You _do_ know that this is exactly the reason why slashdot is called slashdot, right?
Yes, I read that somewhere in the facts or some interview (was a few years ago, can't remember which). It was just the first time I had tried to get someone to go to the site verbally. Now I have deeper understanding of how confusing that can be to some people.
From this standpoint, what you're saying is: if you support freedom, you should support my freedom to limit other people's liberties.
If its my server, its not limiting their liberties, since they don't have a 'right' to access it anyway. How you allow SU shouldn't be a political statement, it should be a security decision. If I don't give you access on one of my servers, you can go elsewhere, its not like im the only person with servers. If I am the IT man for a company, then my responsibility is for the good of the whole (which is the company), and how I secure the system is not based upon a political belief in your freedom, but my belief of what is safe for everyone in the organisation.
I probably can get over zealous in my opinions of someone i consider overzealous, but to me he has become a self proclaimed freedom prophet, and I don't like being talked down to this way. You are correct in that freedom and security don't often mix, but this applies in many other areas too. If I don't let a child ride a bicycle on the highway, am I restricting his liberty? Its not always this obvious, granted.
The "crazy as a shithouse rat" is based upon much more than the linked articles, its just the more I read what he says, the more detached he seems from the technical side, instead focusing on how "it should be", without seeming to understand or caring how the real world works.
Crazy and genius are often seperated by a fine line. I'm just starting to wonder when he is going to come back to the other side of this line.
On a lighter note, if you concider him strange think of him as some kind of Vulcan. What he does and says is almost always logical an consistent to his philosophy. He's also a terrible nitpicker without intending to be arrogant, like mr. Spock, never tired of trying to teach us morons something.:)
Perhaps if all drugs were under a 'no warrant to perform... no liability to any damage to your systems' EULA, we'd treat the law differently.
I think this is one of the ideas behind the "fast track" program, but I can't see the "no warranty" thing being accepted. I agree with you, granted, but there is this thing called the ABA that won't allow it because 30% of $0 is still $0. But that is another conversation. You show me a law that makes sense but costs a powerful block money, and I will show you a law that is DOA.
A lack of pharmaceutical patents would lead only to the development of more complex formulations, and a reduction in the excessive timeframes that pharmaceutical companies have to exploit new drugs by ripping off the taxpayer/health insurer.
We will just have to agree to disagree. There is enough corruption and greed in the industry, we agree on that, but the idea that the whole industry COULD conspire as a solid block seems a little paranoid.
My fear of removing patent protection goes beyond the stockholders. The fact is, you need money to invest to test drugs, and you simply will not find the money to invest unless there is a return on that investment. Its nice to invest because "its the right thing" but there are lots of good causes, and unless there is profit, there isn't enough charity to go around. If I buy stock in a drug company, it doesn't make me greedy, it makes me want my money to work for me, while it is working for everyone.
Again, there ARE real problems with our current IP laws, there is NO doubt. Copyright, Trademarks, Patents, all are being attacked by large corporate interests and the courts are happily agreeing with them, putting your and my rights as the lowest priority. I just don't think destroying the concept of IP is going to actually fix anything, and may hurt research in many areas.
Yeah, and one-click internet shopping. Some people see that as part of the problem because common sense suggests that there is a difference between the two. You obviously see it as part of the solution because rationally there is no difference between drugs and one-click shopping.
On this point, I made clear, and have always made clear that the abuse of IP will end up leading to the loss of IP. There are many REAL problems with courts giving companies more rights than consumers. One click shopping is an excellent example of IP law gone crazy. This fact doesn't change the fact that IP is still necessary and not evil by itself. The evil is what some companies try to do claiming IP that is not intellectual, nor their property.
To assume I would lump all IP claims in the same pile is the easy way out. If someone claims that "all IP is bad", then they are a fool, its that simple. IP drives investment, although not necessarily innovation. Its ABUSE is the problem, not the concept of IP itself.
after reading your link, now I know he is crazier than a shithouse rat.
I think he is taking this all too serious, acting as if I don't give you root, I am oppressive, and taking away your right to breath. If he cares about freedom, then the freedom to impliment whatever level of security you think you need should count. He sounds like "you are free to do anything as long as I agree". The mentality of a dictator.
I'm serious, mod it how you want, but the more I read about RMS, the nuttier he sounds. Thank god he doesn't have a stash of weapons.
The GPL only constrains your freedom if you believe in the absurdity that is "intellectual property", and thus I support it wholeheartedly.
Amazing how wholehearted you can be as AC. The rest of us that think IP is a valid concept, but is being abused by some, will continue to speak without ACing. I guess you could also speak in favor of incest, beastiality, and communism as an AC, and still be so "brave" for speaking your mind.
If its worth "supporting...wholeheartedly" then post it under your name, or register if you haven't yet. Its free. (as in beer)
If you have no IP, you have no commercial businesses willing to invest any money to develop large and complex business. its great to have the OS open, and lots of other software, but to be so intolorant of IP is rediculous. This flatly borders on some freakish communism where the individual has no rights, and all things belong to the "community". With IP laws, you can join or not join the community, you can own your own ideas, you can share them, or sell them for a profit. With no IP, there is no profit, and thus nothing to share.
IP includes drugs too. If no company could protect its investment in research by being allowed a limited time monopoly, then no new drugs would come to light. I guess you would want the government to do the research, paid for by what? tax dollars? from what jobs?
This religious view of "free" is beyond what any rational person can accept. Your view would have everyone perfectly equal: equally poor, equally unemployeed, equally unmotivated to invest in ideas, equally in the middle ages.
But please, calling this "free software" is just as much a misleading propaganda term as calling copyright infringement "intellectual property theft". It's about time a better term was coined.
