Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?" --Annie Dillard, 'Pilgrim at Tinker Creek'
So, what's the fuss about restricting [kids] on-line socializing? It is not like their real-life socializing is not already restricted (and always has been)...
The trouble with requiring legal authorization for anything is that those who don't have it will find ways around it, and those who do have it will now be hassled to prove it. Strangely, all security restrictions seem to work that way.... Thusly, when "think of the children" protections are put into place, they have a funny way to affecting those who are not children.
You've gone off on some tangent about what some people "understand". You seem to be advocating Security Theatre because it makes people feel "good" even if it makes them less safe.
And what is security? Is it objective or subjective? How would you measure security? Statistics? If your plane doesn't crash, does that mean it was safe? If your software hasn't been cracked, does that mean it is secure?
I have long said that security is not a state of being, but a state of mind. In which case "Security Theatre" is exactly what you are selling. Consider, for instance, the difference between making it "more difficult" to hijack a plane and making it "impossible" to do so. If it is a question of degrees between 'secure' and 'insecure' and as you apply more 'security' you move along the spectrum, at what point have you done enough? When you are secure, or when you feel secure?
In principle I don't disagree with you. It would certainly be nice if we could focus on problems rather than symptoms. Yet in social constructs you often need to evaluate when 'feelings' are a symptom, or when they are they problem themselves.
From the court papers, the restraining order is against "using or simulating Autodesk's TrustedDWG technology, including but not limited to the Autodesk watermark and/or TrustedDWG code, without Autodesk's authorization, from distributing DWGdirect libraries that use, incorporate or simulate Autodesk's TrustedDWG technology or that otherwise insert or mimic the unauthorized Autodesk watermark and/or TrustDWG code."
It further says this is granted under the Lanham Act, which is "found in Title 15 of the U.S. Code and contains the federal statutes governing trademark law in the United States. "
My (limited) search of the 41 sections of the Lanham Act finds no reference to any technological protections, and everything I can find points to other sections of federal law which deal directly with patent and/or copyright. Anyone running some legal codecs care to explain how a trademark grants protection for code and technology?
Running blatently off-topic, but as a major fan of both Ghost in the Shell and Masamune Shirow (the creative artist behind Ghost in the Shell) I shall point out that Shirow got his start in 'erotic manga' and is well known outside of anime circles for "female characters in provocative poses and various degrees of nudity."
The sexuality of Major Kusanagi varies depending on what source material you draw from. But in true Shirow style he claims: "I drew an all-girl orgy because I didn't want to draw some guy's butt." Which is why I respect him as an artist on so many levels.</fanboi>
Certainly other cultures had different was for their children to learn gender roles and transition into adulthood, but for me hunting was part of that. I learned a great many things on the hunting trips with my father, many of which had nothing to do with wilderness survival. I no longer hunt regularly, but I believe it played an important part of my cultural development. Should I have children, they will certainly be offered the opportunity to go hunting as well.
That being said, there are many things hunting is not. I've previously posted some of my thoughts on the topic.
There is no grand tradition of getting back to our roots and learning vital survival skills. I would not want to have to pit my skills against the great outdoors without access to a modern outfitter and their magical technological wonders. Being able to fire a bow is nothing close to being able to make one, and there is a huge difference between a stick and a string compared to a modern compound bow. While I've certainly learned some survival skills, hunting isn't about learning ancient skills, its about outdoor recreation.
Venison can be good, but good steak will usually taste better and cost much less.
Unleashing a hoard of armed and dangerous recreational hunters upon the woods may not be the best form of animal population control.
There most certainly are hunters who are just out there to 'kill things' and have little regard for what they hunt or where they do it, but such asshats seem to invade most types of recreation. However they usually don't get to carry firearms while doing so.
Here in Wisconsin, the deer herd has been a problem for many years, and they most certainly are out there starving and damaging crops. A serious debate could certainly be held about the effectiveness of current and past measures to keep the herds in check.
