However, the problem is with kdawson, the Slashdot editor
kdawson, the Slashdot editor says, "... Government To Build "Unhackable" Netbooks".
kdawson made the title sensationalist and misleading.
kdawson turned a wonderful story into a misleading experience
Your obvious derision for kdawson notwithstanding, the "NSW seeks to build 'unhackable' netbook network" headline came from the itnews.com.au site, which you would have discovered for yourself if you had clicked the second link in the article.
Your anti-kdawson rant also misses the real point, which is that this "wonderful story," as you describe it, is nothing more than part of Microsoft's Windows 7 launch campaign. The real story lies in this paragraph:
incredibly, while the netbooks are loaded with many hundreds of dollars worth of software, 2GB of RAM and a six hour battery, the cost to the NSW Department of Education is under $500 a unit.
Wow! That is incredible, and a real coincidence that this is occurring just as Microsoft prepares to roll out Windows 7.
What you should be taking Slashdot to task for is allowing this advertisement - replete with Microsoft marketing phrases like "Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) " and quotes from DET executives gushing that "There was no way we could do any of this on XP" - to run, instead of an insightful analysis of what this little Microsoft publicity stunt was really all about. Of course your TCO will be way down when Microsoft gives you enterprise versions of their software for free.
As someone mentioned above, this is a victory for "trusted computing," and other technologies for enabling corporations to control your hardware. Someone should write an article about that.
After spending that sort of money, did you expect them to say "We've got a bunch of sorta-hackable laptops we're lending to children, and we'd really like you to respect the boundaries that we can't enforce"?
No. After spending that sort of money on security, we expect them to STFU about it.
NBC always reports on the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. I think they commission it. They seem to do a decent job of describing how they do it... So maybe you need to talk about a more nuanced group than 'the media'
Well, I did say that I am not in the US, and am not familiar with the polling company that is the subject of the article. I was speaking from my own experience, and that doesn't include NBC/WSJ. fuzzyfuzzyfungus' comment reminded me of my reaction to the barrage of polling that took place during the numerous elections that have recently been held where I live, and I felt that my own experience and observations might be interesting, if not directly relevant.
But you're right, "the media" is an overly broad term, and I shouldn't have resorted to that type of generalization. I was rushing out the door but that's no excuse.
its mere existence makes the world a less knowable place either way
Well said.
I find it disturbing, too, that the media just reports the polling companies' results, without reporting things like what questions were asked, in what order, how the poll was conducted or who commissioned it, all of which can have a big effect on the results. A lot of "push polling" goes on, especially when the polls are commissioned by special interest groups, business associations, unions or political parties themselves.
I'm not in the US, so I don't know this polling company, but I've had a municipal, provincial and federal election in the past 12 months (with another possible federal election imminent) and I think polling and radio call in shows have a great deal of effect on people's opinions these days, more so than traditional newspaper and television newscasts.
If Strategic Vision was conducting fraudulent poles, I would be looking at their client list and going after whoever paid for them as well.
To those with mod points: use them on something worthwhile. Noting that your posts are turning up in the wrong topic is on topic. Modding postmortem's post Off Topic is a mis-use of your mod points.
You buy Nike T-Shirts then print some slogan on them and then either sell them or give them away. What you've done is now made it appear the slogan is from Nike (or it's reasonable to assume people could be confused by it.)
Yes, this is a problem, isn't it.
Huh?
So I buy a Chevy car, put a "Breasts Not Bombs" bumper sticker on it, then either sell the car or give it away. According to you, what I've just done is made it appear the slogan is from Chevy, or it's reasonable to assume people could be confused by it.
Or I buy a Dell Laptop, peel off the "Ready for Vista" sticker and put a Tux sticker on it, sell it to someone. Dell's going to stop me because their Trade Mark is on it? I don't think so.
Even if Nike, Chevy or Dell could make the case that I was making it appear they endorsed the slogan, Trade Mark law wouldn't be relevant. Trade Mark law prevents me from selling a knock-off with someone's Trade Mark, or a confusingly similar mark, on it. What you're talking about is something entirely different, and frankly I don't think the manufacturer would have much say in the matter.
Slashdot isn't just one guy sitting in his basement posting all these comment, it's many people with many opinions, some of which differ from those of others. I would think someone with a 5-digit UID would have noticed that by now
Wanting reforms to copyright law to ensure fair use and the Public Domain are given as much respect and consideration as the needs of copyright holders is not the same thing as being "opposed to copyright law"
and that you couldn't "steal" intellectual property because it wasn't physically taken from someone else?
