Leaving aside the men/women idea (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just leaving it to the side)...
most conversions fail upon social skills of the IT
This is +5 insightful. I do a lot of this for a living, and you nailed it. Anyone who works in support spends the vast majority of their time hacking people, not machines.
You are correct, but I think you are inferring an incorrect conclusion from your assessment. My day job involves selling Linux to home users (and a few small businesses in the mix just for laughs), and I can tell you from experience that the people who "use computers as a series of rote actions" are actually the easiest people to migrate. You give them a new order of buttons to press and you send them on their merry way. They're easy, precisely because they're not intellectually or emotionally invested in their computer.
In the meantime, SWCast radio stations suffer after paying to legally broadcast.
Well, I'm sorry, suckers, but that's what you get. If there's one lesson that New Media needs to get mercilessly beaten into its collective brain, it's that you do not attempt to play ball with Old Media. If anyone expected to get anything but fucked, shame on them.
Microsoft considers Windows XP equivalent to a one-man hobby Linux distro released in 1992 that I had previously never even heard of? Huh?
But a lot of people have production systems that are humming along just fine with XP
Exactly my point. No one has production systems that are "humming along just fine" with SLS Linux. I mean, I don't really have a dog in this fight, I have 0 Windows systems, my business is powered by Debian and Arch and they're not EOLing anytime soon. But seriously. Ridiculous comparison is ridiculous.
The same thing you'll do if you've got some critical application running on OS/2 or Apple II or MS-DOS 2. You will handle it yourself, or you will be fucked.
Why would you even bother comparing some one-man band distro from 1992 with anything that we're talking about here? That's ludicrous. I had to look SLS Linux up to even find out what the hell it was.
If SuSe or Red Hat goes belly up tomorrow, or it's announced it will no longer be supported, you seriously expect that someone will *100% for sure* support it to the level required by an enterprise customer?
Well, considering that Oracle will do that very thing for RHEL right now, I'd say the answer is obviously yes.
Of course not, don't be dense. You're comparing apples to Chevrolets. None of the software on my GNU/Linux rigs (except Flash) belong to anyone else. If you're running Windows, it says right in the license that you don't own it. If you're not capable of rebuilding an engine, do you really "own" your car?
I explained to you what evolution is. I gave you a very concise definition. By all means, continue sticking your fingers in your ears and saying LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. The dictionary doesn't give a fuck about your ideology and neither do I.
That's stupid. First, at no time did I call automobile ownership a "human right." So I don't even know who you're arguing with, but it doesn't seem to be me. Second, the government infringes your "rights" all the time. If you are found to be mentally incompetent, they take away your right to own a gun. If you're a felon, they take away your right to vote. If you can't prove you know how to drive a car, they take away your "right" to drive a car. You want me to keep going?
So are cars. In fact, you could substitute 'automobile' for 'Internet' in your sentence and have it perfectly valid. Should having a car be a fundamental human right?
Goddammit, no. You are deliberately misinterpreting this. You should by all means not be impeded by your government in acquiring an internet connection or a car (barring mitigating circumstances like a DUI or running Windows ME). That's what this means. It doesn't mean "the right to free shit."
This is becoming a joke, first people try to claim health care is a right (as if I could just march in a doctor's office and demand my right to a checkup)
In most of the civilized world you can do just that. Do you live in Siberia?
Ever file taxes? It's a two-tier system where electronic filers get their money from the government regardless of shutdowns while paper filers wait.
Just as a side note here, I file via paper forms and the USPS (just like my granddaddy...), and I have noticed over the last couple of years that the turnaround time on my return has gone down dramatically as more and more people e-file.
That has nothing to do with your comment, just something I've noticed and wanted to throw out there.
This is getting confusing, but it's a good discussion.
In reply to the parent poster, I (somewhat glibly) equated their idea of the internet being "a right that protects other rights" with our American second amendment (which in case you're not from the States, is the right to bear arms). To proceed with that analogy, the second amendment doesn't guarantee you a gun, or say that one will be provided to you free of charge. It merely states that you have the right to access. I would posit the same idea in this instance.
All of which is not to necessarily say I agree with that position (I haven't had sufficient time to consider it), simply that that's what I think this discussion is actually about, not "the right to free stuff."
Internet access protects your other rights. That is enough to mean maybe we should think of it as a right.
Hmm. So you're saying that internet access is the latter-day equivalent of the second amendment (being a right that protects the other rights)? That's an interesting idea.
I personally find the traditional American expression of natural rights theory to be untenable in public debates because it is based on rights endowed by a Creator.
Although that was certainly the framing of the discussion as it happened (in the eighteenth century), I certainly don't find the presence or absence of a Creator to be a terribly vexing issue. As others have said in this discussion, a "natural right" is something you already have that nobody gave you. The right to speak, the right to pray, the right to the fruits of your labor. Those are "natural" or "human rights." The rights of all humans.
I understand that a large portion of the population is only going to view rights as artificial constructs created by society, and we just have to deal with that view.
Sure, those are "political" or "social rights." The rights that society gives you. ("Give" is the key differentiator there. That's how you know it's a political right and not a human right.) Health care, food and shelter, things like that. Those are good. I'm not speaking against them. And to circle back to the original topic of this discussion, I would be willing to consider something like internet access to be a "political right." But I do think that to equate that with "human rights" is muddying the waters unnecessarily.
Slashdot Mirror
Leaving aside the men/women idea (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just leaving it to the side)...
most conversions fail upon social skills of the IT
This is +5 insightful. I do a lot of this for a living, and you nailed it. Anyone who works in support spends the vast majority of their time hacking people, not machines.