Although no one was still calling it chainmail, I started playing DnD back when they came in colored boxes and you needed to fill in the numbers on your cheap plastic dice with the included crayon. And I accept that since that age there has been a literal deluge of additional books and materials, which make it nigh-impossible for all but the most rabid and die-hard fans to keep track of it all. Even still, Placetouched characters have been around since Advanced D&D, and featured notably in the many Placescape books. The Tiefling is also part of the current core rules system, under their Open Game Content license.
I'm sick of the 'don't re-invent the wheel' argument being dragged out and used to justify people not studying properly, or for that matter, not teaching properly. I was lucky, I attended a course where most lecturers believed that students should code their own assignments. Examples being recursive functions, sorting functions, Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm, stuff like that. However I have recently had to cope with people being given exactly the same type of assignment, and being allowed to download pre-built classes for them! What, I ask you, is the point of that?
There is much wisdom in what you speak, alas I would claim it is our teachers who are now failing. A good programmer should certainly be able to both write elegant solutions for use by others, and integrate existing code into their programs. Thus should assignments include aspects of both. Yet too often our schools and teachers will teach conformity rather than creativity. They would rather they had the ability to consistently ask for the same things from their students, and yet always get something new and unique from them.
There is much talk and fear of the internet leading to greater plagiarism, and I certainly accept that some blame lay with the students for 'stealing' the works from others. Yet I also lay the blame upon these redundant assignments. If you continually ask for your students to provide a sort algorithm, how often will natural redundancy arise? The true challenge becomes building new assignments that continually strive to ask for something new and unique. Yet this would require teachers who actually know the material they teach, and the ability to creatively arrive at new challenges that are appropriate for their students. A cost that would require almost a redesign of the way we think about education.
He would have the capability to do his own thing, 100%, all the way. No political backing, no SIG's, no anything. Pick his agenda, pick his priorities, open office to anyone without a corporate interest. Now that would be interesting.
That certainly would be interesting. Yet I find it unlikely you get to become either president of the US or the worlds richest man on entirely your own merits. Only those with nothing to lose have true freedom.
There was a famous radio DJ in the 1950's that went without sleep for several days on air - by about the 4th day, he reportedly was seeing spiders everywhere and was babbling pretty much incoherently. His family and friends reported that he was never the same again, and he lost his job and faded into obscurity shortly afterwards.
Although the hunter-seeker is probably a more apt comparison, I was reminded of the aerostatic defensive micromachines from The Diamond Age. Although they didn't seem to carry any sort of lethal payload (except, perhaps, against other micromachines) they were used to monitor public spaces and tag potential trouble makers with a hail of tiny tracking tags. I specifically recall a gang of teenagers committing a crime and using a variety of low tech attempts to evade the aerostats and remove the tags.
I'm a long standing fan of the Final Fantasy series, which includes the Japanese releases. I'll admit to not playing FF9 as it seemed a little too childish, and my friends did not highly recommend it. I was more than a little disappointed they put the Final Fantasy name on the movie, as it didn't have any of the classic RPG elements which have come to represent the franchise. I was equally unhappy they called the MMORPG as the FF11 release. (Would it have been so hard to just call it FF Online or something?) I didn't play FFX2 as the brief moments of watching my friends playing Pretty Princess Dress Me Up was more than enough to turn me off from the title. I've come to disparage the aparent decline of the Final Fantasy name as little more than a name to pay for and slap haphazardly on new titles. I couldn't bring byself to submit to the Disney in Kingdom Hearts, regardless of how highly my friends spoke of the titles. Although I must admit Advent Children was still awesome and I was among the strange ranks of those who went to see the "Dear Friends" performance.
So, based on my snobbish opinion, would I enjoy FFXII?
After reading the article, it sounds more likely to me that they received their preconceived ideas about Linux after talking to their Microsoft sales rep. Which is not to say they are all wrong, but it doesn't sound like they've actually done any of their own research on the topic of switching their OS. However, their core point seems to be that they already have a system that works, and Microsoft is already giving them a big break on the cost of the software because they are a charity. So staying with Microsoft is a known cost, and switching over their IT infrastructure and trying to make certain everything still works would be an unknown cost, with no guarantees it would ultimately be less expensive than what they currently have.
