As a web site owner, I love this. You get it for free so accept the ad.
As a typical netizen, I hate this. It does not matter if the content is free, if you annoy me too much, I simply will no longer go to your site.
This annoys me to no end. If advertising on the net was not so offensive, there would be no need for ad-blocking software.
The choice is simple though, Salon is free to implement this if they think it is a good idea, and I am perfectly free never to browse their site again...
Pretty easy challenge: you can buy PCs with Linux preinstalled from both IBM and Compaq, among others.
Yes, but since IBM and Compaq (and others) have to pay a license to m$ for every PC they sell, whether it has an m$ OS installed on it or not, you have paid for XP, even though you did not get the media or license.
That's evidence of a free market economy working.
Really? I would have thought the opposite. This looks like predatory monopoly behaviour to me. If the market were really free, and really working, would m$ be able to demand their pound of flesh on every sale, regardless of what was actually sold?
It costs very little to change from one suite/os/program to another, and only those that are in the business of lying to stock holders or management in order to keep their jobs would say that is has a high cost or price tag.
Spoken like someone who has never rolled out a new application to the lusers in marketing.
Time is worth something you know, and if the lusers are trying to figure out how to routine tasks with the new app, and calling the hell desk, they are not doing whatever it is that they are paid to do. Clearly there is a cost involved when you change the environment.
Does that mean Doug-Howlett's a black guy? I've never heard "all black" before. If that's what it means, I think it's funny the NZ press thinks that bit of info important enough to include. Or does it mean something else?
(sigh)
The New Zealand national rugby team is called the "all blacks" mainly because their uniform is - get this - all black.
And yeah, I know, that's the NRA so you won't believe _them_, even though the references are complete enough to track them to their original sources _outside_ the NRA
I am amused by the irony of it all. The subject line is "Logic Failure". I ask for references to studies that indicate whether the more guns argument will lead to a reduction in the crime rate to prove this is not a myth perpetuated by the gun lobby, and all of your links are from the NRA website...
You are correct, I do not believe a single word they have to say, because they are biased and I have no reason to believe that any study they have commissioned or refer to has any academic validity.
Tell me, would you go to the website of big tobacco to find out the health risks of using their products?
There's gobs of less-scientific, anecdotal evidence to suggest that guns have major defensive utility in the hands of law-abiding citizens:
BFD! If you are inclined to believe such "evidence", there is a lot of "evidence" to suggest that people are being abducted by aliens...
The liberal mainstream press chooses to ignore all this data. Really! But it's nontheless out there.
Why do you continue to assume that owning a gun makes you violent?
I don't assume or suggest that. I do not see any reason to believe that having more guns out there will make anyone safer. Why do you assume that more guns = less crime?
When the US and soviet Union finally had enough weaponry so as to assure the planet would not be left for anyone in th event of war, peace arrived as the only solution. Tremendous amounts of fear led us towards peace.
Well, that is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that the people in charge came to their senses. As the song by Sting goes, "I hope the Russians love their children too".
I only suggested the would-be criminal turning around and walking out when he saw all the guns on the other patrons' hips. This has already been proven in the biggest way.
Show me a study that demonstrates this!! It has NOT been proven at all. Please prove this is not a fallacy perpetuated by the gun lobby.
Some people have suggested that European nations are too homogeneous to be a valid comparison. For the sake of argument, I will grant that point. Consider Canada then. Handguns are virtually impossible to get, and all other firearms must be registered with the government. Canada is a far more heterogeneous nation than the US. It is officially multicultural and diversity is encouraged and celebrated. The violent crime rate in Canada is significantly lower per capita. In fact, the crime rate is is at it's lowest point in twenty years. Admittedly the culture there is not a violent one, but it seems to discredit the notion that arming the population reduces crime rates.
Guns are not violent.
Tell me, what legitimate use does a handgun have, other than to kill people? Handguns are not good for hunting or target shooting because the barrel is too short and they are not accurate at anything other than short distances.
P.S. You can't possibly imagine that the U.S. has the most violent society on the planet. Does your planet comprise only the U.S. and Europe? Perhaps you've never heard of Africa. Or Southeast Asia. Or the Middle East. Or perhaps Central America. Broad, indefensible statements like this do little to help your case.