If I had a mod point, you would get it. I am supporting Linux by actually buying it, using it, helping others with it, trying to replace windows boxes with it, but its not really "free". Its close, but BSD is closer to free than GPL, and Public Domain would be the only true "free" software. Free from giving any credit, free to charge, etc. I am not saying this is the way to go, but lets call a spade a spade.
The GPL is a great license for many purposes, although I can see some developers who wish to develop NON GPL software on Linux being paranoid about not using any GPL libraries that will encumber them. We need both commercial and open source software in the real world, and the idea that you may violate the GPL and have to fork over your source is scary to some, I am sure.
I like GPL and support it, but FREE may be too strong a word for it. Perhaps "free if..." software. I appreciate RMS and the others that started a community that brought powerful and useful software to the masses at little to no charge, and with usually reasonable restrictions on it. That is fine, but to say only GPL is free, and anything that is not GNU/GPL is not free is simply hogwash. I don't use BSD, but even I know its a more "free" license.
But even Lenin had the best of intentions when he started out. Me thinketh RMS is bordering on wearing out his credibility.
Schools receive very little money from the federal system, the problem is all the strings attached.
Not that we'll see any effort by Bush to raise teacher pay across the board, but it would be nice.
Salaries should (and are) decided at a state level, not federal. The feds have no say. They can provide funds, but shouldn't. If a teacher makes more in New York that one in Alabama, it may be the cost of living is different, which is why it should be decided locally/state.
As to slapping the states upside the head, this qualifies as "last resort" rather than first resort. The 20+ years of Big Government is pretty accurate from what I see. Tax less, let the local and state tax more (a wash) and let you and I decide about our schools. Not washington.
I could be mistaken but isn't that how/. came around? Hrm, and now that I check my sources the faq says:
Not to mention the problem I have giving them the address.
"No, the WORDS slashdot, THEN a period, THEN org... no no, you type the word DOT after slash. No, its one word. SLASHDOT then a PERIOD then, oh fuck it, here, i will type it for you."
I am NOT kidding. Wife kept on trying slash.dot.org last night, (an article she would like) and she is not an internet idiot.
There isn't a better place on the face of this earth to raise kids: Get yourself a farmhouse out in the country, with maybe 10 acres of fields, and forests, and streams, and kiss those big city screwed up influences and problems goodbye.
We live out in the country on 3.5 acres now. Most of my neighbors are just as weird as the people in Greensboro. Although I love and prefer the country, its not much safer or different. I just have more space between me and the nuts around me.
I assume that if you're a/. regular, both you and your wife have college degrees. Who do you think would do a better job of raising your children: You and she, or some rigidly idiotic career bureaucrat from the government schools?
I am a regular from way back, but neither of us have degrees, even tho both of us are educated. I have always had problems learning in a structured environment, yet I am self taught, and run a marketing dept for a manufacturer, and a fairly good IT man. I have spent a great deal of time furthering my own education. My wife runs a pawnshop we own, and is quite bright. I agree we would do a better job than public schools could do, just as I don't want someone working for $7 an hour at a daycare having the responsibility of instilling moral values in my kids.
I agree that I would not want my kids to be in the schools here near northwest of Greensboro (which is considered the nicer part of this area by a large margin). I just don't know that I can overcome all the influences here. Its not low selfconfidence, its the reality of what parents are up against here.
I'm a hardheaded conservative about some things, such as one of us staying at home with the kid until the child starts school. I would consider home schooling, but that is a sacrifice that would come back to haunt us later when it became time for the child to go to college. I don't believe in "hoping for a scholarship", I believe in saving and preparing. If the child received a scholarship, all the better, but don't bank on it. So, having half the income (or even 2/3rds) does make it harder to save for college. I guess I would probably consider private school first because either of us can more than earn enough to pay for it. We live on half of what we make now, save the rest, we would just save less if paying for private school. Also, the value of interacting with others kids is real, as long as it is in a good environment, like a private school can provide (ie: no drug dealing at school, less violence, etc)
Also, I don't think I would make a good teacher, to be honest. I have respect for those than are good teachers. I would be involved with the child's studies but that doesn't mean I would be a good teacher. I have no problem with home schools, and support your right as a parent, 100%, and I KNOW home schooled children do well later in life, often because of the motivation of their parents to provide a firm foundation.
In 2002 Linux did overtake mac. Linux is part of the free software movement, Linux users are disproportionately hostile to shrinkwrapped commercial packages; further Linux distributions come with tons and tons of software and you can download software for free for just about everything.
Adding to your comment: You can't buy Photoshop for Linux, but you can install GIMP free for Linux. (ok, won't be doing any CMYK work) You can't buy Norton AntiVirus for Linux yet (although eventually, it will be needed even if Norton has to write the viruses themselves;) For the most part, I agree.
So few commercial packages are purchased for Linux, because so few packages are available. The real key is when they start porting over business software for Linux. If Peachtree had a Linux port, we would have it in ONE day. ACT is another example. And yes, I know, there are free alternative, but for most of us, the alternatives are not alternative.
MOST applications do have alternatives in Linux, and many are better. Its just these larger applications that need to be developed. Ironically, it would appear that if you DID port Peachtree for Linux, it would be then be trivial to port to OSX.
20% in large enterprises by 08? IF the big apps catch up, I can see this. If Open Office can keep pace. If Gimp makes another leap. The smaller applications are already there, and it already is easier to maintain Linux if you know how.
While I also wince at feds calling the shots, the problem with the 100/0 ratio is that there are localities that, frankly, do not value education. A friend of mine grew up in a very blue colar school district with a "I never had much use for book learnin'" attitude among many of the residents. The result was that much of the education she got was a joke. She had to work very very hard to succeed in college because she had almost no background.
