So we've got the CBDTPA to (hopefully not) let them "own" all the digital devices, and now they want to go after analog. How long before they claim people are using 802.11 and come up with something to let them steal the airwaves?
--
"Hey, good thing they're coming after my 28.8kbps modem...this thing is just like a crazy piratin' machine! I got 2 mp3's this month!"
Of course it doesn't help that there is no recognized equivalent to the MCSE program - how do you then justify who you hire?
It doesn't hurt either. The DoD doesn't just grab some MCSE who took a 4 week course, just like they wouldn't touch some RHCE who paid his cash and learned how to do the basics. Linux is UNIX-ish, so they're more likely to find admins with 20 or 30 years experience for it than WIndows (especially since Windows hasn't been on networks that long).
I imagine there is no shortage of competent, experienced admins who are out of work right now, because they don't do Windows. Maybe a bonus of ditching Win for Linux is the talent-hiring...no MCSE's clouding the pool and blocking your view of the potentially good hires. Imagine never having to see buzzwords like "robust" or "streamlined" on a resume again.
The domain measure, approved on a 406-2 vote, would have the federal government oversee a ".kids.us" domain on the Internet that would have only material appropriate for children under 13.... Parents could set computer software to limit a child's access to only addresses ending in.kids.us.
Well, there goes the internet as an educational tool for children. The internet was almost like the answer to what the government thinks is appropriate for our kids.
So I'm sure we'll have buytoys.kids.us and gap.kids.us, but they either expect thousands of educational websites to grab a new TLD, or kids to look at nothing but cute online shopping wishlists. Or they don't care, but want to be seen doing something.
The only difference is the "highly regarded ACLU" will stand up to fight this as opposed to "a bunch of right wing gun nuts" in the case of the second ammendment.
Not the only difference. The other key difference is free speech, in the hands of everyone will do less damage than a tool designed to take lives in the hands of everyone. Whatever your views are on gun-control/gun-rights, I think everyone can agree that there are at least a few people who shouldn't have guns because it puts us all at risk (think: drive-by, innocents caught in cross-fire). Words can't be misused in a way to truly hurt someone, but a gun pointed and fired by an irresponsible individual will most likely terminate a life.
Again, no matter your stance on the gun-laws (I still have no formal stance), I hope people can see the difference between a weapon and a word. Guns, by design, are meant to kill or cause injury...that's their purpose. Speech is meant to exchange thoughts and ideas...that's its purpose. Worst case scenario with free speech: people will squander it.
This seems like it would fall under Feist v Rural Telephone Company, the "facts and 'sweat of the brow' cannot be copyrighted" ruling. In that, they found a phonebook was not copyrightable, as the information was not original and publically available. A FAQ is similar; "writing" one consists of copy and paste, and by that ruling can't be considered an original work.
Funny, why is it that so many judgments end up wrong, if they're only looking out for people's rights?
Worse, why does it cost so much money when the judgment does end up "right", and it was painfully obvious that it was so, all along?
And by far, the worst, if lawyers are just trying to protect people from injustice, why are the vast majority of them apathetic, weaselly, or just plain evil?
Lawyers use words like "speculation" and "hearsay". If you're going to throw around phrases like "vast majority... are evil", provide some facts.
Do you have the statistics for how many cases end up "wrong"? Are you well-enough versed, legally, to understand what "wrong" is? Sometimes the judgement sucks, but that's how it had to turn out and sometimes we don't like the ruling, though it is in accordance with the way the law was written. There are definitely times when the ruling was just plain screwed, but if you're suggesting they're in the majority provide some evidence.
One reason it may seem "so many cases turn out wrong" is that you never turn on the nightly news and hear "and a man caught with the smoking gun was convicted of murder today. We all totally saw this coming". The only ones we here about are the sensational and racy ones our media thinks are worth reporting.
The obvious solution for this, when the courts are completely ignorant, and the politicians have been bought off by Big Media(TM) is to go ahead and code whatever you want and put the programs on servers overseas.
And when your friends are on fire, the solution is just to find new friends.
