Are you kidding? Slashdot would flame the holy living hell out of them! The kneejerk reaction of the non-MS crowd would be that "Micro-shaft" is trying to stick it to the consumer.
Just because it's a small business does not mean that one should tolerate shoddy business practice. If a mom and pop shop is selling copy-protected CDs, then they deserve to burn in Hell just as much as the major chains.
Why? This assumes that everyone wants or needs a computer and this is a fallacy sold to you by the manufacturers of computer hardware and the hard-core nerds that use them.
Software as a public service would require that the government regulate not only the price, but the features and functions available (minimum standards) and the interoperability. There is very little wiggle room when dealing with government standards. Not to mention the fact that the software for one OS would probably need to run on every other OS (which does away with the need for multiple OS's).
Public service software requires public service hardware as well. Once again, the requirements of minimum standards. Government regulation usually requires that a product be dumbed down for the average user, rather than allowing any kind of degree of control.
Plus, you have the regulation on usage, deployment, and content; the inevitable lawsuits because someone can't use aforementioned public service software and hardware, etc., plus the costs and bureaucracy associated with maintaining public standards.
Government usually lags behind the public sector in knowledge and technology, so your public service machines would always be at least two to three years out of date.
The idea of software as a public service raises a whole lot more problems than it solves, in my opinion. If you want to produce free software and call it a public service that's one thing, but don't start asking for it to be the equivalent of roads, water, and sewage.
Leave the government out of it, please. We have enough problems already.
It probably has to do with the adage "You get what you pay for." People don't trust free because on the whole (outside the computer world) free is equivalent to "crap". If you pay real money, then you have the expectation of real service and at the very least, when things go to hell, you can sue someone.
And you've just eliminated 95% of the user base for computers. Maybe it's wrong, but it's Reality. We've become accustomed to firing up the machine and it works (mostly) thanks to Windows. Most of Windows is (on average) pretty user-friendly. There are no references to command line utilities (except in extreme special cases) and there might as well not be a command line. This is the reality that users are used to - NOT digging around in source code and learning a computer language to make sense of what has gone wrong with some application.
The biggest mistake in Open Source is trying to sell it to the common user when you know that they don't need the full power of Linux and never will. So your Joe Sixpack is going to buy Linux eventually and then the same problems that occur in Windows are going to occur even more in Linux (imagine how many people are going to leave their mail repeaters wide open or will accidentally expose it because they don't know not to).
How about hiring someone who has a butt that's proportional to the rest of her body? Or perhaps her acting ability? JLo couldn't act her way out of a wet paper sack.
would include jail time and at least some attempt at repayment for losses. Unfortunately, they are in a hacker-friendly country who just happens to be one of our "allies" in the "war on terror".
More than likely, it will just go away and they will get a slap on the wrist.
The Anti-Trinary Computing Faction is filing a lawsuit for your use of the word "trit" which sounds a lot like a part of the female body. And as for the unholy union of 1's and 0's, we're dead against that, as well.
Actually, I think the buffalo is already free from it's miserable life. Damn, I hope so - coz' that's just some horrible crap to make a buffalo listen to.
"The Nuge was not available for comment as authorities are investigating allegations that a hacker had broken security on Ted Nugent's favorite guitar. Apparently, the attack caused the amplifier stack to overload, drawing about 800,000 watts for approximately 10 seconds. The resulting decibel levels were off the scale and one spectator described it as "WHAT? WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? WHAT?!". Several fans were hospitalized in critical condition - surgeons are even now trying to figure out how to re-sect bones that have been 'pulverized by hypersonic forces."
This post copyrighted, patented, folded, spindled and mutilated. If you live in the EU, even reading it may be illegal. If you live in France, you probably wouldn't get it anyway.
Why would it attract new users? Use of the command line is not a normal action for the majority of Windows users. Most, if not all, system utilities work through a gui that is, in normal use, stable and well-defined.
I don't see any reason not to do this, but I also don't see any reason to do it. Having had cygwin installed on two boxes for the past six months, I find it to be more useless than a five-assed monkey and porting more stuff to it will not add any measure of usefulness.
That being said, I think I found only one person on the mailing list didn't think it was a good idea. Most of them seemed more worried about whether or not RMS would approve variable names or something. This is apparently "one of those Linux things".
Maybe they should port that stuff to Win32. If nothing else, he might get really apoplectic and have to be straitjacketed.
