Cue up the conspiracies that this is just "a way for Lego to artificially drive up the price". There is always at least one paranoid on/. who will say it.
Did you even bother to read the article or at least the summary at all?
New media channels
A spokesman said the unit would monitor media such as weblogs and would also employ "surrogates", or top politicians or lobbyists who could be interviewed on TV and radio shows.'"
I don't recall saying it was fine for the government to lie about the source.
To be clear, I am against ANYONE being stopped from reporting information, even if it is the government. I am not for the govt. reporting info and stopping others from doing the same. These are two different issues.
However, the vast majority of citizens do not "research" or "compare". That's critical thought, and most have no idea what that even means. Most eat the few bits they catch on their way out the door to work or before feeding the kids before bed.
Wow. You have a much lower opinion of the average person than I do. You are saying that people are too dumb to hear reports from different sources and make up their own minds, so you would disallow certain groups (the govt) from having free speech, in order to protect the masses.
This sounds remarkably like Soviet Communism. Just substituting your guidance instead of the government's.
And they have the guts to "condemn" China for the "great internet firewall" ?
It seems to me that the government isn't trying to control ideas, it is trying to compete in the market place of ideas. Just because the Pentagon will issue some press releases, this doesn't stop you, me or anyone else from putting our ideas out there as well. It seems to me that it is the government's DUTY to release information if they think the news is reporting false information. We can still choose to research it, compare it to other sources, and accept or reject it.
I didn't see anywhere in the article that every US citizen was being forced to watch these new media channels, or being forced to accept the information as the truth. Funny, while I am as skeptical as they come when it comes to any government, I am not afraid of letting them release their response to news reports. Kinda fits in with the whole idea of free speech.
Your analogy is flawed. Drinking and driving laws are to protect other people who could be injured, not the one doing the drinking and driving. Since individuals can not protect themselves from drunk drivers, this is within the scope of the government's duties. That, plus highways and national defense. That pretty much covers it.
The problem is the corporations, and the government that allows these things to go on.
Sorry, gotta lay the blame squarely on myself for this one. I bought Microsoft products for many years. It won't happen again, I promise. Now that I have taken care of.000001% of the problem, it's your turn. Is it too inconvenient to not use Microsoft products? Then quit bitching. It is called capitalism, and you vote with your dollars. If you "elect" Microsoft, live with it.
It is NOT the government's responsibility to insure I don't buy products from companies that have bad policies. It is mine. I don't need, nor want, the government to get involved whatsoever. Most governments tend to fuck up anything they get involved in.
I still find it ironic that I get a lot of trash talk about how "unfree" speech is the US, yet I see US policitians call each other worse stuff during any election cycle, and no one goes to jail. Just as you can't have a pro-nazi site in Germany, and a host of other restrictions in every other country.
We have our own problems here in the States, (ie: 2600 getting sued for linking to DeCSS code...) but at least pretty much anything goes when it comes to politicians.
The movie didn't bomb. It wasn't a smash success, granted, but it did mediocre at the boxoffice and very well with DVD sales, as did the one and only season with DVD sales. According to IMDB, it cost $40 mil to make and made about $39mil worldwide, plus an unknown amount in DVD sales. They didn't get rich, but they made money. It would have helped if they actually promoted the movie, and if the new Fox execs who cancelled the series (after showing it out of order at different times) were not such asshats.
And speaking of viral marketing, it was on a Slashdot poll that I first heard of Serenity. Went and watched the first episode of the series (the real first, not what the network aired first), got hooked, bought the DVDs. Viral marketing at it's finest, as a silly poll produced a customer that bought both the movie DVD and the complete first season DVD set.
Re:Goodwill Squandered, starring Matt Damon
on
Will Red Hat Survive?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I expanded on this below, so I won't rehash, and instead answer the main question:
Would I ever go back to RedHat?
It is very possible. Everyone makes mistakes, myself included. But I wouldn't go back until they changed their business model to something that is more friendly to small guys. I wouldn't even demand an apology, although one is certainly deserved. I am not a fanboy/anti-fanboy. I am a pragmatic guy that will use what I believe is the best option, be it RedHat, SuSE or even MS if they could get their act together (not holding my breath). I like the idea of "Free as in speech" software, but it is a preference, not a religion. It just makes my life easier.
RedHat HAS done some very good things for the community. They have also done some very questionable things, and not just the business model change that abandoned all us small users. I don't consider them good or evil, just another company that I would prefer to not do business with at this time because of their past and current policies that alienate small users that want more than Fedora (I do NOT want a new version every 6 freaking months!!!!), and are willing to pay for it. Just not $800+ a year for updates.