Too true, and so sad. I didn't actually vote until I was 26 because of my fear of my own ignorance. I was buying into the political rhetoric that the issues were complicated and I needed considerable research to provide a properly informed decision on election day.
But what the hell does that even mean? "Properly informed" by whom? What critical piece of information was *I* missing that somehow invalidated my opinion, or at least made it less worthy than others? Did I honestly belive that the electorate which did believe in themselves enough to vote were doing an adequate job of choosing the leadership of this country? Is the list of those to vote *for* even adequate to the task? I clearly belive this is not the case, but what should I then do about it? Am I then charged with civic responsibility to either run myself or inspire a worthy candidate? Would this obligation then charge me with doing my utmost to get into office? How far would I really have to take this responsibility?
Of course, the answer for me turns out to be far more simple. My problem wasn't ignorance, but procrastination. I would always wait until the last moment to decide if I should get informed on the issues, until I eventually decided to not bother. I mean, I didn't even know where or how to register! Yet, but taking a little initiative to start researching before the election, I quickly found the information I needed from my state website, which also listed all the candidates which would be on my local ballot. Using the little state bio information provided was more than enough to google each of them. Although there is certainly a lot (sic) of biased political information on the web, it really didn't take me long to decide which candidates I preferred. I registered as an Independent, and more often than note my votes tend to cross party lines. However I suspect this isn't so much that I'm a moderate, but because our sad excuse for a two party system has turned into giant political monoliths that blur the issues in an attempt to garner mass appeal.
You're right, it -is- a matter of laziness, but most of the time, it is -not- on the part of the user. There are ways of solving these problems in Linux. I've seen it done. But *nix geeks don't want to solve them; they want to continue to lazily assume that everybody is a Linux expert so that they can say that the usability failures in their software are the user's fault.
End User: I don't have the time nor inclination to make your software do what I want.
Programmer: I don't have the time nor inclination to make my software do what you want.
Troll: The world isn't ready for Linux!
Why are you so keen to either lay blame? People are people, be they lazy, motivated, end users, or *nix geeks. Linux has become many things, but it is still largely an ideology rather than an industry. At the core, problems are solved, and the answers shared. Why do so many assume that this somehow entitles them to have their own personal problems solved?
There is more creative content available today than there has been in the whole of human history. But God help us creative artists if we actually want to charge money for that year's worth of writing/painting/composing/sculpting work, or leave a legacy for our families.
Only the most jaded of free information zealots don't believe artists should be able to charge for their content, so I don't really think that's the central issue of the copyright debate. The real issue is how much control society should grant the content holders. Should they have the right to forbid others from making digital copies of their content?
As you say, we now have a great deal more creative content available than ever before. Yet is this because of copyright law or despite of it? With so much content available, society as a whole can not afford all of it. Is this a cost benefit selection where consumers must make do with the limited amount of content they can afford? Does preventing the free flow of digital expressions of thoughts and ideas really encourage the creation of new thoughts and ideas?
Guess what - asking you to pay for somebody else's hard work is not theft.
Nothing wrong with asking. But is it okay to demand for payment? Is it acceptable to deny others access to your hard work? Does society really benefit more by keeping your content under legal protection? Isn't the debate over where to draw this line exactly what society should be having right now?
Personally I think it proves they DONT have a bomb.... yet. And more likely their real first test will be over Japan/Israel/South Korea/ whereever else, and their second will be during the all out nuclear bombardment where all the countries give them all the nuclear power they need, though they'll have to figure out how to contain it.
North Korea already has the firepower to lob missiles into their neighbors. If they do open fire, will it really make a difference if they're carrying nuclear or conventional warheads? Do you really think they're just waiting until they can cause a big enough boom?
North Korea and Iran are both playing dangerous games. They are acting like children at the grown ups tables. Let's hope they mature or get slapped before they become teenagers who get into a massive car accident and "kill" one or more of the adults
And what separates the adults from the grown ups? Wisdom and responsibility? Or merely a nuclear arsenal?
Even if I had the skills, I don't have the time. And I can't afford to pay someone who can. So no - I can NOT maintain the code if it is intimately tied to a single developer.
