it sounds like socialism to the majority of people in the U.S. at least.
I'm glad you checked with the majority of people in the US to make sure:-)
Take a look around you - the world is more "socialist" now than it has ever been it the past. Tell me, What sort of intergovernmental organizations existed 400 years ago. What was the state of public infrastructure (roads, sewers, canals) 300 years ago. What were the public recreation options (parks, playgrounds, sports fields, swimming pools, etc) 200 years ago. What were the options for public education 100 hears ago? How much public healtcare was there 50 years ago?
Like it or note, the world is indeed a more "socialist" place. I am not sure that this is a necessarily a bad thing either...
Ideas developed and shared undermine Intellectual Property. i.e. If you invented a better moustrap and GPL'd the design, then MSFT wouldn't be able get a patent on it, and thus license for big fees or lock any other developer or competitor out.
Well, almost. IIRC, the m$ implementation of TCP/IP involved licensing the code from BSD and making a few hacks to it. m$ likes the BSD license because it allows them to take somebody else's IP, modify it a bit, and then claim the derivative work as their own. They are unable to do this with GPL code which is no doubt why they refer to the "viral" nature of the GPL.
If they could take GPL code and re-use it in the same way, they would not have any issues with Linux.
My boss has recently been tasked by our CIO to find a reputable third party (not us or our ISP) to come in and do a complete and independent security assessment/vulnerability analysis for us.
All of the big accounting firms (KPMG, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young)offer this service. They are fairly reputable and thorough.
I suspect that you might want to pass on Arthur Anderson though, based on their enronic experience...
Why do the best roads ALWAYS seem to be toll roads? Why do the best schools ALWAYS seem to be private schools? Why do the best hospitals... housing projects... retirement plans... research projects... you get the idea. Anything government can do, the private sector can do better. And cheaper. AND faster.
I appreciate that you took the time to spell out your philosophy, and it was an interesting read.
However, you do not answer the question I was asking. I think it is generally true that if you have wealth and power, it does not matter what sort of political system you live under. Your life will be relatively pleasant. Conversely, if you are poor and powerless, your life will be pretty miserable regardless of what sort of government makes the laws. With that in mind, (and I am not looking to debate the degrees of misery at this point) how does the libertarian philosophy help those at the bottom? If one has lots of money, they will always have access to the best schools and hospitals (etc.) What options exist for the poor?
I think most people are generally self-interested. I think it is my best interests that the society I live in is stable, and prosperous. That being the case, the easiest way to achieve that is to ensure that everyone is entitled to a decent standard of health-care, education, and housing.
Sure, if I am at the very top of the socio-economic ladder, I might be a bit worse off than if I lived in a completely laissez-faire society, but on the whole I would be better off because of the stability of the system. Empirical evidence suggests that countries in which there is a great disparity between the very well-off and the poor tend not to be socially or politically stable.
BTW - private hospitals might be "better", but they are also more expensive. I believe that there are several million Americans who have no health coverage whatsoever, and that as a percentage of GDP, the US health system is more expensive to run than the public healthcare systems in Canada and Europe where everyone is covered.
Never underestimate the extent the government will go...for example it's widely suspected the anthrax attacks last year was a government test gone awry; or perhaps more sinister, such as a way to get lots of extra funding and laws passed fast with little resistance
I don't suppose you could provide a reference from some reputable source for this suspicion?
Or is it too late for that and we should all get our tinfoil hats on...
I doubt the US military could control the scale as well in an attack on China. I envision that it would instead have to be a full blown knock-down-drag-out war. I'm not quite sure if American citizens are up for that.
Consider for the moment that China is a xenophobic nuclear power, and that they have little regard for the lives of their own citizens (c.f Cultural Revolution, Tianneman Square). How much regard do you think they would have for USian soldiers or civilians? China would be fighting against the barbarians at the gate, and there is a dim-witted cowboy in the Whitehouse. It scares me to think who would be tempted to press the big red button first.
I do not think that it would be in anyone on this planet's interest for China and the US to fight any sort of war...
I look at the civilization we have built and I think the price is still low -- a few thousand dollars a year in exchange for personal liberty and the rule of law? A bargain by any measure.
