"The future of our company depends on our ability to build trusted relationships with our customers," Busch said.
The next thing that pops in to my head is "The future's so bright... we gotta be shady..." to the tune of a Timbuk3song. And wouldn't you know... the following post reads:
Best Buy is famous for its shady, customer-hostile tactics.
Say... you don't suppose it's possible to believe that "actions taken in this life may have consequences beyond our mortal existence" without also holding on to beliefs that are "racist, sexist, and overflowing with evil anti-social ideologies", do you?
He literally had just turned on his Windows box the first day he got home, connected (automagically) to a neighbor's wireless and assumed that computers were supposed to do that. As if all PCs came with "free" internet, no configuration required.
I wouldn't be surprised. A few years ago I got a request to help an end user figure out why he couldn't get his institutional VPN account working. Long story short, he had been a dial-up user for years. He wanted to try out the "new" VPN service. So he configured everything and hit connect... nothing happened. He didn't have any form of broadband in his house... and didn't realize it would be required to use the VPN. Which is just a little more odd than the guy who dialed up to work and then signed on to the institutional VPN.
I've always believed a big problem for desktop, mainstream linux adoption was the naming of popular applications.
Non-issue. Yeah... sure... Open Source folks seem to like picking wierd names. They're not marketing specialists. But its not the stumbling roadblock you make it out to be. A real neophyte is going to just go clicky-clicky on an icon or media file and go with whatever comes up. Heck... how many times have you heard a new user talking about "using the Internet" without a clue about what ISP or browser is involved (or even if they ARE involved).
I can play the name game in the Windows world too.
Imagine using Windows for the first time.
Noob: What do I use to play CDs and MP3's? Windows Guy: WinAmp Noob: What do I use to edit photos? Windows Guy: Paintshop Pro. Noob: What do I use to play movies? Windows Guy: WinAmp or Windows Media Player Noob: How about for IMs? Windows Guy: AIM or ICQ Noob: Email? Windows Guy: Outlook Express
How many of those names are intuitive?
What's important here isn't the name of the applications. It is either access to Linux (sitting down at a computer that has it already installed and going with it) or specific applications. Most people have never seen a Linux desktop. And those that do rarely get their favorite applications. I would love to go to my local Fry's, walk down a software aisle, and pick up a software package knowing there's a native Linux install included in the box. I'm fine with most OSS alternatives. But I'd also like the choice. Competition is good.
Don't even bother reporting the spammers with spamsentry. Blizzard has already stated that they are overwhelmed by reports from that mod and their logging (apparently) isn't good enough to track the culprits - who usually fire off a barrage of spam and then delete the account.
Do you happen to have a reference for that? I wouldn't be suprised if their logging is that lackluster. Seems security is often an after-thought (and by then its really difficult to deal with).
Better use of spamsentry is this:/spamsentry options ignorebylevel 2
Thanks for the tip! Reporting spam was sort of loosing its novelty value anyway.:)
Blizzard needs to do 2 things: 1) a "mark as spam" button which automatically logs a complaint and the evidence, and ignores the user for chat, tell, and mail; 2) as another poster put it, if I/ignore a player, I want the option to ignore the WHOLE account, no matter how many alts the guy uses--chat, tell, mail, duel spam, plain talking, yells, and emotes.
As for (nearly) automatic logging of complaints: SpamSentry addon. Turn spammers in to a minigame (kind of). That'll hold you over until the new patch hits that does exactly what you're asking for.
As for ignoring the account... I doubt that's going to do any good. More than likely the spammers are using cheap, throw-away trial accounts. Spammers are simply going to start churning through them a little faster. You'll still see spam.
There is no implication other than what he's saying directly, that he chooses his tools based on their effectiveness for his current problem, not whether it fits into some OSS philosophy. That may mean OSS software, or it may not.
What you're missing is that maybe the "OSS philosophy" is a valid consideration for "effectiveness". Again - "best" and "effective" being subjective. Keep in mind that these choices also involve a lot of other subjective considerations - support / confidence in the provider, cost, personal knowledge, etc. To say that FOSS is an invalid consideration is cherry-picking.