I don't think there is any need to be pedantic here. Can you afford to run closed source applications knowing that the vendor could drop support? From a risk assessment standpoint, is it better to have access to the source code even if you could not personally do anything with it? At the very least, if the program is worth something to you, you have the option to drop some spare change into a bounty to have your problem fixed. And if the program is worth nothing to you, what difference does it make if it doesn't work for you?
Discordia comes in many flavors, but in some that taste slightly purple you may find a story of zen from which the word enlightened might be linked to a page which does not exist fnord. And if you seek but no not find what does not exist, have you not, in fact, found exactly what you were looking for?
It's not, "can't be bothered to jump to a competitor". There is no competitor, not realistically.
If your requirement for switching your OS is that everything else on your computer has to be exactly the same, your requirement is that your OS stays the same. Have you actually called any of your 3rd party software venders and asked if they provide a Linux client? Have you asked them what it would take to provide a Linux version? Have you looked to see what other software options are available, open source or otherwise?
I certainly agree that Linux isn't the same as Windows. Making the switch isn't as easy as downloading your distro of choice. And for many companies, it certainly may not be cost effective to make the switch. However, I have the good fortune to work for a company that doesn't arbitrary assume Windows is the default OS for every computer. Yet it was because I bothered to ask the difficult questions and go the extra mile when required that my company finally started looking at the cost of the software it was running, and the questioning the actual value it provided.
My memory went back a bit further to a 95 movie called Strange Days which I think did a much better job on the topic. Final Cut looked into the moral questions of memory recording, namely of having to decide to implant the chip at a young age before someone could actually decide if they wanted it, and then controlling who has access to those memories. Strange Days also looked at the dubious commercial entertainment industry that would spring up once we could record and sell our sense memories for others to experience.
Strange. You claim to believe that ideas can not be owned and that we can't prove who owns them. I find these ideas more commonly in those who do not believe plagiarism is a problem. Their argument is that if ideas are not created but merely discovered, no one can own them. E.g., information wants to be free but not anthropomorphized. As such, the important thing is merely the inherent value of the ideas themselves, not worrying about where they came from or who deserves credit.
How do you reconcile these beliefs? I.e., the belief that ideas can not be owned, that we can not prove ownership of ideas, and that plagiarism is wrong.
This is one of the fundamental tenets of academic life: you do your own work. If you draw on somebody else's work, you put it in quotes and you give a citation, both to acknowledge their contribution, and to allow your readers to consult the source for themselves if they'd like. If you don't, it's plagiarism. It's lying. It's theft. It's wrong. A lot of students don't seem to understand that. I tell them at the beginning what plagiarism is, why it's bad, and how to avoid it. BEFORE the first paper comes due. I devote a whole freaking class period to it. And STILL they turn in the plagiarized papers.
As a former student, I understand your point of view, and agree with the principals. However, you may not appreciate either the core problem, or the possibility that your premise is flawed.
When you share your ideas with others, do you own those ideas? Does it matter if you wrote them down first? Does it matter where you drew inspiration for those ideas? Before you share your ideas with others, is it important that you verify your ideas are both unique and original?
While you and I might agree that plagiarism is lying, theft, and wrong, would it shock you to learn that not everyone thinks as we do? Is it equally shocking that after a whole freaking class period on the topic, others still do not agree? Do you attribute this to a lack of moral values or understanding?
Consider also the infinite monkey problem. As more and more members of society become literate writers, and as our capacity to both capture and share these writings increase, the total space available for new and original work decreases. Obviously the total space is infinite, but look at the vast redundancy of topics assigned to students.
While I certainly appreciate and respect your apparent desire to insure that your students are actually thinking and learning, I also think that asking teachers to perform as the thought police is a truly terrifying. How might I prove that my ideas are my own? What do you think this lack of trust does to our students?
