Actually, in the story, IBM acknowledges that they were of a similar bent years ago.
IBM does seem to be doing the Right Thing(TM) by GNU/Linux and other Open Source projects.
If Slashdot and Microsoft are both still around in ten years, you might well be seeing Microsoft accusing company Y of being anti-competitive and arrogant if they've lost their monopoly by then. And Slashdot (or another site like it) will be posting links to those articles.
I think that people within IBM actually do believe in Open Source, though. It's really hard to say that a company believes in anything, b/c it's just a conglomeration of the people who work their and make its policy - which can change, of course.
Actually, I'm just pointing out that the post was one-sided. "Oh, let's quit saying nasty things about poor Microsoft." "Oh, poor Microsoft doesn't get a fair shake on Slashdot."
Keep it up. With people like you, it will never die.
And your point is...? Who said I want it to? Or are we all supposed to bend to your worldview?
You should probably find a different site to visit if you don't want to see posts bashing Microsoft. I find it extremely obnoxious on newsgroups and discussion boards for a small percentage of the population to keep posting pleas for people to quit discussing topic "x" when the majority of people obviously *want* to discuss it. If it's not to your liking, go away. Don't expect 95% of the participants to conform to your desires.
Did you honestly come to Slashdot expecting objectivity towards Microsoft? We're not talking about professional journalists, here. Please. The editors don't even know how to spellcheck or check URLs and you're expecting them to display objectivity? Sure, the editors are biased against Microsoft - that's no secret. Expecting anything different is just plain foolish.
The site is for fun, links to weird news and possibly announcements of the latest version of your favorite distro. (Of course, posting an announcement for people to download something is always a debacle b/c as soon as it's on Slashdot the server slows to a crawl...but they do it anyway...)
If you're relying on Slashdot for real "news" or objective coverage or a "realistic" view of the tech world - you're in the wrong place. People also come here to express their opinions. Sorry that other people's opinions don't meet your expectations.
Sure - as soon as Microsoft can stop calling the GPL a "cancer" or "Pac-Man"-like. Or how about when they stop trying to confuse people by saying that they're "concerned" about using GPL'ed software with theirs b/c they think it might "contaminate" their code?
Yeah, there's some immature comments made here - but guess what? Microsoft isn't any better - and they're supposed to be "professionals."
the Cube was too expensive for what you get. It's not expandable, and it's not that powerful to begin with. Plus, with normal PCs when the CD-ROM/DVD drive fails in two or three years, you can go buy a stock drive that you'll be able to replace it with. If your Cube warranty is up and the slot-loading drive bites the big one where are you going to find a replacement? Apple doesn't sell replacement parts as a rule - and if they did they'd be overpriced. (Compare the price they charge for RAM on their site vs. the price it goes for anywhere else...)
Once upon a time, Apple computers were higher-quality than their PC counterparts - they used SCSI drives instead of IDE and their graphics were higher-quality than most PCs.
Now they use stock IDE drives and their graphics cards are a generation behind what you can find in PCs. Hell, they even use stock CD/DVD drives and then they cover the headphone jack, volume control and eject button with their veneer of a case. On top of that - if you price an Apple computer next to a PC with the same specs, the Apple computer is going to run you at least $500 more. For instance, you can buy a Dell Dimension 8100 with 60GB hard drive, 256MB of RAM, 32MB GeForce2 MX and DVD drive for $1347.00 and a Pentium IV clocked at 1.3Ghz. An Apple G4 with the same video card, RAM and drives runs - get this - $2,999.00. I could, literally, buy two Dells for that price.
Apple is the underdog here - they should be fighting the price war, but they're not. They're milking the small population of Apple enthusiasts for ever dime they can get. I'm a Linux user, so I could run Linux on either platform - but I'll admit that I'd prefer to run the MacOS over Windows. However, I can't say that I like the MacOS so much better that I'd pay an extra $1,600 to do so.
I'm not on a limited income either - I either radically upgrade my PC or buy a new one every six to eight months. (The surplus parts filter down to other one of my other PCs, or to a friend or family member...) Even so, I don't spend more than $700 on an upgrade and still get quite a boost in power. With Apple parts, that's not possible.
They're just as bad as Microsoft when it comes to pricing and policies, they just don't have the market share that Microsoft does.
More than likely big chunks of the.NET infrastructure will require access to Passport or Microsoft servers at some stage, and you can expect M$ to block non-M$ implementations - at least any coded under GPL or similar licenses.
Frankly, I'd rather see the Free Software and Open Source community innovate and beat them to the punch with something that does what.NET is supposed to do, but that isn't compatible. IBM and other companies would likely get behind it, as would other companies who are starting to realize that the Redmond behemoth tries to own everything it comes in contact with.
Since face recognition software is to be used, nobody has to watch the tape, they just have to verify a few still frames.
And show up at the scene, and try to track the person down - there's still considerable expenditure of manpower.
You seem sure the system won't come to be abused. Why not?
On the contrary, I'm sure it would be at some point - I think I even said so in a previous post. The question is the extent of the abuse, how far-reaching it is and how much harm it would do. If it's abused once or twice quietly, it won't draw much attention and won't cause people to call for its removal. On the other hand, blatant abuse or frequent abuse would likely cause people to ask for the system to be dismantled. It would be a true statement to say I don't think it would be abused widely or badly enough to outweigh the benefits. And, it might just prevent other abuses by law enforcement officials as well - police would be hesitant to use unnecessary force if they thought it might be caught on tape. (I believe a lot of police departments now require police to have a video camera in the squad cars, but that doesn't catch anything that takes place out of view of the camera...)
The Atlanta situation is one that I'm unfamiliar with, so I can't really comment on it. I'm not surprised that they'd try to sneak something like this under the radar, so to speak. That's dirty pool, no question about it. If a system is implemented it should be used for its stated purpose, and if there's a modification it should be publicized and voted on. Again, voters who don't raise a fuss and vote the bastards out are at least partially to blame. I won't say "equally," but voters have to take responsibility. I think we would both agree the larger problem is apathy on the part of the majority of the populace.
After all, unlike a cop standing on the corner, you can't tell what a computer system and cops miles away behind the camera are doing. The population won't object to things it doesn't know about.
