OK, I don't know why you're equating liberalism with amorality, but you are seriously mistaken if you think that the idea of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" first appeared in christian texts. You don't have to be a right-wing christian conservative to believe that stealing from people is a bad thing.
The meme being propagated that one cannot have morality without religion is BULLSHIT. And the sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll have my ear on what you think should/shouldn't be done in our (I'm assuming you're American because I don't here crap like this from foreigners) society.
Well, hello? Why do you think Microsoft has taken so long to try and squash GNU/Linux? Do you think said company was biding its time as GNU/Linux was eatting at the server market? I don't think so.
And what does 1998 have to do with anything? You lost me on that one.
Really, though. I still believe that the above statement I just made is something that prosecutors, judges, politicians, and cops tell themselves so that they can sleep better at night, even thought they've single-handedly ruined hundreds of lives.
Slashdot is as much a discussion site as it is a news site. All throughout Slashdot history, the people posting the stories (I'd rather not call them editors) have tended to post their opinion along with it (someitmes in order to get the ball rolling). Sometimes we agree with that opinion, sometimes we don't.
Truth be known, though: I agree with your parent poster's assessment.
It's not the morality of Microsoft in question, I don't believe.
Rather, I'm inclined to ask myself why the government is such a dedicated customer to a known criminal. Let's see, we convict Microsoft for monopolistic crimes (for the second time), and then we turn around and help solidify the monopoly ourselves.
For the cost of licensing softare from Microsoft, they could be training their employees to use a more permenant solution, they could be saving taxpayers money into the future, and they could put a big ol' metaphorical boot into Microsoft's collective arse.
Why would you choose to point towards the attitudes of the Slashdot community, in this case, rather than other issues? I feel quite confident that the Slashdot community's attitudes towards suits has very little to do with Linux's lack of acceptance. At least, I feel that way in light of other issues such as file format compatibility, lack of hardware vendor support, and perceived difficulty in use.
And thank you for making a big deal over my spelling mistake. How humble of you...
Let me get this straight: corporate suits are going to not save money, not have flexibility, not have generally stable software simply because of some attitude that a few geeks on Slashdot have?
Well, to that I say, "Good riddens!" I don't care if corporate suits have a problem with my attitude. Why should I? They can either stand on the shoulders of giants, or they can choose not to. Either way, I don't care.
Re: I've used genetic algorithms
on
Digital Darwin
·
· Score: 1
I'm of the mind that science should view nature in a way that places us inside of it at all times. All we can know is what we can test.
So, there is a line, somewhere, separating what we can know from what we can't know. At what point does one say, "OK, this is how nature seems to me; therefore, I'll view it in light of the way I must treat it"?
That's my argument in the whole creationism versus evolution debate. Creationists seem to have a tendancy to extrapolate outside of their data sets. Scientists do this too, but when was the last time you've encountered a creative creationist that solved major, physical world problems?
I have mod points, but I've decided not to use them.
Could you please point out to me some hard evidence showing that what you say is true? If not, shut the fuck up, Troll.
How do we know that you and a few buds don't have it in for "Captain Crunch"? How do we know that you didn't all plan a public beratement of this individual?
I'm sorry, but I don't see how creating an object gives you a natural right to dictate what can be done with said object. The idea that creating something gives you a right to dictate what can be done with it seems beyond fascism to me. If I have an object (be it code, or a physical entity), I damn-well have the right to do whatever I want with the aforementioned object. Of course, this is not what capitalist America wants you to believe. I must be communist, right? Phsaw!
I agree with most of everything you said in your post; however, I don't think that the general public is as computer phobic as you seem to believe. Most of the people that I interact with on a daily basis are very curious about computers, and people vary a great deal in how much they know about them. Not all things are black and white, my friend. This point gets thrown around a lot here on Slashdot.
Also, people download all kinds of stuff from the net from unknown sources. I see it at work all the time. My coworkers are probably biggest on messaging programs (e-mail, AIM, ICQ, etc.). I've also seen my mom using some kind of Windows Update program to get updates for her computer.
So, I don't think that the general public would actually have much of a problem with getting updates from Micro$oft. Especially if those updates promise new Whiz-Bang! features.
Of course, this is just what we think. That is, unless you've seen some kind of studies done on these things that I haven't.