There was a time when I would agree with you on this, but the problem inherent in your view of meritocracy is that the guidelines are too vague. How many points does one lose for having smoked cigarettes? How many if they smoke two packs a day? How many if it's just one a week? Who decides these guidelines? Is there a short form for the ones who are too busy to judge based on a 10,000 point questionnaire of who lives and who dies. One tiny example in a myriad of issues that would be raised.
My opinion: The only way to deal the issue of organ transplants is to do away with the idea that some people are more deserving than others and deal with it on a first-come, first-serve basis. Let an individual's own sense of responsibility or irresponsibility be the determining factor in whether or not they continue to survive.
You stated that this type of research is wrong, and yet failed to provide reasons. Let me tell you why I think it is right:
1) Organ transplants without requiring heavy doses of anti-rejection drug
2) Cures for some very nasty diseases like cancer
3) Cures for birth defects
Those three reasons are enough to convince me that this research is worthwhile. While I don't have to worry about 1 or 3 as of yet, 2 could strike at any time and for reasons that have yet to be fully understood regardless of how healthy I am.
We have a right and a duty to explore the possibilities that technology can provide, even if there is severe risk involved. Only by taking these risks can we actually determine what the safe limits on the use of technology are.
If you want to hide in your cave and pretend that biotech doesn't exist and can't be useful, feel free to do so, I won't waste any resources crying over your absence.
The BOFH would hopefully be fired the first time s/he opened his/her mouth or at least sent for some social re-training with a large stick. Ops are trained to do work, not abuse the users or the system.
The persistence of the BOFH mythos can only hurt Linux in public perception. Perhaps it time to introduce a new ideal that doesn't have the social skills of a rabid badger on acid.
Regardless of the technology, there will always be those who use it for good and those who use it for ill. It is impossible to predict just exactly how someone will use a tool without some sort of objective control source.
Case in point: how many ways can you use a simple 14' ethernet cable to kill someone?
The restriction on use should not be built into the technology, but rather built into the person, by their own conscience. It is up to the individual to determine, through trial and error, what works and what does not in the context of a society.
Sometimes the experiments fail and we wind up with hackers (colloquial usage) and terrorists. Sometimes you get professors and teachers.
Well, I suppose the organizations that run these sort of things will have to come up with the rules on whether wheels and engines are allowed or not.
I really don't care what the rules are for any given sport except the ones I participate in and then only for the locally defined game.
I think it is possible for gengineering to make the sports more interesting for a while but in the end, only the real fans are going to care one way or another.
Me - I watch sports occasionally, but usually only the end of the game/match/race, what-have-you, and then only if it's a close race.
However, I don't think there should be any restrictions on genetic modding unless the rules for a given sport outlaw it.
That change is entirely up to them. If one person feels inadequate or pressured to change because of another's presence, then that is an internal problem.
Why are we, as indifiduals, constantly held responsible for the actions of others, when there is very little we can do to prevent those actions?
Personally, I hope that genetic modification becomes a standard, if for no other reason, than in the hope that we understand that we are responsible for what happens to our bodies.
If it's fair for modified humans to run, then why shouldn't someone make a mature, concious decision, to have an engine and wheels build in?
Why not? If the technology is up to speed (unintentional pun) then why shouldn't we modify our bodies beyond recognition? It's my body and despite any laws, ultimately, I am responsible for what happens to it. But I am responsible to me, not to society or anyone else. What I choose to do with my body is up to me.
So I don't see a problem with someone adding in mag wheels and flame stripes, if that's what they want to do.
I may not agree with it, but in the end, I am not the one someone else needs to answer to. Nor is anyone else.
As for the definition of human, that's shaky ground. If we define by IQ, then we leave out many members of our society who have a less than normal (or even a higher than normal) intelligence. If we define strictly on physical characteristics, then we could wind up leaving out those with fewer working appendages. There is no standard for the definition of human beyond that in the dictionary - and it hardly suffices for discussion in this area.
Perhaps we need to rethink our definition of human a little bit.
As for unfair competition - if it's within the rules, how is it unfair? Rules allow for quantifiable boundaries on action and reaction - but morals and ethics are simply a creation of society and vary from person to person. It is impossible (except in a general manner) to form a quantifiable set of ethics and/or morals that everyone can accept.
My thought is: if you are willing to accept the consequences, known and unknown, of genetic modification - then by all means, modify away.
Write your own games and make them better than the ones for Windows.