You can't, but you can infringe their copyright, which is a different, but equally serious, thing than stealing.
Honestly, do you really not get the difference or is 4chan down this morning?
That's one way of looking at it, another would be to say it was designed to guarantee revenge.
Well, yeah. With Reagan talking about building a spaced-based retaliation system that wouldn't stop a Soviet first strike, but would help reduce their ability to retaliate in a weakened state after a US first strike, assuring the more hawkish members of the Politburo that they would have their revenge no matter what may have been the difference that saved us all from destruction.
It's kind of shocking, really, that the Soviets apparently recognized the danger the extremists among them represented, and designed a system that would placate them. If they had announced it to the world, the US would have had the propaganda running overtime, spinning it as a provocation. As it was, it quietly did it's job and had no effect on the outcome of the Cold War.
By guaranteeing that Moscow could hit back, Perimeter was actually designed to keep an overeager Soviet military or civilian leader from launching prematurely during a crisis. The point, Zheleznyakov says, was "to cool down all these hotheads and extremists. No matter what was going to happen, there still would be revenge. Those who attack us will be punished."
So it sounds like the purpose of the devices was more to deter a Soviet first strike, rather than a US first strike.
If Soviet radar picked up an ominous but ambiguous signal, the leaders could turn on Perimeter and wait. If it turned out to be geese, they could relax and Perimeter would stand down. Confirming actual detonations on Soviet soil is far easier than confirming distant launches. "That is why we have the system," Yarynich says. "To avoid a tragic mistake. "
Funny, I can's seem to find a <quote> tag in the HTML standard
Try looking for the <blockquote> tag.
I'm assuming that like most Americans
You assume a lot
you are profoundly arrogant about your own country
That's a pretty broad generalization
and have simply setup a misstep on my part with slashcode as a straw man to attack me with
I don't think Slashcode has anything to do with it. The same page you used to post your comment has a list of "Allowed HTML," and that list includes the <blockquote> tag (as well as the <strong> tag, which I'm pretty sure is preferred over the <b> tag). I'm guessing you simply neglected to close your tag, which is why the text you quoted as well as the part you contributed all appeared in the same block of quoted text.
Also, I don't think I "attacked" you, but if you feel that way I apologize.
The law of the Slashdot jungle is clear: if you are going to be a spelling/grammar nazi, you had better make sure your spelling/grammar is perfect, or you will be ridiculed.
By the same token, if you are going to use the tired, boring, unoriginal "fixed that for ya" meme, at least preview your own post and make sure it isn't "broken" in an obvious way.
In any case, if they include GPL software (Linux), they will likely be including a copy of the license with the device.
That would only be necessary if they were planning on distributing Linux, or some other piece of GPL software. I don't think using a piece of software in a larger product is the same thing as distributing the software. Then again, there are pieces of software that force you to "Accept" the terms of the GPL in order to use it, which violates freedom 0 in my opinion, so who knows.
To be fair, overrated as a disagreement is perfectly legit if people are putting nonsense at +5 - you're not disagreeing only with the poster but with the ridiculously high mod points.
In that case, it would be more effective to post a comment outlining why the parent is wrong, or even reevaluate why you disagree with the poster and the majority of moderators (unlikely though it sounds, you could actually be wrong in this one case).
Simply slapping "overrated" on a comment does nothing to advance the discussion, or help anyone learn from an alternative point of view.
I support a commercial free, listener-supported Internet radio station every month for the simple reason that I would be devastated by the loss if they ever went away (or * forbid, started playing commercials).
I think this model is workable, if your goal is to keep things simple and run it like a small business. I'm sure that's not what the big-money-media types want to hear, but simply asking people who value what you have to offer to voluntarily support you can do wonders. Look at how many people have an * to their user name here on Slashdot.
With paranoia about malware and viruses at an all-time high, I certainly wouldn't run a CD a stranger on the street gave to me.
Agreed. I think a better approach would be to have laptops set up running Ubuntu or whatever and let people try it out there in the mall or wherever. Rather than handing out CDs, give them something with your URL on it. Try to sign them up and get them to come to a meeting, if you have a local user's group. If not, you can point them at an online user's group and suggest they download a liveCD from them.
I can remember the local LUG holding InstallFests, back when partitioning your drive or even getting Xwindows to load was a more daunting task. You'd have to already be pretty interested in running Linux to haul your pc to a gymnasium somewhere, but these days it's easier for people to try free and open source software. Even directing users to simple things like Firefox, or suggesting OpenOffice.org to a user who doesn't like Office 2007 is a way of helping people ease in to it. You could also show them Linux pre-installed on a netbook.