The parent post has given a reasoned, and insightful response to the libertarians who whine about taxes and government intervention at every opportunity. I wish I had some moderation points, because it deservers to be +5 insightful
What is the libertarian response? And if you want to respond, please, spare us rhetoric and sophistry. Demonstrate to us how minimal government and no taxes would benefit society as a whole. How would it help those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder? How the widespread implementation of libertarian principles make the world a better place?
CNN definitly shows a North American view of the world.
Actually, CNN shows a USian view of the world. Canada is a part of North America and I think it is safe to say that Canadians and USians have very different views of the world.
The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."
A number of people have said that windows has already set the computer industry back 20 years...
There was a time when the OS was rock solid and if your program crashed, it was because of bugs in the program. Now, bugs are documented and called features, and phrases like "three finger salute" and "BSOD" have been added to our vocabulary.
When did we let others decide that they can do whatever they wish with our property? I mean did they pay for my computer or did I? If the system was given to me then I can understand that the company who gave me the system has the right to profit in order to pay for the expense.
DEVILS ADVOCATE
You own the hardware, but you only license the software and particularly the OS, and you probably agreed to let m$ do this when you accepted the EULA that pretty much let's m$ do whatever they want and you agree not to hold them liable in any way, shape, or form. /DEVILS ADVOCATE
Yet another entry in my hosts file, to prevent this sort of thing. Yet another reason to only boot windows to play games...
Fuck the 3rd world, its not our fault the state they're in. We dragged ourselves out of a stone
age culture, they didn't. Well thats their damn problem.
On the whole, this post is a troll and should be treated as such.
However, in response to the claim "it's not our fault", I would encourage people to check out this site: nologo.org and get a different perspective.
If you have the time and/or inclination, I would highly recommend Naiomi Klein's book
of the same name.
Haven't we already concluded that Everquest leads to suicide? (link) [slashdot.org].
Surely this is a foolish move on Sony's part. Not only are they opening themselves up to potential legal action, but they're killing off their users!
So what? Phillip Morris has been killing their users for years! Sony is a mere Johnny-come-lately!
Well, if one of the "users" really wanted to hack the box, all he has to do is walk up to it and remove the harddrive:) I don't have any external access past the DMZ.
Not to deflect the conversation too far away from the original, but that is why good security practices are more than just about code. Where do you keep your servers, and who has physical access to them is an equally valid concern.
Why not just have it a feature of your package management system?
Because it would be foolish for a SysAdmin to load fixes/patches without testing them first. There have been occasions in which a patch will break something else that the application does. (Checkpoint FW-1 patches are notorious for this) There have been patches that are issued and then recalled because of problems with the patch itself. Who would want to put production systems at risk by having critical code installed automatically before the SysAdmin would have the chance to test it.
If someone wants to implement something like this, all I can say is that I hope you take regular back-ups and validate your tapes.
He proposes implanting time codes into all open source networking and security software that cause it to "expire" like a Blade Runner replicant when it reaches a certain age, forcing an update."
IMHO, I want to have the latest security patches, but I will only install them after the patches have been tested in a lab environment in the hopes of limiting potential problems when those patches are installed on production systems.
Security patches aside, I don't want to be forced into upgrading perfectly useful code just because it has been deemed "too old". If it ain't broke, why should we fix it? I have the scars from some particularly unpleasant upgrades that were supposed to be seamless and transparent, yet were anything but. When I build a server that will be connected to any network, I remove as many packages and modules from the OS as possible and only install the application and whatever dependancies that it requires, and nothing else. We have fewer vulnerabilities to track as a result. I will upgrade when it makes sensse, or is required, but I don't want someone else who is not accountable to the company I work for making that decision for me buy putting time-bombs in their code.
There is a reason that it is referred to as "bleeding edge" after all - you get hurt.
You should have included a link [http]. Remember most people read at 1 or 2. Not many read at 0 or -1.
Since the subject thread is titled "trolling", and we are talking about links, and this is Slashdot, it would have been appropriate if he put in a goatse link!
Given that most of the market for such gadgets comes from the oh-no-my-child-is-going-to-be-abducted-and-torture d-by-a-paedophile market, I'd say that the locking makes perfect sense.