Do you really think this is about playing DVD's on a computer? It's about not being allowed, legally forbidden, to play a DVD on my computer unless they say it's ok. Running away just makes them chase you. I'd rather get my rights back and fix the laws that are broken, than just accept it and hide my stash of renegade source code in some other country.
the people that died were sick evil fucks as opposed to honest good citizens? Corrupt politicians, corrupt judges, rapists, murderers, child-molesters, and other criminals, as opposed to honest law-abiding citizens? The slime of the earth like these fucks at PETA, CC (Christian Coalition), NAMBLA, RIAA, and the MPAA, as opposed to honest law-abiding citizens?
What laws has PETA broken? Or, do they deserve to die slowly, simply because you disagree with them personally? That is inhumane. As much as most people here dislike the RIAA and MPAA's not letting us download music and watch DVD's the way we like, I don't think that merits burning to death either. The fact you equate an animal rights group, the music industry, the christian coalition with child molesters and rapists makes you just as bad as the groups you despise.
What's your problem with the Christian Coalition? Is it that they have a set agenda, and spread hatred against all groups and individuals who disagree with them? Good job. I'll bet if the CC distributed pamphlets about how gays, jews and pro-choice advocates are the "scum of the earth" and deserve to burn to death, you'd have a few tasty words for them. You're not saying what we all think and believe...you're just a typical ass, spouting off the same crap we've all heard Archie Bunker say before.
Repeat after me: The purpose and culture of hacking are about thinking for yourself, and not following authority blindly, so put down the jargon file and think.
Creating dichotomy helps no one. "Cracking" is a useless and harmfull term. This situation involved no hacking (or cracking, by definition), but in general we should not create the image that the use of computers is bad. If someone figures out some amazing new concept to break down TCP/IP trust and codes an example, and uses that exploit to get into a bank and move funds around, is he a hacker? Yes. Absolutely. He's also a thief, but that doesn't take away from his insightful and impressive computer skills. It just means he's also an asshole. By applying terms like "cracker", it makes people think the actual use of a computer is somehow wrong or bad, which is very dangerous, considering how few people understand computers or hacking.
you're not concerned about people that killed 3000 americans and are planning to hit US nuclear plants ?
I was down the street when the planes hit...some of my friends weren't lucky enough to be so far away. Safe to say, I care. My point was simply that there are only two things we can do to stop terrorism: a) stop giving them reasons to bomb us and (b) stop funding terrorists! Nothing we've done so far solves anything, certainly not the things I've named. I never mentioned giving up security...but if someone is enough of a sap to duck and cover any time a legislator says "I'm doing this to stop terrorism", they really shouldn't be here.
Oh, and "they" have been planning to "hit US nuclear plants" since about a week after the nuclear plants went up. Hasn't happened, or even come close. It's either a load of shiite, or not enough for me to spend my life worrying about it.
While I will agree people jump to the Orwell phase a bit quick, I don't think he was comparing the current reality to 1984, but the potential for it. As the saying goes, Hitler never campainged with "You know what Germany needs? more concentration camps".
It starts with marketing. Then it goes to "national security". Then "protecting your freedoms". Wait, no, we're already there. If there's no public outcry against invasions of privacy, combined with the public's fear of the specter of (spooky voice)terrrorism, we're on the fast lane to a shiny new life, happy drugs, a Department of Homeland Security (which Orwell himself couldn't have named better) and constant monitoring of what we do.
Think about it this way: when they put up cameras to watch the crowds, no one flinched. The government admits to having the ability to read all our email or listen to phone calls, no one cared. Bags are searched, homes are searched, radio stations taken off the air, drug testing, informers cutting deals, marshall law (lockdown for fear of terrorism). If no one even notices or cares when privacy policies you agree to flip over, who's going to complain about "the PATRIOT Act" or "the USA act"? Or, in 2005 the "International Let's Oversee Virtually Everything Near You" Act?
Corporations are compiling information on what we do, buy and sell, watch and hear...and if one more terrorist attack occurs, our government will take it, no matter what kind of "privacy policy" Yahoo sends us an email about.
