribution. What happens can almost be seen as extortion. The dealer knows that if he doesn't play the game and his competitor does, the bid request will include specifications that will make it easier for his competition to win the bid. Same thing is true for the raido supplier, the uniform supplier, and all the other vendors the police deal with.
I want to be clear, I do not endorse drug use/abuse (especially when kids are involved). I just think that perhaps the DARE program has enough faults so that it can be abused, and can be used for political purposes. I also abhor the fact that it becomes a privacy invasion in a families home.