But (and this is the catch) you'll probably need to sell them (huge gasp of horror from the free software crowd) so you can have money for marketing and packaging and whatnot.
Oh, yeah, and you'll need to copy protect them so they don't get traded around easily.
In the fine arts, if I write a work on my own, even while a student, it's mine. If I collaborate, then it is expected that such collaboration will be noted. Everything goes into the portfolio.
With an artistic creative endeavour, it is a little harder to claim credit for another's work, since there is a flavor or style to the writing or music that is inimical to the writer or writers if they are any good. (It takes a LOT to be a standout in this field and get noticed).
As with any profession, there is the risk that someone will hog the credit (actually, it happens quite a bit), but because fine arts is to a certain extent more social than engineering or science, it's usually pretty well known who's stealing credit.
A side note: the process of getting employed in the arts (acting specifically) usually includes some sort of audition - it's a pretty empirical test of whether or not you're capable of performing. For the more mechanical arts related professions, your portfolio counts some, but there are union tests for proficiency and a whole lot gets done by word-of-mouth.
Hearsay evidence is given by the following quote: "RMS replied telling us that he disagreed with my argument and saying the we are legitimatizing the use of non-free software by mentioning it. I left it at that, but today RMS remailed us today asking us to confirm that we will not mention non-free software anymore."
The message that sparked this email is unknown, but circumstantial evidence would seem to point to the idea that RMS wants no mention of non-free software in some projects.
The same nuts who targeted random civilians with anthrax and killed an as yet not completely determined number of civilians at the WTC. Consider how easy it would be to spread a biological agent with a lag time of seven to ten days or more amongst COMDEX attendees. Then consider the spread of the disease once they went home.
Really, it's probably nothing to worry too much about, but when I see some jerk get all bent out of shape just because someone is trying to protect his/her butt and several other collective butts, it just kind of pisses me off. Personally, I like the fact that SOMEONE has thought this through and decided I'm worth more alive than dead.
Slashdot Mirror
If MS was to institute this sort of plan ...
Are you kidding? Slashdot would flame the holy living hell out of them! The kneejerk reaction of the non-MS crowd would be that "Micro-shaft" is trying to stick it to the consumer.
Let's get real here.
Just because it's a small business does not mean that one should tolerate shoddy business practice. If a mom and pop shop is selling copy-protected CDs, then they deserve to burn in Hell just as much as the major chains.
Why? This assumes that everyone wants or needs a computer and this is a fallacy sold to you by the manufacturers of computer hardware and the hard-core nerds that use them.
Software as a public service would require that the government regulate not only the price, but the features and functions available (minimum standards) and the interoperability. There is very little wiggle room when dealing with government standards. Not to mention the fact that the software for one OS would probably need to run on every other OS (which does away with the need for multiple OS's).
Public service software requires public service hardware as well. Once again, the requirements of minimum standards. Government regulation usually requires that a product be dumbed down for the average user, rather than allowing any kind of degree of control.
Plus, you have the regulation on usage, deployment, and content; the inevitable lawsuits because someone can't use aforementioned public service software and hardware, etc., plus the costs and bureaucracy associated with maintaining public standards.
Government usually lags behind the public sector in knowledge and technology, so your public service machines would always be at least two to three years out of date.
The idea of software as a public service raises a whole lot more problems than it solves, in my opinion. If you want to produce free software and call it a public service that's one thing, but don't start asking for it to be the equivalent of roads, water, and sewage.
Leave the government out of it, please. We have enough problems already.
It probably has to do with the adage "You get what you pay for." People don't trust free because on the whole (outside the computer world) free is equivalent to "crap". If you pay real money, then you have the expectation of real service and at the very least, when things go to hell, you can sue someone.
And you've just eliminated 95% of the user base for computers. Maybe it's wrong, but it's Reality. We've become accustomed to firing up the machine and it works (mostly) thanks to Windows. Most of Windows is (on average) pretty user-friendly. There are no references to command line utilities (except in extreme special cases) and there might as well not be a command line. This is the reality that users are used to - NOT digging around in source code and learning a computer language to make sense of what has gone wrong with some application.
The biggest mistake in Open Source is trying to sell it to the common user when you know that they don't need the full power of Linux and never will. So your Joe Sixpack is going to buy Linux eventually and then the same problems that occur in Windows are going to occur even more in Linux (imagine how many people are going to leave their mail repeaters wide open or will accidentally expose it because they don't know not to).
This is Reality. Get used to it.