Well, they can't tell what the police are doing behind the scenes, true. But when a cop shows up to make an arrest it's going to be public information. If they start abusing the system it will become public knowledge.
The natural check on that behaviour (high cost, limited budget and manpower) is gone.
Not really - someone still has to watch the tape, someone has to show up at the scene, etc. Having videotape of public areas wouldn't mean that every person is going to be tracked individually - it means that there would be a record available if law enforcement had reason to believe there was useful information there.
Basically what you seem to be saying is "I had a bad experience because of mistaken identity and a cop with an attitude, therefore any new technologies are just going to increase the opportunity for this to happen."
Firstly, I doubt this would increase or decrease the number of incidents where law officials overstep their bounds or make mistakes. Unless the system comes with increases in the number of cops on the street, the odds of this increasing the number of incidents you describe are pretty slim. Granted, some of them might stem from the video system instead of license checks or whatever, but there are only so many cops on the beat to pull people over or follow up leads...and the vast majority of the cops on duty are still going to be working on things that are happening *right now* not following up leads based on video tape or whatever.
Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, you're only harping on one negative facet and trying to use that as an argument to completely discredit the idea. You're ignoring the overwhelming positives that might come from it, such as reduced violent crimes. If I had to make a trade-off between the possibility I might be harrassed or inconvenienced by a cop for the possibility that the technology could prevent one murder or rape then I'd say it's worth it.
I'm not surprised you've had a bad experience with a cop - I'd bet at least 50% of the people reading Slashdot have as well. Guess what? So have I. However, that's no excuse to tie the hands of all law enforcement officials because some small percentage of them may be rude, incompetent or even outright corrupt.
Let's face it, most city police departments are overwhelmingly understaffed and don't have anywhere near the resources they should have to catch violent offenders.
I agree that video surveilence wouldn't solve all the problems or be a perfect solution, but I think it'd be worth trying out. There's no reason why it couldn't be tested and gotten rid of if it doesn't work. The other half of the equation is the public itself - we're (collectively) guilty of a great deal of laziness as well. Cops and politicians only feel comfortable abusing their power when the majority of the populace lets them get away with it, or they feel that they will.
Actually, even in public, I have SOME expectation of privacy. In particular, I have the expectation that none of the people I pass on the street know every single place I go every moment I am in public. Furthermore, I expect that the people who do see me don't look me up in a database so that they know my name, age, and residence (or even have the ability to do so). Nor do they keep records of seeing me (for the most part).
Not really, especially if you're under criminal investigation. Ever seen one of those documentaries where they discuss how they track Mob members? They're constantly tailing them, taking photos of them and anyone they're with - and as far as I know they need no special warrants to do so - they only need approval from their superiors or the DA or whoever. That is, as long as they're in public - if they're at home or visiting a relative in the hospital or something, they have an expectation of privacy in what are private areas. But if they're walking down the street, they're fair game.
I don't think it'd be a bad idea to watch the police, either. The police might not like it, but you have the legal right to do so if they're in public - as long as you don't interfere with the police while they're trying to do their jobs.
I should mention that I do think people should be informed that they're being videotaped. If it became public policy, for instance, then I think that there should be a public posting of locations of the cameras, how long the tapes are kept and what they'll be used for. For instance, I don't agree with cities that are photographing people charged with solicitation and publishing them in an attempt to fight prostitution. That's simply an attempt to embarrass and harass people that shouldn't be tolerated. But scanning video of public places in an attempt to track criminals is no different than placing police in public areas to look for them - except that it has the potential to be much more effective.
If someone gives a shit about what you're doing, your privacy is pretty much an illusion anyway. Might as well just get used to the idea. What is it that you're so concerned with if you haven't done anything to be prosecuted for?
There always have to be checks and balances - I'm sure the technology exists to prevent, or at least detect, tampering.
As to the question of how long the tapes/video data would be kept, that would have to be decided.
As far as "near-irrefutable evidence" - assuming that a tape hadn't been tampered with and it did show you comitting a crime - why should you have any expectation of getting away with it? This is one of the few things I've heard of that would actually be a deterrent to crime.
Admission of personal videotape as evidence is something I don't know anything about - so I can't say whether your home video showing your innocence would be admissible or not. I would think it would be, but I'm not a lawyer. I think that a defendant should have much more leeway in presenting materials to prove innocence than the prosecution has in presenting materials proving guilt. Do you have some case you could cite where a defendant was not allowed to present material during a trial that would prove them innocent? I'd be interested to read about that.
I'm a big proponent of rights to privacy, but I can't really think of a compelling argument for disallowing video surveilence in public places. Again, emphasis on public. I don't think the government should ever have unrestricted rights to tap phones, monitor email or other communications - but taping people in public places to look for wanted criminals isn't something that scares me.
What's the difference, really, between taping the parking lot of a stadium and video cameras in 7-11? I think a lot of New Yorkers would welcome video cameras in the subway and on subway trains.
Anyway, possible abuse of video footage is a slippery-slope argument that simply tries to chuck an entire idea on the premise that there may be one flaw in it. I don't think it's a convincing argument. Most any device or technology for law enforcement could (and probably will) be abused at some point - but it doesn't negate the benefit of the technology nor provide a substantial argument for abandoning it. It only means that we should be careful and that we always need to have checks and balances to prevent abuses by the small percentage of law enforcement officials who aren't honest.
Frankly, I don't see the big problem here. Video cameras in public places - emphasis on *public* - where you have no expectation of privacy in the first place.
A worst-case scenario is that they'd have a false positive and stop someone, then let them go.
Hell, they ought to put cameras in a lot more public places - think how hesitant muggers, rapists or other criminals would be if there was a decent chance that they'd be videotaped in the act. It's kind of hard to beat a conviction if you have video-taped evidence.
I'd be a lot more concerned if they were using audio snooping devices instead of video. If you're walking down the street with a collegue you have no reasonable expectation that you won't be seen and possibly photographed or videotaped - which is only useful to apprehend wanted criminals or to capture evidence of a crime in progress. On the other hand, audio surveilence would gather data that could be used to gather other kinds of evidence and I would think it would violate someone's 5th amendment rights.