And I don't think her district is unique. A lot of people in economically depressed areas (like most of my extended family) devalue education. Even with federal involvement, that translates almost directly to the schools.
What you say is a valid point, but I would rather that oversight came from the state level, instead of the federal. With the state level, YOU have more say, more input, and yes, you can even march on the state capitol building. That is much harder at the federal level.
My opinion about the federal system has always been that the feds should only do those things that CAN NOT be accomplished at the state or local level. Cooperating on interstate highways, building dams that feed power across state lines, national defense, treaties with other countries. That kind of stuff. Its not that the feds are evil, its just fed control should be a LAST resort, not the first.
You pay taxes, therefore you are *legally* entitled to claim welfare. It's not "Government charity", it's your obligation to penalise the Government if they can't adjust economic conditions to provide you with a job.
If I ever lose a limb, or get in a serious accident and CAN'T help myself, then I would consider getting unemployment until I could get work. But as long as I am able, I feel I shouldn't. Its a moral thing, taking more than your share. (not religious, just moral)
The fact is, it is NOT the govt.s job to create economic conditions. Its the govt.'s job to allow free enterprise to create the conditions. The goal of the govt. (IMHO) is purely to act as a buffer by adjusting rates, and to provide incentives when necessary. Since I am an American, by and for the people, I AM the govt. so punishing myself and neighbors isnt very effective.
Keep in mind, lots of very lazy people blame the govt. for their lack of a job, when often it is the fact that they want something handed to them. I have been to hell and back, and expect nothing from anyone, period. This may also have something to do with the fact that I have found reasonable success in all environments and all economies.
There is an old expression: Even when unemployment is 90%, the top 10% will have jobs. The key is to be the best at what you do. Some people just want to be paid for showing up, not for accomplishing something.
HAVING KIDS + HOME SCHOOLING THEM = THE MOST FUN YOU'LL EVER HAVE IN YOUR LIFE
I assume you home school, so I have to wonder: Are you trying to share the experience, or is it just that misery loves company?;)
Seriously, the school situation isn't the only reason, but it is one of the reasons. I am not so sure I could be that successful a parent with all the screwed up influences and problems. Its not that things are worse now than they were before (they are NOT) its just it is getting impossible to keep certain influences from reaching your kids at an inappropriate age.
I told my wife when we first married that under NO circumstances would I send my kid to public schools here in North Carolina (some of the worst in the US, 47th I think). Now Im getting too old anyway. Usually I can go over to visit the nieces, and a few ours of roughhousing with a 5 and 8 year old will wear me out enough anyway.
If those two don't meet, then you have to find a compromise, which depending on the costs of running mixed platform networks, may point to a single platform solution. In that case, the most prevalent platform in the market place becomes to the most responsible choice to make.
The sad thing is for public schools, they can recycle older computers by creating small Linux labs (for free) and expose them to the world of unix, which would apply to OSX and even SCO (heaven forbid!).
Me thinketh that MS politics is more at play, even with local schools. If I was MS and had no ethics, I would buy those old computers up from the schools as trade in for my software, just to keep them from using Linux.
When congress gets involved they're going to come up with a thousand pages of exemptions and loopholes and legalese, they'll let their campaign contributors have a license to spam, while using the excuse of shutting down the smaller spammers to intrude and monitor everyone. It's a lose-lose proposition. More spam and less privacy.
Which is why we need legislation that defines what IS acceptable, while everything else is not acceptable. My point. You can't just say bulk commercial mail is illegal, you have to regulate it (ugh) with strict rules that are plain to see.
Spam is a worldwide problem, and yes, if someone in China sends spam there is not much we can do yet, until THEY make laws, but if someone in America is using Chinese servers to spam people in America, there IS something we can do NOW. Once the email crosses over to a US recipient, we can, for that matter.
It's not ok to send email which is both bulk and unsolicited. It's as simple as that. All mass mailing lists must have proper procedures in place to make sure that they include only addresses that have explicitly asked to be included. When that is not done, the list becomes SPAM. It's as simple as that.
It is not that simple, there is no federal law with enough teeth that defines it clearly enough. (which is why STATES are creating laws) IMHO, we need stronger legislation that ALLOWS commercial email, that is STRICTER, in order to effectively prosecute illegal commercial mail. As long as there is any "fuzziness" in the law, there is reasonable doubt, and any prosecution will likely fail. Perhaps YOU and I understand what is legal, but it may not be clear enough to a jury, which is pretty much all that matters in a trial.
Well, giving that their FTP server contains a notice that they don't distribute Linux anymore and that the files are just for the convenience of their existing customer, I'd say that it is not really true.
Having it on a FTP site IS distributing it openly to the public, regardless of any notice. If they only distributed it to people that purchased a license, it is still distribution. Allowing it to leave the company in any way is distribution. If they wanted to use it inhouse for testing, fine, but this is clearly distributing it. I downloaded it myself, via wget and don't remember seeing any notice anyway.
This is like having a basket of porno with a sign that says "you must be 18 to take this free porn" and no one monitoring it. You are still guilty of allowing children of accessing it, in spite of your sign. Under all cases, you are still distributing it.
The GPL doesn't limit or classify "distribution" in any way. If you put it on CD, allow downloads, or print the source out on paper and hand out copies, you are distributing it. Having it available for anyone to download it IS distribution and makes any contributions you added GPL. Saying "we don't distribute Linux, but here it is" doesn't change the fact that they ARE distributing it.
YOU being able to differentiate "for customers only" or "general public access" doesn't matter. The law clearly views this as accessible to the public under any analogy you can draw. This is such a simple concept, it really doesn't merit discussion. This aspect can't honestly be debated.
She took the book, smiled shyly but looked a bit worried. Then she said something that still makes my blood boil: "But my teacher says that we are not supposed to learn anything by ourselves because we might learn wrong things".