But handing out discs to strangers is a bad idea. We should encourage people to not execute code on their computers unless they are sure of the source.
That's the problem with FOSS advocates, they keep coming up with these wacky ideas, and each time they put them into action the public sees.... err, a wacky idea, associated with FOSS.
Yeah, those wacky FOSS advocates and their wacky ideas to promote the projects they believe in.
Lord knows, Microsoft would never engage in something as shameless as encouraging their supporters to host parties in their communities and generally evangelize Windows 7 to non-converts.
The problem there is that virtually every artist is a member of ASCAP or BMI. You drop those groups and you drop your primary market share, and if you were Apple, would you want to lose your top sellers?
True, but there have been numerous reports in recent months of digital sales rising as the sales of CDs fall. I think Apple's response should be to stop providing free 30 second commercials for the songs they sell, and charge copyright holders for this advertising, just as television, radio and print media charge for ads.
If individual rights holders do not wish to pay for this advertising, they can take the chance that potential buyers will find out about their offerings via other methods, like word of mouth, or the payola-sponsored airplay they get on Clear Channel stations.
This is very similar to Rupert Murdoch wanting to charge Google for helping readers (and potential targets for their ads) to find the stories they publish. Same solution - offer to continue indexing their site for a nominal fee. If they don't like those terms, cut 'em off for six months and see how they feel about it then (if they're still around).
Oh hi, you must be new here. Let me give you some tips and rules to abide by:
You forgot one:
Starting your post with "I know I'll probably be modded down for saying this, but my Karma can take the hit" is guaranteed to garner a couple of positive mods.
If you'd done that, you wouldn't curretly be -1 Off Topic.
Soapbox, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order.
Short of pluggin people fulla lead, the summary provides a possible solution to this law:
'all Internet users must keep their connections 'secure' and are responsible for what happens on them.'
I wonder how secure the Internet connections owned by the members of the French National Assembly are. Maybe a tracker could be set up on Sarkozy's Minitel terminal.
You simply rephrased what the AC said in a different way.
The AC said "commercial development drives things END USERS WANT", suggesting that end users (or END USERS, if you will) will simply lap up whatever slop commercial developers dish out for them, so why bother listening to users. At least that was my take. Since I don't want what these particular commercial developers are offering, I believe this reasoning is flawed and said so. I'm not sure how you interpreted this as an endorsement of the AC's POV.
Linux developers want what linux developers want, and they tend not to want what the average end user wants, and therefore the end product will never converge to something the average person desires
I don't think it's the case at all that "Linux developes" want something different thatn what the average end user wants. Sure, a lot of FOSS applications are created simply because someone had a need and went to the trouble of developing a solution, then generously released it in to the wild so someone else with the same need could benefit from it. But developers are also computer users, and have the same wants and needs as other users. Quite often when I need to accomplish a task and search for a Linux application that meets that need I am rewarded with exactly what I was looking for.
Commercial software companies, OTOH, wouldn't survive if their customers' needs were all met, so they need to keep manufacturing new things their customers "need," like 30,000 ring tones (!) (more like 30,000 ways to annoy the other people on the bus, or standing in line next to you in the supermarket).
The AC was quite correct, commercial developers seek to "drive" the wants/needs of the user, as opposed to open source developers, who are often simply scratching an itch, but are more than happy if someone else can benefit from their effort.
But different strokes, and all that. You and the troll with the mod points are entitled to a different opinion. But I was most certainly not rephrasing what the AC said.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I said "article" in place of "summary," despite having previewed my post a number of times. D'oh!
Your obvious derision for kdawson notwithstanding, the "NSW seeks to build 'unhackable' netbook network" headline came from the itnews.com.au site, which you would have discovered for yourself if you had clicked the second link in the article.
Your anti-kdawson rant also misses the real point, which is that this "wonderful story," as you describe it, is nothing more than part of Microsoft's Windows 7 launch campaign. The real story lies in this paragraph:
Wow! That is incredible, and a real coincidence that this is occurring just as Microsoft prepares to roll out Windows 7.
What you should be taking Slashdot to task for is allowing this advertisement - replete with Microsoft marketing phrases like "Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) " and quotes from DET executives gushing that "There was no way we could do any of this on XP" - to run, instead of an insightful analysis of what this little Microsoft publicity stunt was really all about. Of course your TCO will be way down when Microsoft gives you enterprise versions of their software for free.