You are correct, but I think you are inferring an incorrect conclusion from your assessment. My day job involves selling Linux to home users (and a few small businesses in the mix just for laughs), and I can tell you from experience that the people who "use computers as a series of rote actions" are actually the easiest people to migrate. You give them a new order of buttons to press and you send them on their merry way. They're easy, precisely because they're not intellectually or emotionally invested in their computer.
So they're a gatekeeper for...Old Media? Well color me not corrected.
In the meantime, SWCast radio stations suffer after paying to legally broadcast.
Well, I'm sorry, suckers, but that's what you get. If there's one lesson that New Media needs to get mercilessly beaten into its collective brain, it's that you do not attempt to play ball with Old Media. If anyone expected to get anything but fucked, shame on them.
Microsoft considers Windows XP equivalent to a one-man hobby Linux distro released in 1992 that I had previously never even heard of? Huh?
But a lot of people have production systems that are humming along just fine with XP
Exactly my point. No one has production systems that are "humming along just fine" with SLS Linux. I mean, I don't really have a dog in this fight, I have 0 Windows systems, my business is powered by Debian and Arch and they're not EOLing anytime soon. But seriously. Ridiculous comparison is ridiculous.
The same thing you'll do if you've got some critical application running on OS/2 or Apple II or MS-DOS 2. You will handle it yourself, or you will be fucked.
Why would you even bother comparing some one-man band distro from 1992 with anything that we're talking about here? That's ludicrous. I had to look SLS Linux up to even find out what the hell it was.
Such as?
If SuSe or Red Hat goes belly up tomorrow, or it's announced it will no longer be supported, you seriously expect that someone will *100% for sure* support it to the level required by an enterprise customer?
Well, considering that Oracle will do that very thing for RHEL right now, I'd say the answer is obviously yes.
Doesn't *ALL* software "belong to someone else"?
Of course not, don't be dense. You're comparing apples to Chevrolets. None of the software on my GNU/Linux rigs (except Flash) belong to anyone else. If you're running Windows, it says right in the license that you don't own it. If you're not capable of rebuilding an engine, do you really "own" your car?
Of course you do. Stupid git.
Me!
Cost is not the issue here. You can buy a CD, copy it for no cost, and sell it, and yet CDs still get sold.
If you buy a car, modify it and sell it, the car company can't do anything about it. Yet cars are still sold. Why is this?
Free societies have rules.
It's not the General Free License. It's the General Public License.
I explained to you what evolution is. I gave you a very concise definition. By all means, continue sticking your fingers in your ears and saying LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. The dictionary doesn't give a fuck about your ideology and neither do I.
That's stupid. First, at no time did I call automobile ownership a "human right." So I don't even know who you're arguing with, but it doesn't seem to be me. Second, the government infringes your "rights" all the time. If you are found to be mentally incompetent, they take away your right to own a gun. If you're a felon, they take away your right to vote. If you can't prove you know how to drive a car, they take away your "right" to drive a car. You want me to keep going?
Don't be such a twat.
Of course not, don't be dense.
So are cars. In fact, you could substitute 'automobile' for 'Internet' in your sentence and have it perfectly valid. Should having a car be a fundamental human right?
Goddammit, no. You are deliberately misinterpreting this. You should by all means not be impeded by your government in acquiring an internet connection or a car (barring mitigating circumstances like a DUI or running Windows ME). That's what this means. It doesn't mean "the right to free shit."
This is becoming a joke, first people try to claim health care is a right (as if I could just march in a doctor's office and demand my right to a checkup)
In most of the civilized world you can do just that. Do you live in Siberia?
Ha, just kidding. You can even do it in Siberia!
Ever file taxes? It's a two-tier system where electronic filers get their money from the government regardless of shutdowns while paper filers wait.
Just as a side note here, I file via paper forms and the USPS (just like my granddaddy...), and I have noticed over the last couple of years that the turnaround time on my return has gone down dramatically as more and more people e-file.
That has nothing to do with your comment, just something I've noticed and wanted to throw out there.
This is getting confusing, but it's a good discussion.
In reply to the parent poster, I (somewhat glibly) equated their idea of the internet being "a right that protects other rights" with our American second amendment (which in case you're not from the States, is the right to bear arms). To proceed with that analogy, the second amendment doesn't guarantee you a gun, or say that one will be provided to you free of charge. It merely states that you have the right to access. I would posit the same idea in this instance.
All of which is not to necessarily say I agree with that position (I haven't had sufficient time to consider it), simply that that's what I think this discussion is actually about, not "the right to free stuff."
Internet access protects your other rights. That is enough to mean maybe we should think of it as a right.
Hmm. So you're saying that internet access is the latter-day equivalent of the second amendment (being a right that protects the other rights)? That's an interesting idea.
(Reposting under the right comment, sorry).
No worries.
I personally find the traditional American expression of natural rights theory to be untenable in public debates because it is based on rights endowed by a Creator.
Although that was certainly the framing of the discussion as it happened (in the eighteenth century), I certainly don't find the presence or absence of a Creator to be a terribly vexing issue. As others have said in this discussion, a "natural right" is something you already have that nobody gave you. The right to speak, the right to pray, the right to the fruits of your labor. Those are "natural" or "human rights." The rights of all humans.
I understand that a large portion of the population is only going to view rights as artificial constructs created by society, and we just have to deal with that view.
Sure, those are "political" or "social rights." The rights that society gives you. ("Give" is the key differentiator there. That's how you know it's a political right and not a human right.) Health care, food and shelter, things like that. Those are good. I'm not speaking against them. And to circle back to the original topic of this discussion, I would be willing to consider something like internet access to be a "political right." But I do think that to equate that with "human rights" is muddying the waters unnecessarily.
Would you like to posit an alternate hypothesis?
As requested.