Because we aren't going to remain at this technological level forever. Things are going to keep going, and they're going to keep getting more complex. Not only does the average person make toast and watch TV, but they also form opinions on this sort of progress. Governments, generally comprised of non-technical people themselves, listen to those opinions (at least in theory) and act on them. Angry mobs with pitchforks, torches, and a complete lack of appreciation for the way the world works are a bad thing.
And given, for example, the frequency with which people change majors in college, you think that everyone who is "destined" for a scientific career knows this in the first grade?
I don't know that I'm ready for that brave new world quite yet...
Scientific discoveries are also not made by people with nothing but a bachelor's degree in science. The article isn't suggesting that we force everyone to devote their life to science. The point is that as society is becoming increasingly more technology driven and everyone has to live with that and make decisions within that society, it would be nice if the average person had a greater exposure to science.
That's the result, which is the problem. Has it occured to anybody that we might be going about it the wrong way? We throw kids into school and start teaching them stuff, but we never explain why they should want to learn it. That's always secondary. Only the people with the natural passionate desire for learning actually do, the rest are pretty much left to the carefully crafted environment of whatever all the other kids feel is popular this week.
Re:Homogeny isn't a bad thing.
on
Windows in 2020
·
· Score: 1
The thing you're kind of missing here is that the people who like Linux like it for a reason. They think that it's the better OS. It's not just a matter of our team vs. their team. If every computer ran a good OS, that would be good. If every computer ran a bad OS, that would be bad. Whether they're right or not is an entirely seperate question, the point is that it's not really hypocritical at all.
Besides, a big reason that people dislike Microsoft is that Microsoft on every machine means more control for Microsoft and that's it, whereas Linux on every machine doesn't give anybody a death grip over consumers. It's all about a desktop that looks like Microsoft says it will versus the choice between Gnome, KDE, neither, etc.
I think you give the average person too much credit as far as computer literacy/competency. In my experience, it doesn't generally occur to normal people to blame Microsoft for their problems. They're more inclined to ask what they need to change in order to make everything work than to start complaining about how bad Microsoft is and either A) move away from Microsoft products or B) stick to their guns and keep what they have rather than being able to do what they want to do. Remember, normal people don't care as much what OS they're running as the average slashdotter (even the stupid ones). They don't generally even know what an OS is. They don't really want to know those things, either. They don't want to know why they can't do what they want to do, they just want it made so that they can do it. If the latest Microsoft product is what they need, that's what they want.
And like I said, consider that Microsoft is going to keep doing stuff like this. Like you said, they'll release patches for legacy stuff. Legacy Microsoft stuff. They have such a huge market share, they don't have to care about anybody else. Besides, what do they care if they piss off Novell's customers? Those pissed off customers will have to buy Microsoft products, and whether a customer is happy or not, they're still a customer.
The problem is that people just don't care. They'll pay more, and they'll complain, and they'll keep paying. Just like Windows crashed, and they complained, and they kept paying. It doesn't matter what Microsoft does to them. When they hear the word "Microsoft", they get that warm, safe, fuzzy feeling. Anything else is new and scary. That's what Microsoft is good at, marketing and business. They're sure not good enough at making software to justify all the money and power they have, but they really are that good at marketing and business.
See, there's the problem... "a few other tech's". "few" and "tech's" being the key words. Microsoft knows that only the technically-oriented people are going to care at all, most of those probably won't be able to switch from Windows, and the ones that do will eventually find themselves having to switch back because they can't interoperate with something they need to. Don't just look at this one thing that Microsoft does, keep in mind that they're going to keep doing things like this. Sure, today it's just Samba you can't use without paying royalties, but sooner or later more things will be embraced and extended, and the people who could afford to switch today won't be able to stay away forever. And those that have to switch back make terrific case studies of how Linux and any other alternate technology is inadequate, don't they?
But he didn't sell any software! He wrote it, his company sold it. They even stopped selling it when Adobe complained about it, according to some news article or other.
There's a difference between not being welcomed and being arrested. US law applies to the US, not to the whole world. Sure, the government might not like people in other countries who do things that are against our laws, but they're not supposed to go around arresting people just because they don't like them. It'd be one thing if they said "We don't like you, you can't come in.", but "We don't like you, you can't leave." is a little different.