First off, I would agree with much of your response, there is certainly a cultural component at work. It is however, absurd to argue that more guns would act as a deterrent to crime. Violence only begets more violence.
IMHO, there is no question that of the Western or first world nations, the US has (per capita) the highest incidence of violent crime. I would welcome any statistics from an independant, objective organization which would argue the contrary.
Furthermore, I have seen some UN-based statistics which indicate that the US has the highest percentage of their population incarcerated compared to all other nations.(Can't find a link though). I can only assume these people are not in jail for jaywalking...
Your statement collects up all the legal guns from the southwest and distributes them across the country to places like NJ, where its *extremely* difficult to legally get a handgun, and gun violence is extremely high (and law abiding citizens can't defend themselves).
And yet the US is the most violent society on the planet. Have you compared the crime rate in major US cities to the crime rate in European cities? Compare the crime rate in the US to that of Canada. Per capita, the violent crime rate is much lower. Why do you think that is?
Spare us the NRA propaganda for a moment, and look at the big picture. Not only are the Europeans not armed, they also have progressive social policies designed to reduce the educational and economic disparities amongst the citizens.
If everyone could get a good education and a decent job, why would a rational person want live a life of crime?
Guns are part of the problem, they are certainly not part of the solution.
After a school shooting people call for a ban on guns. People, shooting another person is already illegal! Banning guns are not going to stop a *criminal* from shooting people.
Yes, but there are a lot of guns out there, and it is really easy to get one. If having an armed population translates into a lower crime rate, then you would expect the US to be the safest place in the world. IIRC, there are some states where the guns outnumber the people. And yet compared to other first-world nations, the US has the most violent society, the highest crime rate, and the largest % of their population in prison.
I work for a large multinational tech company, and there has been considerable resistance to Linux because of the support issue. If we install an RS/6000 with AIX, IBM will support the hardware and software issues. Same with Sun hardware and Solaris. But the management is not sure who we would go to if we built some Linux servers and we needed some critical patches. Worse still, if we uncovered a bug in the OS, who would fix it for us, and how long would it take.
This is a start. There are companies out there who will support Linux for corporate accounts. The fact that a fairly mainstream website is posting this sort of information is an aid in getting the PHBs to believe that Linux is supported and ready for the corporate environment.
All we need now, is a fork of Linux that is specifically designed to run on enterprise-class servers and scales to be able to handle the amount of memory and resources that these servers have.
How nice that all the trolls have come out to play...
Civillians have been targets in every significant conflict in history. This, like most other pitched conflicts, has very little to do with right or wrong but more to do with what side you are on.
And this justifies attacks on civilian targets how?
If you are a supporter of Islamic fundamentalist regimes and militias, I don't care if you spend your days feeding the poor and teaching children to read - you have thrown your lot in with those who are opposed to my values and the safety of my family and you are a suitable target for whatever insideous weapon we should chose to toss at you.
Exactly what values would those be then?
If you stop and consider the situation for a moment, there is very little difference between the actions you are suggesting, and the actions of the terrorists who attacked the WTC, which I believe was my point in the first place...
But it's a different sort of concern when it's on American soil
Translation: It's different because this time it affected us directly.
when it's directed against us, we have the justification to do something about it.
It is always justified to oppose tyranny and injustice. The problem is that in the past, self-interest has trumped other concerns and decided if there was "justification" to take action.
As an American, I will not tolerate terrorism on American soil. What you do on your soil is your business.
If I understand you correctly, you are not particularly concerned about terrorist acts, so long as it happens to someone else??
The way I see it, terrorism is unacceptable, and it does not matter where it happens, or who it happens to. The suffering is just as real if it happens across the street or around the world.
Do we, on balance, do good in the world? Yes. Do we promote -- and fund -- democracy and freedom over dictatorships? Yes.
Non-US citizens might have a different opinion. Let us not forget that the US has also backed a number of military dictatorships in South America.
The world is so damn ungrateful. Who rebuilt the world after WW/II? Who immediately sends aid to every country -- even our enemies -- when there is a natural disaster? Who does the rest of the country run to when something hard needs to be done (Iraq, Bosnia)?
