Surveillance is happening. What are you going to do about it?
I suspect that people will get fed up with it eventually, and start taking matters into their own hands. Small, directed EMP pulses and other kinds of short burst energy can goof up the equipment. Baseball bats work well too, etc.. And, if you're not into that, legions of spray painters can do wonders.
Of course then the government will start making the surveilance equipment more durable, and find ways to combat the damage, but eventually, one would hope, they'll just give up (but I think that's unlikely).
Surveillance equipment only works so long as the population is docile enough to accept it.
That's one of the nice things about the MIT, Apache, or BSD licenses, they're very simple. Basically, "Do whatever you want, just don't sue us and don't remove attribution".
This argument is tantamount to the fabled molehillian mountain.
There are literally HUNDREDS of open source licenses, many of which are OSI approved. Claiming that users are too stupid to understand the terms of a license doesn't say much for their ability to understand any of those other licenses either, including the GPL.
Also, those living in ambiguous houses, shouldn't throw definition arguments. The term "Free" is highly ambiguous, and the FSF knows it (what with all the Software Libre essays), yet the continue to use the term knowing that others will be confused by it.
What you see is the result of ambitious thinking without sufficient research. Apple had it's own failures for years. Pink, Copeland, Taligent, etc..
The problem comes in when you publicize features before you've even built prototypes. Before you've proven that you can do what you plan to do.
Another problem is that most hardware hit a brick wall between 2001 and 2007. CPU's basically stopped getting faster, though they did get a bit more efficient. Then the whole multi-core thing happened. I think Microsoft pland on 5Ghz processors and Video Cards well beyond what we have when they started.
None of this is an excuse, they seriously misstepped, but I don't think any of their assumptions were unreasonable at the time, just a bad confluence of events combined with ambitious goals and a lack of course correction until it was too late.
Absolutely, I am just some loser with a dead-end life, but I hold no grudge against anyone for it. It's entirely of my own making, and frakly, i'm pretty happy with it. I don't like being recognized for my "genius", even when I am..
Like it or not, it takes a certain kind of person to be "popular" enough to be voted valedictorian. That type of person is often talking about how to save the world, and is a member of PETA, or whatever, but when it comes down to it, they view all that through their own self-absorbed nature. Otherwise, you just can't get to that level. It's hard work being selfish.
If she was so concerned about others, she would have been practicing safe driving, instead of making texting someone so important that it superceded all else. You don't find that the least bit of a personality red flag?
I'm not attacking the highly intelligent at all. I am attacking the institutionalized popularity contest of honors titles though. It takes a certain kind of person to be selected for class valedictorian, and intelligence and grades are only a portion of that.
"Everything going her way" it says, that's a sign of someone who is self-absorbed (or focused, however you want to spin it) to ridiculous levels. Even if it comes naturally, it's still a lot of work that it takes a type-A personality to achieve.
Also, Valedictorian is not just about your grades, it's also a personality contest. That means she's likely an "in crowd" sort of person, which is also a sign of being self-absorbed.
Lots of people get 4.0 grade point averages, only one is valedictorian, and while I'm sure they exist, I've never met a valedictorian that wasn't a complete douche bag.
And no, it's not jealousy. I didn't even graduate my high school class (for various reasons), preferring to get a GED early and get on with life. I was a classic under-achiever that schools traditionally don't now how to deal with, so I chose to make my own way, and have been a lot better for it in my opinion. I shudder to think of what I would be like if I had follow an honors program and joined those cliquey douche bags.
Sure, all this is generalization and even a bit of prejudice, but I stand by my comment. If she wasn't so self-absorbed, she would have been aware of how her behavior was risky to others.
On that point, I can't count the number of times i've driven from point A to point B without even being able to remember the intervening time, because I was too engrossed in something I was thinking about... basically driving completely on auto-pilot.
It gets so bad that sometimes I arrive at a destination I wasn't intending to simply because that's my most common route, and when on auto-pilot my brain just goes where it usually does.