Yes, some of us are prepared to use the best tool for the job rather than blindly follow FOSS.
Hehe... any "I choose FOSS" thread inevitably includes someone touting the "best tool for the job" mantra. What I find amusing is the implication that FOSS doesn't apply to this concept. It also implies that "best" is defined by a single ultimate truth. Even more amusing is this is posted in response to someone noting:
And I think it should. Guess that's why different things matter to different people.
As for me, myself... I tend to try and weight these kinds of complex decisions. In my own personal decision process, F/OSS gets a lot of weight on that alone. But that doesn't mean other considerations won't occasionally having me ultimately choose a proprietary offering. Although such options tend to start off at a disadvantage... so they better be very compelling to make my own personal cut. I suspect a lot of folks around here are like that.
Incidentally... before we get too comfortable with the "best tool" mantra... keep in mind that the FOSS camp isn't alone. I've seen folks with the Microsoft religion outright ignore anything without a Microsoft label on it. It doesn't stop at Microsoft, of course (we can throw stones at Apple, Cisco, etc. as easily). "Best tool for the job" indeed.
FOSS has garnered a lot of attention in the press lately. Well this is Microsoft's reaction. They're hitting Linux, OpenOffice and mail applications, the three serious contenders. This short-term tactic is only being deployed for the long-term defense and the long-term defense isn't desktop applications it's SaaS. If you think Microsoft is the money-hoarding juggernaut now, wait until you see what happens when they get a yearly service fee from these corporations.
I would call SaaS as one of those exit strategies. SaaS doesn't have to rely on a given OS. Eventually, Microsoft won't really care if you're running Linux or their lightweight Windows. They'll have long moved to a new strategy that generates revenue no matter what platform you use and ensures they maintain control.
I'm not sure that IE is going to be as important anymore. At least... not as important as.Net. And that's why I keep wondering about the state and wisdom of Mono.
I would expect Microsoft isn't going to be happy trying to convince you to drive your generic platform to their service offerings. They'll also want to be sure that putting that platform together involved a fee against their patent portfolio. And they'll also want to be sure the "right" pieces were implemented so their ideas of the future of computing is what comes to pass.
to what Microsoft is really doing. They're not trying to stop the innovation or progress of OSS development. They are trying to stop the adoption of OSS by making these patent claims and then having the claims published in trade magazines and the web.
I would hazard to guess that's one of the goals. Ultimately, someone who's on top of the game wants to maintain the status quo - not only because it's profitable, but it also enables them to control the game and therefore ensure they remain on top. However, things are changing.
OSS is disruptive. It converts software markets in to commodity markets - or at least is currently threatening to do so with the operating system. Commodity markets are difficult to deal with. They're hard to control and make a sizable profit in. But it is possible to do both if you can find a choke-point or unique way of dealing with that market.
Microsoft's fortune was made on just such a strategy (albeit probably accidental). IBM lost control of their microcomputer platform (aka IBM PC) - it spawned a hardware commodity market that we still enjoy today. But while every "PC" sale didn't mean a sale for IBM, it did almost guarantee a sale for Microsoft and their OS product(s). That was the edge to profiting and eventually controlling the commodity.
Microsoft is now looking for another edge as the old strategy looses effectiveness. Some new strategies involve getting out of the market before it turns commodity. But other strategies are looking for the edge to control that commodity market. And that's what we're seeing now.
True - Microsoft likely doesn't imagine they'll stop OSS development. But what they need to do is come up with some choke-points that can either be controlled or attacked. And patents are likely a big part of that.
Junk faxes are already illegal with hefty fines for those who send them. That this does not deter the practice would imply that being on a "do not call" registry would have no additional effect. In fact - there are individuals who have a long history of operating shell corporations to side-step massive fines incured through their "business" practices.
The students know the rules. If they choose to break them, they should suffer the consequences. The technological measures that may or may not be in place are irrelevent.