If you think the kids are stupid enough, you will only allow them to learn what is on the standardized tests that the TEACHERS are graded on.
My wife and I talk about this all the time, one reason we DONT have children. The schools simply are too focused on outcome based education: every child must be equally smart (or dumb) and must learn the same way. It requires effort to help on an individual basis, and the teachers themselves are strongly discouraged from using their own judgement. It's not just their fault, its a problem with the entire system, top to bottom.
Part of the problem IS federal money. There should be none, since it is only given in return for schools having programs or acting in ways that may not be the best for THOSE students. The more removed an agency is, the less it knows what is best for your children. The schools must be 100% answerable to the local population, and 0% to the feds. There is a reason there is NO mention of public schools in the constitution, it should be a local matter, where you can hold them accountable, and choke the living shit out someone when necessary, such as your well stated comment implies you verbally did.
The best solution would be to expose children to multiple platforms during their schooling, so they will have experience to work with any system they might encounter in the work place or in college as the case may be. If supporting a multiple platform network is indeed more expensive, then it might not be economically feasible for schools to offer multiple platforms, in which case, standardizing on the least common platform doesn't make a lot of sense.
This would also be the responsible thing to do since using only Windows systems is practically an endorcement of them, considering there are reasonable and affordable alternatives. IMHO, this is akin to have "Pepsi: the official softdrink of Wake University" which they may be considering anyway. 10 Years from now, Microsoft may not be the 97% gorilla it is now, and it is irresponsible for a college to only support this one company.
Last I checked, the goal of higher education was to expose students to a variety of opinions and situations, to prepare them for later life. If you want an institution that ONLY gives you a singular experience on ONE thing, from one perspective, then perhaps a trade school is a better way to go.
My first instict is: follow the money. Is Microsoft offering sweetheat deals if universities kill Linux and Mac support?
Why is "Great offer at Wal-Mart, 2 for 1 Washing powder" more acceptable than "Great offer at Sex-Mart, 2 for 1 Vibrators" ?
Taking what I said in full context (although I dont see the insight) I have no problem with Sexmart sending emails under the same circumstances:
1. You are a current customer that has not opted out.
2. You are not a customer, but you opted in to THAT company specificially (hense, a genuine optin, not a purchased optin from a list)
3. You are an ex customer of sexmart, and someone hacked their credit card list, thus a security email even tho you opted out.
My point (including the corner grocery store) was that virtually any business CAN have legitimate sales email (yes, even sexmarts) but right now what is acceptable and not acceptable is not well defined within the law. This is necessary in order to effectively prosecute people who are spamming illegally, that is defining what is legal and illegal, NOT just what is illegal. This also gains the support of legitimate businesses who use email responsibly. My point did not exclude ANY company selling sexual items in any way, as long as they played the game using the same rules as we would expect Walmart to play by.
In spite of the nitpicking, I stand by the concept and comment. I guess anyone can read any comment wrong if they try hard enough.
It's not a step in the right direction at all. It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok. A step in the right direction would be to stop spamming, not to label their spam so they can then claim it's legal for them to steal.
One of the things it also may provide is a basis for prosecution. Most spammers will not comply because they know its easy to filter it out, and non-compliance is a reason to prosecute. Even though the prosecution may not be successful, one problem we have is a lack of legal precident.
First we thin the herd by creating a law that they will break (adding the tag in the subject line), making it harder to be a spammer, and thus, less spammers. Just the fear of possible prosecution will help, and some high profile cases that cost the spammers real money will eventually help more.
Next, create laws that allow companies to use email where it is appropriate such as current customers, genuine opt-in, critical announcements to ex-customers for security issues. A strict, but fair law that lets Sears, Walmartl, or your corner grocery store use email in a responsible way. This way they know where they stand, and legitimate companies will support it. To say one kind of email is unacceptable, you have to declare what kind of email is acceptable.
I believe that if you could reduce the noise by 70% by thinning the herd this way and legitimize use that is legitimate, it will be much easier to track down the real problem spammers. Its going to take years to deal with spam, but this law may be a worthwhile first step.
Quoting an interesting post from an Anonymous Coward:
Actually:
1. There are projects to get around that. Many hardware registers can be reached from within Linux. All of them can be reached outside linux, using the linux kit. 2. mrbrown already released something months ago for linux kit users to be able to play with native applications without a need for a mod chip.
Since he already released that, homebrew people could spend a few bucks to get a bunch of hardware, a legitimate, mod-free way to boot stuff, support Sony (who so far is the only console manufacturer to ever give out development tools and docs to the average joe), and a legitimate copy of the Sony documents that they've all pirated. They've openly asked for copies of them on their mailing lists. I guess this his time around the intention is clearly to:
1. Stroke mrbrown's overgrown ego. Remember that anyone who uses this for any reason (even piracy!) will have to leave his name all over it. 2. Promote piracy. Of course, he's not responsible for it. I have a loaded gun to sell you, but I'm not responsible if you kill someone with it. 3. Piss Sony off (again?) 4. Get sued, possibly, and 5. ???Get a job???
I'm sure if #5 really does happen and he gets a legitimate PS2 job "because of this" he'll get lots of friendly tech support from Sony people if he ever needs to call them.
Sincerely,
Anonymous Coward
I am not saying I agree or disagree, but I did think this AC raised some interesting points, worth reading if you have a threshold of "1".
the point is you wouldn't actually be doing it as a dos bat file, just like if you call Apache from a perl script, you still are not running a perl web server. The only way you could do it is with external program. I guess you could script the whole thing in a batch file with IF's but that is pretty far from the actual server itself being run in a command.com interpreter, which is what.bat files use.
Slashdot Mirror
You _do_ know that this is exactly the reason why slashdot is called slashdot, right?