I've done this during rush hour traffic even. Clearly, some part of my brain is able to function without much higher level control and avoid accidents, and pay attention to traffic, and signs and lights, and everything else. All while my conscious mind is somewhere else.
Is this unsafe? I don't know.. I've never been in an accident because of it. The few accidents i've had have been the fault of others (getting rear-ended while at a stop light, etc..)
I *DO* find my driving is worse when i'm talking to someone in the car, because this is not a common practice. Talking to someone on the Cell Phone, i'm typically more paranoid about my driving, over compensating even for my distractedness by ensuring to leave enough room at all times to react.
I think Most people who are distracted drives don't drive defensively (or offensively).
I actually don't find Vista as bad as most people claim. I think it's largely an image problem, with the most vocal people being those that have never even used it (or used it only very little). Not that it's perfect, but I really don't have many problems.
I had about as many problems with Windows 2000 when it came out (actually, more.. the driver issues were far worse with Win2k than Vista, particularly stuff like Creative Sound Blaster Live). XP was basically a point release of Windows 2000, so by then they had worked out most of the problems.
The difference is that Windows 2000 wasn't marketed as a consumer OS, vista was.
And the argument about being 5 years late is a little misleading. Yes, it's true, but Vista is not the same OS they were working on for most of that time. They were a bit ambitious, and effectively killed off the real "longhorn" in late 2005. Then they started over and the Vista today is really only about 2 years or work. Maybe in irrelevant point, but the "they had 5 years to get it right" argument is equally irrelelvant.
Wow, that's a great argument. I mean, if we didn't pay our electricity bill, we could pay our employees more too, and if we didn't pay our internet bill we could pay them more or buy better hardware. If we didn't pay our rent, then we could afford a kick as system for everyone. Why didn't I think of that argument?
There are certain costs that are inherant in running a business. If you don't pay them, you won't BE in business.
Honestly, that's just the way software is these days. Open Source is the same way, except they just call stuff beta for 5,10 or more years.
With any reasonably complex project, if you wait for it to be perfect before you ship it, you go out of business (if you're a commercial company) or you lose relevance (for open source). Meanwhile, for the 99% of people that don't have problems, they wonder why you haven't shipped already, and if you ship then 1% of people cry because they think you shipped too early.
Very likely bribed various national delegations so that they'd approve OOXML.
Repeat it enough, and people will believe it. There is no evidence of such bribery, other than the ODF side not getting it's way and assuming it must be Bribery.
In fact, quite a few third-world countries joined the standards process specifically to vote for OOXML
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. More of the members that joined in the last year voted against OOXML than for it. You know, countries like Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Iran, etc.. not to mention that many of the last minute additions to the NB's of various countries were from IBM, Oracle, and Google (who are all opposed to OOXML).
This is another case of repeating something enough and people will believe it.
You are aware that it's not even possible for Office to be compatible yet, right? What's OpenOffice's excuse, though? Why aren't they compatible with ODF 1.1 or 1.2?
That's the purpose, but remember it whas all those National Bodies that demanded changes be made to the standard before it could be ratified. As such, it was ISO itself that mandated that it be different.
Indeed. It seems almost like this is tacit admission that their 5 year old plan to migrate from Windows to Linux has failed. They seem to think that MacOS is a more viable alternative to move to than Linux.
At least that's what I take away from it. I mean, they made a big deal out of their plans to move everyone to Linux a few years ago, and to date it still hasn't happened in any large numbers.
What's even more interesting is the fact that the story is in fact wrong.
The norway meeting was not about approving or disapproving OOXML. It was to discuss if there was voter irregularities in Norway's vote, which the administors decided did not occur.
The vote was whether or not to change their vote based on voting irregularities.
Any vote for or gainst OOXML is like going to a US mid-term election and crying foul and corruption because your vote wasn't counted for the president.
Odd that you don't mention all the representatives from companies that have a financial interst in the failure of OOXML (like IBM, Sun, Oracle, etc..).
It's not uncommon for ISO NB's to have members from the companies submitting the standard. It wouldn't be able to be submitted otherwise.
