While I generally agree with your post, I'm not entirely sure it was 100% accurate. Can you back up your claim that the US military "was supposed to be f***ing DISBANDED after WWII"?
I'm generally very libertarian myself, but I believe that it is in our best interests to have a standing military that is given the best training (which takes years, by the way) and prepared to instantly respond to a threat.
To be intellectually honest, I will tell you that I have a financial interest in the US maintaining a standing military (I work for the Navy). Nonetheless, the constitution states that the duty of government is to provide for the common defense, and I don't believe that what would essentially amount to a national standby militia can sufficiently carry out that duty.
"Maybe this is the first step of Google trying to provide universal storage for everyone."
Imagine for a moment that this story was about Microsoft, and the ensuing madness that the statement "Maybe this is the first step of Microsoft trying to provide universal storage for everyone" would cause.
But because it's Google, Slashdot readers give them a free pass. What makes you all think that Google's intent is so purely benevolent? I would think that the suspicious nature of Slashdotters would regard such an expansive enterprise with much skepticism.
Fox News is an AM talk radio show? That's news to me!
Besides, I doubt you've ever even watched Fox News. And it's only natural that, after a decade of news entirely from the Left, anything representing both sides is going to appear Right in comparison.
AM talk radio shows rarely (if ever) claim objectivity. A website that calls itself "News" should be expected to adhere to some stardard of journalistic integrity.
Perhaps Slashdot should change their slogan to "Commentary for Nerds..."
'But, he can strongly suggest to jane and others that it might be in jane's career interest to do the same."
Nope, 100% illegal. We have labor laws in place that prohibit such coersion. If "Jane" feels that "Jane's Boss" is pressuring her to vote/contribute a certain way, that's grounds for an open-and-shut lawsuit.
When was the last time you saw a story here about Bush or Republicans that wasn't given a negative spin?
I'm not saying that Bush or Republicans are perfect by any means, and that by and large most Slashdot readers (and posters) tend to lean left. But editors should at least try to maintain some semblance of objectivity in the headlines. Otherwise they risk becoming a partisan political action website, not "News for nerds."
But what about every less-famous open source developer or group of developers? If you're going to reward damages to "open source" you have to be fair and give an equal share to every OSS developer.
It's the same logistical impossibility that makes slavery reparations a bad idea.
"P2P could be an important way of distributing information in the future"
Maybe so, but today it's mostly used to engage in illegal distribution of copyrighted works. But then, this isn't about getting rid of P2P either.
The RIAA knows they can't successfully eliminate P2P because of its legitimate uses. However they are well within their right to go after individuals who break the law.
"GNOME 2.6 was scheduled to be released sometime today, however after evidence of possible intrusion on the web server, the release has been delayed by one week, until March 31st."
Something's not right here. Does this mean that the Gnome website is hosted on an IIS webserver? I mean, we all know that only IIS servers are insecure.
Or could it be that system security depends more on diligent admins than software?
"If the EU is smart it will force Microsoft to donate to CASH to open source, or educational groups"
What is this "Open Source" entity that would collect the money? And what "educational groups" would be eligible, only those that preach (and yes, I do mean preach) the values of OSS?
One of the successful components of OSS is it's distributed, decentralized nature. The downside, of course, is that it makes it impossible for OSS developers to collect on damages paid by companies like Microsoft.
My guess is that this money will go directly to the EU coffers.
"The thinking is that OSS = cheaper = a good thing."
Before you call it a "good thing" did you ever stop and consider whether that statement is accurate?
Just because it's open source, it doesn't automatically make it more useful, or imply sufficient support, or even meet the specific needs of the government.
Hell, using OSS doesn't even mean that it is in fact cheaper! I work at a government institution and we have worked with free software. Sure, the software itself didn't cost us anything, but getting support for the piece of crap cost us (literally) millions.
The grandparent poster is RIGHT ON! Only blind zealotry can explain the knee-jerk "OSS IS ALWAYS GOOD!" reaction to these stories.
"Optical scanning by a computer sounds like e-voting to me."
The scanning of paper ballots with a machine has been done for years, and it wasn't called "e-voting" back then. The fact that an optical scanner is now used for the same task doesn't change the nature of the counting method.
The U.S. Navy has an exclusive infrastructure contract with EDS. The program is called the Navy and Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). I should know, I work for the Navy and have to deal with the crap EDS sold us on a daily basis.
