Everything you can do in LibraNet, you can do in Debian... theoretically. The difference is, LibraNet automatically recompiles Linux for your machine as part of the standard install. As in, you don't need to install Debian, RTFM about stuff, become root to apt-get kernel-package...
Nobody said that Debian Can't DO That... the point is that LibraNet is nicer, easier, and better supported (because you are paying them for it!) Eventually Debian will get these features... that is good. LibraNet does it now, and the installation leans more toward hand holding then saying RTFM you clueless newb!
Not that I have anything against Debian... it is great. Maybe you were just enlightening us vanilla Debian users so that we don't get LibraNet envy, so I shouldn't think of you as taking a lame pot-shot against a valuable part of the Free Software community that values dpkg. But I really think that we should let LibraNet brag a bit... having a commerical version of Debian, that has stayed afloat as long as it has, and isn't harming the Debian community, is a VERY Very Good Thing. Please recognize that, and consider that at this point in time, a capital generating version of Debian should be Respected and Encouraged. Especially in light of Progeny, who I was full out rooting for, who has done significant good for Debian, and who is sorely missed.
I disagree that GUI install is where it's at, unless you are teaching somebody who already has some experience using a desktop computer productively. To somebody who has never used a computer, avoiding the mouse is a good thing. Have you ever tried to teach a "newbie" over the age of 45 how to simulaneously click the proper button, while the cursor still pointing at the proper icon? I highly doubt it.
NCurses is great for basic installation... the focus doesn't change while you are trying to punch the enter key. Anybody who has used a computer before, even an utterly mouse dependant Mac OS 6.x user, can learn to use "TAB, up, down and enter" in under five minutes in a classroom setting. Try that multibutton mouse with someone whos hand-eye coordination has declined since the dawn of the PC era, even one-on-one. I dare you.
BTW, it seems likely you haven't used an NCURSES based Installation like Debian/Libranet. There are no "Icons" to be confused about, just highlighted words and phrases. As for the confusion over flow, explain the whole "top to bottom" flow that most civilizations active for the past two milleniums have been using, let them watch the highlight rotate around as they press the tab key (harmlessly) about twenty times, and they usually get the hang of it. Engourage them to read the phrases on the screen, and point out the significant items that they will need to actually look at. On a Debian derived system, this should almost always be the topmost item in the list, right in the upper-middle portion of the screen. You don't even have to clean out the grimy mouse ball which won't track on the filthy desk, which has no room because it is cluttered with papers and textbooks!
Maybe you aren't leveraging the average computer user's Win/Mac experience, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is the perfect opportunity for some re-education... don't press ctrl-alt-del if something doesn't look right... don't necessarily shutdown or reboot multiple times daily... don't eject a floppy disk without warning the system... don't expect to run the cutesy little "dancing elves" attachments some friend sent from their Windows computer... I'm sure you have plenty you could append to this list as a computer teacher.
The problem is, the corrept answer to that question would be "2.2.19" or "2.4.19-ac3", or "2.5.9".
Red Hat is not a version of Linux, Linux is a kernel. Libranet is a distribution. GNU is the OS. Maybe a guru would literally ask "Which version of Linux are you using?", but only the the query was directed at a fairly knowledgable Linux geek who had compiled their own kernel, if not rolled thier own installation. Being that this thread in in a story about a Commercial distribution of GNU (Libranet GNU/Linux that is) it is probably safe to assume that the user is a "luser" who didn't roll their own.
It could even acceptable to ask "what system", as in what Operating System are you using... even though this may be offensive to myopic so-called "Linux" fanatics, it would be valid and not totally incorrect. Red Hat and Libranet both distribute different variations of the GNU OS, so you might say "I am using Red Hat 7.2" as your OS. At least you aren't saying you use "Linux 7.2"
When people on slashdot speak of BSD, they tend to mean the post 386BSD derivatives. That was the "Free" OS that sprung NetBSD and FreeBSD. Then OpenBSD branched from NetBSD. Until fairly recently, none of these were SMP capable. For a while, only FreeBSD was SMP capable, now it looks like the "Free" BSDs (386BSD derived) are all rounding out, and starting to overlap in scope. FreeBSD now runs on non x86 hardware, and NetBSD now runs SMP. OpenBSD has various groups bringing SMP (mostly from NetBSD work) and NetBSD/FreeBSD are reincorporating OpenBSD code-audit correction. On the whole, it is a very pleasing situation.
Now MacOS, which runs on top of Darwin, has a slightly different heritage. It comes from BSD, but I believe it derives from a pre-386BSD branch (although they have incorporated many imporvements from NetBSD, then FreeBSD). It probably it pretty directly decended from LITES, a BSD "personality" which ran ontop of the MACH microkernel. That doesn't necessarily mean that LITES or Darwin is a Microkernel system - rather, they are a "single server" - a single kernel hosted ontop of the MACH subsystems. This means it takes advantage of MACH VM architecture, and probably MACH hardware drivers, but it doesn't take advantage of MACH message passing or other mk technologies.
Much like Windows NT was designed as a microkernel, they ended up defeating the micrkernel architecture to preserve system performance, without wasting previous effort. In this case, the previous effort was from NeXTSTEP, which also ran ontop of MACH. Then Apple incorporated updates to MACH (2.5 to 3.0) IIRC, BSD (4.3 to 4.4) and OpenStep... and every other technology that came since.
There is much more info to google for, but I believe I have thorougly answered your question. Just remember, there is traditional BSD (usually referring to BSD4.4, as opposed to AT&T SYSV) and there is Post-UCB unencumbered BSD (usually 386BSD derived legally unencumbered forks under a "BSD" style Free Software license).
Perhaps MS is too immature to have a standard dictated by them.
Maybe OpenGL lags behind DirectX, but it seems less whimsical, and a touch more concrete. Since SGI had to create hardware which falls into the spec, and has committed te spec into being a cross-platform standard, OpenSGi might be a samer graphics standard.
Of course that could bust be my anti-MS bias poking through, but it seems that OpenGL might be a healthier standard for the graphics industry. Oh, yeah, and SGI rules. Just in case you didn't know.
My two points are: 1. SGI rules 2. the standard should precede the hardware implementation. The latest point release shouldn't necessarily be sucking up to the latest graphics card's release. The most important innovation should be determined by the clients' needs, not the chipsets' innovation-implementation schedules.
Should the latest ATI card, which has greater capabilities than the GeForce 4 MX line (more like a GF2) have inferior displays? Technology should be the bottleneck, not politics and name-brand compatibility.
The ATI with more effects should not act crippled compared to a lesser nVidia card. and vice-versa. DirectX, if supprted, should actually be a detrmining factor in video compatibility.
Just a reminder, Slashdot was better when it was a site for discussion, and not a game where superiority was measured in accrued karma points. I believe that was the motivation for obscuring your karma score.
In light of this (discussion vs. karma), please reevaluate what the parent meant when they said "points".
The whole point of DirectX and other abstraction layers is so that an nVidia card wouldn't be required for certain effects. A less powerful nVidia card shouldn't have better visual effects than a top ATI card. That was the whole reason that ATI surpassing the OEM minimal performance level was significant. Real competition should be allowed to compete, not be retrained my corporate politics and back room dealings.