There are MANY thousands of people who feel exactly like I do, that RH screwed us over, took our money, changed their business, and left us high and dry. Not that it makes it any better, but MS does this every time they change their EULA or disables a feature. IBM is now the darling of the Linux community, yet 20 years ago it was the bastard. Companies change, and I would be a fool to hold a grudge against a corporation, since board members change all the time.
Very good question. First, I am NOT opposed to paying for support. I previously DID pay for support. I am opposed to paying $800 if all I want is guaranteed updates. I have no problem paying per phone call, a reasonable fee for them to provide updates ($40-$60 per year per machine). RH needs to stay in business, and I WANTED them to stay in business, which is why I paid for distros, even tho they were free.
I thought about Whitebox and CentOS, and had considered them both because I was already familiar with the quirks of RH from years of use, AND they are both very legitimate RH clones. What KEPT me from using them is (ironically) the fact that they don't charge. This means they can stop updates at any time, and leave me stranded. I need to know the company is going to be around for 3 to 5 years, as I can't afford to switch distributions every 6 months. That can be more expensive than even RH fees.
In a nutshell, I want minimum support from a real company, and I am willing to pay for the support I actually use. It may be that someday I will NEED $800 worth of support, but today isn't that day.
What I like about Linux is that it is Free (as in speech). As to the price, I expect I will pay more for it in dollars, but save money in time and headaches. I don't need permission to add users, change the role of the machine, or move all the software to another machine. But RH remade itself in Bill Gate's image, in that I am forced to pay for things I don't want or need, and their less expensive version of the software (Fedora) is just as weak as comparing XP Home to their Enterprise Server.
It isn't that RH changed to two versions and charged for support for better quality version, it is HOW they did this, completely DUMPING the little guy and leaving him with no options. They took my money then dropped all support for my software. No refund, no apology.
A couple months ago, I started writing a few articles for Wikipedia on topics I am considered an expert on. I also "watch" several topics I am familiar with or just interested in. There is a vandelism problem on Wikipedia, but they are usually reverted in a matter of an hour or two, if not within a few minutes. The way disputes are handles is a bit ugly, sorta by concensus, but it works most of the time. About 1/4 - 1/3 of my time at Wikipedia is spent reverting spam and vandelism, and I am NOT an editor.
From my experience, 95% of the spam and vandelism comes from anonymous users. On Slashdot, we can just mod them down or set our threshold higher, but this doesn't work on a wiki. Personally, I would like to see them NOT allow edits by anonymous users, and require anyone who wants to edit to setup an account and login, which is trivial. What I would like to see is the logs of anonymous contributions vs. the number of those that were reverted. My guess is that over half of the anonymous users are just posting spam and vandelism, which supports my desire to remove anonymous posting.
I understand why we have anonymous posting on slashdot and other blogs/news sites. It allows someone to post an opinion without the fear of reprisal, and often what is discussed is political in nature. Wikipedia doesn't allow editorials or original research, so the *need* for anonymous posting simply doesn't exist. Either the information is factual and cited or it is not. If someone really wants to be anonymous they can by using proxies and an anonymous email account.
I believe that eventually, Wikipedia will have to disallow anonymous posting, if for no other reason that to allow editors and contributors to spend less time policing the site, and more time contributing to it. Allowing anonymous posting does NOT make it any more free or open, but it does make it harder to maintain and lowers the accuracy of the Wiki at any given time.
I think RedHat made itself vulnerable a few years back when it basically changed its structure and dropped support for the small guy. We had a half dozen servers and had the inexpensive contracts for each server, about $40 a year or over $300 total, just for updates. If we wanted more support, we would simply pay for it as we needed it. I used their web services to manage servers and really liked their service. I would have paid more for the service, but not $250 to $800 per machine per year. Now I pay them exactly $0.
Now I use Fedora only when needed (being phased out), and have moved my personal Linux boxen to SuSE. I have been trying out Debian and others as well. Since I cut my teeth on RedHat 4.x, and begin using it exclusively on servers since 6.1, they could have easily kept my business by being fair and easy to work with. I even PURCHASED RedHat, even though I could have downloaded it for free, and signed up for the paid updates as soon as they offered it.
Now they have abandoned the small business, the desktop and a free enterprise distribution (which Fedora is NOT). In the short run, they might have made their shareholders happy, but in the long run, they have abandoned many of their customers who were customers BEFORE they were a public company. I don't wish them any harm (and not an Oracle fan), but it is hard for me to cry for them since they made their own problems. I still haven't settled on a single distribution for the servers, but I doubt they will change enough in time for me to switch back.