How about hiring someone who has a butt that's proportional to the rest of her body? Or perhaps her acting ability? JLo couldn't act her way out of a wet paper sack.
would include jail time and at least some attempt at repayment for losses. Unfortunately, they are in a hacker-friendly country who just happens to be one of our "allies" in the "war on terror".
More than likely, it will just go away and they will get a slap on the wrist.
A pity, really.
The Anti-Trinary Computing Faction is filing a lawsuit for your use of the word "trit" which sounds a lot like a part of the female body. And as for the unholy union of 1's and 0's, we're dead against that, as well.
You SINNER!
Actually, I think the buffalo is already free from it's miserable life. Damn, I hope so - coz' that's just some horrible crap to make a buffalo listen to.
I can see the headlines now:
"Unnamed Hacker 'ownz' Ted Nugent - 200 fans hospitalized for serious inner ear bleading.
"The Nuge was not available for comment as authorities are investigating allegations that a hacker had broken security on Ted Nugent's favorite guitar. Apparently, the attack caused the amplifier stack to overload, drawing about 800,000 watts for approximately 10 seconds. The resulting decibel levels were off the scale and one spectator described it as "WHAT? WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? WHAT?!". Several fans were hospitalized in critical condition - surgeons are even now trying to figure out how to re-sect bones that have been 'pulverized by hypersonic forces."
This post copyrighted, patented, folded, spindled and mutilated. If you live in the EU, even reading it may be illegal. If you live in France, you probably wouldn't get it anyway.
Why would it attract new users? Use of the command line is not a normal action for the majority of Windows users. Most, if not all, system utilities work through a gui that is, in normal use, stable and well-defined.
I don't see any reason not to do this, but I also don't see any reason to do it. Having had cygwin installed on two boxes for the past six months, I find it to be more useless than a five-assed monkey and porting more stuff to it will not add any measure of usefulness.
That being said, I think I found only one person on the mailing list didn't think it was a good idea. Most of them seemed more worried about whether or not RMS would approve variable names or something. This is apparently "one of those Linux things".
Maybe they should port that stuff to Win32. If nothing else, he might get really apoplectic and have to be straitjacketed.
There was a time when I would agree with you on this, but the problem inherent in your view of meritocracy is that the guidelines are too vague. How many points does one lose for having smoked cigarettes? How many if they smoke two packs a day? How many if it's just one a week? Who decides these guidelines? Is there a short form for the ones who are too busy to judge based on a 10,000 point questionnaire of who lives and who dies. One tiny example in a myriad of issues that would be raised.
My opinion: The only way to deal the issue of organ transplants is to do away with the idea that some people are more deserving than others and deal with it on a first-come, first-serve basis. Let an individual's own sense of responsibility or irresponsibility be the determining factor in whether or not they continue to survive.
You stated that this type of research is wrong, and yet failed to provide reasons. Let me tell you why I think it is right:
1) Organ transplants without requiring heavy doses of anti-rejection drug
2) Cures for some very nasty diseases like cancer
3) Cures for birth defects
Those three reasons are enough to convince me that this research is worthwhile. While I don't have to worry about 1 or 3 as of yet, 2 could strike at any time and for reasons that have yet to be fully understood regardless of how healthy I am.
We have a right and a duty to explore the possibilities that technology can provide, even if there is severe risk involved. Only by taking these risks can we actually determine what the safe limits on the use of technology are.
If you want to hide in your cave and pretend that biotech doesn't exist and can't be useful, feel free to do so, I won't waste any resources crying over your absence.
The BOFH would hopefully be fired the first time s/he opened his/her mouth or at least sent for some social re-training with a large stick. Ops are trained to do work, not abuse the users or the system.
The persistence of the BOFH mythos can only hurt Linux in public perception. Perhaps it time to introduce a new ideal that doesn't have the social skills of a rabid badger on acid.
Regardless of the technology, there will always be those who use it for good and those who use it for ill. It is impossible to predict just exactly how someone will use a tool without some sort of objective control source.
Case in point: how many ways can you use a simple 14' ethernet cable to kill someone?
The restriction on use should not be built into the technology, but rather built into the person, by their own conscience. It is up to the individual to determine, through trial and error, what works and what does not in the context of a society.
Sometimes the experiments fail and we wind up with hackers (colloquial usage) and terrorists. Sometimes you get professors and teachers.
Well, I suppose the organizations that run these sort of things will have to come up with the rules on whether wheels and engines are allowed or not.