As someone mentioned above, this is a victory for "trusted computing," and other technologies for enabling corporations to control your hardware. Someone should write an article about that.
No. After spending that sort of money on security, we expect them to STFU about it.
Well, I did say that I am not in the US, and am not familiar with the polling company that is the subject of the article. I was speaking from my own experience, and that doesn't include NBC/WSJ. fuzzyfuzzyfungus' comment reminded me of my reaction to the barrage of polling that took place during the numerous elections that have recently been held where I live, and I felt that my own experience and observations might be interesting, if not directly relevant.
But you're right, "the media" is an overly broad term, and I shouldn't have resorted to that type of generalization. I was rushing out the door but that's no excuse.
I should have said the media where I live.
Well said.
I find it disturbing, too, that the media just reports the polling companies' results, without reporting things like what questions were asked, in what order, how the poll was conducted or who commissioned it, all of which can have a big effect on the results. A lot of "push polling" goes on, especially when the polls are commissioned by special interest groups, business associations, unions or political parties themselves.
I'm not in the US, so I don't know this polling company, but I've had a municipal, provincial and federal election in the past 12 months (with another possible federal election imminent) and I think polling and radio call in shows have a great deal of effect on people's opinions these days, more so than traditional newspaper and television newscasts.
If Strategic Vision was conducting fraudulent poles, I would be looking at their client list and going after whoever paid for them as well.
Yeah, it's been like that off and on all day.
To those with mod points: use them on something worthwhile. Noting that your posts are turning up in the wrong topic is on topic. Modding postmortem's post Off Topic is a mis-use of your mod points.
Huh?
So I buy a Chevy car, put a "Breasts Not Bombs" bumper sticker on it, then either sell the car or give it away. According to you, what I've just done is made it appear the slogan is from Chevy, or it's reasonable to assume people could be confused by it.
Or I buy a Dell Laptop, peel off the "Ready for Vista" sticker and put a Tux sticker on it, sell it to someone. Dell's going to stop me because their Trade Mark is on it? I don't think so.
Even if Nike, Chevy or Dell could make the case that I was making it appear they endorsed the slogan, Trade Mark law wouldn't be relevant. Trade Mark law prevents me from selling a knock-off with someone's Trade Mark, or a confusingly similar mark, on it. What you're talking about is something entirely different, and frankly I don't think the manufacturer would have much say in the matter.
Ah, that ol' straw man. Here goes:
You can't, but you can infringe their copyright, which is a different, but equally serious, thing than stealing.
Honestly, do you really not get the difference or is 4chan down this morning?
Well, yeah. With Reagan talking about building a spaced-based retaliation system that wouldn't stop a Soviet first strike, but would help reduce their ability to retaliate in a weakened state after a US first strike, assuring the more hawkish members of the Politburo that they would have their revenge no matter what may have been the difference that saved us all from destruction.
It's kind of shocking, really, that the Soviets apparently recognized the danger the extremists among them represented, and designed a system that would placate them. If they had announced it to the world, the US would have had the propaganda running overtime, spinning it as a provocation. As it was, it quietly did it's job and had no effect on the outcome of the Cold War.
Here's a more relevant quote from TFA:
So it sounds like the purpose of the devices was more to deter a Soviet first strike, rather than a US first strike.
Try looking for the <blockquote> tag.
You assume a lot
That's a pretty broad generalization
I don't think Slashcode has anything to do with it. The same page you used to post your comment has a list of "Allowed HTML," and that list includes the <blockquote> tag (as well as the <strong> tag, which I'm pretty sure is preferred over the <b> tag). I'm guessing you simply neglected to close your tag, which is why the text you quoted as well as the part you contributed all appeared in the same block of quoted text.
Also, I don't think I "attacked" you, but if you feel that way I apologize.
The law of the Slashdot jungle is clear: if you are going to be a spelling/grammar nazi, you had better make sure your spelling/grammar is perfect, or you will be ridiculed.
By the same token, if you are going to use the tired, boring, unoriginal "fixed that for ya" meme, at least preview your own post and make sure it isn't "broken" in an obvious way.
If you're going to presume to "fix" someone's post, at least make the effort to get your html right. Your post is the one that's broken.
Time to retire this boring meme
That would only be necessary if they were planning on distributing Linux, or some other piece of GPL software. I don't think using a piece of software in a larger product is the same thing as distributing the software. Then again, there are pieces of software that force you to "Accept" the terms of the GPL in order to use it, which violates freedom 0 in my opinion, so who knows.
