As a born citizen of the U.S. of A., I can tell you that I am just as confused by us as you are. We seem to have lost our way, but damned if I know what we can do about it, since no one in Washington seems to be listening anymore.
Memorials exist to remind us things in the past that were great, not always good, but great. The Lincoln Memorial reminds us of the great words of a perhaps flawed man while the Vietnam Memorial reminds us of the horrible loss of life in a war we didn't exactly win or lose. Some things exist to remind us that we occasionally create amazing, revolutionary inventions or that something which once existed does not exist anymore. Memorials tie the present to the past in a very physical way. While I am all in favor of moving into the future as fast as possible, we can't just shuck the past like a snakeskin.
Some memorials may not make sense to you, but insisting that they only exist to remind of things around today demonstrates a shallow view of history and self-centered view of the scope of our entire existence on this planet.
The "extra cost" actually becomes a slight savings, if the product is designed correctly. Consider: in the instance of two separate products, designed separately, with higher and lower functionality respectively, you require two different assembly lines, with two different approaches to creating two different products.
With the crippled version and the non-cripple version, you still require two assembly lines, but they are duplicates for most of the line, and perhaps require only removal of one or two positions to create the cripple versions of your hardware. You save time and money by creating one assembly line and effectively duplicating it for the lesser (or perhaps the greater) version.
You can even do it with one assembly line and some sort of selector programming where every fifth product is the higher level product (assuming it has one-fifth of the sales).
So you save some money on the manufacturing side. You also save money on the R&D side by creating two cards with only minor differences vs. creating two completely different cards.
It's pretty much the same as producing a car with a tape deck vs. cd player. The research is much the same, but the tape deck fits in the same slot as the CD player, and any room you would have used for the automatic changer is just extra space.
When somebody relases a virus, they are saying, hey there's a problem here that needs immediate attention or just about anyone can take over your computer.
I disagree - instead of trying to fix the problem, they are exploiting it to cause damage, if not directly, then indirectly by releasing it to other with potentially lower or no ethics whatsoever.
It's kind of a double-edged sword. One the one hand, the work they do has admittedly beneficial side effects.
On the other hand, do you point out the flawed wiring in a theatre and hope that someone fixes it, or do you just wait until 100 people have died screaming in a burning building and then point it out as something to watch out for in the future?
My final thought is - these guys walk a very fine line, usually on the wrong side, and should be punished for wilfull damage to other's property. Preferably very harshly, because they certainly knew what they were doing.
They don't have a wide range of paint colors and picking up chicks with them can be hard - but they do what they are built for, and they do it very well.
You mean staring at UFO's and conjugal relations with not-quite-second cousins?
Sorry. Someone had to say it - might as well be me.
More on point - if FreeBSD is dying - why is everyone so determined to point out that it is dying (which it isn't)? Wishful thinking?
The corporation gets a free (as in beer) codebase which they can then market and possibly make huge amounts of cash, while giving nothing back to the community from which they leeched.
So, right out of the box, you assume Apple (inferred from context in relation to grandparent post) is going to screw the Open Source community because they're a corporation? That's pretty unfair, considering that Apple has been pretty decent about giving back to the codebase they share with Konqueror.
You have exactly - repeat, exactly - the same opportunity to screw over the community that Apple or anyone else does - actually, a better opportunity. No one cares who you are right now - there aren't a million little eyes just hoping that you will step out of line just once so it will confirm their pet suspicions.
Get over it. Some corporations are bad, some are not so bad. Apple may not be perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than much larger and better funded corporations out there. Why assume they're guilty before they've even done anything?
Is there any legal way to prevent SCO from ever using his code under any circumstances? Say, a clause that says "This license shall apply to all companies, except SCO, which is restricted from ever using or in any other way gaining any knowledge from aformentioned work."
A sort of SCO exception clause in the GPL? Then you could nail them to the wall for even having a CD of any release of Linux after the license was changed.
Actually, when he should have resigned is when he was debating the meaning of the word "is". That starts to look a little ridiculous.