Usually it's the people trying to make the comparison who trivialize the evil that were Hitler and the Nazis. Godwin's Law only identifies these trivial comparisons.
The problem is people who can't substantiate thier arguments, not Godwin's Law.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post just seemed to be an appropriate place to point out that nobody seemed one iota suspicious about Google's motives in this latest venture.
I'm generally very libertarian myself, but I believe that it is in our best interests to have a standing military that is given the best training (which takes years, by the way) and prepared to instantly respond to a threat.
To be intellectually honest, I will tell you that I have a financial interest in the US maintaining a standing military (I work for the Navy). Nonetheless, the constitution states that the duty of government is to provide for the common defense, and I don't believe that what would essentially amount to a national standby militia can sufficiently carry out that duty.
Imagine for a moment that this story was about Microsoft, and the ensuing madness that the statement "Maybe this is the first step of Microsoft trying to provide universal storage for everyone" would cause.
But because it's Google, Slashdot readers give them a free pass. What makes you all think that Google's intent is so purely benevolent? I would think that the suspicious nature of Slashdotters would regard such an expansive enterprise with much skepticism.
Besides, I doubt you've ever even watched Fox News. And it's only natural that, after a decade of news entirely from the Left, anything representing both sides is going to appear Right in comparison.
Remember, you don't own an X-Box (and therefore can't mod it, etc), you lisence it.
Perhaps Slashdot should change their slogan to "Commentary for Nerds..."
For example, other employees who given similar "career advice" could testify oh Jane's behalf.
I'm using Lynx. What's this "interface" you speak of? Sounds unnecessarily flashy and complicated, if you ask me...
Nope, 100% illegal. We have labor laws in place that prohibit such coersion. If "Jane" feels that "Jane's Boss" is pressuring her to vote/contribute a certain way, that's grounds for an open-and-shut lawsuit.
I'm not saying that Bush or Republicans are perfect by any means, and that by and large most Slashdot readers (and posters) tend to lean left. But editors should at least try to maintain some semblance of objectivity in the headlines. Otherwise they risk becoming a partisan political action website, not "News for nerds."
I think it's funny that OO is basically putting out a word processor a decade behind in technology, and then calling it a feature.
It's the same logistical impossibility that makes slavery reparations a bad idea.
Maybe so, but today it's mostly used to engage in illegal distribution of copyrighted works. But then, this isn't about getting rid of P2P either.
The RIAA knows they can't successfully eliminate P2P because of its legitimate uses. However they are well within their right to go after individuals who break the law.
I'm afraid you're confusing "wanting free shit" with "essential liberty". Your rhetoric is as inaccurate as it is tiring.
If what Waugh says is true, it speaks volumes of the competantce of Red Hat's webserver admins.
Could it be that having competant, diligent system admistrators is more important than using the "right" server platform?
Something's not right here. Does this mean that the Gnome website is hosted on an IIS webserver? I mean, we all know that only IIS servers are insecure.
Or could it be that system security depends more on diligent admins than software?
What is this "Open Source" entity that would collect the money? And what "educational groups" would be eligible, only those that preach (and yes, I do mean preach) the values of OSS?
One of the successful components of OSS is it's distributed, decentralized nature. The downside, of course, is that it makes it impossible for OSS developers to collect on damages paid by companies like Microsoft.
My guess is that this money will go directly to the EU coffers.
Before you call it a "good thing" did you ever stop and consider whether that statement is accurate?
Just because it's open source, it doesn't automatically make it more useful, or imply sufficient support, or even meet the specific needs of the government.
Hell, using OSS doesn't even mean that it is in fact cheaper! I work at a government institution and we have worked with free software. Sure, the software itself didn't cost us anything, but getting support for the piece of crap cost us (literally) millions.
The grandparent poster is RIGHT ON! Only blind zealotry can explain the knee-jerk "OSS IS ALWAYS GOOD!" reaction to these stories.
The scanning of paper ballots with a machine has been done for years, and it wasn't called "e-voting" back then. The fact that an optical scanner is now used for the same task doesn't change the nature of the counting method.
The fact that the ballots are 'counted' by a machine doesn't make this an "e-voting" story.
This problem has been around for YEARS! Nothing to see here, folks. Take off your tinfoil hats and move along.
This Michael guy is a 100% liar.
The problem is people who can't substantiate thier arguments, not Godwin's Law.
Take that, subscribers!
Seriously, though, this practice shouldn't be rewarded with more free publicity for these products or their "reviews".