If the real goal is to get students to think, and the challenge is to verify that they have actually done so, perhaps what we really need is new metrics for testing? Consider that some simple oral questions on their paper should provide insight both into their grasp of the subject matter and evidence that they have at least done some of their own thinking on the topic. Or, perhaps, universities don't want to 'waste the time' actually spending that amount of time on each student due to the increased cost and overhead? So the real challenge becomes finding a 'cost effective' testing metric.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly agree that plagiarism is a problem. Yet I also believe that turning statistically significant portions of our students into criminals is not the answer. The social problems in having students seeking a degree more than the education it represents is far more important to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
--Annie Dillard, 'Pilgrim at Tinker Creek'
The trouble with requiring legal authorization for anything is that those who don't have it will find ways around it, and those who do have it will now be hassled to prove it. Strangely, all security restrictions seem to work that way.... Thusly, when "think of the children" protections are put into place, they have a funny way to affecting those who are not children.
And what is security? Is it objective or subjective? How would you measure security? Statistics? If your plane doesn't crash, does that mean it was safe? If your software hasn't been cracked, does that mean it is secure?
I have long said that security is not a state of being, but a state of mind. In which case "Security Theatre" is exactly what you are selling. Consider, for instance, the difference between making it "more difficult" to hijack a plane and making it "impossible" to do so. If it is a question of degrees between 'secure' and 'insecure' and as you apply more 'security' you move along the spectrum, at what point have you done enough? When you are secure, or when you feel secure?
In principle I don't disagree with you. It would certainly be nice if we could focus on problems rather than symptoms. Yet in social constructs you often need to evaluate when 'feelings' are a symptom, or when they are they problem themselves.
From the court papers, the restraining order is against "using or simulating Autodesk's TrustedDWG technology, including but not limited to the Autodesk watermark and/or TrustedDWG code, without Autodesk's authorization, from distributing DWGdirect libraries that use, incorporate or simulate Autodesk's TrustedDWG technology or that otherwise insert or mimic the unauthorized Autodesk watermark and/or TrustDWG code."
It further says this is granted under the Lanham Act, which is "found in Title 15 of the U.S. Code and contains the federal statutes governing trademark law in the United States. "
My (limited) search of the 41 sections of the Lanham Act finds no reference to any technological protections, and everything I can find points to other sections of federal law which deal directly with patent and/or copyright. Anyone running some legal codecs care to explain how a trademark grants protection for code and technology?
The sexuality of Major Kusanagi varies depending on what source material you draw from. But in true Shirow style he claims: "I drew an all-girl orgy because I didn't want to draw some guy's butt." Which is why I respect him as an artist on so many levels.</fanboi>
That being said, there are many things hunting is not. I've previously posted some of my thoughts on the topic.
There is no grand tradition of getting back to our roots and learning vital survival skills. I would not want to have to pit my skills against the great outdoors without access to a modern outfitter and their magical technological wonders. Being able to fire a bow is nothing close to being able to make one, and there is a huge difference between a stick and a string compared to a modern compound bow. While I've certainly learned some survival skills, hunting isn't about learning ancient skills, its about outdoor recreation.
Venison can be good, but good steak will usually taste better and cost much less.
Unleashing a hoard of armed and dangerous recreational hunters upon the woods may not be the best form of animal population control.
There most certainly are hunters who are just out there to 'kill things' and have little regard for what they hunt or where they do it, but such asshats seem to invade most types of recreation. However they usually don't get to carry firearms while doing so.
Here in Wisconsin, the deer herd has been a problem for many years, and they most certainly are out there starving and damaging crops. A serious debate could certainly be held about the effectiveness of current and past measures to keep the herds in check.
Although no one was still calling it chainmail, I started playing DnD back when they came in colored boxes and you needed to fill in the numbers on your cheap plastic dice with the included crayon. And I accept that since that age there has been a literal deluge of additional books and materials, which make it nigh-impossible for all but the most rabid and die-hard fans to keep track of it all. Even still, Placetouched characters have been around since Advanced D&D, and featured notably in the many Placescape books. The Tiefling is also part of the current core rules system, under their Open Game Content license.
Error - Too deep recursion
There is much wisdom in what you speak, alas I would claim it is our teachers who are now failing. A good programmer should certainly be able to both write elegant solutions for use by others, and integrate existing code into their programs. Thus should assignments include aspects of both. Yet too often our schools and teachers will teach conformity rather than creativity. They would rather they had the ability to consistently ask for the same things from their students, and yet always get something new and unique from them.