Yes, I read that somewhere in the facts or some interview (was a few years ago, can't remember which). It was just the first time I had tried to get someone to go to the site verbally. Now I have deeper understanding of how confusing that can be to some people.
From this standpoint, what you're saying is: if you support freedom, you should support my freedom to limit other people's liberties.
:)
:)
If its my server, its not limiting their liberties, since they don't have a 'right' to access it anyway. How you allow SU shouldn't be a political statement, it should be a security decision. If I don't give you access on one of my servers, you can go elsewhere, its not like im the only person with servers. If I am the IT man for a company, then my responsibility is for the good of the whole (which is the company), and how I secure the system is not based upon a political belief in your freedom, but my belief of what is safe for everyone in the organisation.
I probably can get over zealous in my opinions of someone i consider overzealous, but to me he has become a self proclaimed freedom prophet, and I don't like being talked down to this way. You are correct in that freedom and security don't often mix, but this applies in many other areas too. If I don't let a child ride a bicycle on the highway, am I restricting his liberty? Its not always this obvious, granted.
The "crazy as a shithouse rat" is based upon much more than the linked articles, its just the more I read what he says, the more detached he seems from the technical side, instead focusing on how "it should be", without seeming to understand or caring how the real world works.
Crazy and genius are often seperated by a fine line. I'm just starting to wonder when he is going to come back to the other side of this line.
On a lighter note, if you concider him strange think of him as some kind of Vulcan. What he does and says is almost always logical an consistent to his philosophy. He's also a terrible nitpicker without intending to be arrogant, like mr. Spock, never tired of trying to teach us morons something.
"Intending" is the key word in that phrase
Perhaps if all drugs were under a 'no warrant to perform... no liability to any damage to your systems' EULA, we'd treat the law differently.
I think this is one of the ideas behind the "fast track" program, but I can't see the "no warranty" thing being accepted. I agree with you, granted, but there is this thing called the ABA that won't allow it because 30% of $0 is still $0. But that is another conversation. You show me a law that makes sense but costs a powerful block money, and I will show you a law that is DOA.
A lack of pharmaceutical patents would lead only to the development of more complex formulations, and a reduction in the excessive timeframes that pharmaceutical companies have to exploit new drugs by ripping off the taxpayer/health insurer.
We will just have to agree to disagree. There is enough corruption and greed in the industry, we agree on that, but the idea that the whole industry COULD conspire as a solid block seems a little paranoid.
My fear of removing patent protection goes beyond the stockholders. The fact is, you need money to invest to test drugs, and you simply will not find the money to invest unless there is a return on that investment. Its nice to invest because "its the right thing" but there are lots of good causes, and unless there is profit, there isn't enough charity to go around. If I buy stock in a drug company, it doesn't make me greedy, it makes me want my money to work for me, while it is working for everyone.
Again, there ARE real problems with our current IP laws, there is NO doubt. Copyright, Trademarks, Patents, all are being attacked by large corporate interests and the courts are happily agreeing with them, putting your and my rights as the lowest priority. I just don't think destroying the concept of IP is going to actually fix anything, and may hurt research in many areas.
Yeah, and one-click internet shopping. Some people see that as part of the problem because common sense suggests that there is a difference between the two. You obviously see it as part of the solution because rationally there is no difference between drugs and one-click shopping.
On this point, I made clear, and have always made clear that the abuse of IP will end up leading to the loss of IP. There are many REAL problems with courts giving companies more rights than consumers. One click shopping is an excellent example of IP law gone crazy. This fact doesn't change the fact that IP is still necessary and not evil by itself. The evil is what some companies try to do claiming IP that is not intellectual, nor their property.
To assume I would lump all IP claims in the same pile is the easy way out. If someone claims that "all IP is bad", then they are a fool, its that simple. IP drives investment, although not necessarily innovation. Its ABUSE is the problem, not the concept of IP itself.
The rest of your points do not merit a reply.
after reading your link, now I know he is crazier than a shithouse rat.
I think he is taking this all too serious, acting as if I don't give you root, I am oppressive, and taking away your right to breath. If he cares about freedom, then the freedom to impliment whatever level of security you think you need should count. He sounds like "you are free to do anything as long as I agree". The mentality of a dictator.
I'm serious, mod it how you want, but the more I read about RMS, the nuttier he sounds. Thank god he doesn't have a stash of weapons.
The GPL only constrains your freedom if you believe in the absurdity that is "intellectual property", and thus I support it wholeheartedly.
Amazing how wholehearted you can be as AC. The rest of us that think IP is a valid concept, but is being abused by some, will continue to speak without ACing. I guess you could also speak in favor of incest, beastiality, and communism as an AC, and still be so "brave" for speaking your mind.
If its worth "supporting...wholeheartedly" then post it under your name, or register if you haven't yet. Its free. (as in beer)
If you have no IP, you have no commercial businesses willing to invest any money to develop large and complex business. its great to have the OS open, and lots of other software, but to be so intolorant of IP is rediculous. This flatly borders on some freakish communism where the individual has no rights, and all things belong to the "community". With IP laws, you can join or not join the community, you can own your own ideas, you can share them, or sell them for a profit. With no IP, there is no profit, and thus nothing to share.
IP includes drugs too. If no company could protect its investment in research by being allowed a limited time monopoly, then no new drugs would come to light. I guess you would want the government to do the research, paid for by what? tax dollars? from what jobs?
This religious view of "free" is beyond what any rational person can accept. Your view would have everyone perfectly equal: equally poor, equally unemployeed, equally unmotivated to invest in ideas, equally in the middle ages.
But please, calling this "free software" is just as much a misleading propaganda term as calling copyright infringement "intellectual property theft". It's about time a better term was coined.