Some people are on NB's for multiple countries (for example, I know of one IBM employee who's on three countries NB's) and thus get multiple votes.
Yeah, the problem is that you're only hearing one side of the story.
For example, the meeting in Norway was not to approve or disapprove of OOXML, it was to determine if there had been any irregularities in the Norway vote. As such, only the administrators votes counted towards whether to overturn their previous yes vote to no or abstain.
Since there was no vote to accept or reject OOXML, these stories that claim such are deceptive. I don't believe the authors are deliberately bending the truth, but I think they have bad information and are just repeating it.
[Inigo Montoya]I do not think that word means what you think it means[/Inigo Montoya]
Come to think of it, weren't there some MS guys calling themselves "The Open Document Foundation"?
No. The Open Document Foundation consisted of severam people, at least one of which was a founding member of the ODF TC (Gary Edwards), and at least one other who has been very vocal against OOXML (Marbux). They simply became disillusioned with ODF and in particularly Sun's domineering control over it. The fact that Sun has now convinced everyone that the Open Document Foundation was a Microsoft creation shows how far these people go against anyone that disagrees with them.
In fact, we're probbly going to see the exact same sort of railroading that happened to Gary and Marbux happen to Patrick.
What makes you think Microsoft couldn't do any of the things you mention with ODF? Of course they could, and because of their market share, you'd still be stuck trying to reverse engineer it. That argument is moot.
So, in effect, you hate OOXML because... what? Because Microsoft can do the exact same thing as they could do with ODF?
Slashdot Mirror
Surveillance is happening. What are you going to do about it?
I suspect that people will get fed up with it eventually, and start taking matters into their own hands. Small, directed EMP pulses and other kinds of short burst energy can goof up the equipment. Baseball bats work well too, etc.. And, if you're not into that, legions of spray painters can do wonders.
Of course then the government will start making the surveilance equipment more durable, and find ways to combat the damage, but eventually, one would hope, they'll just give up (but I think that's unlikely).
Surveillance equipment only works so long as the population is docile enough to accept it.
That's one of the nice things about the MIT, Apache, or BSD licenses, they're very simple. Basically, "Do whatever you want, just don't sue us and don't remove attribution".
This argument is tantamount to the fabled molehillian mountain.
There are literally HUNDREDS of open source licenses, many of which are OSI approved. Claiming that users are too stupid to understand the terms of a license doesn't say much for their ability to understand any of those other licenses either, including the GPL.
Also, those living in ambiguous houses, shouldn't throw definition arguments. The term "Free" is highly ambiguous, and the FSF knows it (what with all the Software Libre essays), yet the continue to use the term knowing that others will be confused by it.
What you see is the result of ambitious thinking without sufficient research. Apple had it's own failures for years. Pink, Copeland, Taligent, etc..
The problem comes in when you publicize features before you've even built prototypes. Before you've proven that you can do what you plan to do.
Another problem is that most hardware hit a brick wall between 2001 and 2007. CPU's basically stopped getting faster, though they did get a bit more efficient. Then the whole multi-core thing happened. I think Microsoft pland on 5Ghz processors and Video Cards well beyond what we have when they started.
None of this is an excuse, they seriously misstepped, but I don't think any of their assumptions were unreasonable at the time, just a bad confluence of events combined with ambitious goals and a lack of course correction until it was too late.
That's not paranoia, that's reacting to something that's already happened. Paranoia is taking precautions before it's happened.
Absolutely, I am just some loser with a dead-end life, but I hold no grudge against anyone for it. It's entirely of my own making, and frakly, i'm pretty happy with it. I don't like being recognized for my "genius", even when I am..
Like it or not, it takes a certain kind of person to be "popular" enough to be voted valedictorian. That type of person is often talking about how to save the world, and is a member of PETA, or whatever, but when it comes down to it, they view all that through their own self-absorbed nature. Otherwise, you just can't get to that level. It's hard work being selfish.