As long as video surveilence doesn't intrude into areas where you'd have a reasonable expectation of privacy - a hotel room, dressing rooms, bathrooms, your residence, your vehicle - I don't see the issue.
While we're at it, I think we should require elected officials to wear a wire and video camera 24/7 while they're in office... maybe this would get rid of some of the corruption in office.
technology usely helps out nature. If it werent for technology we would be beating our clothes on rocks in rivers to clean them. And we would be shitting and pissing in those same rivers. And as computer use is more accepted we can use less paper HELL IM SICK OF these damn FAXEs get a freaking computer
Re:Communist Whore Bags
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
Posted by Kewlhandtek:
it's refreshing to see that our youth isnt buying in to the whore bag's beliefs , man keep kicking them in the nuts, and kick them again for me
The same thing could be accomplished by common people taking action by NOT buying SUVs.
Then we wouldn't have to resort to violence, the shareholders would lynch the bastards for us.
Seriously, though, while it's seductive to think of CEOs as evil bastards who should be shot in the head there's no reason to assume that a violent uprising is necessary when it's completely within the power of the masses to simply stop purchasing products from businesses that do harm to the environment or people in some fashion.
The problem is that 99% of the population are content to be lazy cattle that just consume, consume, consume. The Dead Kennedys put it best "Give Me Convenience or Death." That's about what the US has come down to. Fuck human rights, equal rights, the environment or anything else -- just make sure I get a six-pack and the [insert sport that's in season} game on TV.
Which is worse, the CEOs that take advantage of the mass mentality - or the mentality itself?
Re:Physical Attacks Are Not Good
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Posted by polar_bear:
Well, isn't it special that you have your own unique definitions for words?
To quote Webster's - violence (n): intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force.
So, yes, torching a SUV dealership is violence. It may not be as heinous as torching a SUV dealer, but it's still pretty damn violent. I'm sure if someone threw a few molotov cocktails into your living room window you'd think it was violent, even if you weren't home at the time.
Plus, there's really no way that they could be sure that no one would be hurt directly or indirectly by their action...so even if I agree with the idea that SUV's are wasteful and annoying, I find the idea of torching an SUV dealership pretty abhorent.
They could have just as easily made their point by picketing the dealership, or even chaining themselves to the SUVs to prevent their sale and to gain attention without any danger of hurting an innocent person.
Torching every SUV in the country isn't going to solve the problem anyway - people need to be educated about *why* gas-guzzling monster vehicles might be a Bad Thing(TM). If they're unable to educate people about the "danger" of SUVs or whatever, perhaps the human race should be allowed to pollute the environment to the point that we become extinct.
I probably fit into the "fan," "cryptic," and "family" groups - When I make up passwords I tend to start with either something from my early childhood - say, my dog's name - or some obscure reference to something that I'm a fan of like maybe a "supporting" character from the Godfather or whatnot - then add mixed case, punctuation, etc.
For example, I might pick Luca Brasi from the Godfather, but I wouldn't make a password "lucabrasi" or "LucaBrasi" -- It'd be something like "LuC4Br^$!#"... something damn difficult for a dictionary attack to crack, but easier for someone like me to remember. (BTW, no, I've never actually used that password.)
I can't go with a 100% cryptic password, b/c then I'd never remember the damn things - I don't use the same password on all of my systems or for online purchases, so I probably rotate about seven passwords and I change the ones I use with Barnes & Noble or Yahoo! Mail pretty regularly.
Granted, Jackson didn't help by making comments about Microsoft, but it's hard to believe that our judicial system is capable of dispensing justice or protecting the average person anymore.
A long time from now - probably about the time that Microsoft has had its lunch eaten by Linux, *BSD and other OSes or that it's gotten such a comprehensive stranglehold on computing that there simply no alternatives - they'll finally rule against Microsoft and issue a penalty that has gone all the way to the Supreme Court and (one way or another) cannot be overturned or appealed. But, the system is so ineffectual that the original case won't even matter. Netscape is dust and many of Microsoft's other competitors have been reduced to shells of themselves. Not by competition, but by tactics that would make Genghis Kahn blush.
Either we're going to become a nation of sheep or there's going to be a revolution of some sort in the next ten years. Fighting companies like Microsoft in the courts isn't working - and will never work. If people don't stand up for themselves soon they'll face a very bleak future indeed.
I'm not saying it would have to be a bloody or violent revolution, either. (Though the thought of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Craig Mundie against a wall in front of a firing squad does have a certain appeal...) But people need to start fighting these monolithic monstrosities soon or it won't be long before they stop suing Napster and start sending SWAT teams to college dorms to confiscate suspected computers...
It's not even noon yet and I'm feeling paranoid...time to get some caffeine...
This is on a different scale entirely, but I host several small-traffic Websites through PHPWebHosting.com, and they rock. Their support is only via email (hey, it's only $9.95 a month! to host w/them...) but they're very quick, efficient and cheerful. (Yes, cheerfulness can come through in email...)
They offer MySQL, PHP, Perl and (I think...) Python - though I haven't done any Python. A few weeks ago I asked if it would be possible to install a few libraries they didn't already have installed so that I could use Midgard - I expected a "maybe in 6 months" or "are you kidding?" but they were happy to help and said they'd install them ASAP - which turned out to be less than a week. I'm wholly pleased with their service - if you need to host a small site, they're awesome.
Sites I host with them:
http://www.zonkerbooks.net/
I've been freelancing for about two and a half years now - every contract I see has a clause that covers all media.
This really isn't a big deal except for authors with contracts that are several years old.
As for replacing freelancers with staffers - not bloody likely. It costs a lot more to hire talented staffers than it does to contract articles. You also get less variety by using staffers.
I'm happy about the ruling, but it isn't going to change the way business is being done now - publishers probably changed their contracts as soon as wind of this suit got out in the first place. They'd be foolish to keep doing the same old thing and wait for the court to rule - it's better to protect yourself from the start.
As an author you just have to decide what your work is worth, how likely it is that you'll be able to resell it if you have the rights, and whether you have enough pull to get something better than the standard contract. Just like any other industry - if you don't have much pull, you're probably going to get gouged on a few deals before you have enough clout to say "hey, people really want to read my stuff so you're going to have to bend a little."