Buying a graphics gard shouldn't be about politics and "us versus them", it is a tecnical issue, an issue of performance, price, andh possibly customer service. nVidia shouldn't be going over the consumers heads to screw those who vote against the party. It sounds like time for nVidia to pack it in... step aside and let some responsible competition emerge who actually wants to improve open computing standards without belittling users.
Screw Sony - "fancy visual effects" are the sole reason why graphics accelerators exist at the consumer PC level... they are "especially important" to this discussion. The bad thing is not that nVidia can show off their fancy features. The bad thing is that nVidia paid Square dirty money to cripple the game on ATI, and Square accepted the deal. If Square already developed the new effects, why artifically restrict users from seeing them? Because they didn't vote for the right dirty... er, buy the right companies video card? Technology isn't the issue here, but is should be. That is a the bad thing. This is sad.
The comparison is off base. Now if your Formula 1 were denied because it didn't have the pre-approved endorsements on the hood, then that would be relevant. It's not a technological feasibility issue, performance is out of the question. The issue is corporate politics extorting consumers to defray fair and open competition.
Cute metaphor anyway. Maybe Get your Honda Civic Turbocharged and see how it fares...
+2, witty troll. +1 humorous for those that caught the reference. -2 for those who, lacking the background to recognize the style of the post, didn't even take note of the unblushing praise that is rare without some form of payment.
You forgot to play the silly background music and to flash the Apple logo afterwards.
They had bothered a few times. (The names are still available in archives of newsgroups and web histories, and some names are still reserved for future use.) They were unsuccessful at first, and the apperance of Linux made a simple Unix-alike kernel redundant. They went on to a fuller Unix then UNIX in many philosophy-of-technological aspects, while maintaining the Freedom that AT&T never ment to infuse into UNIX.
If it weren't for Linus, we would all be using NetBSD or FreeBSD, and there would probably be a bit more viability in MACH, which would probably be what OS researchers would use instead of GNU+Linux.
What exactly was RMS a great avdocate of? Oh, Software Freedom? Hasn't he been much more effectively neutralized by "Open Source", which has sublimated most of the force of his arguments into the very thing that forced him to become the activist he is today? (sociopathic corporate interest)
I mean commercial interests being valued over Freedom and community. "Free" as in "included free with purchase of necessary component overpriced to make up for the free trinket included", "Free with paid subscription", or "buy two, get the third FREE!" The word "free" is corrupt and useless. Everybody knows that "free" is only useful as a buzzword for advertisement purposes, and only means "prepare to deal with this opportunistic corporation's psychological warfare as it attempts to bait you into....
Alright, let me get back to it. Open Source is the bridge back to Commercial UNIX from Free Unix. Open Source is the AFSL luring us back into submission. This time under a still powerful but now UNIX wizened Lord Jobs, with a technically appealing non-Free replacement of our would-be-software-saviours.
As for the whole "Open Source" movement, what a waste. Ask any Linux Journal reader if there is is a difference between Open Source and Free Software. Ask if Apple makes Free Software.
The DFSG were a great guideline for years. Debian is expediently free. The "F" into the Open Source DFSG reincarnation has been totally neutralized. What a waste.
UNIX is owned by the Open Group. GNU is not. "Unix", like "Linux", is not an Operating System. But at least (mis)using "Linux" isn't going to open anybody up to potential litigation (yet). Both Open Source and the Open Group value corporation over society.
Wow, that seems utterly sensible, and I'm officially piqued. Do you have any pointers for information regarding the intentions and history of the Unix file hierarchy? I've never actually considered the possibility that the tree could be trnsparent and sensible.
It seems that the (Linux) FHS should really take this information into account. If not, perhaps a UNIX Purists' alternative to the FHS should be fleshed-out, where/usr supplants/home. If you can provide some credible links, I for one would fully agree with your stated position. Maybe I'd even compile the information into a centralized resource if one doesn't already exist.
a "fat guy" on a bike will breathe much harder than a fat guy sitting on a couch. He needs the excersize for his own health. I would argue that his decomposing corpse would provide value by enriching the soil, but odds are fairly good that he would be embalmed first, negating that theory.
I guess It's really hard to know which side of this argument to take without a definitive measurement of the average "fat guy" flatulence and expiration, to subtract from the pulminary output of the fatty in motion, to compare to the efficiency of the alternative machine. Then the appropriate solution will have to be deployed to a large enough scale to make the efforts expended during the study worthwhile.
I dunno about personal attacks or political attacks, but really all of ths is quite silly. That is the point... if it is enjoyable and not eggregiously harmful then it is the right thing to do. Anything having to do with Outer Space, or even outer orbit seems contrary to the Green philosophies as I understand them. A low impact, gradual reduction of industry seems to be the obvious stance, I really am not convinced that technological progress at this point in time is conducive to the Green Parties' goals. Perhaps a non-radical Luddism is how I see it.
That said, if fat guys on bikes can supplant "artificial" industrial machinery, then it seems to be a good thing. Leave the Petrol-derived carbon in the ground, let the photosynthesized carbon be put to work. Raw energy efficiency can be misleading if the source of the energy is fossil-fuel.
By the way, bull-shit is a good alternative to fossil fuel, is it not? Better than reading the article!
I believe that "less government" should be less direct government on a federal level. Easier-to-influence smaller governments is the exact point, because humanity is too dynamic for a static or archaic government. I think that federal government, rather than policing the citizens, should exist only to police the smaller governments, and to see that Big Corporate America, the Mother Church, or other alternative forms of government don't take the "Power of the People" away from the people. Each state and municipal government should be basically soverign, to be controlled as the citizens see fit, while under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution, and the Feds enforce compliance of the local gov'ts.
Your second paragraph points to the current state of affairs, which is highly reflected in an overly executive federal government - it provides a single point of failure, for the corrupting influence of powerful entities who would take power away from the citizenry. Big Corporations, the "Moral Majority" and other corruptions of the U.S. Government would have a much harder time usurping power if its efforts had to be distributed over a large and diverse distributed government, in which the the federal government's only role was to monitor checks and balances without direct action against the population. This would prevent any $multi-billion corporate buyouts like the airline rescue packages or federal abuse of citizen's rights like federal persecution of individuals who maintain their right to consume cannabis according to the laws in California. Each state should be free to police corporations how they see fit, then the insulated federal government should be the watchdog to monitor for any abuses. The problem of corruption and general idiocy is not inherent in capitalism or socialism, but in large clumsy monolithic structures in general. Distribution of governmental power would address the problem, and allow for socialism and capitalism to co-exist under the Umbrella of the Republic of the United States of America.
I am not for full-blown laissez-faire capitalist government, but I believe that we need the federal government to take a step back from the brouhaha and perform a more supervisory role for smaller direct governments - to ensure the proper seperation of church, state, corporation, sovereignity and individual. Then each smaller sub-government would be free to play a greater or lesser role in the local economy or service industry as each local population sees fit. The national economy, much like the global economy, is too poorly understood for any universal legislation to guarantee sanity. Let the people be heard, in their respective domains. In a crowd of millions, nobody can be heard.