If everyone is apathetic to this, I'm afraid by the time they do care we'll already be living in a brave new world. How farfetched is it, really? We're not there now, but when should we acknowledge the possibility?
A team of researchers from I.B.M.'s Thomas J. Watson Laboratory in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., said they would present a report at the conference based on their discovery...
Dmitri called. He said if you see any guys in cheap suits applauding on stage right, exit stage left.
1) If Open Source Software is made illegal in the US, the majority of linux users disappear. So, anyone with an interest in keeping Mandrake and SuSE alive should pay attention, as both distributions will lose a large portion of their user base without Americans buying. Otherwise, just buy the one you like; that's ok, too.
2)No one called you a fascist. It was an analogy.
3)Their analogy was reasonably accurate. Boycotting CompanyX because CompanyX is being unjustly attacked is just goddamn crazy. If you want to boycott the corrupt lawmakers trying to "outlaw OSS", you'd have to boycott everything from the US or at least let them know you're doing it. Buying Mandrake instead of Red Hat, because Red Hat might get screwed, doesn't hurt the lawmakers.
My personal opinion, based on what you chose to write:
Buy the distribution you like. Use it to bring up your text editor of choice and write a nice letter to Fritz Hollings, or even better, some news organizations. On a slow news day, they may blurb about the grassroots businesses being attacked by the government-in-bed-with-Microsoft machine. Continue using the distribution you like. Use it to post anything but "I won't buy from Red Hat because their lawmakers are corrupt", on Slashdot.
Just my opinion, not worth any more or any less than everyone else's.
Seriously. The headbutt is a guy wearing a helmet (Boba Fett?). I can see some little reject putting on a hockey helmet and fracturing the skull of the kid next door, though I don't imagine we'll hear of any "school photon-blaster rampages" in the near future. They censor by what is realistic. If a kid figures out how to cut someone in half with a flashlight, the censors will get that, too.
Until that day comes, you can watch saber-duels, but not metal-helmet-adorned head cracking.
This is the classic dilema with all technology, which can be used equally to promote good as well as well as evil. Encryption software enables privacy for bad guys as well as good, just like guns protect people indescriminately. While it's a good idea in a perfect world, it can't be done. Its a variant of the old 'guns don't kill, people do'.
This is an excellent point, but not entirely relevant. As you said, it is a dilema with all technology, which is why the original question stated "does more harm than good". Meaning (using the popular examples):
Writing a proprietary encryption app for some covert terrorist network will stop government/military officials from heading them off. However, something "open to the public" that said terrorist group got their hands on would not qualify, since it has helped many people, possibly planning a revolution against some fascist dictatorship.
Something like Gator/Ad-agent help a few people (if they're in marketing, are they still people?), however it screws the computers and invades the privacy of many many more..thus doing "more harm than good".
Sklarov - AEBPR allows easy viewing of ebooks across machines, allows the blind to read books and helps quite a few people. It could be abused, but that isn't the intent: more good than harm.
It's all up to personal ethics...which I think many programmers need to work on first. Evidence of this? Check out your local University's CS classes...count the number of "degree-and-job-getters" versus kids who really love what they do. Count how many "there should be a law preventing..." posts on Slashdot versus "We need to stop doing this" ones.
We've got to change ourselves first from the inside out.
Read his answers- you'll see that he's doing his best to tell the truth and give factual information, as opposed to blurt out opinions
Factual information? From the article:
"Hodges asked him to name an operating system besides those made by Microsoft in which the Web browsing software could not be removed. Madnick immediately offered up KDE as an example. But KDE is a computer program designed to run on top of the Linux operating system, as Hodges pointed out. Madnick conceded that was true, and instead suggested GNOME as an example. "
Factual..? KDE is not an operating system, nor is GNOME. Also, one command removes the browser from my machine, while GNOME or KDE are still running no worse for wear. His statements were totally false, and irrelevant anyway.