If I had a mod point, you would get it. I am supporting Linux by actually buying it, using it, helping others with it, trying to replace windows boxes with it, but its not really "free". Its close, but BSD is closer to free than GPL, and Public Domain would be the only true "free" software. Free from giving any credit, free to charge, etc. I am not saying this is the way to go, but lets call a spade a spade.
The GPL is a great license for many purposes, although I can see some developers who wish to develop NON GPL software on Linux being paranoid about not using any GPL libraries that will encumber them. We need both commercial and open source software in the real world, and the idea that you may violate the GPL and have to fork over your source is scary to some, I am sure.
I like GPL and support it, but FREE may be too strong a word for it. Perhaps "free if..." software. I appreciate RMS and the others that started a community that brought powerful and useful software to the masses at little to no charge, and with usually reasonable restrictions on it. That is fine, but to say only GPL is free, and anything that is not GNU/GPL is not free is simply hogwash. I don't use BSD, but even I know its a more "free" license.
But even Lenin had the best of intentions when he started out. Me thinketh RMS is bordering on wearing out his credibility.
Schools receive very little money from the federal system, the problem is all the strings attached.
Not that we'll see any effort by Bush to raise teacher pay across the board, but it would be nice.
Salaries should (and are) decided at a state level, not federal. The feds have no say. They can provide funds, but shouldn't. If a teacher makes more in New York that one in Alabama, it may be the cost of living is different, which is why it should be decided locally/state.
As to slapping the states upside the head, this qualifies as "last resort" rather than first resort. The 20+ years of Big Government is pretty accurate from what I see. Tax less, let the local and state tax more (a wash) and let you and I decide about our schools. Not washington.
I could be mistaken but isn't that how /. came around? Hrm, and now that I check my sources the faq says:
Not to mention the problem I have giving them the address.
"No, the WORDS slashdot, THEN a period, THEN org... no no, you type the word DOT after slash. No, its one word. SLASHDOT then a PERIOD then, oh fuck it, here, i will type it for you."
I am NOT kidding. Wife kept on trying slash.dot.org last night, (an article she would like) and she is not an internet idiot.
There isn't a better place on the face of this earth to raise kids: Get yourself a farmhouse out in the country, with maybe 10 acres of fields, and forests, and streams, and kiss those big city screwed up influences and problems goodbye.
/. regular, both you and your wife have college degrees. Who do you think would do a better job of raising your children: You and she, or some rigidly idiotic career bureaucrat from the government schools?
;D
We live out in the country on 3.5 acres now. Most of my neighbors are just as weird as the people in Greensboro. Although I love and prefer the country, its not much safer or different. I just have more space between me and the nuts around me.
I assume that if you're a
I am a regular from way back, but neither of us have degrees, even tho both of us are educated. I have always had problems learning in a structured environment, yet I am self taught, and run a marketing dept for a manufacturer, and a fairly good IT man. I have spent a great deal of time furthering my own education. My wife runs a pawnshop we own, and is quite bright. I agree we would do a better job than public schools could do, just as I don't want someone working for $7 an hour at a daycare having the responsibility of instilling moral values in my kids.
I agree that I would not want my kids to be in the schools here near northwest of Greensboro (which is considered the nicer part of this area by a large margin). I just don't know that I can overcome all the influences here. Its not low selfconfidence, its the reality of what parents are up against here.
I'm a hardheaded conservative about some things, such as one of us staying at home with the kid until the child starts school. I would consider home schooling, but that is a sacrifice that would come back to haunt us later when it became time for the child to go to college. I don't believe in "hoping for a scholarship", I believe in saving and preparing. If the child received a scholarship, all the better, but don't bank on it. So, having half the income (or even 2/3rds) does make it harder to save for college. I guess I would probably consider private school first because either of us can more than earn enough to pay for it. We live on half of what we make now, save the rest, we would just save less if paying for private school. Also, the value of interacting with others kids is real, as long as it is in a good environment, like a private school can provide (ie: no drug dealing at school, less violence, etc)
Also, I don't think I would make a good teacher, to be honest. I have respect for those than are good teachers. I would be involved with the child's studies but that doesn't mean I would be a good teacher. I have no problem with home schools, and support your right as a parent, 100%, and I KNOW home schooled children do well later in life, often because of the motivation of their parents to provide a firm foundation.
But I'm still not gonna have kids
In 2002 Linux did overtake mac.
;) For the most part, I agree.
Linux is part of the free software movement, Linux users are disproportionately hostile to shrinkwrapped commercial packages; further Linux distributions come with tons and tons of software and you can download software for free for just about everything.
Adding to your comment: You can't buy Photoshop for Linux, but you can install GIMP free for Linux. (ok, won't be doing any CMYK work) You can't buy Norton AntiVirus for Linux yet (although eventually, it will be needed even if Norton has to write the viruses themselves
So few commercial packages are purchased for Linux, because so few packages are available. The real key is when they start porting over business software for Linux. If Peachtree had a Linux port, we would have it in ONE day. ACT is another example. And yes, I know, there are free alternative, but for most of us, the alternatives are not alternative.
MOST applications do have alternatives in Linux, and many are better. Its just these larger applications that need to be developed. Ironically, it would appear that if you DID port Peachtree for Linux, it would be then be trivial to port to OSX.
20% in large enterprises by 08? IF the big apps catch up, I can see this. If Open Office can keep pace. If Gimp makes another leap. The smaller applications are already there, and it already is easier to maintain Linux if you know how.
While I also wince at feds calling the shots, the problem with the 100/0 ratio is that there are localities that, frankly, do not value education. A friend of mine grew up in a very blue colar school district with a "I never had much use for book learnin'" attitude among many of the residents. The result was that much of the education she got was a joke. She had to work very very hard to succeed in college because she had almost no background.