Oh, if Caldera dies he'll just get a freaking "pundit" column like John Dvorak and spend the rest of his career spouting crap that's even more widely publicized.
Let's face it, with a name like "Ransom Love" he's bound to find a magazine or publication that will snap him up...
The computing industry recycles its failures rather efficiently...
Well, as far as I'm concerned whether it's possible for Linux to make Red Hat or Caldera a profit is of minor importance.
Most people who contribute Free Software do so because they feel that's the ethical thing to do. If you can make money on Free Software without perverting the licensing or screwing other people over, then that's great. If you can't, oh well. Life goes on.
While many companies have contributed code to Open Source and Free Software projects, I am fairly sure that their contributions don't equal the contributions of individuals who have written code for the sheer joy of it and to solve their own problems.
Free Software is a very sensible model for computer users who are willing to be part of a community that provides a wealth of tools with the understanding that you won't steal those tools from the rest of the community, and that a large number of the community will give back contributions to the overall collection of tools and help keep the community alive.
Linux IS NOT ABOUT A BUSINESS PLAN OR TURNING A PROFIT. Please drill this into your respective heads. Free Software is not about business. It may be wonderful for businesses, it may allow people to make money, but that is not the core focus. The fact that Caldera chose to base their business on Free Software and then complain later that it's impossible to make money that way is simply a demonstration of the short-sightedness of their management, and possibly a sign that they simply employ too many useless managers and promotions folks and not enough consultants. Maybe, just maybe, they simply got greedy.
It's unfortunate that the discussion keeps focusing on profit rather than individual freedoms and ethics. Those are far more important topics than money.
Caldera is a third-rate company desperate for a business model. They can't compete with any of the other Linux distros on quality - their distro sucks and they're slow to issue updates, security fixes and new packages, all of their additions have been proprietary and generally not as good as what SuSE and Mandrake have come up with.
Right now there's no compelling reason to go with Caldera over other Linux distros - and now they're pissing away the advantage that Linux has over Microcrap products - namely no licensing fees. Right, that's going to be compelling for people considering Linux - Look, we can choose SuSE or Red Hat and pay for support where we need it but not worry about licensing fees, or we can go with Caldera - a company that doesn't know what to do with SCO now that they spent their wad on it, and they have no innovations that make their distro compelling. I wonder what the CFO would say to that...
RMS called it - Caldera is a company of parasites. Let's hope they go bankrupt soon - if they do, they'll have not only put the community out of their misery, they'll also have knocked off SCO Unix as a competitor to Linux by thoroughly bungling it and screwing over all the SCO resellers in the process of the slow and painful transition from SCO to Caldera. (Odd that no one seems to be talking about that...) If they don't like the GPL, then let 'em make their own *BSD distro instead.
Well, this is more of a rant than a focused post. Sorry, but Caldera was quick to jump on the Linux bandwagon and try to act all "community" when it suited their needs - but that didn't cure their woes, so now they're just as eager to piss all over the community that built 90% of the software in their distro.
I think the GPL is the way to go, but there are days when I'm tempted to design a license that is similar to the GPL but forbids bundling with licensing schemes like Caldera's - why should parasites like that be allowed to siphon code off the Linux Community without giving anything back? What have they ever contributed to the community? I've never even seen evidence of so much as a bugfix originating from Caldera, much less an actual GPL'ed program.
I'm a very staunch pro-Linux advocate, but I try to keep the anti-Microsoft commentary to a minimum. It's just not necessary, I think Linux stands on its own merits.
But this...it's just going too far, don't you think? This license might as well just say "you cannot use any non-Microsoft tools in the development or deployment of.NET software" - even if you want to use.NET solutions on Win2K servers, but have a preference for using Emacs as your IDE...you're screwed if you follow their rules. They're putting developers in a "take it or leave it" situation that's simply inexcusable.
For God's sake, I hope that this scares people away from.NET and Microsoft in droves. They need a lesson in humility - a "time-out" as it were - before they should be allowed back into the computing community. Whether you agree with the ideals of Free Software or Open Source or not - you should at least stand up for your right to use whatever tools you want.
Anyone dumb enough to bend over for this treatment deserves what they get.
This might open a can of worms at some institutions - one that sorely needs opening! It's ridiculous that a college/university can charge a student tuition and take possession of their work.
However, not all schools are created equal - many schools either do not have policies or they have more "liberal" policies that allow the student to retain rights over their work, albeit policies that require a student to allow the school to use the work.
I didn't major in CS, I majored in English/journalism - and at my school I retained my own rights to works that I created...though I had one professor that required classes to sign a waiver allowing him to use works created by his students.
If a school's policy were challenged, I wonder if it would hold up - especially if it's a policy that's not given to the student up-front when they apply to the school.
Not really - He's asking specifically if techies with MBAs are really in high demand and the kind of experience people who already have MBAs have had.
Unfortunately, he doesn't mention where he wants to go from where he is now - if he wants to continue doing the same kind of work he does now, but maybe make a little more, he's probably going the wrong direction. He's more likely to price himself out of jobs. Having too high a degree is sometimes worse than not having one at all.
If he wants to go into management, then he's probably on the right track. Then again, it could be that an MBA is a waste of money - hence, asking for other techies experiences.
Perhaps they're trying to figure out what areas of development they should be concentrating on, or where to direct their efforts?
I dunno, they make everything GPL'ed and available for free...complaining about a voluntary program seems kind of churlish, even if it isn't well-thought out.
Let's face it, Linux isn't geared towards the normal bloodsucking business model - so anyone who is pro-Linux/Free Software should be willing to go with the flow and try to help these companies figure out ways to support us. Particularly when they have been "Doing the Right Thing" as long as Linux-Mandrake.
I hate to see greed or selfishness in companies or individuals...
Slashdot Mirror
Posted by polar_bear:
Actually, in the story, IBM acknowledges that they were of a similar bent years ago.
IBM does seem to be doing the Right Thing(TM) by GNU/Linux and other Open Source projects.