When I was a kid in highschool, I did a lot more than using a proxy to get around filtering. I circumvented all manner of school access controls. And I knew if I ever got caught, I was going to be in big trouble (lucky for me I didn't get caught). At no time did it ever dawn on me that I should blame the school for not being able to stop me.
If you're intent on being your school's Neo... then deal with the consequences for being either less clever than you thought you were or unlucky. If you can't deal with the consequences, then perhaps you should look for a different kind of entertainment.
Alas, the highschool *years* are golden, not high school itself. That's the key thing to remember here. I'm only 32 and I look back on those days with fondness, but nothing that went on within the confines of high school was worth a shit.
Eh - to each their own. Sure... I have some good memories from that time period. But life got a heck of a lot better for me shortly after I graduated from Highschool and I went out in to the world and became my own person. If I were to look back and call a time period the golden days of my youth - that would be the time.
Please take heart. Not all of us adults are such utter fucking morons.
It should be noted that even the school board are not all "utter fucking mornons." Stan Magee and Ken Bryant from the Board intended to seek a quick resolution to an over-reaction:
Magee said he thinks the district probably reacted too strongly to the situation.
"He did it at his house. Never took anything to school. Never wrote an ugly letter, never said anything strange to a student or a teacher, nothing," Magee said.
Bryant said police need to take situations like this seriously.
"I don't want to fault our police for trying to protect us. But once the evidence was found and looked at, I see no compelling reason why this child should not have been sent back to his original campus," Bryant said.
It would seem there's some sanity to be found. Pitty the four other board members either were not available or purposely avoided the meeting that could have brought this all to a quick resolution.
They sent the kid to an "Alternative Education Center". I don't know why they don't just cut through the bullshit and call it a "Re-Education Camp" for those who don't fall in line with the propaganda centers/prisons/day-cares mascarading as the US public education system.
I have a sister-in-law who went to a Texas education "Alternative Education Center." It wasn't because she bucked the system and wouldn't play along with the propaganda. It was because she was a self-indulgent druggie who needed different attention than most people her age. She got to go to school with a smaller class of other potential lost-causes. And it worked. She's now got her head on reasonably straight and has a fairly decent life (although it took her a few years after graduation to get there). Without this education program, I'm not sure where she would have ended up.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not endeared to the Texas highschool education system. I still laugh at the memory of a friends mom earnestly explaining how our Highschool years will be looked back on as our Golden Years. But I do see an underlying value to the idea of education. And sometimes it takes a different approach to get someone there.
Overhauling the entire process and ousting idiotic bureaucrats who make decisions like this one is an entirely different matter.
I asked if we can agree that it happening is unethical and un-American. If you want to discuss the issue, that is fine, but you have to at least answer the questions as asked if any such discussion is to be useful.
I thought I did. Fair enough. Yes - i can agree with enforcement of this regulation to suppress political speech within the military would be unethical and un-American (and an abuse of power).
But just to make sure we don't get carried away - it should also be noted that there are very sensible limitations to political speech within the military. There's the issue of security. And there's the issue of the uniform.
I've already touched on the security issue mentioning EEFIs. I would also like to add that the problem with "security" is that such concerns can also be abused ("the terrorists have already won"). But none the less, the issue must be considered.
The second issue is that as a military member, one has to be careful of context. In my military experience, service members were strongly encouraged to be a part of the political process. Care was taken to not officially endorse any particular political leaning. And care was also taken to ensure individuals who were motivated by this encouragement ensured they acted out of uniform and avoided giving the impression that the military as a whole supported any particular political leanings.
Can we agree that creating military rules and using them to discourage military personal from providing unclassified information to other Americans and to discourage them from espousing political opinions that are are disliked by the incumbent political party is unethical, detrimental to the US, and thoroughly opposed to the American ideal of free speech?
Unclassified information is a tricky issue - more on this later. The issue of political opinions is another matter. However, I'm not aware of this happening. Sure - it is possible this will happen. But the threat of such abuse of power has always existed within the military. Please cite an example where this is happening now.