If she was so concerned about others, she would have been practicing safe driving, instead of making texting someone so important that it superceded all else. You don't find that the least bit of a personality red flag?
I'm not attacking the highly intelligent at all. I am attacking the institutionalized popularity contest of honors titles though. It takes a certain kind of person to be selected for class valedictorian, and intelligence and grades are only a portion of that.
I took more away from it than you did.
"Everything going her way" it says, that's a sign of someone who is self-absorbed (or focused, however you want to spin it) to ridiculous levels. Even if it comes naturally, it's still a lot of work that it takes a type-A personality to achieve.
Also, Valedictorian is not just about your grades, it's also a personality contest. That means she's likely an "in crowd" sort of person, which is also a sign of being self-absorbed.
Lots of people get 4.0 grade point averages, only one is valedictorian, and while I'm sure they exist, I've never met a valedictorian that wasn't a complete douche bag.
And no, it's not jealousy. I didn't even graduate my high school class (for various reasons), preferring to get a GED early and get on with life. I was a classic under-achiever that schools traditionally don't now how to deal with, so I chose to make my own way, and have been a lot better for it in my opinion. I shudder to think of what I would be like if I had follow an honors program and joined those cliquey douche bags.
Sure, all this is generalization and even a bit of prejudice, but I stand by my comment. If she wasn't so self-absorbed, she would have been aware of how her behavior was risky to others.
Just my opinion.
On that point, I can't count the number of times i've driven from point A to point B without even being able to remember the intervening time, because I was too engrossed in something I was thinking about... basically driving completely on auto-pilot.
It gets so bad that sometimes I arrive at a destination I wasn't intending to simply because that's my most common route, and when on auto-pilot my brain just goes where it usually does.
I've done this during rush hour traffic even. Clearly, some part of my brain is able to function without much higher level control and avoid accidents, and pay attention to traffic, and signs and lights, and everything else. All while my conscious mind is somewhere else.
Is this unsafe? I don't know.. I've never been in an accident because of it. The few accidents i've had have been the fault of others (getting rear-ended while at a stop light, etc..)
I *DO* find my driving is worse when i'm talking to someone in the car, because this is not a common practice. Talking to someone on the Cell Phone, i'm typically more paranoid about my driving, over compensating even for my distractedness by ensuring to leave enough room at all times to react.
I think Most people who are distracted drives don't drive defensively (or offensively).
Somehow I doubt it will actually haunt her for her entire life.
People like that are typically too self-absorbed to really care about others, even if they pretend to.
I could be wrong though.
I actually don't find Vista as bad as most people claim. I think it's largely an image problem, with the most vocal people being those that have never even used it (or used it only very little). Not that it's perfect, but I really don't have many problems.
I had about as many problems with Windows 2000 when it came out (actually, more.. the driver issues were far worse with Win2k than Vista, particularly stuff like Creative Sound Blaster Live). XP was basically a point release of Windows 2000, so by then they had worked out most of the problems.
The difference is that Windows 2000 wasn't marketed as a consumer OS, vista was.
And the argument about being 5 years late is a little misleading. Yes, it's true, but Vista is not the same OS they were working on for most of that time. They were a bit ambitious, and effectively killed off the real "longhorn" in late 2005. Then they started over and the Vista today is really only about 2 years or work. Maybe in irrelevant point, but the "they had 5 years to get it right" argument is equally irrelelvant.
Wow, that's a great argument. I mean, if we didn't pay our electricity bill, we could pay our employees more too, and if we didn't pay our internet bill we could pay them more or buy better hardware. If we didn't pay our rent, then we could afford a kick as system for everyone. Why didn't I think of that argument?
There are certain costs that are inherant in running a business. If you don't pay them, you won't BE in business.
Honestly, that's just the way software is these days. Open Source is the same way, except they just call stuff beta for 5,10 or more years.
With any reasonably complex project, if you wait for it to be perfect before you ship it, you go out of business (if you're a commercial company) or you lose relevance (for open source). Meanwhile, for the 99% of people that don't have problems, they wonder why you haven't shipped already, and if you ship then 1% of people cry because they think you shipped too early.