I don't know if being a Corpse-Flower Grower is exactly as bad as a Semen Washer or Orangutan-Pee Collector. So the thing stinks and smells like dead flesh, wear a mask. Working in a diaper service washing area would smell just as bad, but those people don't get an article.
Fair Use says you are supposed to be able to make archive copies, thus using it forever. DRM bypasses Fair Use, and the DMCA makes anything that can impliment Fair Use illegal.
So putting them in jail will make them not addicts and perfectly law abidding citizens?
Do they steal for fun, or only because drugs are expensive?
Addiction is a health problem that leads to crime. As someone who has worked in the criminal justice system and daily with addicts (not as an advocate) I can tell you that jail doesn't solve anything. The real crime issues are not with the addicts who commit petty crimes to get money. The real crimes are by the people who SELL the drugs. Take away the profit, you take away the reason to push people onto crimes, and you take away the need to commit crimes to get drugs.
So yes, I am for a type of legalization, but not for why you think. The only way to reduce drug DEALERS is to make it unprofitable. The only way to reduce petty crime from addicts is to allow them to get drugs free WHILE THEY SEEK TREATMENT. It isn't a perfect world, but the war on drugs damn sure isn't working.
Personally, I find all the crime that is caused because drugs are ILLEGAL much more offensive than the addict themselves. I have known well over 100 addicts, and a good chunk of them had very good paying jobs and loving families before the drugs fucked them up. I would rather PAY for their treatment, than to deal with the crimes they will commit.
They were only given two meals a day -- no lunch. Nowadays the jail is always overcrowded (end the War on Some Drugs!) but the voters don't give a damn.
Maybe the solutions isn't more jails, but rather decriminalizing things that aren't crimes, like addiction.
Slashdot Mirror
Cue up the conspiracies that this is just "a way for Lego to artificially drive up the price". There is always at least one paranoid on /. who will say it.
Did you even bother to read the article or at least the summary at all?
New media channels
A spokesman said the unit would monitor media such as weblogs and would also employ "surrogates", or top politicians or lobbyists who could be interviewed on TV and radio shows.'"
I don't recall saying it was fine for the government to lie about the source.
Yup. More ads than paragraphs, and they managed to stretch no content over a few pages.
To be clear, I am against ANYONE being stopped from reporting information, even if it is the government. I am not for the govt. reporting info and stopping others from doing the same. These are two different issues.
However, the vast majority of citizens do not "research" or "compare". That's critical thought, and most have no idea what that even means. Most eat the few bits they catch on their way out the door to work or before feeding the kids before bed.
Wow. You have a much lower opinion of the average person than I do. You are saying that people are too dumb to hear reports from different sources and make up their own minds, so you would disallow certain groups (the govt) from having free speech, in order to protect the masses.
This sounds remarkably like Soviet Communism. Just substituting your guidance instead of the government's.
So you would ban the government from making any information public before anyone can decide which it is?
(how often do you hear people in the USA discussing the pro's of Communism or Islamic extremism?).
Every single day in the USA. Ever heard of the Communist Party or the Socialist Party? Ever notice how many different mosques there are in the USA, of which several DO condone violence?
Maybe YOU need to do a little historic research before you hit the Submit button.
And they have the guts to "condemn" China for the "great internet firewall" ?
It seems to me that the government isn't trying to control ideas, it is trying to compete in the market place of ideas. Just because the Pentagon will issue some press releases, this doesn't stop you, me or anyone else from putting our ideas out there as well. It seems to me that it is the government's DUTY to release information if they think the news is reporting false information. We can still choose to research it, compare it to other sources, and accept or reject it.
I didn't see anywhere in the article that every US citizen was being forced to watch these new media channels, or being forced to accept the information as the truth. Funny, while I am as skeptical as they come when it comes to any government, I am not afraid of letting them release their response to news reports. Kinda fits in with the whole idea of free speech.
Your analogy is flawed. Drinking and driving laws are to protect other people who could be injured, not the one doing the drinking and driving. Since individuals can not protect themselves from drunk drivers, this is within the scope of the government's duties. That, plus highways and national defense. That pretty much covers it.
The problem is the corporations, and the government that allows these things to go on.
.000001% of the problem, it's your turn. Is it too inconvenient to not use Microsoft products? Then quit bitching. It is called capitalism, and you vote with your dollars. If you "elect" Microsoft, live with it.
Sorry, gotta lay the blame squarely on myself for this one. I bought Microsoft products for many years. It won't happen again, I promise. Now that I have taken care of
It is NOT the government's responsibility to insure I don't buy products from companies that have bad policies. It is mine. I don't need, nor want, the government to get involved whatsoever. Most governments tend to fuck up anything they get involved in.