I do agree partially, though: the guy isn't stupid, and for that reason we shouldn't be laughing. Smart people don't make stupid mistakes, only stupid moves they're paid to make. I'm sure an MIT CS professor who has heard of KDE knows KDE isn't an OS...but he still offered it as an example. There's a reason for it, I'm sure we'll see it soon enough.
easiest way to steal credit card numbers is to get a job in a retail outlet and record numbers of customers cards.
Customer: Excuse me, sir?
Me: *stares at credit card*
Customer: Hello? Are you going to ring up that sale, or what?
Me: *stares at credit card*
Customer: What the hell are you doing??
Me: *stares at credit card*
Customer: You're not trying to memorize those 16 digits plus expiration date, are you?
Me: *stares at credit card*
Customer: That's it, I'm going to another store!
Me: *stares at credit card*
Me: Oh, sorry, I was just...umm...lost in the beauty of this blue swirly chip in the middle.
The reviewer claims that the Windows/Outlook combination is inherently inferior in terms of security, because users have too many privileges on the host system.
I don't see what this has to do with Outlook.
I think the quote was misleading, or just assumed we'd assume. Windows/Outlook is inherently inferior because users have too many privileges on the system, which lets those.VBS's toast the system when some sap forgot to disable them, or didn't realize upgrading Outlook with the default settings would put support for them back in.
If I was to run Evolution on Windows I'd have exactly the same problem
There's no scripting support in evolution (at least, not yet). I don't know of any security problems with it. I'm sure someone could configure it to make Word the default editor, thus allowing that MS flaw of surpassing macro checks, but that's not "inherent". Outlook tries to do too much, which is a recipee for disaster. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Not really, goto mwave.com and get the motherboard bunddle and throw in a HD, video and case and your set.
So just buy the motherboard and cpu...then buy a hard drive, video, case, ethernet and all the parts you need and assemble them. You're right, that's much easier than assembling your own from parts.
As the other post basically said, this isn't about having a MS-less computer on your desk, it's about having one on the shelves of a major retailer. If one does it, maybe other companies will follow suit, and allow consumers a choice (even if that choice is Win2k vs WinXP vs WinME).
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered the muppet community when recently IDC confirmed that Red Hat accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all muppets.
I read practically nothing but one sort of SF or another, and I'm not even vaguely interested in the space program. So why should *I* be taxed for it??
George Orwell's novel 1984 is considered SciFi by many, as are a lot of popular works of fiction that have nothing to do with space exploration. Your point brings up what needs to be said: I'm into the science fiction, that doesn't automatically mean I'm into the reality of science. It's stereotyping...next will be "All Star Trek, Dungeons and Dragons and pocket protectors will be taxed to subsidize computer corporations". Pretty insulting, in a way.
If he wants to give people a voice, I'm all for it, in the right way. Line item taxation? When I fill out those forms for filing my taxes, why not add a page where I rate on a scale of 1 (spend almost none of of my money) to 5 (spend almost all of my money) each major, general issue.
Teacher's salaries: 5
Nuclear Weapons: 1
Art and Music in schools: 5
Environment: 4
We can have the thing tallied in a few hours, and publish the general results. The politicians don't have to follow it, but their competition has the right to say "The public said they wanted X lowered and Y increased, but he did the opposite". And we won't have to vote for them. Seems a lot nicer than saying 'the scifi people must want to fund the new NASA technology that's just going to get taken over for militaristic purposes anyway'.
Slashdot Mirror
So we've got the CBDTPA to (hopefully not) let them "own" all the digital devices, and now they want to go after analog. How long before they claim people are using 802.11 and come up with something to let them steal the airwaves?
--
"Hey, good thing they're coming after my 28.8kbps modem...this thing is just like a crazy piratin' machine! I got 2 mp3's this month!"
Of course it doesn't help that there is no recognized equivalent to the MCSE program - how do you then justify who you hire?
It doesn't hurt either. The DoD doesn't just grab some MCSE who took a 4 week course, just like they wouldn't touch some RHCE who paid his cash and learned how to do the basics. Linux is UNIX-ish, so they're more likely to find admins with 20 or 30 years experience for it than WIndows (especially since Windows hasn't been on networks that long).