You seem to feel as if intellectual property and physical property are the same thing. This cannot be further from the truth. The reason that stealing a physical piece of property is illegal is because of the fact that resources for making goods are scarce. The world has an economy based on scarcity of resources. That's the only reason that economies exist in the first place.
Also, in all honesty, I'd much rather live in a world without McDonald's, Sears, Sony Playstations, etc., than in a world in which companies, rather than individuals, control the distribution of information. And make no mistake: companies have monetary resources and power far beyond that of your typical individual. They _do_ have the ability to lock away all of the important human knowledge that exists in our society.
I think that we all need to think about the things that we hold dear. Do we want the freedom to learn and to understand, or do we all want shiny new SUVs?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but p2p was originally meant to be completely anonymous. The internet is not anonymous. Posters of original content on the internet are not anonymous in that, in most cases, their physical location can be tracked down. p2p was created in order to provide an environment on the internet in which people would not be considerd publishers.
People should be allowed to NOT be accountable for every action they take or word they utter. Why can't the people have a private area on the internet where they can do or say what they want? Are there not places such as this in the physical world? The powers that be would like to take away this right to privacy simply because it's convenient for them to do so. It causes less hassle in the long run, and they've got a demanding public to satisfy. The public in general just seems to be against whatever is popularly seen as bad. And I'm sure that some of those big mega-corps out there are pretty good at making some people believe that some things are "bad". This is why, I believe, the judicial system seems to be dead set against the free software movement and its gifts to society at this point. Whatever society at large believes in becomes law. Whether it's "right" or "wrong".
I don't know which distribution you use, but I use Debian, and the only services that it enables are the ones that you install. If you don't need to run a service, then why are you installing software for the service in the first place?
VeePee, at its current stage of development, is a set of components aimed at GNOME and KDE application developers to enable them to easily add scripting capabilities to their applications.
Script-enabling an application gives the user the ability to extend the application in a way that suits the user. It allows them to adapt the application to solve problems that you hadn't considered when developing the application. It empowers your users.
VeePee provides a consistent scripting environment. Users who develop scripting skills will find that those skills are transferable to all applications that embed VeePee.
VeePee provides the user with a set of simple but powerful GUI controls. A VeePee scripted GUI has the same look and feel as the embedding application, whether it be a GNOME or a KDE application.
Python itself is a modern, well documented, object-orientated scripting language that is actively maintained and developed. It is easy to learn but has a powerful set of extension modules that provide a rich set of additional functionality.
IBM was informed of that error long ago, and it has been corrected.
Due to an overwhelming response from the community, calling us on a few not-so-subtle gaffs, we have changed our KDE theme contest. First and foremost, entering the contest does not mean you are giving us ownership of your code or exclusive rights to it (we'll be sacrificing a lawyer to the OSS gods for that rule tonight at midnight). All your entries (see revised rule 7 on the contest page) must be licensed under an OSI-approved public software license. Yes, we screwed that one up the first time. Apologies!
It seems to me as if IBMs involvement with the KDE is more harmful than good at this point. IBM recently made a tutorial for KDE themes. When I went to the web site hosting the tutorial, I noticed a little bit of info at the bottom of the page stating that IE or netscape is required to view it. Konqueror worked fine. The rest of the theming information was outdated as well. Their effort into this ViaVoice thing is also indicative of IBM's half-hearted approach to supporting the KDE.
As far as the theming tutorial goes, it just seems as if IBM picked an employee at random, told them to research the KDE a little bit and then had them slap a theming tutorial together. If this is not the case, then it is my opinion that IBM has somebody to repremand, if not fire. Things like this do not help the community warm up to corporate backers such as IBM.
Something tells me that you don't quite know exactly what users want. There've been too many instances in which I was required to fix suzie's computer in the back because the up-teenth bagillionth screensaver/windowshade/whatever that she's installed has caused her computer to do odd things. I don't think that user experience and configurability are out the door simply because of the fact that most computer users don't have BS's in CS. "Normal users" DO like customizability and they DO like choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, I think we attend the same school.
OK, I don't know why you're equating liberalism with amorality, but you are seriously mistaken if you think that the idea of "Thou Shalt Not Steal" first appeared in christian texts. You don't have to be a right-wing christian conservative to believe that stealing from people is a bad thing.
The meme being propagated that one cannot have morality without religion is BULLSHIT. And the sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll have my ear on what you think should/shouldn't be done in our (I'm assuming you're American because I don't here crap like this from foreigners) society.