I was always a little disappointed he didn't stand up at the beginning and go "yeah, I did it. So what?". If anyone could have done that and gotten away with it, it would have been him.
There are certain key words that apparently give one a free pass to lie to Congress: national security, uranium, patriotism, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, world terrorism, and nukular.
Otherwise, lying to Congress is illegal. If you received sexual favors and lied to Congress about it, then it's like double-secret illegal.
If you are a contributor, or an energy company, or work for an energy company, or know the names of an energy company, then lying isn't illegal.
I would mention something about farm subsidies, but that's not really about tech, and besides, no one here is rich enough to be a farmer, probably.
If you check the Google Zeitgeist, you will notice that the percentage of people using browsers other than IE is pretty much insignificant (don't blame me, I don't use IE, either). So, basically, it doesn't matter who invented it - if IE implements it, it's important. If they don't, not enough people use an alternative for it make much of a difference anyway.
This kind of cell phone tracking would go far to help find missing kids before they end up dead and in a ditch.
I'd actually go along with that argument if the cellphone manufacturers would limit it to certain models or types of cellphones. Or perhaps make that the only reason a message could come up on my cellphone.
The problem is: they won't. They'll sell the technology to all takers and so every advertiser in the world will have access to my phone, even though I'm the one stuck paying for the time it takes to receive the message. I'm all in favor of voluntarily doing one's civic duty, but I choose to do it in my own time and in my own way and the more people try to ram stuff down my throat because "it's for the kids" the more pissed off I get.
It's the universal excuse of our time, along with anything involving Homeland Security.
I think I would argue that since we don't have any sort of "right" to entertainment, as such, then it probably doesn't apply.
What's really fascinating is the noise level this issue is attaining. What percentage of the physical population of the US (and the world, I suppose, since The Sims is ostensibly marketed outside the US) actually plays the game. Then ask yourself what percentage actually plays it online.
This is, to steal line from some famous poet, a "whole lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
The simplest answer is "my house, my rules". There is a clear separation between government censorship and private censorship.
In a sense, the People own the United States (irony, I know) and as such, the government (because it is owned by The People) cannot impose rules that prevent The People from speaking their mind. Now, certain allowances have been made for community standards and what not (and probably not wisely or justly), but all-in-all, very few compromises can be made to that rule without chucking it altogether. Since it is in writing, in principle, the People have the right to say what's on their minds, no matter how offensive or inane or stupid it is.
It's an entirely different matter when it's free speech on private property. The People don't own my house (or my server) and as such, I can freely tell others who speech I disagree with to go somewhere else. That is allowable censorship (although, to be honest, I don't think it's "censorship" in the sense that most people seem to). For the same reason that you can't walk into my house, take a dump on the rug, and leave, you can't just come onto a forum I've established and say whatever you like. Even if I imply that you can say whatever you like, unless you have a written guarantee, you are subject to my arbitrary whims about the content of your speech when posted on a forum I'm established.
The same holds true no matter the size of the forum as long as it is ostensibly private property. The publisher has every right (even a duty under their contract with their shareholders due to potential lawsuits) to monitor speech with they may deem harmful to the "community" and to remove such speech as they may deem necessary. They are not a government - they are not suppressing The People, just some people who use their services. Yes, it probably is censorship, but it is not Censorship, and they should have every right to do it as they see fit with their own property.
Slashdot Mirror
As a born citizen of the U.S. of A., I can tell you that I am just as confused by us as you are. We seem to have lost our way, but damned if I know what we can do about it, since no one in Washington seems to be listening anymore.
Memorials exist to remind us things in the past that were great, not always good, but great. The Lincoln Memorial reminds us of the great words of a perhaps flawed man while the Vietnam Memorial reminds us of the horrible loss of life in a war we didn't exactly win or lose. Some things exist to remind us that we occasionally create amazing, revolutionary inventions or that something which once existed does not exist anymore. Memorials tie the present to the past in a very physical way. While I am all in favor of moving into the future as fast as possible, we can't just shuck the past like a snakeskin.