If Slashdot and Microsoft are both still around in ten years, you might well be seeing Microsoft accusing company Y of being anti-competitive and arrogant if they've lost their monopoly by then. And Slashdot (or another site like it) will be posting links to those articles.
I think that people within IBM actually do believe in Open Source, though. It's really hard to say that a company believes in anything, b/c it's just a conglomeration of the people who work their and make its policy - which can change, of course.
Posted by polar_bear:
Actually, I'm just pointing out that the post was one-sided. "Oh, let's quit saying nasty things about poor Microsoft." "Oh, poor Microsoft doesn't get a fair shake on Slashdot."
Keep it up. With people like you, it will never die.
And your point is...? Who said I want it to? Or are we all supposed to bend to your worldview?
You should probably find a different site to visit if you don't want to see posts bashing Microsoft. I find it extremely obnoxious on newsgroups and discussion boards for a small percentage of the population to keep posting pleas for people to quit discussing topic "x" when the majority of people obviously *want* to discuss it. If it's not to your liking, go away. Don't expect 95% of the participants to conform to your desires.
Did you honestly come to Slashdot expecting objectivity towards Microsoft? We're not talking about professional journalists, here. Please. The editors don't even know how to spellcheck or check URLs and you're expecting them to display objectivity? Sure, the editors are biased against Microsoft - that's no secret. Expecting anything different is just plain foolish.
The site is for fun, links to weird news and possibly announcements of the latest version of your favorite distro. (Of course, posting an announcement for people to download something is always a debacle b/c as soon as it's on Slashdot the server slows to a crawl...but they do it anyway...)
If you're relying on Slashdot for real "news" or objective coverage or a "realistic" view of the tech world - you're in the wrong place. People also come here to express their opinions. Sorry that other people's opinions don't meet your expectations.
Posted by polar_bear:
Sure - as soon as Microsoft can stop calling the GPL a "cancer" or "Pac-Man"-like. Or how about when they stop trying to confuse people by saying that they're "concerned" about using GPL'ed software with theirs b/c they think it might "contaminate" their code?
Yeah, there's some immature comments made here - but guess what? Microsoft isn't any better - and they're supposed to be "professionals."
Posted by polar_bear:
the Cube was too expensive for what you get. It's not expandable, and it's not that powerful to begin with. Plus, with normal PCs when the CD-ROM/DVD drive fails in two or three years, you can go buy a stock drive that you'll be able to replace it with. If your Cube warranty is up and the slot-loading drive bites the big one where are you going to find a replacement? Apple doesn't sell replacement parts as a rule - and if they did they'd be overpriced. (Compare the price they charge for RAM on their site vs. the price it goes for anywhere else...)
Once upon a time, Apple computers were higher-quality than their PC counterparts - they used SCSI drives instead of IDE and their graphics were higher-quality than most PCs.
Now they use stock IDE drives and their graphics cards are a generation behind what you can find in PCs. Hell, they even use stock CD/DVD drives and then they cover the headphone jack, volume control and eject button with their veneer of a case. On top of that - if you price an Apple computer next to a PC with the same specs, the Apple computer is going to run you at least $500 more. For instance, you can buy a Dell Dimension 8100 with 60GB hard drive, 256MB of RAM, 32MB GeForce2 MX and DVD drive for $1347.00 and a Pentium IV clocked at 1.3Ghz. An Apple G4 with the same video card, RAM and drives runs - get this - $2,999.00. I could, literally, buy two Dells for that price.
Apple is the underdog here - they should be fighting the price war, but they're not. They're milking the small population of Apple enthusiasts for ever dime they can get. I'm a Linux user, so I could run Linux on either platform - but I'll admit that I'd prefer to run the MacOS over Windows. However, I can't say that I like the MacOS so much better that I'd pay an extra $1,600 to do so.
I'm not on a limited income either - I either radically upgrade my PC or buy a new one every six to eight months. (The surplus parts filter down to other one of my other PCs, or to a friend or family member...) Even so, I don't spend more than $700 on an upgrade and still get quite a boost in power. With Apple parts, that's not possible.
They're just as bad as Microsoft when it comes to pricing and policies, they just don't have the market share that Microsoft does.
Posted by polar_bear:
.NET infrastructure will require access to Passport or Microsoft servers at some stage, and you can expect M$ to block non-M$ implementations - at least any coded under GPL or similar licenses.
.NET is supposed to do, but that isn't compatible. IBM and other companies would likely get behind it, as would other companies who are starting to realize that the Redmond behemoth tries to own everything it comes in contact with.
More than likely big chunks of the
Frankly, I'd rather see the Free Software and Open Source community innovate and beat them to the punch with something that does what
Posted by polar_bear:
Since face recognition software is to be used, nobody has to watch the tape, they just have to verify a few still frames.
And show up at the scene, and try to track the person down - there's still considerable expenditure of manpower.
You seem sure the system won't come to be abused. Why not?
On the contrary, I'm sure it would be at some point - I think I even said so in a previous post. The question is the extent of the abuse, how far-reaching it is and how much harm it would do. If it's abused once or twice quietly, it won't draw much attention and won't cause people to call for its removal. On the other hand, blatant abuse or frequent abuse would likely cause people to ask for the system to be dismantled. It would be a true statement to say I don't think it would be abused widely or badly enough to outweigh the benefits. And, it might just prevent other abuses by law enforcement officials as well - police would be hesitant to use unnecessary force if they thought it might be caught on tape. (I believe a lot of police departments now require police to have a video camera in the squad cars, but that doesn't catch anything that takes place out of view of the camera...)
The Atlanta situation is one that I'm unfamiliar with, so I can't really comment on it. I'm not surprised that they'd try to sneak something like this under the radar, so to speak. That's dirty pool, no question about it. If a system is implemented it should be used for its stated purpose, and if there's a modification it should be publicized and voted on. Again, voters who don't raise a fuss and vote the bastards out are at least partially to blame. I won't say "equally," but voters have to take responsibility. I think we would both agree the larger problem is apathy on the part of the majority of the populace.
After all, unlike a cop standing on the corner, you can't tell what a computer system and cops miles away behind the camera are doing. The population won't object to things it doesn't know about.
Well, they can't tell what the police are doing behind the scenes, true. But when a cop shows up to make an arrest it's going to be public information. If they start abusing the system it will become public knowledge.