I think your last paragraph is the strongest indirect rebuttal to your post in general. A small-business setting (corporate or public) can specialize itself to your type of work (or private lifestyle) better than a large, structured, hierarchical environment. (Remember, you are unique--just like everybody else!) That large hierarchy would be a powerfully effective set of guidelines extending from the Federal Constitution to provide a means of sanity-checking for smaller governmental organizations of any kind, be it pseudo-Marxism, anarcho-capitalism, tribal-democracy or benevolent-dictatorship.
- --- Off-topic and Off-beat ramblings follow --- -
Perhaps a Theocracy might even be possible under this system, as long as a democratic means of representation were preserved. Or perhaps I am dreaming a dangerous dream here.
Dissolution (not radical-revolution, but perhaps through gradual campaign- and tax- reform attrition) of the Federal government would also be an effective way of preserving the civil liberties of Americans, and repealing archaic imperialist behaivor that has tarnished the U.S. reputation on the world stage.
Again, still dreaming, here's another idea for discussion. If the Federal Government is every properly reformed as I describe, eventually membership of the United States might eventually be opened up, so that our territories might be granted the option of proper statehood through some mutual electoral process. If this relatively small scale experiment panned out, then the option could be offered to Sovereign States that are currently considered Foreign Nations. If the benefits of falling under the jurisdiction of the U.S. constitution prove to be a compelling trade off, maybe the U.S could become what the United Nations never was.
Of course, that last paragraphs should be disregarded as pure poppycock or feverish half-baked ejaculations. It seems doubtful that federal corruption could ever be dissolved to any significant degree in my lifetime. The federal government would have to be both declawed against violation of individual freedoms and bolstered to protect minority social elements from oppression, both homebrewed and alien.
The National Libertarian Party's efforts in their "Incumbent Killer" program are a source of hope, even if I find their general platforms to be too extreme for my taste - their hearts seem to be in the right place. I would have been interested to see what happened if Pat Buchanan didn't hijack the Reform Party. While John Hagelin may have been a slightly offbeat pseudo-religious yogi, I somehow find that preferable to the blatant Moral Majority partyline spewed by Buchanan cronies - it seems that the has transplanted the worst part of the modern Repblican party into my once future hope.
I would be much more likely to have voted for Hagelin under the Reform Party ticket than under the Natural Law Party ticket, for the very same reason - less pseudo-religious influence would have been likely permissible. I voted for Ralph Nader despite not identifying with the Green Party, purely as a protest vote. Alas, it seems the only visible legacy of Perot was to bring the pomp and farce of Professional wrestling into the disturbingly similar political arena. Frankly "the snake" is too generic a term for Ventura's current peers, including Hillary, and hopefully not Ed Rendell.
Pennsylvania, vote Mike Fisher! Ahem... sory about that last bit. I'm non-partisan, honest!
DVD-R and DVD+R disks are only incompatible as far as writing is concerned. Once the disks are burned, they are designed to be universally readable, including standard consumer DVD players.
The only issue would be if Fred wants to add to Bill's rewritable DVD format. Your stated concerns would be fully addressed by this solution.
Unless Fred the Landscaper taked on double duty as Fred the Digital Media Editor.
The reason geeks don't like writing too much documentation is simple. It's not laziness (well not always), it's just tedium with human language (or poor speeling and grammer to).
Project completion includes documentation.
Professionalism demands it.
Always.
Full steam ahead.
The worst cause of feature creep and software bloat is delineated in your rationalization. The "simple" change should be to your documentation, and then the code should be updated to reflect that change. Note that that change in the spec is usually considered a valid reason for an increase in the revision number.
The worst thing in the world for a software company (profit motivated) is a moving feature set, and never reaching 1.0.
He was probably right when he said that quote... after all, how many ENIAC, MANIAC, etc. style machines were there?
This quote seems akin to saying that there is no need for more than one grandfather clock per nuclear family... but I've been through at least 10 wristwatches, not counting my siblings!
p.s. I really liked your statement about how patent lawyer have twisted the language in new and interesting ways (From the IPFilter article). If I used sigs, I'd probably have a variant on that one.
A previous post said FWIW, "buzzword" has no such connotation {of empty talk} to me, and I hope I'm not alone. Otherwise, we'd need to invent another word to denote a word commonly observed being used to propagate some concept (hence the "buzz".) If we assume that it implies vacuous propagation, we're left without a value-neutral token for that meme.
It seems the value-neutral word has already been invented: "meme"
You called it. That's exactly how I meant it. There are many buzzwords, common terms-of-art, referring to differrent applications of the same basic principle.
I beleive the term you are looking for is "jargon" which is significantly different from a "buzzword" which is only negative depending on the perspective of the beholder. Many examples of jargon are concepts which might not seem strange to the lay person were it not for it's relatively esoteric context, just like many industries or arts have different words which describe the same principles when applied to their respective industries. Consider "cosmonaut" versus "astronaut" as the jargon which may have developed in different (instances of the same) industries.
Perhaps "Object-oriented" was once used as jargon, to convey a concept which might not seem so strange to the uninitiated were it not for the esoteric context. Somehow, the phrase leaked into a marketing department somewhere, and the concept became superfluous to the important discussion - so the word eventually mutated (I want to say devolvled) into it's current form. Now the term is a widely used adjective which one would be hard pressed to find a relevant definition for. The propogation of this particular hyphenate can be imagined as creating a buzzing sound instead of a resounding conceptual tone.
Buzzwords CAN be used to snow the uninitated. But they became buzzwords because they were actually used for something important enough to talk about a lot in serious discussion. So behind every buzzword is a concept, sometimes a lump of bogus hype but much more often a key piece of understanding.
You are likely right about the concept behind every buzzword. Therein lies the trouble; buzzwords have become detached from their originating concept, so that the concept becomes a vestige, a dead limb. The trouble with abstract ideas is that a word can never convey understanding, the understanding must come first. Jargon then becomes a reference word for the uninitiated, a tool of convenience to facilitate serious discussion. When the jargon precedes the understanding, it becomes a buzzword, a marketing tool, "snow" for the uninitiated.
Sorry if I was too dry. Maybe I should have used an Emoticon to convey my sarcasm, which was referring to Clinton's appearance on an MTV presidential Q+A session. I guess I fugured you would infer my tone from the rest of my post, which to my inner monologue sounds rather harsh against the dynamic between popular youth culture of the '90s and William Clinton.
Bush Sr refused to participate with MTV, turning the kids against him. Clinton was asked if he inhaled... he said no, but that was because he didn't know that he was supposed to, and if he had the chance again, he would. I can honestly say that during the General elections, and during the 8 years afterwards, I never once wondered about the former president's choice of undergarments. Not even during the sexual scandals did the thought occur to me.
As for Mr Hussein, I now confess that I actually am mildly curious. Does Fruit of the Loom export to Iraq? Is desert sand a problem? Oh, forget about it.
Back to reality, Is anybody concerned about the next generation of Husseins? Bush has his golden child in office now, what about Saddam's son? I don't mean the Jeb, I mean the scary one, who grew up witnessing his father's sadism, and is eager to follow in hs footsteps.