I imagine there is no shortage of competent, experienced admins who are out of work right now, because they don't do Windows. Maybe a bonus of ditching Win for Linux is the talent-hiring...no MCSE's clouding the pool and blocking your view of the potentially good hires. Imagine never having to see buzzwords like "robust" or "streamlined" on a resume again.
The domain measure, approved on a 406-2 vote, would have the federal government oversee a ".kids.us" domain on the Internet that would have only material appropriate for children under 13. ... Parents could set computer software to limit a child's access to only addresses ending in .kids.us.
Well, there goes the internet as an educational tool for children. The internet was almost like the answer to what the government thinks is appropriate for our kids.
So I'm sure we'll have buytoys.kids.us and gap.kids.us, but they either expect thousands of educational websites to grab a new TLD, or kids to look at nothing but cute online shopping wishlists. Or they don't care, but want to be seen doing something.
The only difference is the "highly regarded ACLU" will stand up to fight this as opposed to "a bunch of right wing gun nuts" in the case of the second ammendment.
Not the only difference. The other key difference is free speech, in the hands of everyone will do less damage than a tool designed to take lives in the hands of everyone. Whatever your views are on gun-control/gun-rights, I think everyone can agree that there are at least a few people who shouldn't have guns because it puts us all at risk (think: drive-by, innocents caught in cross-fire). Words can't be misused in a way to truly hurt someone, but a gun pointed and fired by an irresponsible individual will most likely terminate a life.
Again, no matter your stance on the gun-laws (I still have no formal stance), I hope people can see the difference between a weapon and a word. Guns, by design, are meant to kill or cause injury...that's their purpose. Speech is meant to exchange thoughts and ideas...that's its purpose. Worst case scenario with free speech: people will squander it.
This seems like it would fall under Feist v Rural Telephone Company, the "facts and 'sweat of the brow' cannot be copyrighted" ruling. In that, they found a phonebook was not copyrightable, as the information was not original and publically available. A FAQ is similar; "writing" one consists of copy and paste, and by that ruling can't be considered an original work.
t . tml
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feis
Funny, why is it that so many judgments end up wrong, if they're only looking out for people's rights?
... are evil", provide some facts.
Worse, why does it cost so much money when the judgment does end up "right", and it was painfully obvious that it was so, all along?
And by far, the worst, if lawyers are just trying to protect people from injustice, why are the vast majority of them apathetic, weaselly, or just plain evil?
Lawyers use words like "speculation" and "hearsay". If you're going to throw around phrases like "vast majority
Do you have the statistics for how many cases end up "wrong"? Are you well-enough versed, legally, to understand what "wrong" is? Sometimes the judgement sucks, but that's how it had to turn out and sometimes we don't like the ruling, though it is in accordance with the way the law was written. There are definitely times when the ruling was just plain screwed, but if you're suggesting they're in the majority provide some evidence.
One reason it may seem "so many cases turn out wrong" is that you never turn on the nightly news and hear "and a man caught with the smoking gun was convicted of murder today. We all totally saw this coming". The only ones we here about are the sensational and racy ones our media thinks are worth reporting.
How ironic, I'm defending the lawyer.
The obvious solution for this, when the courts are completely ignorant, and the politicians have been bought off by Big Media(TM) is to go ahead and code whatever you want and put the programs on servers overseas.
And when your friends are on fire, the solution is just to find new friends.
Do you really think this is about playing DVD's on a computer? It's about not being allowed, legally forbidden, to play a DVD on my computer unless they say it's ok. Running away just makes them chase you. I'd rather get my rights back and fix the laws that are broken, than just accept it and hide my stash of renegade source code in some other country.