I still find it ironic that I get a lot of trash talk about how "unfree" speech is the US, yet I see US policitians call each other worse stuff during any election cycle, and no one goes to jail. Just as you can't have a pro-nazi site in Germany, and a host of other restrictions in every other country.
We have our own problems here in the States, (ie: 2600 getting sued for linking to DeCSS code...) but at least pretty much anything goes when it comes to politicians.
But, hey, if you really are afraid of some kind of retaliation for speaking freely, that's what you have to do. Freedom takes effort.
;)
And Freedom isn't free, it costs $1.05.
The movie didn't bomb. It wasn't a smash success, granted, but it did mediocre at the boxoffice and very well with DVD sales, as did the one and only season with DVD sales. According to IMDB, it cost $40 mil to make and made about $39mil worldwide, plus an unknown amount in DVD sales. They didn't get rich, but they made money. It would have helped if they actually promoted the movie, and if the new Fox execs who cancelled the series (after showing it out of order at different times) were not such asshats.
And speaking of viral marketing, it was on a Slashdot poll that I first heard of Serenity. Went and watched the first episode of the series (the real first, not what the network aired first), got hooked, bought the DVDs. Viral marketing at it's finest, as a silly poll produced a customer that bought both the movie DVD and the complete first season DVD set.
I expanded on this below, so I won't rehash, and instead answer the main question:
Would I ever go back to RedHat?
It is very possible. Everyone makes mistakes, myself included. But I wouldn't go back until they changed their business model to something that is more friendly to small guys. I wouldn't even demand an apology, although one is certainly deserved. I am not a fanboy/anti-fanboy. I am a pragmatic guy that will use what I believe is the best option, be it RedHat, SuSE or even MS if they could get their act together (not holding my breath). I like the idea of "Free as in speech" software, but it is a preference, not a religion. It just makes my life easier.
RedHat HAS done some very good things for the community. They have also done some very questionable things, and not just the business model change that abandoned all us small users. I don't consider them good or evil, just another company that I would prefer to not do business with at this time because of their past and current policies that alienate small users that want more than Fedora (I do NOT want a new version every 6 freaking months!!!!), and are willing to pay for it. Just not $800+ a year for updates.
There are MANY thousands of people who feel exactly like I do, that RH screwed us over, took our money, changed their business, and left us high and dry. Not that it makes it any better, but MS does this every time they change their EULA or disables a feature. IBM is now the darling of the Linux community, yet 20 years ago it was the bastard. Companies change, and I would be a fool to hold a grudge against a corporation, since board members change all the time.
So, can I forgive? Yes. Will I forget? Doubtful.
Very good question. First, I am NOT opposed to paying for support. I previously DID pay for support. I am opposed to paying $800 if all I want is guaranteed updates. I have no problem paying per phone call, a reasonable fee for them to provide updates ($40-$60 per year per machine). RH needs to stay in business, and I WANTED them to stay in business, which is why I paid for distros, even tho they were free.
I thought about Whitebox and CentOS, and had considered them both because I was already familiar with the quirks of RH from years of use, AND they are both very legitimate RH clones. What KEPT me from using them is (ironically) the fact that they don't charge. This means they can stop updates at any time, and leave me stranded. I need to know the company is going to be around for 3 to 5 years, as I can't afford to switch distributions every 6 months. That can be more expensive than even RH fees.
In a nutshell, I want minimum support from a real company, and I am willing to pay for the support I actually use. It may be that someday I will NEED $800 worth of support, but today isn't that day.
What I like about Linux is that it is Free (as in speech). As to the price, I expect I will pay more for it in dollars, but save money in time and headaches. I don't need permission to add users, change the role of the machine, or move all the software to another machine. But RH remade itself in Bill Gate's image, in that I am forced to pay for things I don't want or need, and their less expensive version of the software (Fedora) is just as weak as comparing XP Home to their Enterprise Server.
It isn't that RH changed to two versions and charged for support for better quality version, it is HOW they did this, completely DUMPING the little guy and leaving him with no options. They took my money then dropped all support for my software. No refund, no apology.
A couple months ago, I started writing a few articles for Wikipedia on topics I am considered an expert on. I also "watch" several topics I am familiar with or just interested in. There is a vandelism problem on Wikipedia, but they are usually reverted in a matter of an hour or two, if not within a few minutes. The way disputes are handles is a bit ugly, sorta by concensus, but it works most of the time. About 1/4 - 1/3 of my time at Wikipedia is spent reverting spam and vandelism, and I am NOT an editor.