Posted by polar_bear:
The natural check on that behaviour (high cost, limited budget and manpower) is gone.
Not really - someone still has to watch the tape, someone has to show up at the scene, etc. Having videotape of public areas wouldn't mean that every person is going to be tracked individually - it means that there would be a record available if law enforcement had reason to believe there was useful information there.
Basically what you seem to be saying is "I had a bad experience because of mistaken identity and a cop with an attitude, therefore any new technologies are just going to increase the opportunity for this to happen."
Firstly, I doubt this would increase or decrease the number of incidents where law officials overstep their bounds or make mistakes. Unless the system comes with increases in the number of cops on the street, the odds of this increasing the number of incidents you describe are pretty slim. Granted, some of them might stem from the video system instead of license checks or whatever, but there are only so many cops on the beat to pull people over or follow up leads...and the vast majority of the cops on duty are still going to be working on things that are happening *right now* not following up leads based on video tape or whatever.
Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, you're only harping on one negative facet and trying to use that as an argument to completely discredit the idea. You're ignoring the overwhelming positives that might come from it, such as reduced violent crimes. If I had to make a trade-off between the possibility I might be harrassed or inconvenienced by a cop for the possibility that the technology could prevent one murder or rape then I'd say it's worth it.
I'm not surprised you've had a bad experience with a cop - I'd bet at least 50% of the people reading Slashdot have as well. Guess what? So have I. However, that's no excuse to tie the hands of all law enforcement officials because some small percentage of them may be rude, incompetent or even outright corrupt.
Let's face it, most city police departments are overwhelmingly understaffed and don't have anywhere near the resources they should have to catch violent offenders.
I agree that video surveilence wouldn't solve all the problems or be a perfect solution, but I think it'd be worth trying out. There's no reason why it couldn't be tested and gotten rid of if it doesn't work. The other half of the equation is the public itself - we're (collectively) guilty of a great deal of laziness as well. Cops and politicians only feel comfortable abusing their power when the majority of the populace lets them get away with it, or they feel that they will.
Posted by polar_bear:
Actually, even in public, I have SOME expectation of privacy. In particular, I have the expectation that none of the people I pass on the street know every single place I go every moment I am in public. Furthermore, I expect that the people who do see me don't look me up in a database so that they know my name, age, and residence (or even have the ability to do so). Nor do they keep records of seeing me (for the most part).
Not really, especially if you're under criminal investigation. Ever seen one of those documentaries where they discuss how they track Mob members? They're constantly tailing them, taking photos of them and anyone they're with - and as far as I know they need no special warrants to do so - they only need approval from their superiors or the DA or whoever. That is, as long as they're in public - if they're at home or visiting a relative in the hospital or something, they have an expectation of privacy in what are private areas. But if they're walking down the street, they're fair game.
I don't think it'd be a bad idea to watch the police, either. The police might not like it, but you have the legal right to do so if they're in public - as long as you don't interfere with the police while they're trying to do their jobs.
I should mention that I do think people should be informed that they're being videotaped. If it became public policy, for instance, then I think that there should be a public posting of locations of the cameras, how long the tapes are kept and what they'll be used for. For instance, I don't agree with cities that are photographing people charged with solicitation and publishing them in an attempt to fight prostitution. That's simply an attempt to embarrass and harass people that shouldn't be tolerated. But scanning video of public places in an attempt to track criminals is no different than placing police in public areas to look for them - except that it has the potential to be much more effective.
If someone gives a shit about what you're doing, your privacy is pretty much an illusion anyway. Might as well just get used to the idea. What is it that you're so concerned with if you haven't done anything to be prosecuted for?
Posted by polar_bear:
There always have to be checks and balances - I'm sure the technology exists to prevent, or at least detect, tampering.
As to the question of how long the tapes/video data would be kept, that would have to be decided.
As far as "near-irrefutable evidence" - assuming that a tape hadn't been tampered with and it did show you comitting a crime - why should you have any expectation of getting away with it? This is one of the few things I've heard of that would actually be a deterrent to crime.
Admission of personal videotape as evidence is something I don't know anything about - so I can't say whether your home video showing your innocence would be admissible or not. I would think it would be, but I'm not a lawyer. I think that a defendant should have much more leeway in presenting materials to prove innocence than the prosecution has in presenting materials proving guilt. Do you have some case you could cite where a defendant was not allowed to present material during a trial that would prove them innocent? I'd be interested to read about that.
I'm a big proponent of rights to privacy, but I can't really think of a compelling argument for disallowing video surveilence in public places. Again, emphasis on public. I don't think the government should ever have unrestricted rights to tap phones, monitor email or other communications - but taping people in public places to look for wanted criminals isn't something that scares me.
What's the difference, really, between taping the parking lot of a stadium and video cameras in 7-11? I think a lot of New Yorkers would welcome video cameras in the subway and on subway trains.
Anyway, possible abuse of video footage is a slippery-slope argument that simply tries to chuck an entire idea on the premise that there may be one flaw in it. I don't think it's a convincing argument. Most any device or technology for law enforcement could (and probably will) be abused at some point - but it doesn't negate the benefit of the technology nor provide a substantial argument for abandoning it. It only means that we should be careful and that we always need to have checks and balances to prevent abuses by the small percentage of law enforcement officials who aren't honest.
Posted by polar_bear:
Frankly, I don't see the big problem here. Video cameras in public places - emphasis on *public* - where you have no expectation of privacy in the first place.
A worst-case scenario is that they'd have a false positive and stop someone, then let them go.
Hell, they ought to put cameras in a lot more public places - think how hesitant muggers, rapists or other criminals would be if there was a decent chance that they'd be videotaped in the act. It's kind of hard to beat a conviction if you have video-taped evidence.
I'd be a lot more concerned if they were using audio snooping devices instead of video. If you're walking down the street with a collegue you have no reasonable expectation that you won't be seen and possibly photographed or videotaped - which is only useful to apprehend wanted criminals or to capture evidence of a crime in progress. On the other hand, audio surveilence would gather data that could be used to gather other kinds of evidence and I would think it would violate someone's 5th amendment rights.