Whatever my view on Free Software versus prprietary software, the US governments are specifically for the people, by the people. Nothing the US government takes part in (ideally) should have the same motivations as a private company. I didn't say anything about good or bad, I left the first sentence vague, so that the following paragraphs could address the benefits of treating a Free government similar to Free Software. Even if non-Free Software developers don't have to justify why thier software isn't free, the US government should have this burden. US citizens don't live to serve the state, the state exists for the people, by the people. If something can't be justified to the people, it should not be sponsored by the state.
Yes, I agree that it might be a strech to compare methods of Free software development to methods of maintaining a Republic. This is why I confessed that I am a particular brand of Slashdot geek, to imply that my views may be unusual. Nonetheless, I find your rebuttal to be lacking: What is the difference between a weak point and a flaw? The public doesn't have to be of justifiable use to the government, it's the other way around. Of course most of the public won't have the technical background for that one specific example, but there are many people of many backgrounds who may be concerned in many aspects of public works which intimately affect their daily lives. Engineers aren't the only people "of much use". Yes, it's a strech that a concerned citizen might be "lucky" enough to find a flaw in a local structre, but it is also a strech that a protagonist would find and choose to exploit that same weakness.
Now who gets to decide "legitimate" uses of information? If I live under a dam, then mere interest in the quality of it's construction should be sufficient. Maybe I am this engineer with the training to comprehend that a dam has an architectural flaw. How am I to know that this fabled bolt even exists? I must petition the courts to allow me to see if bolts were used in the construction of this dam, so that I may decide if my experience is applicable to this dam. Then I can convince the judge that this particular brand of bolts are my field of specialty, so they should reveal the locations of each bolt to me, so that I may then measure the bolts' efficacy? Anti-terrorist efforts (or hostile computer exploits) aren't the only valid reason for open review of information. Perhaps there are circumstances that were not foreseen at the time of this dam's construction. A new finding in materials science, or a change in the weather patterns, for example, could have adverse affects on the dam, and if the documentaion is sealed nobody would know about it until the dam failed. Without knowledge of the current system, how could any private citizen be able to design a more secure system? If by raising the bar, you mean more beaurocracy, red tape, and government secrecy, then I must disagree with you. If the government is truly for the people, then the FOIA is a necessary burden.
I didn't mean to advocate state run airline security agencies. Each state should decide on their own how to address their security needs, be it through a private company, a government agency, or sticking their heads in the sand. Each state should have the option to impose policy and regulations on the chosen system, just like the federal government should have a written policy to be enforced by each state as they see fit. The US Constitution addresses global problems on a national scale, and each United State is tasked to uphold the Constitution as they interpret it.
Being the particular brand of slashdot surfing geek I am, I can't help but relate Freedom of Information to Free Software. Sorry, I tried to succumb to fear in response to your dam example, but my naive idealism won out.
See, if a foreign terrorist can easily query the dams across the nation, then a curious nerd living near the dam should be able to do the same thing. So not only can federal employees more easily access this information, but locals with a vested interest can also browse through this info. At this point, Johnny can find the previously concealed flaw in the dyke, and put his figurative finger in it. Or more likely, publicise the flaw, get his local congressman interested in it, and actually start the process of fixing the shortcoming.
Of course concrete is a bit more troublesome than C code, but exploiting superstructures is also more difficult than the standard stack overflow. While running the latest 'sploit can be almost anonymous, probably at least a few nosy bystanders would notice if somebody were trying to destroy a dam.
+++
Then again, maybe I'm not the typical Slashdotter, because I am a registered Republican who tends to vote my party. I really don't think that these inane policies come from Bush. I am dissapointed in the federalization of airline security. There should be federal standards, but they should be enforced by the local state authorities.
The Constitution party? Are you a crack smoker? What do you know about them?
As an anti-Bush Republican, the Libertarian and Constitution parties swing in opposite directions. Why don't you think things through for yourself before proselytizing others.
Seriously, what draws you to the Constitution party? What do you know about Pat Buchanan? How do you feel about the seperation between church and state? What about firearms?
Then again, perhaps you should ignore national politics for the time being, and focus on local politics. Frankly, whether you voted for Bush or Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf, there would have been no difference. Look at the issues regarding State positions, and especially consider races in your township. Also find out your local regulations considering primary elections... and decide whether or not belonging to a main party outweighs the ramifications of belonging to a minor party. Are the minor parties active in your city? If you need political favors, can a minor party help you? Can a major party?
You do not have to show any ID to an oficer. Your drivers' license is not national ID, but proof that you are certified to operate a motor vehicle, and you are only required to show it while operating one. You never have to show an officer your optional, non-driving state ID. BTW, what database is a nationally comprehensive compilation of driver's licenses?
What sort of fraud does a non-federalized ID enable? Anything that threatens personal or national security? Potential corruption of the citizenry's morals aren't life threatening, but they do make an excellent opportunity to excercise personal responsibility! Why should I submit my privacy for a national ID card?
A national ID in itself isn't a problem, just like technology isn't a problem. But the existence of a uniform national ID is an enabler to abuse, and it is worth fighting because it has no value. Technology is very valuable, but only with other resources can it enable an individual to become overly dangerous. These other resources (political, financial) were used in an old age with old technology, to amass a powerful military fleet. A single individual used these resources with varying levels of technology in the past, from Ghengis Khan and Julius Caesar to Napoleon and Hitler. One man was more dangerous than many military fleets.
The key to avoiding totalitarianism is to value individuality over national conformity, freedom over jingoism, and privacy over bureocracy. A national ID has no value. The FBI has tracked innocent people without just cause in the past. There is no way to know if their purposes were "nefarious". If you were offered dictatorship of the United States of America, would you refuse? I'd rather you didn't have the opportunity, I don't want to find out. Likewise, I'd rather not promote a national ID and any abuses it might engender. To prevent totalitarianism, preserve preedom; know your rights, and assert them fervently.
How are you forced to carry a state-issued ID? Do you pass Identity checkpoints at pain of arrest?
Owning and operating a motor vehicle, must like a gun, required licensing and registrations. Owning and operating feet, much like fists, does not.
Private establishments may require proof of age if they offer adult oriented "vices", but that is not the same situation either.
Having a federally uniform ID makes seemingly minor abuses of power too convienient. Consider the Social Security Number, which was explicity not intended as a national ID for non-employment purposes. Now the SSN is bandied about in public situations, and most Americans don't realize how unfortunate this can be regarding privacy or personal security. Yet try to function on a daily basis at banks, colleges, without ever using your SSN, and see how futile it is. Many institutions try to use it as your unique ID, even though it isn't "unique".
Upon acceptance of a federal ID, you come closer to experiencing the fascism of being forced to carry your ID while in public, or risk federal penalties. Freedom and privacy are worthy ideals.
I will assume the opposite of Neo and venture that you feel more safe. You don't usually spend money in LA, so their suspicion is justified, and could be useful in case somebody tries to "steal your identity."
The trouble comes when your identity is not linked to your personality and experience, but to an inhuman and distinct physical token. Human relations are the best judge of "behaivor patterns". Humans possess empathy or compassion, while machines, numbers, statistics distill the humanity out of "human rights". My citizenship is not embodied by a card, but by my person.