From my experience, 95% of the spam and vandelism comes from anonymous users. On Slashdot, we can just mod them down or set our threshold higher, but this doesn't work on a wiki. Personally, I would like to see them NOT allow edits by anonymous users, and require anyone who wants to edit to setup an account and login, which is trivial. What I would like to see is the logs of anonymous contributions vs. the number of those that were reverted. My guess is that over half of the anonymous users are just posting spam and vandelism, which supports my desire to remove anonymous posting.
I understand why we have anonymous posting on slashdot and other blogs/news sites. It allows someone to post an opinion without the fear of reprisal, and often what is discussed is political in nature. Wikipedia doesn't allow editorials or original research, so the *need* for anonymous posting simply doesn't exist. Either the information is factual and cited or it is not. If someone really wants to be anonymous they can by using proxies and an anonymous email account.
I believe that eventually, Wikipedia will have to disallow anonymous posting, if for no other reason that to allow editors and contributors to spend less time policing the site, and more time contributing to it. Allowing anonymous posting does NOT make it any more free or open, but it does make it harder to maintain and lowers the accuracy of the Wiki at any given time.
I think RedHat made itself vulnerable a few years back when it basically changed its structure and dropped support for the small guy. We had a half dozen servers and had the inexpensive contracts for each server, about $40 a year or over $300 total, just for updates. If we wanted more support, we would simply pay for it as we needed it. I used their web services to manage servers and really liked their service. I would have paid more for the service, but not $250 to $800 per machine per year. Now I pay them exactly $0.
Now I use Fedora only when needed (being phased out), and have moved my personal Linux boxen to SuSE. I have been trying out Debian and others as well. Since I cut my teeth on RedHat 4.x, and begin using it exclusively on servers since 6.1, they could have easily kept my business by being fair and easy to work with. I even PURCHASED RedHat, even though I could have downloaded it for free, and signed up for the paid updates as soon as they offered it.
Now they have abandoned the small business, the desktop and a free enterprise distribution (which Fedora is NOT). In the short run, they might have made their shareholders happy, but in the long run, they have abandoned many of their customers who were customers BEFORE they were a public company. I don't wish them any harm (and not an Oracle fan), but it is hard for me to cry for them since they made their own problems. I still haven't settled on a single distribution for the servers, but I doubt they will change enough in time for me to switch back.
I don't know if being a Corpse-Flower Grower is exactly as bad as a Semen Washer or Orangutan-Pee Collector. So the thing stinks and smells like dead flesh, wear a mask. Working in a diaper service washing area would smell just as bad, but those people don't get an article.
Fair Use says you are supposed to be able to make archive copies, thus using it forever. DRM bypasses Fair Use, and the DMCA makes anything that can impliment Fair Use illegal.
From the article:
...all EMI CDs will come with additional material to make them more attractive to the consumer.
;)
Isn't that all was Sony was trying to do, give you some free software when you bought their CDs?
So putting them in jail will make them not addicts and perfectly law abidding citizens?
Do they steal for fun, or only because drugs are expensive?
Addiction is a health problem that leads to crime. As someone who has worked in the criminal justice system and daily with addicts (not as an advocate) I can tell you that jail doesn't solve anything. The real crime issues are not with the addicts who commit petty crimes to get money. The real crimes are by the people who SELL the drugs. Take away the profit, you take away the reason to push people onto crimes, and you take away the need to commit crimes to get drugs.
So yes, I am for a type of legalization, but not for why you think. The only way to reduce drug DEALERS is to make it unprofitable. The only way to reduce petty crime from addicts is to allow them to get drugs free WHILE THEY SEEK TREATMENT. It isn't a perfect world, but the war on drugs damn sure isn't working.
Personally, I find all the crime that is caused because drugs are ILLEGAL much more offensive than the addict themselves. I have known well over 100 addicts, and a good chunk of them had very good paying jobs and loving families before the drugs fucked them up. I would rather PAY for their treatment, than to deal with the crimes they will commit.
Kid, have you rehabilitated yourself?
They were only given two meals a day -- no lunch. Nowadays the jail is always overcrowded (end the War on Some Drugs!) but the voters don't give a damn.
Maybe the solutions isn't more jails, but rather decriminalizing things that aren't crimes, like addiction.
Why do all the modded up replies to the OP have the phrase YMMV in them?
You May Moderate Vigorously?
The man who represents himself has an idiot for a lawyer and a client. (stolen from somewhere)
And as someone who worked in criminal defense for a few years (not as a lawyer) I can tell you, the above claim is an understatement.