There is much talk and fear of the internet leading to greater plagiarism, and I certainly accept that some blame lay with the students for 'stealing' the works from others. Yet I also lay the blame upon these redundant assignments. If you continually ask for your students to provide a sort algorithm, how often will natural redundancy arise? The true challenge becomes building new assignments that continually strive to ask for something new and unique. Yet this would require teachers who actually know the material they teach, and the ability to creatively arrive at new challenges that are appropriate for their students. A cost that would require almost a redesign of the way we think about education.
That certainly would be interesting. Yet I find it unlikely you get to become either president of the US or the worlds richest man on entirely your own merits. Only those with nothing to lose have true freedom.
The DJ was one Peter Tripp from New York.
Although the hunter-seeker is probably a more apt comparison, I was reminded of the aerostatic defensive micromachines from The Diamond Age. Although they didn't seem to carry any sort of lethal payload (except, perhaps, against other micromachines) they were used to monitor public spaces and tag potential trouble makers with a hail of tiny tracking tags. I specifically recall a gang of teenagers committing a crime and using a variety of low tech attempts to evade the aerostats and remove the tags.
So, based on my snobbish opinion, would I enjoy FFXII?
This legal crap reads like Star Fleet Battles instructions. Can anyone translate into Newspeak?
After reading the article, it sounds more likely to me that they received their preconceived ideas about Linux after talking to their Microsoft sales rep. Which is not to say they are all wrong, but it doesn't sound like they've actually done any of their own research on the topic of switching their OS. However, their core point seems to be that they already have a system that works, and Microsoft is already giving them a big break on the cost of the software because they are a charity. So staying with Microsoft is a known cost, and switching over their IT infrastructure and trying to make certain everything still works would be an unknown cost, with no guarantees it would ultimately be less expensive than what they currently have.
Too true, and so sad. I didn't actually vote until I was 26 because of my fear of my own ignorance. I was buying into the political rhetoric that the issues were complicated and I needed considerable research to provide a properly informed decision on election day.
But what the hell does that even mean? "Properly informed" by whom? What critical piece of information was *I* missing that somehow invalidated my opinion, or at least made it less worthy than others? Did I honestly belive that the electorate which did believe in themselves enough to vote were doing an adequate job of choosing the leadership of this country? Is the list of those to vote *for* even adequate to the task? I clearly belive this is not the case, but what should I then do about it? Am I then charged with civic responsibility to either run myself or inspire a worthy candidate? Would this obligation then charge me with doing my utmost to get into office? How far would I really have to take this responsibility?
Of course, the answer for me turns out to be far more simple. My problem wasn't ignorance, but procrastination. I would always wait until the last moment to decide if I should get informed on the issues, until I eventually decided to not bother. I mean, I didn't even know where or how to register! Yet, but taking a little initiative to start researching before the election, I quickly found the information I needed from my state website, which also listed all the candidates which would be on my local ballot. Using the little state bio information provided was more than enough to google each of them. Although there is certainly a lot (sic) of biased political information on the web, it really didn't take me long to decide which candidates I preferred. I registered as an Independent, and more often than note my votes tend to cross party lines. However I suspect this isn't so much that I'm a moderate, but because our sad excuse for a two party system has turned into giant political monoliths that blur the issues in an attempt to garner mass appeal.
End User: I don't have the time nor inclination to make your software do what I want. Programmer: I don't have the time nor inclination to make my software do what you want. Troll: The world isn't ready for Linux!
Why are you so keen to either lay blame? People are people, be they lazy, motivated, end users, or *nix geeks. Linux has become many things, but it is still largely an ideology rather than an industry. At the core, problems are solved, and the answers shared. Why do so many assume that this somehow entitles them to have their own personal problems solved?
Only the most jaded of free information zealots don't believe artists should be able to charge for their content, so I don't really think that's the central issue of the copyright debate. The real issue is how much control society should grant the content holders. Should they have the right to forbid others from making digital copies of their content?
As you say, we now have a great deal more creative content available than ever before. Yet is this because of copyright law or despite of it? With so much content available, society as a whole can not afford all of it. Is this a cost benefit selection where consumers must make do with the limited amount of content they can afford? Does preventing the free flow of digital expressions of thoughts and ideas really encourage the creation of new thoughts and ideas?