As long as video surveilence doesn't intrude into areas where you'd have a reasonable expectation of privacy - a hotel room, dressing rooms, bathrooms, your residence, your vehicle - I don't see the issue.
While we're at it, I think we should require elected officials to wear a wire and video camera 24/7 while they're in office... maybe this would get rid of some of the corruption in office.
Posted by Kewlhandtek:
technology usely helps out nature. If it werent for technology we would be beating our clothes on rocks in rivers to clean them. And we would be shitting and pissing in those same rivers. And as computer use is more accepted we can use less paper HELL IM SICK OF these damn FAXEs get a freaking computer
Posted by Kewlhandtek:
it's refreshing to see that our youth isnt buying in to the whore bag's beliefs , man keep kicking them in the nuts, and kick them again for me
Posted by polar_bear:
The same thing could be accomplished by common people taking action by NOT buying SUVs.
Then we wouldn't have to resort to violence, the shareholders would lynch the bastards for us.
Seriously, though, while it's seductive to think of CEOs as evil bastards who should be shot in the head there's no reason to assume that a violent uprising is necessary when it's completely within the power of the masses to simply stop purchasing products from businesses that do harm to the environment or people in some fashion.
The problem is that 99% of the population are content to be lazy cattle that just consume, consume, consume. The Dead Kennedys put it best "Give Me Convenience or Death." That's about what the US has come down to. Fuck human rights, equal rights, the environment or anything else -- just make sure I get a six-pack and the [insert sport that's in season} game on TV.
Which is worse, the CEOs that take advantage of the mass mentality - or the mentality itself?
Posted by polar_bear:
Well, isn't it special that you have your own unique definitions for words?
To quote Webster's - violence (n): intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force.
So, yes, torching a SUV dealership is violence. It may not be as heinous as torching a SUV dealer, but it's still pretty damn violent. I'm sure if someone threw a few molotov cocktails into your living room window you'd think it was violent, even if you weren't home at the time.
Plus, there's really no way that they could be sure that no one would be hurt directly or indirectly by their action...so even if I agree with the idea that SUV's are wasteful and annoying, I find the idea of torching an SUV dealership pretty abhorent.
They could have just as easily made their point by picketing the dealership, or even chaining themselves to the SUVs to prevent their sale and to gain attention without any danger of hurting an innocent person.
Torching every SUV in the country isn't going to solve the problem anyway - people need to be educated about *why* gas-guzzling monster vehicles might be a Bad Thing(TM). If they're unable to educate people about the "danger" of SUVs or whatever, perhaps the human race should be allowed to pollute the environment to the point that we become extinct.
Posted by polar_bear:
... something damn difficult for a dictionary attack to crack, but easier for someone like me to remember. (BTW, no, I've never actually used that password.)
I probably fit into the "fan," "cryptic," and "family" groups - When I make up passwords I tend to start with either something from my early childhood - say, my dog's name - or some obscure reference to something that I'm a fan of like maybe a "supporting" character from the Godfather or whatnot - then add mixed case, punctuation, etc.
For example, I might pick Luca Brasi from the Godfather, but I wouldn't make a password "lucabrasi" or "LucaBrasi" -- It'd be something like "LuC4Br^$!#"
I can't go with a 100% cryptic password, b/c then I'd never remember the damn things - I don't use the same password on all of my systems or for online purchases, so I probably rotate about seven passwords and I change the ones I use with Barnes & Noble or Yahoo! Mail pretty regularly.
The study is pretty interesting, though.
Posted by polar_bear:
Granted, Jackson didn't help by making comments about Microsoft, but it's hard to believe that our judicial system is capable of dispensing justice or protecting the average person anymore.
A long time from now - probably about the time that Microsoft has had its lunch eaten by Linux, *BSD and other OSes or that it's gotten such a comprehensive stranglehold on computing that there simply no alternatives - they'll finally rule against Microsoft and issue a penalty that has gone all the way to the Supreme Court and (one way or another) cannot be overturned or appealed. But, the system is so ineffectual that the original case won't even matter. Netscape is dust and many of Microsoft's other competitors have been reduced to shells of themselves. Not by competition, but by tactics that would make Genghis Kahn blush.
Either we're going to become a nation of sheep or there's going to be a revolution of some sort in the next ten years. Fighting companies like Microsoft in the courts isn't working - and will never work. If people don't stand up for themselves soon they'll face a very bleak future indeed.
I'm not saying it would have to be a bloody or violent revolution, either. (Though the thought of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Craig Mundie against a wall in front of a firing squad does have a certain appeal...) But people need to start fighting these monolithic monstrosities soon or it won't be long before they stop suing Napster and start sending SWAT teams to college dorms to confiscate suspected computers...
It's not even noon yet and I'm feeling paranoid...time to get some caffeine...
Posted by polar_bear:
This is on a different scale entirely, but I host several small-traffic Websites through PHPWebHosting.com, and they rock. Their support is only via email (hey, it's only $9.95 a month! to host w/them...) but they're very quick, efficient and cheerful. (Yes, cheerfulness can come through in email...)
They offer MySQL, PHP, Perl and (I think...) Python - though I haven't done any Python. A few weeks ago I asked if it would be possible to install a few libraries they didn't already have installed so that I could use Midgard - I expected a "maybe in 6 months" or "are you kidding?" but they were happy to help and said they'd install them ASAP - which turned out to be less than a week. I'm wholly pleased with their service - if you need to host a small site, they're awesome.
Sites I host with them:
http://www.zonkerbooks.net/
http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
http://www.linuxroutingbook.com/
Posted by polar_bear:
I've been freelancing for about two and a half years now - every contract I see has a clause that covers all media.
This really isn't a big deal except for authors with contracts that are several years old.
As for replacing freelancers with staffers - not bloody likely. It costs a lot more to hire talented staffers than it does to contract articles. You also get less variety by using staffers.
I'm happy about the ruling, but it isn't going to change the way business is being done now - publishers probably changed their contracts as soon as wind of this suit got out in the first place. They'd be foolish to keep doing the same old thing and wait for the court to rule - it's better to protect yourself from the start.