Yeah, but exactly how wrong does it have to be before it stays wrong whether somebody told you to do it or not?
I understand the idea that group A does the research and knows stuff and then tells group B what to go arrest/shoot/whatever people over, but I'd kind of rather that the people who actually went out and took away the rights of others be expected to have some understanding of why they're doing it.
To put it another way: "It's okay that they took away Sklyarov's rights for no good reason, since they were ignorant." This is a good thing? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of morality works just fine?
Why should Sklyarov have known that what he did was illegal in the US? He's a Russian citizen living in Russia, why should he care about every stupid law passed in another country? Granted, the US isn't exactly Elbonia, so it's probably not a bad idea for him to keep tabs on that sort of thing, but should he be legally required to? I sure hope not.
I don't really have the answer to how all of it should work, but as the government goes further off the deep end with laws like the DMCA, I don't know if I like the idea of a bunch of guys with guns running around enforcing whichever laws it pleases them to enforce whenever it pleases them to enforce them, and then being able to say "Hey, it's not my fault! That's what they told me to do!", especially if they're going to say "Well, it's okay for us to do what we're told regardless of the moral implications of it, but everybody else needs to think, first!"
Besides, isn't there something that says they're legally required to question unjust orders, or do I just watch too much TV?
Right, but he wasn't on US soil, and therefore US law didn't apply to him, when he actually broke the US law. It's kind of like saying that, if they lower the speed limit on a given road from 55 to 45, anyone who ever went above 45 on that road should get a ticket. Of course, it's a lot more like saying that, if you turn off of a 55mph highway onto a 25mph side street, you can be ticketed for going over 25 on the highway...
I know how the system works, but doesn't it bother you just a little to be saying that Sklyarov can't say "I was just doing my job!", but the FBI can? Both of them are just doing what they're told, but one should know better and one shouldn't? Doesn't that strike you as just a little hypocritical?
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't be upset with the Feds for throwing somebody in jail for no good reason because they're just doing their jobs...
Not as bad in Linux because of the command line. Most of the stuff the IT staff would need to do can be done from the command line, which doesn't change. Not like Windows, where you need to go through the GUI to do anything useful, like changing network card settings or whatever. The GUI is exactly what it should be, a user interface. It's not the whole OS. Besides, you can just keep an administrative account on the machine (root or otherwise) with standard settings.
Now, now don't get all excited... this isn't Joe Schmoe, this is some guy who writes a computer column for a website. Joe Schmoe is going to take a lot more convincing before he even understands what an operating system is, let alone decides to change the one he has.
Slashdot Mirror
Because we aren't going to remain at this technological level forever. Things are going to keep going, and they're going to keep getting more complex. Not only does the average person make toast and watch TV, but they also form opinions on this sort of progress. Governments, generally comprised of non-technical people themselves, listen to those opinions (at least in theory) and act on them. Angry mobs with pitchforks, torches, and a complete lack of appreciation for the way the world works are a bad thing.
And given, for example, the frequency with which people change majors in college, you think that everyone who is "destined" for a scientific career knows this in the first grade?
I don't know that I'm ready for that brave new world quite yet...
Scientific discoveries are also not made by people with nothing but a bachelor's degree in science. The article isn't suggesting that we force everyone to devote their life to science. The point is that as society is becoming increasingly more technology driven and everyone has to live with that and make decisions within that society, it would be nice if the average person had a greater exposure to science.
That's the result, which is the problem. Has it occured to anybody that we might be going about it the wrong way? We throw kids into school and start teaching them stuff, but we never explain why they should want to learn it. That's always secondary. Only the people with the natural passionate desire for learning actually do, the rest are pretty much left to the carefully crafted environment of whatever all the other kids feel is popular this week.
Besides, a big reason that people dislike Microsoft is that Microsoft on every machine means more control for Microsoft and that's it, whereas Linux on every machine doesn't give anybody a death grip over consumers. It's all about a desktop that looks like Microsoft says it will versus the choice between Gnome, KDE, neither, etc.