Well, hello? Why do you think Microsoft has taken so long to try and squash GNU/Linux? Do you think said company was biding its time as GNU/Linux was eatting at the server market? I don't think so.
And what does 1998 have to do with anything? You lost me on that one.
Because ignorance is no excuse! Duh!
Really, though. I still believe that the above statement I just made is something that prosecutors, judges, politicians, and cops tell themselves so that they can sleep better at night, even thought they've single-handedly ruined hundreds of lives.
Slashdot is as much a discussion site as it is a news site. All throughout Slashdot history, the people posting the stories (I'd rather not call them editors) have tended to post their opinion along with it (someitmes in order to get the ball rolling). Sometimes we agree with that opinion, sometimes we don't.
Truth be known, though: I agree with your parent poster's assessment.
It's not the morality of Microsoft in question, I don't believe.
Rather, I'm inclined to ask myself why the government is such a dedicated customer to a known criminal. Let's see, we convict Microsoft for monopolistic crimes (for the second time), and then we turn around and help solidify the monopoly ourselves.
For the cost of licensing softare from Microsoft, they could be training their employees to use a more permenant solution, they could be saving taxpayers money into the future, and they could put a big ol' metaphorical boot into Microsoft's collective arse.
Do you think the RIAA would hesitate to use a legal loop hole in order to have its way?
The RIAA supported DMCA completely bypasses fair use, and that, most certainly, was not in the spirit of copyright law as it was originally conceived.
Perhaps its an instinctual thing. You know... self-preservation?
Why would you choose to point towards the attitudes of the Slashdot community, in this case, rather than other issues? I feel quite confident that the Slashdot community's attitudes towards suits has very little to do with Linux's lack of acceptance. At least, I feel that way in light of other issues such as file format compatibility, lack of hardware vendor support, and perceived difficulty in use.
And thank you for making a big deal over my spelling mistake. How humble of you...
Let me get this straight: corporate suits are going to not save money, not have flexibility, not have generally stable software simply because of some attitude that a few geeks on Slashdot have?
Well, to that I say, "Good riddens!" I don't care if corporate suits have a problem with my attitude. Why should I? They can either stand on the shoulders of giants, or they can choose not to. Either way, I don't care.
I'm of the mind that science should view nature in a way that places us inside of it at all times. All we can know is what we can test.
So, there is a line, somewhere, separating what we can know from what we can't know. At what point does one say, "OK, this is how nature seems to me; therefore, I'll view it in light of the way I must treat it"?
That's my argument in the whole creationism versus evolution debate. Creationists seem to have a tendancy to extrapolate outside of their data sets. Scientists do this too, but when was the last time you've encountered a creative creationist that solved major, physical world problems?
So, in other words, DARPA decided not to come through with the funding in question because they're affraid of terrorism?
Pwa-hahaha! These people don't even care that they're acting like petty children.
OK, then prove it in court. Do you want everyone present to condemn this man based upon your accusations?
OK, so, maybe, by your admission, he's gay, and he has an affinity for younger men. 17-20 is legal in most states. What, exactly, is your accusation?
I have mod points, but I've decided not to use them.
Could you please point out to me some hard evidence showing that what you say is true? If not, shut the fuck up, Troll.
How do we know that you and a few buds don't have it in for "Captain Crunch"? How do we know that you didn't all plan a public beratement of this individual?
Brain tissue, meninges, or Cerebrospinal fluid?
Yes.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how creating an object gives you a natural right to dictate what can be done with said object. The idea that creating something gives you a right to dictate what can be done with it seems beyond fascism to me. If I have an object (be it code, or a physical entity), I damn-well have the right to do whatever I want with the aforementioned object. Of course, this is not what capitalist America wants you to believe. I must be communist, right? Phsaw!
I agree with most of everything you said in your post; however, I don't think that the general public is as computer phobic as you seem to believe. Most of the people that I interact with on a daily basis are very curious about computers, and people vary a great deal in how much they know about them. Not all things are black and white, my friend. This point gets thrown around a lot here on Slashdot.
Also, people download all kinds of stuff from the net from unknown sources. I see it at work all the time. My coworkers are probably biggest on messaging programs (e-mail, AIM, ICQ, etc.). I've also seen my mom using some kind of Windows Update program to get updates for her computer.
So, I don't think that the general public would actually have much of a problem with getting updates from Micro$oft. Especially if those updates promise new Whiz-Bang! features.