This regulation is obviously unenforcable in general. The military does not have the manpower to police every communication by every military officer and family member. Why then, would such a rule be created? The only plausible explanation I have is so that they have a way to bust anyone who says something they don't like as a way of punishing people for saying any arbitrary thing they don't like and as a way to discourage members of the military from speaking their minds. Do you have a better explanation?
The US military has a concept called EEFIs - Essential Elements of Friendly Information. The concept is that you take a number of non-classified data points and, through proper analysis, determine classified information. Most people do not have the mindset to apply this to their daily lives... and that includes military personnel. But when your life evolves around sensitive information, a daily diary or espousing various opinions and observations could very much offer a great source for people data mining for EEFIs.
Now having said that... I do see some reasons to be cautious of this regulation. One is covered in the article:
But with the regulations drawn so tightly, "many commanders will feel like they have no choice but to forbid their soldiers from blogging -- or even using e-mail," said Jeff Nuding, who won the bronze star for his service in Iraq. "If I'm a commander, and think that any slip-up gets me screwed, I'm making it easy: No blogs," added Nuding, writer of the "pro-victory" Dadmanly site. "I think this means the end of my blogging."
Beurocracy rarely deals with complexity well and beurocrats do tend to use a broad brush. I agree with Nuding's concerns.
My other issue is that I am, in fact, highly distrustful of the current administration. I wouldn't be shocked if somehow it overstepped its boundaries again and provided guidance in particular cases to handle situations that aren't to their liking. But this would require a chain of failure in the military itself to resist such meddling. I would like to see this failure happening before the hue and cry starts. And even if it does happen - the issue isn't necessarily the regulation itself.
Um... in spite of Richard Stallman's rather pathetic attempt to redefine the English language, that is what the term "free software" actually means. You cannot legitimately criticize the Oracle representative for using the English language correctly.
Just who is trying to redefine the English language? "Free" has more that one meaning. The exact meaning is largely dependent on context. The Oracle representative was entirely in the wrong context.
Sometimes this ambiguity of context is an innocent misunderstanding. But what makes it a hot-button for Open Source followers is that this "mistake" is often done intentionally by those who have an interest in derailing interest in Open Source use.
Focusing on fees is a red herring. Yes - business is ultimately about the bottom line. But trying to maintain the focus on fees is more about ensuring the financial battlefield remains in territory marketing departments are well accustomed to fighting. Free Software is a disruptive business model while Gratis Software is the usual loss-leader to get a foot in the door.
It would still have been presented to the press as a migration for stability reasons, and the fact that it was an application rather than an OS stability issue is the kind of detail you just don't see in news reports.
I completely agree. The speaker only mentioned the migration briefly as part of their speech. Quantas didn't return queries for details at the time of writing. And most likely, this is one of those competitive advantage things where you just aren't going to have Quantas giving away details.
In any case... all this is well out of the bounds of my initial comment.;)
For starts this is a big "told you so" to Kevin from CmdrTaco... Kevin originally approached Taco about adding what would become Digg to Slashdot and Taco said it would never work... Both were wrong! Digg does work but would be much better if it took from Slashdot's experiences. This whole post is about the Digg/Slashdot p*** match. oh well, it gets page hits!
Sure - there might be some underlying emotional / personal investment involved in this particular case. However... it does also touch on a grander thing.
There's been this idea out there that started somewhere around the The Cluetrain Manifesto and is often an undercurrent to "Web 2.0". The concept is that advertising is going to change in this new environment ushered in by the Internet. And somewhere in this change is a more honest line of communication between seller and consumer. Old media advertising elements and strategies need not apply.
This particular event and associated article indicates that old media strategies are simply dawning a more subtle sheep suit. In the past, advertisers moved from the jingle and sponsored TV spokespeople to heavily stylized commercials and product placements. Likewise, advertisers are shifting strategies to deal with more cynical marks in a new environment. The mechanics required to keep old-style marketing moving on the Internet are being created... and are offered today.
Beyond any personal disagreement between CmdrTaco and Kevin Rose is the realization that marketers have adapted. And if you wish for your platform to be a element of change, you also must adapt. Let the arms race continue anew.