Some memorials may not make sense to you, but insisting that they only exist to remind of things around today demonstrates a shallow view of history and self-centered view of the scope of our entire existence on this planet.
I was under the impression that the PP was commenting about hardware. If not, I wasted a really good explanation.
If you should be accountable for your posts, shouldn't you be accountable for your moderation?
Yep.
Because the theme authors do not want to waste time on a moving target
Some of us users are getting a little tired of it, as well. Unfortunately, the only other options are insecure or non-free.
The "extra cost" actually becomes a slight savings, if the product is designed correctly. Consider: in the instance of two separate products, designed separately, with higher and lower functionality respectively, you require two different assembly lines, with two different approaches to creating two different products.
With the crippled version and the non-cripple version, you still require two assembly lines, but they are duplicates for most of the line, and perhaps require only removal of one or two positions to create the cripple versions of your hardware. You save time and money by creating one assembly line and effectively duplicating it for the lesser (or perhaps the greater) version.
You can even do it with one assembly line and some sort of selector programming where every fifth product is the higher level product (assuming it has one-fifth of the sales).
So you save some money on the manufacturing side. You also save money on the R&D side by creating two cards with only minor differences vs. creating two completely different cards.
It's pretty much the same as producing a car with a tape deck vs. cd player. The research is much the same, but the tape deck fits in the same slot as the CD player, and any room you would have used for the automatic changer is just extra space.
When somebody relases a virus, they are saying, hey there's a problem here that needs immediate attention or just about anyone can take over your computer.
I disagree - instead of trying to fix the problem, they are exploiting it to cause damage, if not directly, then indirectly by releasing it to other with potentially lower or no ethics whatsoever.
It's kind of a double-edged sword. One the one hand, the work they do has admittedly beneficial side effects.
On the other hand, do you point out the flawed wiring in a theatre and hope that someone fixes it, or do you just wait until 100 people have died screaming in a burning building and then point it out as something to watch out for in the future?
My final thought is - these guys walk a very fine line, usually on the wrong side, and should be punished for wilfull damage to other's property. Preferably very harshly, because they certainly knew what they were doing.
They don't have a wide range of paint colors and picking up chicks with them can be hard - but they do what they are built for, and they do it very well.
You mean staring at UFO's and conjugal relations with not-quite-second cousins?
Sorry. Someone had to say it - might as well be me.
More on point - if FreeBSD is dying - why is everyone so determined to point out that it is dying (which it isn't)? Wishful thinking?
So, by your logic, if Windows was renamed "Lannux" or "Lunix", that would be perfectly OK?
The corporation gets a free (as in beer) codebase which they can then market and possibly make huge amounts of cash, while giving nothing back to the community from which they leeched.
So, right out of the box, you assume Apple (inferred from context in relation to grandparent post) is going to screw the Open Source community because they're a corporation? That's pretty unfair, considering that Apple has been pretty decent about giving back to the codebase they share with Konqueror.
You have exactly - repeat, exactly - the same opportunity to screw over the community that Apple or anyone else does - actually, a better opportunity. No one cares who you are right now - there aren't a million little eyes just hoping that you will step out of line just once so it will confirm their pet suspicions.
Get over it. Some corporations are bad, some are not so bad. Apple may not be perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than much larger and better funded corporations out there. Why assume they're guilty before they've even done anything?
I disagree. I think they make exactly the right amount.
Have they cleared this with SCO?
bwahahhaahhhahhaaaahhahahahaaaahaha!
I slay me! With a +10 vorpal sword of slaying me!
History? Who cares! It looks like a load of fun!
One day, perhaps, I'll have the time to break out the old HO-scale train set and do something like that (or as near as I can manage).
Is there any legal way to prevent SCO from ever using his code under any circumstances? Say, a clause that says "This license shall apply to all companies, except SCO, which is restricted from ever using or in any other way gaining any knowledge from aformentioned work."