Slashdot Mirror
Everything you can do in LibraNet, you can do in Debian... theoretically. The difference is, LibraNet automatically recompiles Linux for your machine as part of the standard install. As in, you don't need to install Debian, RTFM about stuff, become root to apt-get kernel-package...
Nobody said that Debian Can't DO That... the point is that LibraNet is nicer, easier, and better supported (because you are paying them for it!) Eventually Debian will get these features... that is good. LibraNet does it now, and the installation leans more toward hand holding then saying RTFM you clueless newb!
Not that I have anything against Debian... it is great. Maybe you were just enlightening us vanilla Debian users so that we don't get LibraNet envy, so I shouldn't think of you as taking a lame pot-shot against a valuable part of the Free Software community that values dpkg. But I really think that we should let LibraNet brag a bit... having a commerical version of Debian, that has stayed afloat as long as it has, and isn't harming the Debian community, is a VERY Very Good Thing. Please recognize that, and consider that at this point in time, a capital generating version of Debian should be Respected and Encouraged. Especially in light of Progeny, who I was full out rooting for, who has done significant good for Debian, and who is sorely missed.
I disagree that GUI install is where it's at, unless you are teaching somebody who already has some experience using a desktop computer productively. To somebody who has never used a computer, avoiding the mouse is a good thing. Have you ever tried to teach a "newbie" over the age of 45 how to simulaneously click the proper button, while the cursor still pointing at the proper icon? I highly doubt it.
NCurses is great for basic installation... the focus doesn't change while you are trying to punch the enter key. Anybody who has used a computer before, even an utterly mouse dependant Mac OS 6.x user, can learn to use "TAB, up, down and enter" in under five minutes in a classroom setting. Try that multibutton mouse with someone whos hand-eye coordination has declined since the dawn of the PC era, even one-on-one. I dare you.
BTW, it seems likely you haven't used an NCURSES based Installation like Debian/Libranet. There are no "Icons" to be confused about, just highlighted words and phrases. As for the confusion over flow, explain the whole "top to bottom" flow that most civilizations active for the past two milleniums have been using, let them watch the highlight rotate around as they press the tab key (harmlessly) about twenty times, and they usually get the hang of it. Engourage them to read the phrases on the screen, and point out the significant items that they will need to actually look at. On a Debian derived system, this should almost always be the topmost item in the list, right in the upper-middle portion of the screen. You don't even have to clean out the grimy mouse ball which won't track on the filthy desk, which has no room because it is cluttered with papers and textbooks!
Maybe you aren't leveraging the average computer user's Win/Mac experience, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is the perfect opportunity for some re-education... don't press ctrl-alt-del if something doesn't look right... don't necessarily shutdown or reboot multiple times daily... don't eject a floppy disk without warning the system... don't expect to run the cutesy little "dancing elves" attachments some friend sent from their Windows computer... I'm sure you have plenty you could append to this list as a computer teacher.
The problem is, the corrept answer to that question would be "2.2.19" or "2.4.19-ac3", or "2.5.9".
Red Hat is not a version of Linux, Linux is a kernel. Libranet is a distribution. GNU is the OS. Maybe a guru would literally ask "Which version of Linux are you using?", but only the the query was directed at a fairly knowledgable Linux geek who had compiled their own kernel, if not rolled thier own installation. Being that this thread in in a story about a Commercial distribution of GNU (Libranet GNU/Linux that is) it is probably safe to assume that the user is a "luser" who didn't roll their own.
It could even acceptable to ask "what system", as in what Operating System are you using... even though this may be offensive to myopic so-called "Linux" fanatics, it would be valid and not totally incorrect. Red Hat and Libranet both distribute different variations of the GNU OS, so you might say "I am using Red Hat 7.2" as your OS. At least you aren't saying you use "Linux 7.2"
When people on slashdot speak of BSD, they tend to mean the post 386BSD derivatives. That was the "Free" OS that sprung NetBSD and FreeBSD. Then OpenBSD branched from NetBSD. Until fairly recently, none of these were SMP capable. For a while, only FreeBSD was SMP capable, now it looks like the "Free" BSDs (386BSD derived) are all rounding out, and starting to overlap in scope. FreeBSD now runs on non x86 hardware, and NetBSD now runs SMP. OpenBSD has various groups bringing SMP (mostly from NetBSD work) and NetBSD/FreeBSD are reincorporating OpenBSD code-audit correction. On the whole, it is a very pleasing situation.
Now MacOS, which runs on top of Darwin, has a slightly different heritage. It comes from BSD, but I believe it derives from a pre-386BSD branch (although they have incorporated many imporvements from NetBSD, then FreeBSD). It probably it pretty directly decended from LITES, a BSD "personality" which ran ontop of the MACH microkernel. That doesn't necessarily mean that LITES or Darwin is a Microkernel system - rather, they are a "single server" - a single kernel hosted ontop of the MACH subsystems. This means it takes advantage of MACH VM architecture, and probably MACH hardware drivers, but it doesn't take advantage of MACH message passing or other mk technologies.
Much like Windows NT was designed as a microkernel, they ended up defeating the micrkernel architecture to preserve system performance, without wasting previous effort. In this case, the previous effort was from NeXTSTEP, which also ran ontop of MACH. Then Apple incorporated updates to MACH (2.5 to 3.0) IIRC, BSD (4.3 to 4.4) and OpenStep... and every other technology that came since.
There is much more info to google for, but I believe I have thorougly answered your question. Just remember, there is traditional BSD (usually referring to BSD4.4, as opposed to AT&T SYSV) and there is Post-UCB unencumbered BSD (usually 386BSD derived legally unencumbered forks under a "BSD" style Free Software license).
Perhaps MS is too immature to have a standard dictated by them.
Maybe OpenGL lags behind DirectX, but it seems less whimsical, and a touch more concrete. Since SGI had to create hardware which falls into the spec, and has committed te spec into being a cross-platform standard, OpenSGi might be a samer graphics standard.
Of course that could bust be my anti-MS bias poking through, but it seems that OpenGL might be a healthier standard for the graphics industry. Oh, yeah, and SGI rules. Just in case you didn't know.
My two points are:
1. SGI rules
2. the standard should precede the hardware implementation. The latest point release shouldn't necessarily be sucking up to the latest graphics card's release. The most important innovation should be determined by the clients' needs, not the chipsets' innovation-implementation schedules.
Should the latest ATI card, which has greater capabilities than the GeForce 4 MX line (more like a GF2) have inferior displays? Technology should be the bottleneck, not politics and name-brand compatibility.
The ATI with more effects should not act crippled compared to a lesser nVidia card. and vice-versa. DirectX, if supprted, should actually be a detrmining factor in video compatibility.
Just a reminder, Slashdot was better when it was a site for discussion, and not a game where superiority was measured in accrued karma points. I believe that was the motivation for obscuring your karma score.
In light of this (discussion vs. karma), please reevaluate what the parent meant when they said "points".
The whole point of DirectX and other abstraction layers is so that an nVidia card wouldn't be required for certain effects. A less powerful nVidia card shouldn't have better visual effects than a top ATI card. That was the whole reason that ATI surpassing the OEM minimal performance level was significant. Real competition should be allowed to compete, not be retrained my corporate politics and back room dealings.