Very likely bribed various national delegations so that they'd approve OOXML.
Repeat it enough, and people will believe it. There is no evidence of such bribery, other than the ODF side not getting it's way and assuming it must be Bribery.
In fact, quite a few third-world countries joined the standards process specifically to vote for OOXML
Actually, it's exactly the opposite. More of the members that joined in the last year voted against OOXML than for it. You know, countries like Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Iran, etc.. not to mention that many of the last minute additions to the NB's of various countries were from IBM, Oracle, and Google (who are all opposed to OOXML).
This is another case of repeating something enough and people will believe it.
You are aware that it's not even possible for Office to be compatible yet, right? What's OpenOffice's excuse, though? Why aren't they compatible with ODF 1.1 or 1.2?
For someone that has such a strong opinion, you don't seem to follow it very well.
What you're talking about was changed in the "corrections" submitted to the BRM. So why are you still using it as an excuse?
If Microsoft was really interested in standards at all they would simply have filed complaints against ODF so those involved could ignore them.
There. Fixed that for you.
That's the purpose, but remember it whas all those National Bodies that demanded changes be made to the standard before it could be ratified. As such, it was ISO itself that mandated that it be different.
Indeed. It seems almost like this is tacit admission that their 5 year old plan to migrate from Windows to Linux has failed. They seem to think that MacOS is a more viable alternative to move to than Linux.
At least that's what I take away from it. I mean, they made a big deal out of their plans to move everyone to Linux a few years ago, and to date it still hasn't happened in any large numbers.
What's even more interesting is the fact that the story is in fact wrong.
The norway meeting was not about approving or disapproving OOXML. It was to discuss if there was voter irregularities in Norway's vote, which the administors decided did not occur.
The vote was whether or not to change their vote based on voting irregularities.
Any vote for or gainst OOXML is like going to a US mid-term election and crying foul and corruption because your vote wasn't counted for the president.
Odd that you don't mention all the representatives from companies that have a financial interst in the failure of OOXML (like IBM, Sun, Oracle, etc..).
It's not uncommon for ISO NB's to have members from the companies submitting the standard. It wouldn't be able to be submitted otherwise.
Some people are on NB's for multiple countries (for example, I know of one IBM employee who's on three countries NB's) and thus get multiple votes.
Yeah, the problem is that you're only hearing one side of the story.
For example, the meeting in Norway was not to approve or disapprove of OOXML, it was to determine if there had been any irregularities in the Norway vote. As such, only the administrators votes counted towards whether to overturn their previous yes vote to no or abstain.
Since there was no vote to accept or reject OOXML, these stories that claim such are deceptive. I don't believe the authors are deliberately bending the truth, but I think they have bad information and are just repeating it.
Did you ever see the movie Mystery Men?
It's not that implausible.
[Inigo Montoya]I do not think that word means what you think it means[/Inigo Montoya]
Come to think of it, weren't there some MS guys calling themselves "The Open Document Foundation"?
No. The Open Document Foundation consisted of severam people, at least one of which was a founding member of the ODF TC (Gary Edwards), and at least one other who has been very vocal against OOXML (Marbux). They simply became disillusioned with ODF and in particularly Sun's domineering control over it. The fact that Sun has now convinced everyone that the Open Document Foundation was a Microsoft creation shows how far these people go against anyone that disagrees with them.
In fact, we're probbly going to see the exact same sort of railroading that happened to Gary and Marbux happen to Patrick.
What makes you think Microsoft couldn't do any of the things you mention with ODF? Of course they could, and because of their market share, you'd still be stuck trying to reverse engineer it. That argument is moot.
So, in effect, you hate OOXML because... what? Because Microsoft can do the exact same thing as they could do with ODF?
As it is, Microsoft will not commit to supporting the standard. According to Brian Jones
So, umm.. where is Sun's commitment to indefinitely support ODF? KDE's? IBM's?
No corporation is going to make that committment.