As an author you just have to decide what your work is worth, how likely it is that you'll be able to resell it if you have the rights, and whether you have enough pull to get something better than the standard contract. Just like any other industry - if you don't have much pull, you're probably going to get gouged on a few deals before you have enough clout to say "hey, people really want to read my stuff so you're going to have to bend a little."
Posted by polar_bear:
Oh, if Caldera dies he'll just get a freaking "pundit" column like John Dvorak and spend the rest of his career spouting crap that's even more widely publicized.
Let's face it, with a name like "Ransom Love" he's bound to find a magazine or publication that will snap him up...
The computing industry recycles its failures rather efficiently...
Posted by polar_bear:
Well, as far as I'm concerned whether it's possible for Linux to make Red Hat or Caldera a profit is of minor importance.
Most people who contribute Free Software do so because they feel that's the ethical thing to do. If you can make money on Free Software without perverting the licensing or screwing other people over, then that's great. If you can't, oh well. Life goes on.
While many companies have contributed code to Open Source and Free Software projects, I am fairly sure that their contributions don't equal the contributions of individuals who have written code for the sheer joy of it and to solve their own problems.
Free Software is a very sensible model for computer users who are willing to be part of a community that provides a wealth of tools with the understanding that you won't steal those tools from the rest of the community, and that a large number of the community will give back contributions to the overall collection of tools and help keep the community alive.
Linux IS NOT ABOUT A BUSINESS PLAN OR TURNING A PROFIT. Please drill this into your respective heads. Free Software is not about business. It may be wonderful for businesses, it may allow people to make money, but that is not the core focus. The fact that Caldera chose to base their business on Free Software and then complain later that it's impossible to make money that way is simply a demonstration of the short-sightedness of their management, and possibly a sign that they simply employ too many useless managers and promotions folks and not enough consultants. Maybe, just maybe, they simply got greedy.
It's unfortunate that the discussion keeps focusing on profit rather than individual freedoms and ethics. Those are far more important topics than money.
Caldera is a third-rate company desperate for a business model. They can't compete with any of the other Linux distros on quality - their distro sucks and they're slow to issue updates, security fixes and new packages, all of their additions have been proprietary and generally not as good as what SuSE and Mandrake have come up with.
Right now there's no compelling reason to go with Caldera over other Linux distros - and now they're pissing away the advantage that Linux has over Microcrap products - namely no licensing fees. Right, that's going to be compelling for people considering Linux - Look, we can choose SuSE or Red Hat and pay for support where we need it but not worry about licensing fees, or we can go with Caldera - a company that doesn't know what to do with SCO now that they spent their wad on it, and they have no innovations that make their distro compelling. I wonder what the CFO would say to that...
RMS called it - Caldera is a company of parasites. Let's hope they go bankrupt soon - if they do, they'll have not only put the community out of their misery, they'll also have knocked off SCO Unix as a competitor to Linux by thoroughly bungling it and screwing over all the SCO resellers in the process of the slow and painful transition from SCO to Caldera. (Odd that no one seems to be talking about that...) If they don't like the GPL, then let 'em make their own *BSD distro instead.
Well, this is more of a rant than a focused post. Sorry, but Caldera was quick to jump on the Linux bandwagon and try to act all "community" when it suited their needs - but that didn't cure their woes, so now they're just as eager to piss all over the community that built 90% of the software in their distro.
I think the GPL is the way to go, but there are days when I'm tempted to design a license that is similar to the GPL but forbids bundling with licensing schemes like Caldera's - why should parasites like that be allowed to siphon code off the Linux Community without giving anything back? What have they ever contributed to the community? I've never even seen evidence of so much as a bugfix originating from Caldera, much less an actual GPL'ed program.
Posted by polar_bear:
.NET software" - even if you want to use .NET solutions on Win2K servers, but have a preference for using Emacs as your IDE...you're screwed if you follow their rules. They're putting developers in a "take it or leave it" situation that's simply inexcusable.
.NET and Microsoft in droves. They need a lesson in humility - a "time-out" as it were - before they should be allowed back into the computing community. Whether you agree with the ideals of Free Software or Open Source or not - you should at least stand up for your right to use whatever tools you want.
I'm a very staunch pro-Linux advocate, but I try to keep the anti-Microsoft commentary to a minimum. It's just not necessary, I think Linux stands on its own merits.
But this...it's just going too far, don't you think? This license might as well just say "you cannot use any non-Microsoft tools in the development or deployment of
For God's sake, I hope that this scares people away from
Anyone dumb enough to bend over for this treatment deserves what they get.
Posted by polar_bear:
This might open a can of worms at some institutions - one that sorely needs opening! It's ridiculous that a college/university can charge a student tuition and take possession of their work.
However, not all schools are created equal - many schools either do not have policies or they have more "liberal" policies that allow the student to retain rights over their work, albeit policies that require a student to allow the school to use the work.
I didn't major in CS, I majored in English/journalism - and at my school I retained my own rights to works that I created...though I had one professor that required classes to sign a waiver allowing him to use works created by his students.
If a school's policy were challenged, I wonder if it would hold up - especially if it's a policy that's not given to the student up-front when they apply to the school.
Posted by polar_bear:
Not really - He's asking specifically if techies with MBAs are really in high demand and the kind of experience people who already have MBAs have had.
Unfortunately, he doesn't mention where he wants to go from where he is now - if he wants to continue doing the same kind of work he does now, but maybe make a little more, he's probably going the wrong direction. He's more likely to price himself out of jobs. Having too high a degree is sometimes worse than not having one at all.
If he wants to go into management, then he's probably on the right track. Then again, it could be that an MBA is a waste of money - hence, asking for other techies experiences.
Read before you post.
Posted by polar_bear:
Perhaps they're trying to figure out what areas of development they should be concentrating on, or where to direct their efforts? I dunno, they make everything GPL'ed and available for free...complaining about a voluntary program seems kind of churlish, even if it isn't well-thought out. Let's face it, Linux isn't geared towards the normal bloodsucking business model - so anyone who is pro-Linux/Free Software should be willing to go with the flow and try to help these companies figure out ways to support us. Particularly when they have been "Doing the Right Thing" as long as Linux-Mandrake. I hate to see greed or selfishness in companies or individuals...