Of course, this is just what we think. That is, unless you've seen some kind of studies done on these things that I haven't.
You seem to feel as if intellectual property and physical property are the same thing. This cannot be further from the truth. The reason that stealing a physical piece of property is illegal is because of the fact that resources for making goods are scarce. The world has an economy based on scarcity of resources. That's the only reason that economies exist in the first place.
Also, in all honesty, I'd much rather live in a world without McDonald's, Sears, Sony Playstations, etc., than in a world in which companies, rather than individuals, control the distribution of information. And make no mistake: companies have monetary resources and power far beyond that of your typical individual. They _do_ have the ability to lock away all of the important human knowledge that exists in our society.
I think that we all need to think about the things that we hold dear. Do we want the freedom to learn and to understand, or do we all want shiny new SUVs?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but p2p was originally meant to be completely anonymous. The internet is not anonymous. Posters of original content on the internet are not anonymous in that, in most cases, their physical location can be tracked down. p2p was created in order to provide an environment on the internet in which people would not be considerd publishers.
People should be allowed to NOT be accountable for every action they take or word they utter. Why can't the people have a private area on the internet where they can do or say what they want? Are there not places such as this in the physical world? The powers that be would like to take away this right to privacy simply because it's convenient for them to do so. It causes less hassle in the long run, and they've got a demanding public to satisfy. The public in general just seems to be against whatever is popularly seen as bad. And I'm sure that some of those big mega-corps out there are pretty good at making some people believe that some things are "bad". This is why, I believe, the judicial system seems to be dead set against the free software movement and its gifts to society at this point. Whatever society at large believes in becomes law. Whether it's "right" or "wrong".
But I dunno. Maybe I'm paranoid and bitter.
I don't know which distribution you use, but I use Debian, and the only services that it enables are the ones that you install. If you don't need to run a service, then why are you installing software for the service in the first place?
What we need is something like VeePee.
VeePee, at its current stage of development, is a set of components aimed at GNOME and KDE application developers to enable them to easily add scripting capabilities to their applications.
Script-enabling an application gives the user the ability to extend the application in a way that suits the user. It allows them to adapt the application to solve problems that you hadn't considered when developing the application. It empowers your users.
VeePee provides a consistent scripting environment. Users who develop scripting skills will find that those skills are transferable to all applications that embed VeePee.
VeePee provides the user with a set of simple but powerful GUI controls. A VeePee scripted GUI has the same look and feel as the embedding application, whether it be a GNOME or a KDE application.
Python itself is a modern, well documented, object-orientated scripting language that is actively maintained and developed. It is easy to learn but has a powerful set of extension modules that provide a rich set of additional functionality.
http://www.thekompany.com/projects/vp/?dhtml_ok= 0
This sounds perfect for writing GUI interfaces for daemons and for processes such as kernel compilation.
IBM was informed of that error long ago, and it has been corrected.
Due to an overwhelming response from the community, calling us on a few not-so-subtle gaffs, we have changed our KDE theme contest. First and foremost, entering the contest does not mean you are giving us ownership of your code or exclusive rights to it (we'll be sacrificing a lawyer to the OSS gods for that rule tonight at midnight). All your entries (see revised rule 7 on the contest page) must be licensed under an OSI-approved public software license. Yes, we screwed that one up the first time. Apologies!
http://dot.kde.org/987115027/
It seems to me as if IBMs involvement with the KDE is more harmful than good at this point. IBM recently made a tutorial for KDE themes. When I went to the web site hosting the tutorial, I noticed a little bit of info at the bottom of the page stating that IE or netscape is required to view it. Konqueror worked fine. The rest of the theming information was outdated as well. Their effort into this ViaVoice thing is also indicative of IBM's half-hearted approach to supporting the KDE.
As far as the theming tutorial goes, it just seems as if IBM picked an employee at random, told them to research the KDE a little bit and then had them slap a theming tutorial together. If this is not the case, then it is my opinion that IBM has somebody to repremand, if not fire. Things like this do not help the community warm up to corporate backers such as IBM.
Something tells me that you don't quite know exactly what users want. There've been too many instances in which I was required to fix suzie's computer in the back because the up-teenth bagillionth screensaver/windowshade/whatever that she's installed has caused her computer to do odd things. I don't think that user experience and configurability are out the door simply because of the fact that most computer users don't have BS's in CS. "Normal users" DO like customizability and they DO like choice.