And I don't think her district is unique. A lot of people in economically depressed areas (like most of my extended family) devalue education. Even with federal involvement, that translates almost directly to the schools.
What you say is a valid point, but I would rather that oversight came from the state level, instead of the federal. With the state level, YOU have more say, more input, and yes, you can even march on the state capitol building. That is much harder at the federal level.
My opinion about the federal system has always been that the feds should only do those things that CAN NOT be accomplished at the state or local level. Cooperating on interstate highways, building dams that feed power across state lines, national defense, treaties with other countries. That kind of stuff. Its not that the feds are evil, its just fed control should be a LAST resort, not the first.
You pay taxes, therefore you are *legally* entitled to claim welfare. It's not "Government charity", it's your obligation to penalise the Government if they can't adjust economic conditions to provide you with a job.
If I ever lose a limb, or get in a serious accident and CAN'T help myself, then I would consider getting unemployment until I could get work. But as long as I am able, I feel I shouldn't. Its a moral thing, taking more than your share. (not religious, just moral)
The fact is, it is NOT the govt.s job to create economic conditions. Its the govt.'s job to allow free enterprise to create the conditions. The goal of the govt. (IMHO) is purely to act as a buffer by adjusting rates, and to provide incentives when necessary. Since I am an American, by and for the people, I AM the govt. so punishing myself and neighbors isnt very effective.
Keep in mind, lots of very lazy people blame the govt. for their lack of a job, when often it is the fact that they want something handed to them. I have been to hell and back, and expect nothing from anyone, period. This may also have something to do with the fact that I have found reasonable success in all environments and all economies.
There is an old expression: Even when unemployment is 90%, the top 10% will have jobs. The key is to be the best at what you do. Some people just want to be paid for showing up, not for accomplishing something.
HAVING KIDS + HOME SCHOOLING THEM = THE MOST FUN YOU'LL EVER HAVE IN YOUR LIFE
;)
I assume you home school, so I have to wonder: Are you trying to share the experience, or is it just that misery loves company?
Seriously, the school situation isn't the only reason, but it is one of the reasons. I am not so sure I could be that successful a parent with all the screwed up influences and problems. Its not that things are worse now than they were before (they are NOT) its just it is getting impossible to keep certain influences from reaching your kids at an inappropriate age.
I told my wife when we first married that under NO circumstances would I send my kid to public schools here in North Carolina (some of the worst in the US, 47th I think). Now Im getting too old anyway. Usually I can go over to visit the nieces, and a few ours of roughhousing with a 5 and 8 year old will wear me out enough anyway.
If those two don't meet, then you have to find a compromise, which depending on the costs of running mixed platform networks, may point to a single platform solution. In that case, the most prevalent platform in the market place becomes to the most responsible choice to make.
The sad thing is for public schools, they can recycle older computers by creating small Linux labs (for free) and expose them to the world of unix, which would apply to OSX and even SCO (heaven forbid!).
Me thinketh that MS politics is more at play, even with local schools. If I was MS and had no ethics, I would buy those old computers up from the schools as trade in for my software, just to keep them from using Linux.
When congress gets involved they're going to come up with a thousand pages of exemptions and loopholes and legalese, they'll let their campaign contributors have a license to spam, while using the excuse of shutting down the smaller spammers to intrude and monitor everyone. It's a lose-lose proposition. More spam and less privacy.
Which is why we need legislation that defines what IS acceptable, while everything else is not acceptable. My point. You can't just say bulk commercial mail is illegal, you have to regulate it (ugh) with strict rules that are plain to see.
Spam is a worldwide problem, and yes, if someone in China sends spam there is not much we can do yet, until THEY make laws, but if someone in America is using Chinese servers to spam people in America, there IS something we can do NOW. Once the email crosses over to a US recipient, we can, for that matter.
It's not ok to send email which is both bulk and unsolicited. It's as simple as that. All mass mailing lists must have proper procedures in place to make sure that they include only addresses that have explicitly asked to be included. When that is not done, the list becomes SPAM. It's as simple as that.
It is not that simple, there is no federal law with enough teeth that defines it clearly enough. (which is why STATES are creating laws) IMHO, we need stronger legislation that ALLOWS commercial email, that is STRICTER, in order to effectively prosecute illegal commercial mail. As long as there is any "fuzziness" in the law, there is reasonable doubt, and any prosecution will likely fail. Perhaps YOU and I understand what is legal, but it may not be clear enough to a jury, which is pretty much all that matters in a trial.
Well, giving that their FTP server contains a notice that they don't distribute Linux anymore and that the files are just for the convenience of their existing customer, I'd say that it is not really true.
Having it on a FTP site IS distributing it openly to the public, regardless of any notice. If they only distributed it to people that purchased a license, it is still distribution. Allowing it to leave the company in any way is distribution. If they wanted to use it inhouse for testing, fine, but this is clearly distributing it. I downloaded it myself, via wget and don't remember seeing any notice anyway.
This is like having a basket of porno with a sign that says "you must be 18 to take this free porn" and no one monitoring it. You are still guilty of allowing children of accessing it, in spite of your sign. Under all cases, you are still distributing it.
The GPL doesn't limit or classify "distribution" in any way. If you put it on CD, allow downloads, or print the source out on paper and hand out copies, you are distributing it. Having it available for anyone to download it IS distribution and makes any contributions you added GPL. Saying "we don't distribute Linux, but here it is" doesn't change the fact that they ARE distributing it.
YOU being able to differentiate "for customers only" or "general public access" doesn't matter. The law clearly views this as accessible to the public under any analogy you can draw. This is such a simple concept, it really doesn't merit discussion. This aspect can't honestly be debated.