When an hour of downtime costs you real money, it suddenly becomes a worthwhile thing to have someone who's contractually obliged to fix your system when it breaks. Posting a bug report at freshmeat doesn't quite cut it when you have planes grounded...
Are we talking about system design or support contracts? You can get a support contract for Linux. You can also run other systems w/out support contracts and run in to the same issue you described.
Slashdot Mirror
The next thing that pops in to my head is "The future's so bright... we gotta be shady..." to the tune of a Timbuk3 song. And wouldn't you know... the following post reads:
I had to chuckle.
Say... you don't suppose it's possible to believe that "actions taken in this life may have consequences beyond our mortal existence" without also holding on to beliefs that are "racist, sexist, and overflowing with evil anti-social ideologies", do you?
I wouldn't be surprised. A few years ago I got a request to help an end user figure out why he couldn't get his institutional VPN account working. Long story short, he had been a dial-up user for years. He wanted to try out the "new" VPN service. So he configured everything and hit connect... nothing happened. He didn't have any form of broadband in his house... and didn't realize it would be required to use the VPN. Which is just a little more odd than the guy who dialed up to work and then signed on to the institutional VPN.
Non-issue. Yeah... sure... Open Source folks seem to like picking wierd names. They're not marketing specialists. But its not the stumbling roadblock you make it out to be. A real neophyte is going to just go clicky-clicky on an icon or media file and go with whatever comes up. Heck... how many times have you heard a new user talking about "using the Internet" without a clue about what ISP or browser is involved (or even if they ARE involved).
I can play the name game in the Windows world too.
Imagine using Windows for the first time.
Noob: What do I use to play CDs and MP3's?
Windows Guy: WinAmp
Noob: What do I use to edit photos?
Windows Guy: Paintshop Pro.
Noob: What do I use to play movies?
Windows Guy: WinAmp or Windows Media Player
Noob: How about for IMs?
Windows Guy: AIM or ICQ
Noob: Email?
Windows Guy: Outlook Express
How many of those names are intuitive?
What's important here isn't the name of the applications. It is either access to Linux (sitting down at a computer that has it already installed and going with it) or specific applications. Most people have never seen a Linux desktop. And those that do rarely get their favorite applications. I would love to go to my local Fry's, walk down a software aisle, and pick up a software package knowing there's a native Linux install included in the box. I'm fine with most OSS alternatives. But I'd also like the choice. Competition is good.
Interesting. Race condition. Thanks for the tips!
Do you happen to have a reference for that? I wouldn't be suprised if their logging is that lackluster. Seems security is often an after-thought (and by then its really difficult to deal with).
Thanks for the tip! Reporting spam was sort of loosing its novelty value anyway.
As for (nearly) automatic logging of complaints: SpamSentry addon. Turn spammers in to a minigame (kind of). That'll hold you over until the new patch hits that does exactly what you're asking for.
As for ignoring the account... I doubt that's going to do any good. More than likely the spammers are using cheap, throw-away trial accounts. Spammers are simply going to start churning through them a little faster. You'll still see spam.
What you're missing is that maybe the "OSS philosophy" is a valid consideration for "effectiveness". Again - "best" and "effective" being subjective. Keep in mind that these choices also involve a lot of other subjective considerations - support / confidence in the provider, cost, personal knowledge, etc. To say that FOSS is an invalid consideration is cherry-picking.
Hehe... any "I choose FOSS" thread inevitably includes someone touting the "best tool for the job" mantra. What I find amusing is the implication that FOSS doesn't apply to this concept. It also implies that "best" is defined by a single ultimate truth. Even more amusing is this is posted in response to someone noting:
As for me, myself... I tend to try and weight these kinds of complex decisions. In my own personal decision process, F/OSS gets a lot of weight on that alone. But that doesn't mean other considerations won't occasionally having me ultimately choose a proprietary offering. Although such options tend to start off at a disadvantage... so they better be very compelling to make my own personal cut. I suspect a lot of folks around here are like that.