Give me a break. The US waited a good three years before joining in for WWII. What did the US do to stop the genocides in the USSR under Stalin. What did the US do to stop the genocides in Cambodia? What did the US do to stop the genocide in Rawanda? What did the US do to stop the multiple genocides in Bosnia/Serbia?
Certainly the US has a role to play in the world, but the sometimes you have yo get your hands dirty, and sometimes the US has been reluctant to do so.
"The DivX technology lineage is based on using Microsoft technology and re-branding it as its own," said Michael Aldridge, Microsoft's product manager for the Windows Digital Media Division.
You know the BBC article says that the decision to pursue a breakup was dropped in order to get an effective punishment against MicroSoft more quickly.
I believe that this is analogous to an out-numbered and out-gunned General declaring victory and then advancing in the opposite direction post-haste.
Of course they want it to appear that m$ is not getting off the hook, and this is all being done in the name of the consumer, but it is all bullshit.
The Justice Department also said that in the interests of a quick end to proceedings, it would not pursue whether Microsoft had illegally tied its Internet Explorer browser to the Windows operating system.
So basically, they are avoiding the question of whether m$ can tie some unrelated product into the OS and drive someone else out of that market space. That must come as a great comfort to the folks who make instant messaging and multi-media viewers.
So from here on it, it all depends on where m$ wants you to go today...
Slashdot Mirror
As a web site owner, I love this. You get it for free so accept the ad.
As a typical netizen, I hate this. It does not matter if the content is free, if you annoy me too much, I simply will no longer go to your site.
This annoys me to no end. If advertising on the net was not so offensive, there would be no need for ad-blocking software.
The choice is simple though, Salon is free to implement this if they think it is a good idea, and I am perfectly free never to browse their site again...
I mean, really. Are they putting a gun to your head and saying "buy our next round of products or die Scum!"?
Yes, they pretty much are saying that. Details here
Pretty easy challenge: you can buy PCs with Linux preinstalled from both IBM and Compaq, among others.
Yes, but since IBM and Compaq (and others) have to pay a license to m$ for every PC they sell, whether it has an m$ OS installed on it or not, you have paid for XP, even though you did not get the media or license.
That's evidence of a free market economy working.
Really? I would have thought the opposite. This looks like predatory monopoly behaviour to me. If the market were really free, and really working, would m$ be able to demand their pound of flesh on every sale, regardless of what was actually sold?
It costs very little to change from one suite/os/program to another, and only those that are in the business of lying to stock holders or management in order to keep their jobs would say that is has a high cost or price tag.
Spoken like someone who has never rolled out a new application to the lusers in marketing.
Time is worth something you know, and if the lusers are trying to figure out how to routine tasks with the new app, and calling the hell desk, they are not doing whatever it is that they are paid to do. Clearly there is a cost involved when you change the environment.
It even sets up a firewall when you set up networking, and (*shock* *horror*), it's actually quite good.
It's not a firewall. It is merely a packet filter.
It is not a replacement for proper host-based firewall code or a stand-alone firewall unit.
Does that mean Doug-Howlett's a black guy? I've never heard "all black" before. If that's what it means, I think it's funny the NZ press thinks that bit of info important enough to include. Or does it mean something else?
(sigh) The New Zealand national rugby team is called the "all blacks" mainly because their uniform is - get this - all black.
This was modded up for being insightful? WTF?
Doesn't MS realize that 99% of web content is pictures of naked ladies?
/. are representative of the Net as a whole.
Not if the pr0n links at
There don't seem to be any women (naked or otherwise) at goatse.
you would imagine most larger projects had this many bugs, if they counted each and every one..
Indeed. If they used a similar system, I wonder how many bugs m$ would have found by now?
And yeah, I know, that's the NRA so you won't believe _them_, even though the references are complete enough to track them to their original sources _outside_ the NRA
I am amused by the irony of it all. The subject line is "Logic Failure". I ask for references to studies that indicate whether the more guns argument will lead to a reduction in the crime rate to prove this is not a myth perpetuated by the gun lobby, and all of your links are from the NRA website...
You are correct, I do not believe a single word they have to say, because they are biased and I have no reason to believe that any study they have commissioned or refer to has any academic validity.
Tell me, would you go to the website of big tobacco to find out the health risks of using their products?