ok kids, just for review, THIS is legal to write:
4 2;if((@a=unqT ="C*",_)[20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@5 )&(Q>>1 2^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))<<17,O=O>>8^(E& ; F=(S=O>>14&7^O)= R^=11 0&(S=(unqT,"\xb\ntd\xbz\x14d")[_/16%8]);E@ z=(64,72,G^=12*(U-2?0:S&17)),H^=_%64?12 : ,@z)[_%8]}(16..271))[_]^((D>>=8a [128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D -HO-U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval
" Hrmm...firebombs. MPAA. Judge Kaplan's house... "
And THIS is not:
#!/usr/bin/perl
s''$/=\2048;while(<>){G=29;R=1
b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV , b25,_;H=73;O=$b[4]<<9
|256|$b[3];Q=Q>>8^(P=(E=25
^S*8^S<<6))<<9,_=(map{U=_%16orE^
^=(72,
)+=P+(~F&E))for@
Really puts things in perspective, huh?
the people that died were sick evil fucks as opposed to honest good citizens? Corrupt politicians, corrupt judges, rapists, murderers, child-molesters, and other criminals, as opposed to honest law-abiding citizens? The slime of the earth like these fucks at PETA, CC (Christian Coalition), NAMBLA, RIAA, and the MPAA, as opposed to honest law-abiding citizens?
What laws has PETA broken? Or, do they deserve to die slowly, simply because you disagree with them personally? That is inhumane. As much as most people here dislike the RIAA and MPAA's not letting us download music and watch DVD's the way we like, I don't think that merits burning to death either. The fact you equate an animal rights group, the music industry, the christian coalition with child molesters and rapists makes you just as bad as the groups you despise.
What's your problem with the Christian Coalition? Is it that they have a set agenda, and spread hatred against all groups and individuals who disagree with them? Good job. I'll bet if the CC distributed pamphlets about how gays, jews and pro-choice advocates are the "scum of the earth" and deserve to burn to death, you'd have a few tasty words for them. You're not saying what we all think and believe...you're just a typical ass, spouting off the same crap we've all heard Archie Bunker say before.
Repeat after me: this is not hacking.
This kind of activity is cracking
Repeat after me: The purpose and culture of hacking are about thinking for yourself, and not following authority blindly, so put down the jargon file and think.
Creating dichotomy helps no one. "Cracking" is a useless and harmfull term. This situation involved no hacking (or cracking, by definition), but in general we should not create the image that the use of computers is bad. If someone figures out some amazing new concept to break down TCP/IP trust and codes an example, and uses that exploit to get into a bank and move funds around, is he a hacker? Yes. Absolutely. He's also a thief, but that doesn't take away from his insightful and impressive computer skills. It just means he's also an asshole. By applying terms like "cracker", it makes people think the actual use of a computer is somehow wrong or bad, which is very dangerous, considering how few people understand computers or hacking.
you're not concerned about people that killed 3000 americans and are planning to hit US nuclear plants ?
I was down the street when the planes hit...some of my friends weren't lucky enough to be so far away. Safe to say, I care. My point was simply that there are only two things we can do to stop terrorism: a) stop giving them reasons to bomb us and (b) stop funding terrorists! Nothing we've done so far solves anything, certainly not the things I've named. I never mentioned giving up security...but if someone is enough of a sap to duck and cover any time a legislator says "I'm doing this to stop terrorism", they really shouldn't be here.
Oh, and "they" have been planning to "hit US nuclear plants" since about a week after the nuclear plants went up. Hasn't happened, or even come close. It's either a load of shiite, or not enough for me to spend my life worrying about it.
While I will agree people jump to the Orwell phase a bit quick, I don't think he was comparing the current reality to 1984, but the potential for it. As the saying goes, Hitler never campainged with "You know what Germany needs? more concentration camps".
It starts with marketing. Then it goes to "national security". Then "protecting your freedoms". Wait, no, we're already there. If there's no public outcry against invasions of privacy, combined with the public's fear of the specter of (spooky voice)terrrorism, we're on the fast lane to a shiny new life, happy drugs, a Department of Homeland Security (which Orwell himself couldn't have named better) and constant monitoring of what we do.