Yes, but look at the facts. Parents are SO worried about strangers abducting their kids, but it would appear that parents and other adults they are in regular contact with are a FAR greater threat to kids than strangers are.
I don't have any stats to quote yet, but most of the time you read about a court case involving sexual abuse or abduction, it is a parent or trusted adult who is the culprit. THAT is the real tragedy.
We warn kids about strangers, we want to "street-proof" our kids, but the most dangerous people are the ones they know.
Microsoft historically has been extremely protective of its intellectual property and has vehemently opposed some tenets of the open-source movement. It has particularly attacked the "general public license"
(emphasis added by me)
I suppose in an article discussing m$ and open source, it was hardly necessary to check the acronyms out first. I assume it passed the proof readers as well. It just goes to show that dilignce is alive and well in the popular press today!
Sending spam is right that we all have as users of open distributed systems.
Nonsense! It is not a right to waste somebody else's bandwidth, disk space, and CPU cycles. At least with snail SPAM, the SPAMMER has to pay for the postage.
People need to wake up or they will come for YOU next. At its core, this is a basic civil rights issue.
Or not... Hyperbole does not a persuasive argument make.
How the fsck did this obvious troll get moderated up for being interesting?
I guess we shouldn't be too hard on this guy. If he hadn't "invented" spam, lots of others would have. It was inevitable
Perhaps, but he was the first, and has absolutely no remorse or regret about his actions. Quite the contrary - when asked whether he currently sends SPAM he replies:
I haven't been, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't at some time.
I sure hope all the songs it sings are properly licensed.
Not to worry - the ever-thinking engineers at Sony have taken that problem into consideration. Your robot will come with a credit card reader and a cell-phone so that it can charge the appropriate royalties to your card on a per-incident basis... In the event that the cell network is down, the robot is equipped with a redundant payment system: there is a coin slot so that you can make your payments on-the-spot.
Slashdot Mirror
it sounds like socialism to the majority of people in the U.S. at least.
:-)
I'm glad you checked with the majority of people in the US to make sure
Take a look around you - the world is more "socialist" now than it has ever been it the past. Tell me, What sort of intergovernmental organizations existed 400 years ago. What was the state of public infrastructure (roads, sewers, canals) 300 years ago. What were the public recreation options (parks, playgrounds, sports fields, swimming pools, etc) 200 years ago. What were the options for public education 100 hears ago? How much public healtcare was there 50 years ago?
Like it or note, the world is indeed a more "socialist" place. I am not sure that this is a necessarily a bad thing either...
Ideas developed and shared undermine Intellectual Property. i.e. If you invented a better moustrap and GPL'd the design, then MSFT wouldn't be able get a patent on it, and thus license for big fees or lock any other developer or competitor out.
Well, almost. IIRC, the m$ implementation of TCP/IP involved licensing the code from BSD and making a few hacks to it. m$ likes the BSD license because it allows them to take somebody else's IP, modify it a bit, and then claim the derivative work as their own. They are unable to do this with GPL code which is no doubt why they refer to the "viral" nature of the GPL.
If they could take GPL code and re-use it in the same way, they would not have any issues with Linux.
My boss has recently been tasked by our CIO to find a reputable third party (not us or our ISP) to come in and do a complete and independent security assessment/vulnerability analysis for us.
All of the big accounting firms (KPMG, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young)offer this service. They are fairly reputable and thorough.
I suspect that you might want to pass on Arthur Anderson though, based on their enronic experience...
Why do the best roads ALWAYS seem to be toll roads? Why do the best schools ALWAYS seem to be private schools? Why do the best hospitals... housing projects... retirement plans... research projects... you get the idea. Anything government can do, the private sector can do better. And cheaper. AND faster.
I appreciate that you took the time to spell out your philosophy, and it was an interesting read.
However, you do not answer the question I was asking. I think it is generally true that if you have wealth and power, it does not matter what sort of political system you live under. Your life will be relatively pleasant. Conversely, if you are poor and powerless, your life will be pretty miserable regardless of what sort of government makes the laws. With that in mind, (and I am not looking to debate the degrees of misery at this point) how does the libertarian philosophy help those at the bottom? If one has lots of money, they will always have access to the best schools and hospitals (etc.) What options exist for the poor?