There's gobs of less-scientific, anecdotal evidence to suggest that guns have major defensive utility in the hands of law-abiding citizens:
BFD! If you are inclined to believe such "evidence", there is a lot of "evidence" to suggest that people are being abducted by aliens...
The liberal mainstream press chooses to ignore all this data. Really! But it's nontheless out there.
Bravo! Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist!
Why do you continue to assume that owning a gun makes you violent?
I don't assume or suggest that. I do not see any reason to believe that having more guns out there will make anyone safer. Why do you assume that more guns = less crime?
When the US and soviet Union finally had enough weaponry so as to assure the planet would not be left for anyone in th event of war, peace arrived as the only solution. Tremendous amounts of fear led us towards peace.
Well, that is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that the people in charge came to their senses. As the song by Sting goes, "I hope the Russians love their children too".
I only suggested the would-be criminal turning around and walking out when he saw all the guns on the other patrons' hips. This has already been proven in the biggest way.
Show me a study that demonstrates this!! It has NOT been proven at all. Please prove this is not a fallacy perpetuated by the gun lobby.
Some people have suggested that European nations are too homogeneous to be a valid comparison. For the sake of argument, I will grant that point. Consider Canada then. Handguns are virtually impossible to get, and all other firearms must be registered with the government. Canada is a far more heterogeneous nation than the US. It is officially multicultural and diversity is encouraged and celebrated. The violent crime rate in Canada is significantly lower per capita. In fact, the crime rate is is at it's lowest point in twenty years. Admittedly the culture there is not a violent one, but it seems to discredit the notion that arming the population reduces crime rates. Guns are not violent.
Tell me, what legitimate use does a handgun have, other than to kill people? Handguns are not good for hunting or target shooting because the barrel is too short and they are not accurate at anything other than short distances.
P.S. You can't possibly imagine that the U.S. has the most violent society on the planet. Does your planet comprise only the U.S. and Europe? Perhaps you've never heard of Africa. Or Southeast Asia. Or the Middle East. Or perhaps Central America. Broad, indefensible statements like this do little to help your case.
First off, I would agree with much of your response, there is certainly a cultural component at work. It is however, absurd to argue that more guns would act as a deterrent to crime. Violence only begets more violence.
IMHO, there is no question that of the Western or first world nations, the US has (per capita) the highest incidence of violent crime. I would welcome any statistics from an independant, objective organization which would argue the contrary.
Furthermore, I have seen some UN-based statistics which indicate that the US has the highest percentage of their population incarcerated compared to all other nations.(Can't find a link though). I can only assume these people are not in jail for jaywalking...
Your statement collects up all the legal guns from the southwest and distributes them across the country to places like NJ, where its *extremely* difficult to legally get a handgun, and gun violence is extremely high (and law abiding citizens can't defend themselves).
And yet the US is the most violent society on the planet. Have you compared the crime rate in major US cities to the crime rate in European cities? Compare the crime rate in the US to that of Canada. Per capita, the violent crime rate is much lower. Why do you think that is?
Spare us the NRA propaganda for a moment, and look at the big picture. Not only are the Europeans not armed, they also have progressive social policies designed to reduce the educational and economic disparities amongst the citizens.
If everyone could get a good education and a decent job, why would a rational person want live a life of crime?
Guns are part of the problem, they are certainly not part of the solution.
After a school shooting people call for a ban on guns. People, shooting another person is already illegal! Banning guns are not going to stop a *criminal* from shooting people.
Yes, but there are a lot of guns out there, and it is really easy to get one. If having an armed population translates into a lower crime rate, then you would expect the US to be the safest place in the world. IIRC, there are some states where the guns outnumber the people. And yet compared to other first-world nations, the US has the most violent society, the highest crime rate, and the largest % of their population in prison.
Violence begets violence.
I work for a large multinational tech company, and there has been considerable resistance to Linux because of the support issue. If we install an RS/6000 with AIX, IBM will support the hardware and software issues. Same with Sun hardware and Solaris. But the management is not sure who we would go to if we built some Linux servers and we needed some critical patches. Worse still, if we uncovered a bug in the OS, who would fix it for us, and how long would it take.