Think about it this way: when they put up cameras to watch the crowds, no one flinched. The government admits to having the ability to read all our email or listen to phone calls, no one cared. Bags are searched, homes are searched, radio stations taken off the air, drug testing, informers cutting deals, marshall law (lockdown for fear of terrorism). If no one even notices or cares when privacy policies you agree to flip over, who's going to complain about "the PATRIOT Act" or "the USA act"? Or, in 2005 the "International Let's Oversee Virtually Everything Near You" Act?
Corporations are compiling information on what we do, buy and sell, watch and hear...and if one more terrorist attack occurs, our government will take it, no matter what kind of "privacy policy" Yahoo sends us an email about. If everyone is apathetic to this, I'm afraid by the time they do care we'll already be living in a brave new world. How farfetched is it, really? We're not there now, but when should we acknowledge the possibility?
A team of researchers from I.B.M.'s Thomas J. Watson Laboratory in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., said they would present a report at the conference based on their discovery ...
Dmitri called. He said if you see any guys in cheap suits applauding on stage right, exit stage left.
# apt-get install redhat-rebate
...
Couldn't find package redhat-rebate.
Damn! First abiword, now this.
a few points:
1) If Open Source Software is made illegal in the US, the majority of linux users disappear. So, anyone with an interest in keeping Mandrake and SuSE alive should pay attention, as both distributions will lose a large portion of their user base without Americans buying. Otherwise, just buy the one you like; that's ok, too.
2)No one called you a fascist. It was an analogy.
3)Their analogy was reasonably accurate. Boycotting CompanyX because CompanyX is being unjustly attacked is just goddamn crazy. If you want to boycott the corrupt lawmakers trying to "outlaw OSS", you'd have to boycott everything from the US or at least let them know you're doing it. Buying Mandrake instead of Red Hat, because Red Hat might get screwed, doesn't hurt the lawmakers.
My personal opinion, based on what you chose to write:
Buy the distribution you like. Use it to bring up your text editor of choice and write a nice letter to Fritz Hollings, or even better, some news organizations. On a slow news day, they may blurb about the grassroots businesses being attacked by the government-in-bed-with-Microsoft machine. Continue using the distribution you like. Use it to post anything but "I won't buy from Red Hat because their lawmakers are corrupt", on Slashdot.
Just my opinion, not worth any more or any less than everyone else's.
Seriously. The headbutt is a guy wearing a helmet (Boba Fett?). I can see some little reject putting on a hockey helmet and fracturing the skull of the kid next door, though I don't imagine we'll hear of any "school photon-blaster rampages" in the near future. They censor by what is realistic. If a kid figures out how to cut someone in half with a flashlight, the censors will get that, too.
Until that day comes, you can watch saber-duels, but not metal-helmet-adorned head cracking.
This is an excellent point, but not entirely relevant. As you said, it is a dilema with all technology, which is why the original question stated "does more harm than good". Meaning (using the popular examples):
Writing a proprietary encryption app for some covert terrorist network will stop government/military officials from heading them off. However, something "open to the public" that said terrorist group got their hands on would not qualify, since it has helped many people, possibly planning a revolution against some fascist dictatorship.
Something like Gator/Ad-agent help a few people (if they're in marketing, are they still people?), however it screws the computers and invades the privacy of many many more..thus doing "more harm than good".
Sklarov - AEBPR allows easy viewing of ebooks across machines, allows the blind to read books and helps quite a few people. It could be abused, but that isn't the intent: more good than harm.
It's all up to personal ethics...which I think many programmers need to work on first. Evidence of this? Check out your local University's CS classes...count the number of "degree-and-job-getters" versus kids who really love what they do. Count how many "there should be a law preventing..." posts on Slashdot versus "We need to stop doing this" ones.
We've got to change ourselves first from the inside out.
I'm surprised they didn't find a janitor from MIT to testify.
Do you like Apple Macintosh?
*shrugs*
Well I got the highest mah-ket share. Howd'ya like dem Apples?