Incidentally... before we get too comfortable with the "best tool" mantra... keep in mind that the FOSS camp isn't alone. I've seen folks with the Microsoft religion outright ignore anything without a Microsoft label on it. It doesn't stop at Microsoft, of course (we can throw stones at Apple, Cisco, etc. as easily). "Best tool for the job" indeed.
I would call SaaS as one of those exit strategies. SaaS doesn't have to rely on a given OS. Eventually, Microsoft won't really care if you're running Linux or their lightweight Windows. They'll have long moved to a new strategy that generates revenue no matter what platform you use and ensures they maintain control.
I'm not sure that IE is going to be as important anymore. At least... not as important as
I would expect Microsoft isn't going to be happy trying to convince you to drive your generic platform to their service offerings. They'll also want to be sure that putting that platform together involved a fee against their patent portfolio. And they'll also want to be sure the "right" pieces were implemented so their ideas of the future of computing is what comes to pass.
I would hazard to guess that's one of the goals. Ultimately, someone who's on top of the game wants to maintain the status quo - not only because it's profitable, but it also enables them to control the game and therefore ensure they remain on top. However, things are changing.
OSS is disruptive. It converts software markets in to commodity markets - or at least is currently threatening to do so with the operating system. Commodity markets are difficult to deal with. They're hard to control and make a sizable profit in. But it is possible to do both if you can find a choke-point or unique way of dealing with that market.
Microsoft's fortune was made on just such a strategy (albeit probably accidental). IBM lost control of their microcomputer platform (aka IBM PC) - it spawned a hardware commodity market that we still enjoy today. But while every "PC" sale didn't mean a sale for IBM, it did almost guarantee a sale for Microsoft and their OS product(s). That was the edge to profiting and eventually controlling the commodity.
Microsoft is now looking for another edge as the old strategy looses effectiveness. Some new strategies involve getting out of the market before it turns commodity. But other strategies are looking for the edge to control that commodity market. And that's what we're seeing now.
True - Microsoft likely doesn't imagine they'll stop OSS development. But what they need to do is come up with some choke-points that can either be controlled or attacked. And patents are likely a big part of that.
In the re-release of the news footage, the pole splashes in first. I think it loses something - I prefer the origional.
Junk faxes are already illegal with hefty fines for those who send them. That this does not deter the practice would imply that being on a "do not call" registry would have no additional effect. In fact - there are individuals who have a long history of operating shell corporations to side-step massive fines incured through their "business" practices.
When I was a kid in highschool, I did a lot more than using a proxy to get around filtering. I circumvented all manner of school access controls. And I knew if I ever got caught, I was going to be in big trouble (lucky for me I didn't get caught). At no time did it ever dawn on me that I should blame the school for not being able to stop me.
If you're intent on being your school's Neo... then deal with the consequences for being either less clever than you thought you were or unlucky. If you can't deal with the consequences, then perhaps you should look for a different kind of entertainment.
Eh - to each their own. Sure... I have some good memories from that time period. But life got a heck of a lot better for me shortly after I graduated from Highschool and I went out in to the world and became my own person. If I were to look back and call a time period the golden days of my youth - that would be the time.
It should be noted that even the school board are not all "utter fucking mornons." Stan Magee and Ken Bryant from the Board intended to seek a quick resolution to an over-reaction:
It would seem there's some sanity to be found. Pitty the four other board members either were not available or purposely avoided the meeting that could have brought this all to a quick resolution.
I have a sister-in-law who went to a Texas education "Alternative Education Center." It wasn't because she bucked the system and wouldn't play along with the propaganda. It was because she was a self-indulgent druggie who needed different attention than most people her age. She got to go to school with a smaller class of other potential lost-causes. And it worked. She's now got her head on reasonably straight and has a fairly decent life (although it took her a few years after graduation to get there). Without this education program, I'm not sure where she would have ended up.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not endeared to the Texas highschool education system. I still laugh at the memory of a friends mom earnestly explaining how our Highschool years will be looked back on as our Golden Years. But I do see an underlying value to the idea of education. And sometimes it takes a different approach to get someone there.
Overhauling the entire process and ousting idiotic bureaucrats who make decisions like this one is an entirely different matter.