A sort of SCO exception clause in the GPL? Then you could nail them to the wall for even having a CD of any release of Linux after the license was changed.
Actually, when he should have resigned is when he was debating the meaning of the word "is". That starts to look a little ridiculous.
I was always a little disappointed he didn't stand up at the beginning and go "yeah, I did it. So what?". If anyone could have done that and gotten away with it, it would have been him.
Sorry Mac users, you'll need to wait
S'okay. We're used to it.
There are certain key words that apparently give one a free pass to lie to Congress: national security, uranium, patriotism, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, world terrorism, and nukular.
Otherwise, lying to Congress is illegal. If you received sexual favors and lied to Congress about it, then it's like double-secret illegal.
If you are a contributor, or an energy company, or work for an energy company, or know the names of an energy company, then lying isn't illegal.
I would mention something about farm subsidies, but that's not really about tech, and besides, no one here is rich enough to be a farmer, probably.
The really funny thing about the Patriot Act is that is should be Republicans who oppose it. Aren't they the "keep your hands off my rights" party?
If you check the Google Zeitgeist, you will notice that the percentage of people using browsers other than IE is pretty much insignificant (don't blame me, I don't use IE, either). So, basically, it doesn't matter who invented it - if IE implements it, it's important. If they don't, not enough people use an alternative for it make much of a difference anyway.
This kind of cell phone tracking would go far to help find missing kids before they end up dead and in a ditch.
I'd actually go along with that argument if the cellphone manufacturers would limit it to certain models or types of cellphones. Or perhaps make that the only reason a message could come up on my cellphone.
The problem is: they won't. They'll sell the technology to all takers and so every advertiser in the world will have access to my phone, even though I'm the one stuck paying for the time it takes to receive the message. I'm all in favor of voluntarily doing one's civic duty, but I choose to do it in my own time and in my own way and the more people try to ram stuff down my throat because "it's for the kids" the more pissed off I get.
It's the universal excuse of our time, along with anything involving Homeland Security.
Birds of a feather flock to /.
I think I would argue that since we don't have any sort of "right" to entertainment, as such, then it probably doesn't apply.
What's really fascinating is the noise level this issue is attaining. What percentage of the physical population of the US (and the world, I suppose, since The Sims is ostensibly marketed outside the US) actually plays the game. Then ask yourself what percentage actually plays it online.
This is, to steal line from some famous poet, a "whole lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
The simplest answer is "my house, my rules". There is a clear separation between government censorship and private censorship.
In a sense, the People own the United States (irony, I know) and as such, the government (because it is owned by The People) cannot impose rules that prevent The People from speaking their mind. Now, certain allowances have been made for community standards and what not (and probably not wisely or justly), but all-in-all, very few compromises can be made to that rule without chucking it altogether. Since it is in writing, in principle, the People have the right to say what's on their minds, no matter how offensive or inane or stupid it is.
It's an entirely different matter when it's free speech on private property. The People don't own my house (or my server) and as such, I can freely tell others who speech I disagree with to go somewhere else. That is allowable censorship (although, to be honest, I don't think it's "censorship" in the sense that most people seem to). For the same reason that you can't walk into my house, take a dump on the rug, and leave, you can't just come onto a forum I've established and say whatever you like. Even if I imply that you can say whatever you like, unless you have a written guarantee, you are subject to my arbitrary whims about the content of your speech when posted on a forum I'm established.
The same holds true no matter the size of the forum as long as it is ostensibly private property. The publisher has every right (even a duty under their contract with their shareholders due to potential lawsuits) to monitor speech with they may deem harmful to the "community" and to remove such speech as they may deem necessary. They are not a government - they are not suppressing The People, just some people who use their services. Yes, it probably is censorship, but it is not Censorship, and they should have every right to do it as they see fit with their own property.
* shakes head and stares at floor sadly *
You are a sad, sad man.
Or woman. Mustn't leave them out.
Emacs is for people who want their editor to do everything. vi is for people who just want an editor.