I think most people are generally self-interested. I think it is my best interests that the society I live in is stable, and prosperous. That being the case, the easiest way to achieve that is to ensure that everyone is entitled to a decent standard of health-care, education, and housing.
Sure, if I am at the very top of the socio-economic ladder, I might be a bit worse off than if I lived in a completely laissez-faire society, but on the whole I would be better off because of the stability of the system. Empirical evidence suggests that countries in which there is a great disparity between the very well-off and the poor tend not to be socially or politically stable.
BTW - private hospitals might be "better", but they are also more expensive. I believe that there are several million Americans who have no health coverage whatsoever, and that as a percentage of GDP, the US health system is more expensive to run than the public healthcare systems in Canada and Europe where everyone is covered.
Never underestimate the extent the government will go...for example it's widely suspected the anthrax attacks last year was a government test gone awry; or perhaps more sinister, such as a way to get lots of extra funding and laws passed fast with little resistance
I don't suppose you could provide a reference from some reputable source for this suspicion?
Or is it too late for that and we should all get our tinfoil hats on...
If it's called Spam.
Yes, but the SPAM tends to originate from Western spammers who use open SMTP relays in China.
I doubt the US military could control the scale as well in an attack on China. I envision that it would instead have to be a full blown knock-down-drag-out war. I'm not quite sure if American citizens are up for that.
Consider for the moment that China is a xenophobic nuclear power, and that they have little regard for the lives of their own citizens (c.f Cultural Revolution, Tianneman Square). How much regard do you think they would have for USian soldiers or civilians? China would be fighting against the barbarians at the gate, and there is a dim-witted cowboy in the Whitehouse. It scares me to think who would be tempted to press the big red button first.
I do not think that it would be in anyone on this planet's interest for China and the US to fight any sort of war...
I look at the civilization we have built and I think the price is still low -- a few thousand dollars a year in exchange for personal liberty and the rule of law? A bargain by any measure.
The parent post has given a reasoned, and insightful response to the libertarians who whine about taxes and government intervention at every opportunity. I wish I had some moderation points, because it deservers to be +5 insightful
What is the libertarian response? And if you want to respond, please, spare us rhetoric and sophistry. Demonstrate to us how minimal government and no taxes would benefit society as a whole. How would it help those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder? How the widespread implementation of libertarian principles make the world a better place?
CNN definitly shows a North American view of the world.
Actually, CNN shows a USian view of the world. Canada is a part of North America and I think it is safe to say that Canadians and USians have very different views of the world.
The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."
A number of people have said that windows has already set the computer industry back 20 years...
There was a time when the OS was rock solid and if your program crashed, it was because of bugs in the program. Now, bugs are documented and called features, and phrases like "three finger salute" and "BSOD" have been added to our vocabulary.
When did we let others decide that they can do whatever they wish with our property? I mean did they pay for my computer or did I? If the system was given to me then I can understand that the company who gave me the system has the right to profit in order to pay for the expense.
/DEVILS ADVOCATE
DEVILS ADVOCATE
You own the hardware, but you only license the software and particularly the OS, and you probably agreed to let m$ do this when you accepted the EULA that pretty much let's m$ do whatever they want and you agree not to hold them liable in any way, shape, or form.
Yet another entry in my hosts file, to prevent this sort of thing. Yet another reason to only boot windows to play games...
(did you know it was patented by Hedy Lamarr?)
That's Hedly!
Fuck the 3rd world, its not our fault the state they're in. We dragged ourselves out of a stone age culture, they didn't. Well thats their damn problem.
On the whole, this post is a troll and should be treated as such.
However, in response to the claim "it's not our fault", I would encourage people to check out this site: nologo.org and get a different perspective.
If you have the time and/or inclination, I would highly recommend Naiomi Klein's book of the same name.
Maybe you missed the sarcasm...
No, I got that - but maybe you missed the sarcasm in my reply...
Haven't we already concluded that Everquest leads to suicide? (link) [slashdot.org]. Surely this is a foolish move on Sony's part. Not only are they opening themselves up to potential legal action, but they're killing off their users!
So what? Phillip Morris has been killing their users for years! Sony is a mere Johnny-come-lately!