Buying a graphics gard shouldn't be about politics and "us versus them", it is a tecnical issue, an issue of performance, price, andh possibly customer service. nVidia shouldn't be going over the consumers heads to screw those who vote against the party. It sounds like time for nVidia to pack it in... step aside and let some responsible competition emerge who actually wants to improve open computing standards without belittling users.
Screw Sony - "fancy visual effects" are the sole reason why graphics accelerators exist at the consumer PC level... they are "especially important" to this discussion. The bad thing is not that nVidia can show off their fancy features. The bad thing is that nVidia paid Square dirty money to cripple the game on ATI, and Square accepted the deal. If Square already developed the new effects, why artifically restrict users from seeing them? Because they didn't vote for the right dirty... er, buy the right companies video card? Technology isn't the issue here, but is should be. That is a the bad thing. This is sad.
The comparison is off base. Now if your Formula 1 were denied because it didn't have the pre-approved endorsements on the hood, then that would be relevant. It's not a technological feasibility issue, performance is out of the question. The issue is corporate politics extorting consumers to defray fair and open competition.
Cute metaphor anyway. Maybe Get your Honda Civic Turbocharged and see how it fares...
+2, witty troll. +1 humorous for those that caught the reference. -2 for those who, lacking the background to recognize the style of the post, didn't even take note of the unblushing praise that is rare without some form of payment.
You forgot to play the silly background music and to flash the Apple logo afterwards.
They had bothered a few times. (The names are still available in archives of newsgroups and web histories, and some names are still reserved for future use.) They were unsuccessful at first, and the apperance of Linux made a simple Unix-alike kernel redundant. They went on to a fuller Unix then UNIX in many philosophy-of-technological aspects, while maintaining the Freedom that AT&T never ment to infuse into UNIX.
....
If it weren't for Linus, we would all be using NetBSD or FreeBSD, and there would probably be a bit more viability in MACH, which would probably be what OS researchers would use instead of GNU+Linux.
What exactly was RMS a great avdocate of? Oh, Software Freedom? Hasn't he been much more effectively neutralized by "Open Source", which has sublimated most of the force of his arguments into the very thing that forced him to become the activist he is today? (sociopathic corporate interest)
I mean commercial interests being valued over Freedom and community. "Free" as in "included free with purchase of necessary component overpriced to make up for the free trinket included", "Free with paid subscription", or "buy two, get the third FREE!" The word "free" is corrupt and useless. Everybody knows that "free" is only useful as a buzzword for advertisement purposes, and only means "prepare to deal with this opportunistic corporation's psychological warfare as it attempts to bait you into
Alright, let me get back to it. Open Source is the bridge back to Commercial UNIX from Free Unix. Open Source is the AFSL luring us back into submission. This time under a still powerful but now UNIX wizened Lord Jobs, with a technically appealing non-Free replacement of our would-be-software-saviours.
As for the whole "Open Source" movement, what a waste. Ask any Linux Journal reader if there is is a difference between Open Source and Free Software. Ask if Apple makes Free Software.
The DFSG were a great guideline for years. Debian is expediently free. The "F" into the Open Source DFSG reincarnation has been totally neutralized. What a waste.
UNIX is owned by the Open Group. GNU is not. "Unix", like "Linux", is not an Operating System. But at least (mis)using "Linux" isn't going to open anybody up to potential litigation (yet). Both Open Source and the Open Group value corporation over society.
Wow, that seems utterly sensible, and I'm officially piqued. Do you have any pointers for information regarding the intentions and history of the Unix file hierarchy? I've never actually considered the possibility that the tree could be trnsparent and sensible.
/usr supplants /home. If you can provide some credible links, I for one would fully agree with your stated position. Maybe I'd even compile the information into a centralized resource if one doesn't already exist.
It seems that the (Linux) FHS should really take this information into account. If not, perhaps a UNIX Purists' alternative to the FHS should be fleshed-out, where
a "fat guy" on a bike will breathe much harder than a fat guy sitting on a couch. He needs the excersize for his own health. I would argue that his decomposing corpse would provide value by enriching the soil, but odds are fairly good that he would be embalmed first, negating that theory.
I guess It's really hard to know which side of this argument to take without a definitive measurement of the average "fat guy" flatulence and expiration, to subtract from the pulminary output of the fatty in motion, to compare to the efficiency of the alternative machine. Then the appropriate solution will have to be deployed to a large enough scale to make the efforts expended during the study worthwhile.
I dunno about personal attacks or political attacks, but really all of ths is quite silly. That is the point... if it is enjoyable and not eggregiously harmful then it is the right thing to do. Anything having to do with Outer Space, or even outer orbit seems contrary to the Green philosophies as I understand them. A low impact, gradual reduction of industry seems to be the obvious stance, I really am not convinced that technological progress at this point in time is conducive to the Green Parties' goals. Perhaps a non-radical Luddism is how I see it.
That said, if fat guys on bikes can supplant "artificial" industrial machinery, then it seems to be a good thing. Leave the Petrol-derived carbon in the ground, let the photosynthesized carbon be put to work. Raw energy efficiency can be misleading if the source of the energy is fossil-fuel.
By the way, bull-shit is a good alternative to fossil fuel, is it not? Better than reading the article!
I believe that "less government" should be less direct government on a federal level. Easier-to-influence smaller governments is the exact point, because humanity is too dynamic for a static or archaic government. I think that federal government, rather than policing the citizens, should exist only to police the smaller governments, and to see that Big Corporate America, the Mother Church, or other alternative forms of government don't take the "Power of the People" away from the people. Each state and municipal government should be basically soverign, to be controlled as the citizens see fit, while under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution, and the Feds enforce compliance of the local gov'ts.
Your second paragraph points to the current state of affairs, which is highly reflected in an overly executive federal government - it provides a single point of failure, for the corrupting influence of powerful entities who would take power away from the citizenry. Big Corporations, the "Moral Majority" and other corruptions of the U.S. Government would have a much harder time usurping power if its efforts had to be distributed over a large and diverse distributed government, in which the the federal government's only role was to monitor checks and balances without direct action against the population. This would prevent any $multi-billion corporate buyouts like the airline rescue packages or federal abuse of citizen's rights like federal persecution of individuals who maintain their right to consume cannabis according to the laws in California. Each state should be free to police corporations how they see fit, then the insulated federal government should be the watchdog to monitor for any abuses. The problem of corruption and general idiocy is not inherent in capitalism or socialism, but in large clumsy monolithic structures in general. Distribution of governmental power would address the problem, and allow for socialism and capitalism to co-exist under the Umbrella of the Republic of the United States of America.
I am not for full-blown laissez-faire capitalist government, but I believe that we need the federal government to take a step back from the brouhaha and perform a more supervisory role for smaller direct governments - to ensure the proper seperation of church, state, corporation, sovereignity and individual. Then each smaller sub-government would be free to play a greater or lesser role in the local economy or service industry as each local population sees fit. The national economy, much like the global economy, is too poorly understood for any universal legislation to guarantee sanity. Let the people be heard, in their respective domains. In a crowd of millions, nobody can be heard.