I thought I did. Fair enough. Yes - i can agree with enforcement of this regulation to suppress political speech within the military would be unethical and un-American (and an abuse of power).
But just to make sure we don't get carried away - it should also be noted that there are very sensible limitations to political speech within the military. There's the issue of security. And there's the issue of the uniform.
I've already touched on the security issue mentioning EEFIs. I would also like to add that the problem with "security" is that such concerns can also be abused ("the terrorists have already won"). But none the less, the issue must be considered.
The second issue is that as a military member, one has to be careful of context. In my military experience, service members were strongly encouraged to be a part of the political process. Care was taken to not officially endorse any particular political leaning. And care was also taken to ensure individuals who were motivated by this encouragement ensured they acted out of uniform and avoided giving the impression that the military as a whole supported any particular political leanings.
Unclassified information is a tricky issue - more on this later. The issue of political opinions is another matter. However, I'm not aware of this happening. Sure - it is possible this will happen. But the threat of such abuse of power has always existed within the military. Please cite an example where this is happening now.
The US military has a concept called EEFIs - Essential Elements of Friendly Information. The concept is that you take a number of non-classified data points and, through proper analysis, determine classified information. Most people do not have the mindset to apply this to their daily lives... and that includes military personnel. But when your life evolves around sensitive information, a daily diary or espousing various opinions and observations could very much offer a great source for people data mining for EEFIs.
Now having said that... I do see some reasons to be cautious of this regulation. One is covered in the article:
Beurocracy rarely deals with complexity well and beurocrats do tend to use a broad brush. I agree with Nuding's concerns.
My other issue is that I am, in fact, highly distrustful of the current administration. I wouldn't be shocked if somehow it overstepped its boundaries again and provided guidance in particular cases to handle situations that aren't to their liking. But this would require a chain of failure in the military itself to resist such meddling. I would like to see this failure happening before the hue and cry starts. And even if it does happen - the issue isn't necessarily the regulation itself.
Queue "The Dead Shark Sketch".
Just who is trying to redefine the English language? "Free" has more that one meaning. The exact meaning is largely dependent on context. The Oracle representative was entirely in the wrong context.
Sometimes this ambiguity of context is an innocent misunderstanding. But what makes it a hot-button for Open Source followers is that this "mistake" is often done intentionally by those who have an interest in derailing interest in Open Source use.
Focusing on fees is a red herring. Yes - business is ultimately about the bottom line. But trying to maintain the focus on fees is more about ensuring the financial battlefield remains in territory marketing departments are well accustomed to fighting. Free Software is a disruptive business model while Gratis Software is the usual loss-leader to get a foot in the door.
I completely agree. The speaker only mentioned the migration briefly as part of their speech. Quantas didn't return queries for details at the time of writing. And most likely, this is one of those competitive advantage things where you just aren't going to have Quantas giving away details.
In any case... all this is well out of the bounds of my initial comment.
Sure - there might be some underlying emotional / personal investment involved in this particular case. However... it does also touch on a grander thing.
There's been this idea out there that started somewhere around the The Cluetrain Manifesto and is often an undercurrent to "Web 2.0". The concept is that advertising is going to change in this new environment ushered in by the Internet. And somewhere in this change is a more honest line of communication between seller and consumer. Old media advertising elements and strategies need not apply.
This particular event and associated article indicates that old media strategies are simply dawning a more subtle sheep suit. In the past, advertisers moved from the jingle and sponsored TV spokespeople to heavily stylized commercials and product placements. Likewise, advertisers are shifting strategies to deal with more cynical marks in a new environment. The mechanics required to keep old-style marketing moving on the Internet are being created... and are offered today.
Beyond any personal disagreement between CmdrTaco and Kevin Rose is the realization that marketers have adapted. And if you wish for your platform to be a element of change, you also must adapt. Let the arms race continue anew.
Sure. But the parent's argument was entirely concerning support contracts although it was presented as an argument on system design.
Are we talking about system design or support contracts? You can get a support contract for Linux. You can also run other systems w/out support contracts and run in to the same issue you described.