This is a start. There are companies out there who will support Linux for corporate accounts. The fact that a fairly mainstream website is posting this sort of information is an aid in getting the PHBs to believe that Linux is supported and ready for the corporate environment.
All we need now, is a fork of Linux that is specifically designed to run on enterprise-class servers and scales to be able to handle the amount of memory and resources that these servers have.
How nice that all the trolls have come out to play...
Civillians have been targets in every significant conflict in history. This, like most other pitched conflicts, has very little to do with right or wrong but more to do with what side you are on.
And this justifies attacks on civilian targets how?
If you are a supporter of Islamic fundamentalist regimes and militias, I don't care if you spend your days feeding the poor and teaching children to read - you have thrown your lot in with those who are opposed to my values and the safety of my family and you are a suitable target for whatever insideous weapon we should chose to toss at you.
Exactly what values would those be then?
If you stop and consider the situation for a moment, there is very little difference between the actions you are suggesting, and the actions of the terrorists who attacked the WTC, which I believe was my point in the first place...
But it's a different sort of concern when it's on American soil
Translation: It's different because this time it affected us directly.
when it's directed against us, we have the justification to do something about it.
It is always justified to oppose tyranny and injustice. The problem is that in the past, self-interest has trumped other concerns and decided if there was "justification" to take action.
As an American, I will not tolerate terrorism on American soil. What you do on your soil is your business.
If I understand you correctly, you are not particularly concerned about terrorist acts, so long as it happens to someone else??
The way I see it, terrorism is unacceptable, and it does not matter where it happens, or who it happens to. The suffering is just as real if it happens across the street or around the world.
Do we, on balance, do good in the world? Yes. Do we promote -- and fund -- democracy and freedom over dictatorships? Yes.
Non-US citizens might have a different opinion.
Let us not forget that the US has also backed a number of military dictatorships in South America.
The world is so damn ungrateful. Who rebuilt the world after WW/II? Who immediately sends aid to every country -- even our enemies -- when there is a natural disaster? Who does the rest of the country run to when something hard needs to be done (Iraq, Bosnia)?
Give me a break. The US waited a good three years before joining in for WWII. What did the US do to stop the genocides in the USSR under Stalin. What did the US do to stop the genocides in Cambodia? What did the US do to stop the genocide in Rawanda? What did the US do to stop the multiple genocides in Bosnia/Serbia?
Certainly the US has a role to play in the world, but the sometimes you have yo get your hands dirty, and sometimes the US has been reluctant to do so.
I don't know. Are civilians in, say, Afghanistan as innocent as the ones in New York? I don't think they are.
Civilians are civilians, and it does not matter where they live.
If you advocate or permit attacks against non-military targets, then there is very little difference between you and the terrorists.
Terrorism on American soil? This must not be tolerated.
What are you willing to do about terrorism that is not on American soil? Is terrorism okay if it happens somewhere else?
"The DivX technology lineage is based on using Microsoft technology and re-branding it as its own," said Michael Aldridge, Microsoft's product manager for the Windows Digital Media Division.
Translation: All of your codec are belong to us.
Any of the Sim games (SimCity, SimFarm, SimAnt, etc.) The Sims Civilization / Civilization II Alpha-Centauri
There are also computer versions of most board games and card games.
Of course, whether any of these titles are suitable depends on how violence is defined.
The sad part is now you can see how the American Gov is above plain basic justice...
Worse still, it demonstrates that m$ is above the law...
You know the BBC article says that the decision to pursue a breakup was dropped in order to get an effective punishment against MicroSoft more quickly.
I believe that this is analogous to an out-numbered and out-gunned General declaring victory and then advancing in the opposite direction post-haste.
Of course they want it to appear that m$ is not getting off the hook, and this is all being done in the name of the consumer, but it is all bullshit.
This is the worst part IMHO - text from wired:
The Justice Department also said that in the interests of a quick end to proceedings, it would not pursue whether Microsoft had illegally tied its Internet Explorer browser to the Windows operating system.
So basically, they are avoiding the question of whether m$ can tie some unrelated product into the OS and drive someone else out of that market space. That must come as a great comfort to the folks who make instant messaging and multi-media viewers.
So from here on it, it all depends on where m$ wants you to go today...
Even better, have the transporter BSOD when it malfunctions...