I think your last paragraph is the strongest indirect rebuttal to your post in general. A small-business setting (corporate or public) can specialize itself to your type of work (or private lifestyle) better than a large, structured, hierarchical environment. (Remember, you are unique--just like everybody else!) That large hierarchy would be a powerfully effective set of guidelines extending from the Federal Constitution to provide a means of sanity-checking for smaller governmental organizations of any kind, be it pseudo-Marxism, anarcho-capitalism, tribal-democracy or benevolent-dictatorship.
-
--- Off-topic and Off-beat ramblings follow ---
-
Perhaps a Theocracy might even be possible under this system, as long as a democratic means of representation were preserved. Or perhaps I am dreaming a dangerous dream here.
Dissolution (not radical-revolution, but perhaps through gradual campaign- and tax- reform attrition) of the Federal government would also be an effective way of preserving the civil liberties of Americans, and repealing archaic imperialist behaivor that has tarnished the U.S. reputation on the world stage.
Again, still dreaming, here's another idea for discussion. If the Federal Government is every properly reformed as I describe, eventually membership of the United States might eventually be opened up, so that our territories might be granted the option of proper statehood through some mutual electoral process. If this relatively small scale experiment panned out, then the option could be offered to Sovereign States that are currently considered Foreign Nations. If the benefits of falling under the jurisdiction of the U.S. constitution prove to be a compelling trade off, maybe the U.S could become what the United Nations never was.
Of course, that last paragraphs should be disregarded as pure poppycock or feverish half-baked ejaculations. It seems doubtful that federal corruption could ever be dissolved to any significant degree in my lifetime. The federal government would have to be both declawed against violation of individual freedoms and bolstered to protect minority social elements from oppression, both homebrewed and alien.
The National Libertarian Party's efforts in their "Incumbent Killer" program are a source of hope, even if I find their general platforms to be too extreme for my taste - their hearts seem to be in the right place. I would have been interested to see what happened if Pat Buchanan didn't hijack the Reform Party. While John Hagelin may have been a slightly offbeat pseudo-religious yogi, I somehow find that preferable to the blatant Moral Majority partyline spewed by Buchanan cronies - it seems that the has transplanted the worst part of the modern Repblican party into my once future hope.
I would be much more likely to have voted for Hagelin under the Reform Party ticket than under the Natural Law Party ticket, for the very same reason - less pseudo-religious influence would have been likely permissible. I voted for Ralph Nader despite not identifying with the Green Party, purely as a protest vote. Alas, it seems the only visible legacy of Perot was to bring the pomp and farce of Professional wrestling into the disturbingly similar political arena. Frankly "the snake" is too generic a term for Ventura's current peers, including Hillary, and hopefully not Ed Rendell.
Pennsylvania, vote Mike Fisher!
Ahem... sory about that last bit.
I'm non-partisan, honest!
DVD-R and DVD+R disks are only incompatible as far as writing is concerned. Once the disks are burned, they are designed to be universally readable, including standard consumer DVD players.
The only issue would be if Fred wants to add to Bill's rewritable DVD format. Your stated concerns would be fully addressed by this solution.
Unless Fred the Landscaper taked on double duty as Fred the Digital Media Editor.
The reason geeks don't like writing too much documentation is simple. It's not laziness (well not always), it's just tedium with human language (or poor speeling and grammer to).
Project completion includes documentation.
Professionalism demands it.
Always.
Full steam ahead.
The worst cause of feature creep and software bloat is delineated in your rationalization. The "simple" change should be to your documentation, and then the code should be updated to reflect that change. Note that that change in the spec is usually considered a valid reason for an increase in the revision number.
The worst thing in the world for a software company (profit motivated) is a moving feature set, and never reaching 1.0.
He was probably right when he said that quote...
after all, how many ENIAC, MANIAC, etc. style machines were there?
This quote seems akin to saying that there is no need for more than one grandfather clock per nuclear family... but I've been through at least 10 wristwatches, not counting my siblings!
p.s.
I really liked your statement about how patent lawyer have twisted the language in new and interesting ways (From the IPFilter article). If I used sigs, I'd probably have a variant on that one.
A previous post said
FWIW, "buzzword" has no such connotation {of empty talk} to me, and I hope I'm not alone. Otherwise, we'd need to invent another word to denote a word commonly observed being used to propagate some concept (hence the "buzz".) If we assume that it implies vacuous propagation, we're left without a value-neutral token for that meme.
It seems the value-neutral word has already been invented: "meme"
You called it. That's exactly how I meant it. There are many buzzwords, common terms-of-art, referring to differrent applications of the same basic principle.
I beleive the term you are looking for is "jargon" which is significantly different from a "buzzword" which is only negative depending on the perspective of the beholder. Many examples of jargon are concepts which might not seem strange to the lay person were it not for it's relatively esoteric context, just like many industries or arts have different words which describe the same principles when applied to their respective industries. Consider "cosmonaut" versus "astronaut" as the jargon which may have developed in different (instances of the same) industries.
Perhaps "Object-oriented" was once used as jargon, to convey a concept which might not seem so strange to the uninitiated were it not for the esoteric context. Somehow, the phrase leaked into a marketing department somewhere, and the concept became superfluous to the important discussion - so the word eventually mutated (I want to say devolvled) into it's current form. Now the term is a widely used adjective which one would be hard pressed to find a relevant definition for. The propogation of this particular hyphenate can be imagined as creating a buzzing sound instead of a resounding conceptual tone.
Buzzwords CAN be used to snow the uninitated. But they became buzzwords because they were actually used for something important enough to talk about a lot in serious discussion. So behind every buzzword is a concept, sometimes a lump of bogus hype but much more often a key piece of understanding.
You are likely right about the concept behind every buzzword. Therein lies the trouble; buzzwords have become detached from their originating concept, so that the concept becomes a vestige, a dead limb. The trouble with abstract ideas is that a word can never convey understanding, the understanding must come first. Jargon then becomes a reference word for the uninitiated, a tool of convenience to facilitate serious discussion. When the jargon precedes the understanding, it becomes a buzzword, a marketing tool, "snow" for the uninitiated.
Sorry if I was too dry. Maybe I should have used an Emoticon to convey my sarcasm, which was referring to Clinton's appearance on an MTV presidential Q+A session. I guess I fugured you would infer my tone from the rest of my post, which to my inner monologue sounds rather harsh against the dynamic between popular youth culture of the '90s and William Clinton.
Bush Sr refused to participate with MTV, turning the kids against him. Clinton was asked if he inhaled... he said no, but that was because he didn't know that he was supposed to, and if he had the chance again, he would. I can honestly say that during the General elections, and during the 8 years afterwards, I never once wondered about the former president's choice of undergarments. Not even during the sexual scandals did the thought occur to me.
As for Mr Hussein, I now confess that I actually am mildly curious. Does Fruit of the Loom export to Iraq? Is desert sand a problem? Oh, forget about it.
Back to reality, Is anybody concerned about the next generation of Husseins? Bush has his golden child in office now, what about Saddam's son? I don't mean the Jeb, I mean the scary one, who grew up witnessing his father's sadism, and is eager to follow in hs footsteps.