In that case, it would be more effective to post a comment outlining why the parent is wrong, or even reevaluate why you disagree with the poster and the majority of moderators (unlikely though it sounds, you could actually be wrong in this one case).
Simply slapping "overrated" on a comment does nothing to advance the discussion, or help anyone learn from an alternative point of view.
I support a commercial free, listener-supported Internet radio station every month for the simple reason that I would be devastated by the loss if they ever went away (or * forbid, started playing commercials).
I think this model is workable, if your goal is to keep things simple and run it like a small business. I'm sure that's not what the big-money-media types want to hear, but simply asking people who value what you have to offer to voluntarily support you can do wonders. Look at how many people have an * to their user name here on Slashdot.
Agreed. I think a better approach would be to have laptops set up running Ubuntu or whatever and let people try it out there in the mall or wherever. Rather than handing out CDs, give them something with your URL on it. Try to sign them up and get them to come to a meeting, if you have a local user's group. If not, you can point them at an online user's group and suggest they download a liveCD from them.
I can remember the local LUG holding InstallFests, back when partitioning your drive or even getting Xwindows to load was a more daunting task. You'd have to already be pretty interested in running Linux to haul your pc to a gymnasium somewhere, but these days it's easier for people to try free and open source software. Even directing users to simple things like Firefox, or suggesting OpenOffice.org to a user who doesn't like Office 2007 is a way of helping people ease in to it. You could also show them Linux pre-installed on a netbook.
But handing out discs to strangers is a bad idea. We should encourage people to not execute code on their computers unless they are sure of the source.
Yeah, those wacky FOSS advocates and their wacky ideas to promote the projects they believe in.
Lord knows, Microsoft would never engage in something as shameless as encouraging their supporters to host parties in their communities and generally evangelize Windows 7 to non-converts.
True, but there have been numerous reports in recent months of digital sales rising as the sales of CDs fall. I think Apple's response should be to stop providing free 30 second commercials for the songs they sell, and charge copyright holders for this advertising, just as television, radio and print media charge for ads.
If individual rights holders do not wish to pay for this advertising, they can take the chance that potential buyers will find out about their offerings via other methods, like word of mouth, or the payola-sponsored airplay they get on Clear Channel stations.
This is very similar to Rupert Murdoch wanting to charge Google for helping readers (and potential targets for their ads) to find the stories they publish. Same solution - offer to continue indexing their site for a nominal fee. If they don't like those terms, cut 'em off for six months and see how they feel about it then (if they're still around).
You forgot one:
Starting your post with "I know I'll probably be modded down for saying this, but my Karma can take the hit" is guaranteed to garner a couple of positive mods.
If you'd done that, you wouldn't curretly be -1 Off Topic.
Short of pluggin people fulla lead, the summary provides a possible solution to this law:
I wonder how secure the Internet connections owned by the members of the French National Assembly are. Maybe a tracker could be set up on Sarkozy's Minitel terminal.
The AC said "commercial development drives things END USERS WANT", suggesting that end users (or END USERS, if you will) will simply lap up whatever slop commercial developers dish out for them, so why bother listening to users. At least that was my take. Since I don't want what these particular commercial developers are offering, I believe this reasoning is flawed and said so. I'm not sure how you interpreted this as an endorsement of the AC's POV.
I don't think it's the case at all that "Linux developes" want something different thatn what the average end user wants. Sure, a lot of FOSS applications are created simply because someone had a need and went to the trouble of developing a solution, then generously released it in to the wild so someone else with the same need could benefit from it. But developers are also computer users, and have the same wants and needs as other users. Quite often when I need to accomplish a task and search for a Linux application that meets that need I am rewarded with exactly what I was looking for.
Commercial software companies, OTOH, wouldn't survive if their customers' needs were all met, so they need to keep manufacturing new things their customers "need," like 30,000 ring tones (!) (more like 30,000 ways to annoy the other people on the bus, or standing in line next to you in the supermarket).
The AC was quite correct, commercial developers seek to "drive" the wants/needs of the user, as opposed to open source developers, who are often simply scratching an itch, but are more than happy if someone else can benefit from their effort.
But different strokes, and all that. You and the troll with the mod points are entitled to a different opinion. But I was most certainly not rephrasing what the AC said.
Funny. I read the entire summary and can say unequivocally that I don't want *any* of that crap.
What did you give him? A lid?
Oh. You meant legal issues for the cowboy, not the hackers.
Never mind.
Isn't that what the summary was referring to when it stated: "run under license of the Dutch regulatory authority"?