And like I said, consider that Microsoft is going to keep doing stuff like this. Like you said, they'll release patches for legacy stuff. Legacy Microsoft stuff. They have such a huge market share, they don't have to care about anybody else. Besides, what do they care if they piss off Novell's customers? Those pissed off customers will have to buy Microsoft products, and whether a customer is happy or not, they're still a customer.
The problem is that people just don't care. They'll pay more, and they'll complain, and they'll keep paying. Just like Windows crashed, and they complained, and they kept paying. It doesn't matter what Microsoft does to them. When they hear the word "Microsoft", they get that warm, safe, fuzzy feeling. Anything else is new and scary. That's what Microsoft is good at, marketing and business. They're sure not good enough at making software to justify all the money and power they have, but they really are that good at marketing and business.
See, there's the problem... "a few other tech's". "few" and "tech's" being the key words. Microsoft knows that only the technically-oriented people are going to care at all, most of those probably won't be able to switch from Windows, and the ones that do will eventually find themselves having to switch back because they can't interoperate with something they need to. Don't just look at this one thing that Microsoft does, keep in mind that they're going to keep doing things like this. Sure, today it's just Samba you can't use without paying royalties, but sooner or later more things will be embraced and extended, and the people who could afford to switch today won't be able to stay away forever. And those that have to switch back make terrific case studies of how Linux and any other alternate technology is inadequate, don't they?
If Microsoft can ignore the DOJ, why not a few measly workstations?
But he didn't sell any software! He wrote it, his company sold it. They even stopped selling it when Adobe complained about it, according to some news article or other.
There's a difference between not being welcomed and being arrested. US law applies to the US, not to the whole world. Sure, the government might not like people in other countries who do things that are against our laws, but they're not supposed to go around arresting people just because they don't like them. It'd be one thing if they said "We don't like you, you can't come in.", but "We don't like you, you can't leave." is a little different.
I understand the idea that group A does the research and knows stuff and then tells group B what to go arrest/shoot/whatever people over, but I'd kind of rather that the people who actually went out and took away the rights of others be expected to have some understanding of why they're doing it.
To put it another way: "It's okay that they took away Sklyarov's rights for no good reason, since they were ignorant." This is a good thing? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of morality works just fine?
I don't really have the answer to how all of it should work, but as the government goes further off the deep end with laws like the DMCA, I don't know if I like the idea of a bunch of guys with guns running around enforcing whichever laws it pleases them to enforce whenever it pleases them to enforce them, and then being able to say "Hey, it's not my fault! That's what they told me to do!", especially if they're going to say "Well, it's okay for us to do what we're told regardless of the moral implications of it, but everybody else needs to think, first!"
Besides, isn't there something that says they're legally required to question unjust orders, or do I just watch too much TV?
Right, but he wasn't on US soil, and therefore US law didn't apply to him, when he actually broke the US law. It's kind of like saying that, if they lower the speed limit on a given road from 55 to 45, anyone who ever went above 45 on that road should get a ticket. Of course, it's a lot more like saying that, if you turn off of a 55mph highway onto a 25mph side street, you can be ticketed for going over 25 on the highway...
When did the entire world become bound by US law? I must have been absent that day.
I know how the system works, but doesn't it bother you just a little to be saying that Sklyarov can't say "I was just doing my job!", but the FBI can? Both of them are just doing what they're told, but one should know better and one shouldn't? Doesn't that strike you as just a little hypocritical?
So what you're saying is that we shouldn't be upset with the Feds for throwing somebody in jail for no good reason because they're just doing their jobs...
eh, people who follow the herd rather than forming their own opinions deserve to be misled.
Not as bad in Linux because of the command line. Most of the stuff the IT staff would need to do can be done from the command line, which doesn't change. Not like Windows, where you need to go through the GUI to do anything useful, like changing network card settings or whatever. The GUI is exactly what it should be, a user interface. It's not the whole OS. Besides, you can just keep an administrative account on the machine (root or otherwise) with standard settings.
Now, now don't get all excited... this isn't Joe Schmoe, this is some guy who writes a computer column for a website. Joe Schmoe is going to take a lot more convincing before he even understands what an operating system is, let alone decides to change the one he has.
I love you more than I love Hemos.