Whatever my view on Free Software versus prprietary software, the US governments are specifically for the people, by the people. Nothing the US government takes part in (ideally) should have the same motivations as a private company. I didn't say anything about good or bad, I left the first sentence vague, so that the following paragraphs could address the benefits of treating a Free government similar to Free Software. Even if non-Free Software developers don't have to justify why thier software isn't free, the US government should have this burden. US citizens don't live to serve the state, the state exists for the people, by the people. If something can't be justified to the people, it should not be sponsored by the state.
Yes, I agree that it might be a strech to compare methods of Free software development to methods of maintaining a Republic. This is why I confessed that I am a particular brand of Slashdot geek, to imply that my views may be unusual. Nonetheless, I find your rebuttal to be lacking:
What is the difference between a weak point and a flaw?
The public doesn't have to be of justifiable use to the government, it's the other way around. Of course most of the public won't have the technical background for that one specific example, but there are many people of many backgrounds who may be concerned in many aspects of public works which intimately affect their daily lives. Engineers aren't the only people "of much use". Yes, it's a strech that a concerned citizen might be "lucky" enough to find a flaw in a local structre, but it is also a strech that a protagonist would find and choose to exploit that same weakness.
Now who gets to decide "legitimate" uses of information? If I live under a dam, then mere interest in the quality of it's construction should be sufficient. Maybe I am this engineer with the training to comprehend that a dam has an architectural flaw. How am I to know that this fabled bolt even exists? I must petition the courts to allow me to see if bolts were used in the construction of this dam, so that I may decide if my experience is applicable to this dam. Then I can convince the judge that this particular brand of bolts are my field of specialty, so they should reveal the locations of each bolt to me, so that I may then measure the bolts' efficacy? Anti-terrorist efforts (or hostile computer exploits) aren't the only valid reason for open review of information. Perhaps there are circumstances that were not foreseen at the time of this dam's construction. A new finding in materials science, or a change in the weather patterns, for example, could have adverse affects on the dam, and if the documentaion is sealed nobody would know about it until the dam failed. Without knowledge of the current system, how could any private citizen be able to design a more secure system?
If by raising the bar, you mean more beaurocracy, red tape, and government secrecy, then I must disagree with you. If the government is truly for the people, then the FOIA is a necessary burden.
I didn't mean to advocate state run airline security agencies. Each state should decide on their own how to address their security needs, be it through a private company, a government agency, or sticking their heads in the sand. Each state should have the option to impose policy and regulations on the chosen system, just like the federal government should have a written policy to be enforced by each state as they see fit. The US Constitution addresses global problems on a national scale, and each United State is tasked to uphold the Constitution as they interpret it.
Being the particular brand of slashdot surfing geek I am, I can't help but relate Freedom of Information to Free Software. Sorry, I tried to succumb to fear in response to your dam example, but my naive idealism won out.
See, if a foreign terrorist can easily query the dams across the nation, then a curious nerd living near the dam should be able to do the same thing. So not only can federal employees more easily access this information, but locals with a vested interest can also browse through this info. At this point, Johnny can find the previously concealed flaw in the dyke, and put his figurative finger in it. Or more likely, publicise the flaw, get his local congressman interested in it, and actually start the process of fixing the shortcoming.
Of course concrete is a bit more troublesome than C code, but exploiting superstructures is also more difficult than the standard stack overflow. While running the latest 'sploit can be almost anonymous, probably at least a few nosy bystanders would notice if somebody were trying to destroy a dam.
+++
Then again, maybe I'm not the typical Slashdotter, because I am a registered Republican who tends to vote my party. I really don't think that these inane policies come from Bush. I am dissapointed in the federalization of airline security. There should be federal standards, but they should be enforced by the local state authorities.
The Constitution party? Are you a crack smoker? What do you know about them?
As an anti-Bush Republican, the Libertarian and Constitution parties swing in opposite directions. Why don't you think things through for yourself before proselytizing others.
Seriously, what draws you to the Constitution party? What do you know about Pat Buchanan? How do you feel about the seperation between church and state? What about firearms?
Then again, perhaps you should ignore national politics for the time being, and focus on local politics. Frankly, whether you voted for Bush or Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf, there would have been no difference. Look at the issues regarding State positions, and especially consider races in your township. Also find out your local regulations considering primary elections... and decide whether or not belonging to a main party outweighs the ramifications of belonging to a minor party. Are the minor parties active in your city? If you need political favors, can a minor party help you? Can a major party?
-castlan
You do not have to show any ID to an oficer. Your drivers' license is not national ID, but proof that you are certified to operate a motor vehicle, and you are only required to show it while operating one. You never have to show an officer your optional, non-driving state ID. BTW, what database is a nationally comprehensive compilation of driver's licenses?
What sort of fraud does a non-federalized ID enable? Anything that threatens personal or national security? Potential corruption of the citizenry's morals aren't life threatening, but they do make an excellent opportunity to excercise personal responsibility! Why should I submit my privacy for a national ID card?
A national ID in itself isn't a problem, just like technology isn't a problem. But the existence of a uniform national ID is an enabler to abuse, and it is worth fighting because it has no value. Technology is very valuable, but only with other resources can it enable an individual to become overly dangerous. These other resources (political, financial) were used in an old age with old technology, to amass a powerful military fleet. A single individual used these resources with varying levels of technology in the past, from Ghengis Khan and Julius Caesar to Napoleon and Hitler. One man was more dangerous than many military fleets.
The key to avoiding totalitarianism is to value individuality over national conformity, freedom over jingoism, and privacy over bureocracy. A national ID has no value. The FBI has tracked innocent people without just cause in the past. There is no way to know if their purposes were "nefarious". If you were offered dictatorship of the United States of America, would you refuse? I'd rather you didn't have the opportunity, I don't want to find out. Likewise, I'd rather not promote a national ID and any abuses it might engender. To prevent totalitarianism, preserve preedom; know your rights, and assert them fervently.
How are you forced to carry a state-issued ID? Do you pass Identity checkpoints at pain of arrest?
Owning and operating a motor vehicle, must like a gun, required licensing and registrations. Owning and operating feet, much like fists, does not.
Private establishments may require proof of age if they offer adult oriented "vices", but that is not the same situation either.
Having a federally uniform ID makes seemingly minor abuses of power too convienient. Consider the Social Security Number, which was explicity not intended as a national ID for non-employment purposes. Now the SSN is bandied about in public situations, and most Americans don't realize how unfortunate this can be regarding privacy or personal security. Yet try to function on a daily basis at banks, colleges, without ever using your SSN, and see how futile it is. Many institutions try to use it as your unique ID, even though it isn't "unique".
Upon acceptance of a federal ID, you come closer to experiencing the fascism of being forced to carry your ID while in public, or risk federal penalties. Freedom and privacy are worthy ideals.
I will assume the opposite of Neo and venture that you feel more safe. You don't usually spend money in LA, so their suspicion is justified, and could be useful in case somebody tries to "steal your identity."
The trouble comes when your identity is not linked to your personality and experience, but to an inhuman and distinct physical token. Human relations are the best judge of "behaivor patterns". Humans possess empathy or compassion, while machines, numbers, statistics distill the humanity out of "human rights". My citizenship is not embodied by a card, but by my person.