Well, if one of the "users" really wanted to hack the box, all he has to do is walk up to it and remove the harddrive :) I don't have any external access past the DMZ.
Not to deflect the conversation too far away from the original, but that is why good security practices are more than just about code. Where do you keep your servers, and who has physical access to them is an equally valid concern.
Why not just have it a feature of your package management system?
Because it would be foolish for a SysAdmin to load fixes/patches without testing them first. There have been occasions in which a patch will break something else that the application does. (Checkpoint FW-1 patches are notorious for this) There have been patches that are issued and then recalled because of problems with the patch itself. Who would want to put production systems at risk by having critical code installed automatically before the SysAdmin would have the chance to test it.
If someone wants to implement something like this, all I can say is that I hope you take regular back-ups and validate your tapes.
You will need them.
I have old internal boxes that are way way out of date, but safely firewalled away doing just what I want them to do.
I don't trust the users on my network any more than I trust the 133t d00dz on the Internet. Will your firewalls protect against your users?
Most security breaches occur from within.
He proposes implanting time codes into all open source networking and security software that cause it to "expire" like a Blade Runner replicant when it reaches a certain age, forcing an update."
IMHO, I want to have the latest security patches, but I will only install them after the patches have been tested in a lab environment in the hopes of limiting potential problems when those patches are installed on production systems.
Security patches aside, I don't want to be forced into upgrading perfectly useful code just because it has been deemed "too old". If it ain't broke, why should we fix it? I have the scars from some particularly unpleasant upgrades that were supposed to be seamless and transparent, yet were anything but. When I build a server that will be connected to any network, I remove as many packages and modules from the OS as possible and only install the application and whatever dependancies that it requires, and nothing else. We have fewer vulnerabilities to track as a result. I will upgrade when it makes sensse, or is required, but I don't want someone else who is not accountable to the company I work for making that decision for me buy putting time-bombs in their code.
There is a reason that it is referred to as "bleeding edge" after all - you get hurt.
You should have included a link [http]. Remember most people read at 1 or 2. Not many read at 0 or -1.
Since the subject thread is titled "trolling", and we are talking about links, and this is Slashdot, it would have been appropriate if he put in a goatse link!
Given that most of the market for such gadgets comes from the oh-no-my-child-is-going-to-be-abducted-and-torture d-by-a-paedophile market, I'd say that the locking makes perfect sense.
Yes, but look at the facts. Parents are SO worried about strangers abducting their kids, but it would appear that parents and other adults they are in regular contact with are a FAR greater threat to kids than strangers are.
I don't have any stats to quote yet, but most of the time you read about a court case involving sexual abuse or abduction, it is a parent or trusted adult who is the culprit. THAT is the real tragedy.
We warn kids about strangers, we want to "street-proof" our kids, but the most dangerous people are the ones they know.
From the article:
Microsoft historically has been extremely protective of its intellectual property and has vehemently opposed some tenets of the open-source movement. It has particularly attacked the "general public license"
(emphasis added by me)
I suppose in an article discussing m$ and open source, it was hardly necessary to check the acronyms out first. I assume it passed the proof readers as well. It just goes to show that dilignce is alive and well in the popular press today!
Sending spam is right that we all have as users of open distributed systems.
Nonsense! It is not a right to waste somebody else's bandwidth, disk space, and CPU cycles. At least with snail SPAM, the SPAMMER has to pay for the postage.
People need to wake up or they will come for YOU next. At its core, this is a basic civil rights issue.
Or not... Hyperbole does not a persuasive argument make.
How the fsck did this obvious troll get moderated up for being interesting?
I guess we shouldn't be too hard on this guy. If he hadn't "invented" spam, lots of others would have. It was inevitable
Perhaps, but he was the first, and has absolutely no remorse or regret about his actions. Quite the contrary - when asked whether he currently sends SPAM he replies:
I haven't been, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't at some time.
Bastard!
I sure hope all the songs it sings are properly licensed.
Not to worry - the ever-thinking engineers at Sony have taken that problem into consideration. Your robot will come with a credit card reader and a cell-phone so that it can charge the appropriate royalties to your card on a per-incident basis... In the event that the cell network is down, the robot is equipped with a redundant payment system: there is a coin slot so that you can make your payments on-the-spot.