She took the book, smiled shyly but looked a bit worried. Then she said something that still makes my blood boil: "But my teacher says that we are not supposed to learn anything by ourselves because we might learn wrong things".
If you think the kids are stupid enough, you will only allow them to learn what is on the standardized tests that the TEACHERS are graded on.
My wife and I talk about this all the time, one reason we DONT have children. The schools simply are too focused on outcome based education: every child must be equally smart (or dumb) and must learn the same way. It requires effort to help on an individual basis, and the teachers themselves are strongly discouraged from using their own judgement. It's not just their fault, its a problem with the entire system, top to bottom.
Part of the problem IS federal money. There should be none, since it is only given in return for schools having programs or acting in ways that may not be the best for THOSE students. The more removed an agency is, the less it knows what is best for your children. The schools must be 100% answerable to the local population, and 0% to the feds. There is a reason there is NO mention of public schools in the constitution, it should be a local matter, where you can hold them accountable, and choke the living shit out someone when necessary, such as your well stated comment implies you verbally did.
The best solution would be to expose children to multiple platforms during their schooling, so they will have experience to work with any system they might encounter in the work place or in college as the case may be. If supporting a multiple platform network is indeed more expensive, then it might not be economically feasible for schools to offer multiple platforms, in which case, standardizing on the least common platform doesn't make a lot of sense.
This would also be the responsible thing to do since using only Windows systems is practically an endorcement of them, considering there are reasonable and affordable alternatives. IMHO, this is akin to have "Pepsi: the official softdrink of Wake University" which they may be considering anyway. 10 Years from now, Microsoft may not be the 97% gorilla it is now, and it is irresponsible for a college to only support this one company.
Last I checked, the goal of higher education was to expose students to a variety of opinions and situations, to prepare them for later life. If you want an institution that ONLY gives you a singular experience on ONE thing, from one perspective, then perhaps a trade school is a better way to go.
My first instict is: follow the money. Is Microsoft offering sweetheat deals if universities kill Linux and Mac support?
Why is
"Great offer at Wal-Mart, 2 for 1 Washing powder"
more acceptable than
"Great offer at Sex-Mart, 2 for 1 Vibrators"
?
Taking what I said in full context (although I dont see the insight) I have no problem with Sexmart sending emails under the same circumstances:
1. You are a current customer that has not opted out.
2. You are not a customer, but you opted in to THAT company specificially (hense, a genuine optin, not a purchased optin from a list)
3. You are an ex customer of sexmart, and someone hacked their credit card list, thus a security email even tho you opted out.
My point (including the corner grocery store) was that virtually any business CAN have legitimate sales email (yes, even sexmarts) but right now what is acceptable and not acceptable is not well defined within the law. This is necessary in order to effectively prosecute people who are spamming illegally, that is defining what is legal and illegal, NOT just what is illegal. This also gains the support of legitimate businesses who use email responsibly. My point did not exclude ANY company selling sexual items in any way, as long as they played the game using the same rules as we would expect Walmart to play by.
In spite of the nitpicking, I stand by the concept and comment. I guess anyone can read any comment wrong if they try hard enough.
It's not a step in the right direction at all. It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok. A step in the right direction would be to stop spamming, not to label their spam so they can then claim it's legal for them to steal.
One of the things it also may provide is a basis for prosecution. Most spammers will not comply because they know its easy to filter it out, and non-compliance is a reason to prosecute. Even though the prosecution may not be successful, one problem we have is a lack of legal precident.
First we thin the herd by creating a law that they will break (adding the tag in the subject line), making it harder to be a spammer, and thus, less spammers. Just the fear of possible prosecution will help, and some high profile cases that cost the spammers real money will eventually help more.
Next, create laws that allow companies to use email where it is appropriate such as current customers, genuine opt-in, critical announcements to ex-customers for security issues. A strict, but fair law that lets Sears, Walmartl, or your corner grocery store use email in a responsible way. This way they know where they stand, and legitimate companies will support it. To say one kind of email is unacceptable, you have to declare what kind of email is acceptable.
I believe that if you could reduce the noise by 70% by thinning the herd this way and legitimize use that is legitimate, it will be much easier to track down the real problem spammers. Its going to take years to deal with spam, but this law may be a worthwhile first step.
Quoting an interesting post from an Anonymous Coward:
Actually:
1. There are projects to get around that. Many hardware registers can be reached from within Linux. All of them can be reached outside linux, using the linux kit.
2. mrbrown already released something months ago for linux kit users to be able to play with native applications without a need for a mod chip.
Since he already released that, homebrew people could spend a few bucks to get a bunch of hardware, a legitimate, mod-free way to boot stuff, support Sony (who so far is the only console manufacturer to ever give out development tools and docs to the average joe), and a legitimate copy of the Sony documents that they've all pirated. They've openly asked for copies of them on their mailing lists. I guess this his time around the intention is clearly to:
1. Stroke mrbrown's overgrown ego. Remember that anyone who uses this for any reason (even piracy!) will have to leave his name all over it.
2. Promote piracy. Of course, he's not responsible for it. I have a loaded gun to sell you, but I'm not responsible if you kill someone with it.
3. Piss Sony off (again?)
4. Get sued, possibly, and
5. ???Get a job???
I'm sure if #5 really does happen and he gets a legitimate PS2 job "because of this" he'll get lots of friendly tech support from Sony people if he ever needs to call them.
Sincerely,
Anonymous Coward
I am not saying I agree or disagree, but I did think this AC raised some interesting points, worth reading if you have a threshold of "1".
the point is you wouldn't actually be doing it as a dos bat file, just like if you call Apache from a perl script, you still are not running a perl web server. The only way you could do it is with external program. I guess you could script the whole thing in a batch file with IF's but that is pretty far from the actual server itself being run in a command.com interpreter, which is what .bat files use.