/A>
Read his answers- you'll see that he's doing his best to tell the truth and give factual information, as opposed to blurt out opinions
Factual information? From the article:
"Hodges asked him to name an operating system besides those made by Microsoft in which the Web browsing software could not be removed. Madnick immediately offered up KDE as an example. But KDE is a computer program designed to run on top of the Linux operating system, as Hodges pointed out. Madnick conceded that was true, and instead suggested GNOME as an example. "
Factual..? KDE is not an operating system, nor is GNOME. Also, one command removes the browser from my machine, while GNOME or KDE are still running no worse for wear. His statements were totally false, and irrelevant anyway.
I do agree partially, though: the guy isn't stupid, and for that reason we shouldn't be laughing. Smart people don't make stupid mistakes, only stupid moves they're paid to make. I'm sure an MIT CS professor who has heard of KDE knows KDE isn't an OS...but he still offered it as an example. There's a reason for it, I'm sure we'll see it soon enough.
easiest way to steal credit card numbers is to get a job in a retail outlet and record numbers of customers cards.
Customer: Excuse me, sir?
Me: *stares at credit card*
Customer: Hello? Are you going to ring up that sale, or what?
Me: *stares at credit card*
Customer: What the hell are you doing??
Me: *stares at credit card*
Customer: You're not trying to memorize those 16 digits plus expiration date, are you?
Me: *stares at credit card*
Customer: That's it, I'm going to another store!
Me: *stares at credit card*
Me: Oh, sorry, I was just...umm...lost in the beauty of this blue swirly chip in the middle.
Well, they allow us to get free credit card numbers!
The reviewer claims that the Windows/Outlook combination is inherently inferior in terms of security, because users have too many privileges on the host system.
.VBS's toast the system when some sap forgot to disable them, or didn't realize upgrading Outlook with the default settings would put support for them back in.
I don't see what this has to do with Outlook.
I think the quote was misleading, or just assumed we'd assume. Windows/Outlook is inherently inferior because users have too many privileges on the system, which lets those
If I was to run Evolution on Windows I'd have exactly the same problem
There's no scripting support in evolution (at least, not yet). I don't know of any security problems with it. I'm sure someone could configure it to make Word the default editor, thus allowing that MS flaw of surpassing macro checks, but that's not "inherent". Outlook tries to do too much, which is a recipee for disaster. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
Not really, goto mwave.com and get the motherboard bunddle and throw in a HD, video and case and your set.
So just buy the motherboard and cpu...then buy a hard drive, video, case, ethernet and all the parts you need and assemble them. You're right, that's much easier than assembling your own from parts.
As the other post basically said, this isn't about having a MS-less computer on your desk, it's about having one on the shelves of a major retailer. If one does it, maybe other companies will follow suit, and allow consumers a choice (even if that choice is Win2k vs WinXP vs WinME).
Netcraft has confirmed: Jim Henson is Dying!
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered the muppet community when recently IDC confirmed that Red Hat accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all muppets.
Fact: Jim Henson is dead.
Ok, so maybe that was a wee bit offsides...
I read practically nothing but one sort of SF or another, and I'm not even vaguely interested in the space program. So why should *I* be taxed for it??
George Orwell's novel 1984 is considered SciFi by many, as are a lot of popular works of fiction that have nothing to do with space exploration. Your point brings up what needs to be said: I'm into the science fiction, that doesn't automatically mean I'm into the reality of science. It's stereotyping...next will be "All Star Trek, Dungeons and Dragons and pocket protectors will be taxed to subsidize computer corporations". Pretty insulting, in a way.
If he wants to give people a voice, I'm all for it, in the right way. Line item taxation? When I fill out those forms for filing my taxes, why not add a page where I rate on a scale of 1 (spend almost none of of my money) to 5 (spend almost all of my money) each major, general issue.
Teacher's salaries: 5
Nuclear Weapons: 1
Art and Music in schools: 5
Environment: 4
We can have the thing tallied in a few hours, and publish the general results. The politicians don't have to follow it, but their competition has the right to say "The public said they wanted X lowered and Y increased, but he did the opposite". And we won't have to vote for them. Seems a lot nicer than saying 'the scifi people must want to fund the new NASA technology that's just going to get taken over for militaristic purposes anyway'.
Just an opinion.