Nothing wrong with asking. But is it okay to demand for payment? Is it acceptable to deny others access to your hard work? Does society really benefit more by keeping your content under legal protection? Isn't the debate over where to draw this line exactly what society should be having right now?
North Korea already has the firepower to lob missiles into their neighbors. If they do open fire, will it really make a difference if they're carrying nuclear or conventional warheads? Do you really think they're just waiting until they can cause a big enough boom?
And what separates the adults from the grown ups? Wisdom and responsibility? Or merely a nuclear arsenal?
I don't think there is any need to be pedantic here. Can you afford to run closed source applications knowing that the vendor could drop support? From a risk assessment standpoint, is it better to have access to the source code even if you could not personally do anything with it? At the very least, if the program is worth something to you, you have the option to drop some spare change into a bounty to have your problem fixed. And if the program is worth nothing to you, what difference does it make if it doesn't work for you?
Discordia comes in many flavors, but in some that taste slightly purple you may find a story of zen from which the word enlightened might be linked to a page which does not exist fnord. And if you seek but no not find what does not exist, have you not, in fact, found exactly what you were looking for?
If your requirement for switching your OS is that everything else on your computer has to be exactly the same, your requirement is that your OS stays the same. Have you actually called any of your 3rd party software venders and asked if they provide a Linux client? Have you asked them what it would take to provide a Linux version? Have you looked to see what other software options are available, open source or otherwise?
I certainly agree that Linux isn't the same as Windows. Making the switch isn't as easy as downloading your distro of choice. And for many companies, it certainly may not be cost effective to make the switch. However, I have the good fortune to work for a company that doesn't arbitrary assume Windows is the default OS for every computer. Yet it was because I bothered to ask the difficult questions and go the extra mile when required that my company finally started looking at the cost of the software it was running, and the questioning the actual value it provided.
My memory went back a bit further to a 95 movie called Strange Days which I think did a much better job on the topic. Final Cut looked into the moral questions of memory recording, namely of having to decide to implant the chip at a young age before someone could actually decide if they wanted it, and then controlling who has access to those memories. Strange Days also looked at the dubious commercial entertainment industry that would spring up once we could record and sell our sense memories for others to experience.
How do you reconcile these beliefs? I.e., the belief that ideas can not be owned, that we can not prove ownership of ideas, and that plagiarism is wrong.
As a former student, I understand your point of view, and agree with the principals. However, you may not appreciate either the core problem, or the possibility that your premise is flawed.
When you share your ideas with others, do you own those ideas? Does it matter if you wrote them down first? Does it matter where you drew inspiration for those ideas? Before you share your ideas with others, is it important that you verify your ideas are both unique and original?
While you and I might agree that plagiarism is lying, theft, and wrong, would it shock you to learn that not everyone thinks as we do? Is it equally shocking that after a whole freaking class period on the topic, others still do not agree? Do you attribute this to a lack of moral values or understanding?
Consider also the infinite monkey problem. As more and more members of society become literate writers, and as our capacity to both capture and share these writings increase, the total space available for new and original work decreases. Obviously the total space is infinite, but look at the vast redundancy of topics assigned to students.
While I certainly appreciate and respect your apparent desire to insure that your students are actually thinking and learning, I also think that asking teachers to perform as the thought police is a truly terrifying. How might I prove that my ideas are my own? What do you think this lack of trust does to our students?
If the real goal is to get students to think, and the challenge is to verify that they have actually done so, perhaps what we really need is new metrics for testing? Consider that some simple oral questions on their paper should provide insight both into their grasp of the subject matter and evidence that they have at least done some of their own thinking on the topic. Or, perhaps, universities don't want to 'waste the time' actually spending that amount of time on each student due to the increased cost and overhead? So the real challenge becomes finding a 'cost effective' testing metric.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly agree that plagiarism is a problem. Yet I also believe that turning statistically significant portions of our students into criminals is not the answer. The social problems in having students seeking a degree more than the education it represents is far more important to me.