I really don't care what the rules are for any given sport except the ones I participate in and then only for the locally defined game.
I think it is possible for gengineering to make the sports more interesting for a while but in the end, only the real fans are going to care one way or another.
Me - I watch sports occasionally, but usually only the end of the game/match/race, what-have-you, and then only if it's a close race.
However, I don't think there should be any restrictions on genetic modding unless the rules for a given sport outlaw it.
That change is entirely up to them. If one person feels inadequate or pressured to change because of another's presence, then that is an internal problem.
Why are we, as indifiduals, constantly held responsible for the actions of others, when there is very little we can do to prevent those actions?
Personally, I hope that genetic modification becomes a standard, if for no other reason, than in the hope that we understand that we are responsible for what happens to our bodies.
If it's fair for modified humans to run, then why shouldn't someone make a mature, concious decision, to have an engine and wheels build in?
Why not? If the technology is up to speed (unintentional pun) then why shouldn't we modify our bodies beyond recognition? It's my body and despite any laws, ultimately, I am responsible for what happens to it. But I am responsible to me, not to society or anyone else. What I choose to do with my body is up to me.
So I don't see a problem with someone adding in mag wheels and flame stripes, if that's what they want to do.
I may not agree with it, but in the end, I am not the one someone else needs to answer to. Nor is anyone else.
As for the definition of human, that's shaky ground. If we define by IQ, then we leave out many members of our society who have a less than normal (or even a higher than normal) intelligence. If we define strictly on physical characteristics, then we could wind up leaving out those with fewer working appendages. There is no standard for the definition of human beyond that in the dictionary - and it hardly suffices for discussion in this area.
Perhaps we need to rethink our definition of human a little bit.
As for unfair competition - if it's within the rules, how is it unfair? Rules allow for quantifiable boundaries on action and reaction - but morals and ethics are simply a creation of society and vary from person to person. It is impossible (except in a general manner) to form a quantifiable set of ethics and/or morals that everyone can accept.
My thought is: if you are willing to accept the consequences, known and unknown, of genetic modification - then by all means, modify away.
Is there a potential for some serious profit here?
Yes? Sign me up!
Apparently you haven't yet filled out your EPA forms, then. Can't wait to see the fine on that one.
You should probably switch to a pigeon net (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt)
Write your own games and make them better than the ones for Windows.
...
But (and this is the catch) you'll probably need to sell them (huge gasp of horror from the free software crowd) so you can have money for marketing and packaging and whatnot.
Oh, yeah, and you'll need to copy protect them so they don't get traded around easily.
Do you begin to see why this won't work
Yeah, now it is. Then, maybe not.
In the fine arts, if I write a work on my own, even while a student, it's mine. If I collaborate, then it is expected that such collaboration will be noted. Everything goes into the portfolio.
With an artistic creative endeavour, it is a little harder to claim credit for another's work, since there is a flavor or style to the writing or music that is inimical to the writer or writers if they are any good. (It takes a LOT to be a standout in this field and get noticed).
As with any profession, there is the risk that someone will hog the credit (actually, it happens quite a bit), but because fine arts is to a certain extent more social than engineering or science, it's usually pretty well known who's stealing credit.
A side note: the process of getting employed in the arts (acting specifically) usually includes some sort of audition - it's a pretty empirical test of whether or not you're capable of performing. For the more mechanical arts related professions, your portfolio counts some, but there are union tests for proficiency and a whole lot gets done by word-of-mouth.
In my experience, anyway.
-- B.A. Angelo State - Drama
Hearsay evidence is given by the following quote: "RMS replied telling us that he disagreed with my argument and saying the we are legitimatizing the use of non-free software by mentioning it. I left it at that, but today RMS remailed us today asking us to confirm that we will not mention non-free software anymore."
The message that sparked this email is unknown, but circumstantial evidence would seem to point to the idea that RMS wants no mention of non-free software in some projects.
The same nuts who targeted random civilians with anthrax and killed an as yet not completely determined number of civilians at the WTC. Consider how easy it would be to spread a biological agent with a lag time of seven to ten days or more amongst COMDEX attendees. Then consider the spread of the disease once they went home.
Really, it's probably nothing to worry too much about, but when I see some jerk get all bent out of shape just because someone is trying to protect his/her butt and several other collective butts, it just kind of pisses me off. Personally, I like the fact that SOMEONE has thought this through and decided I'm worth more alive than dead.
I think that may be the problem with some of the rampaging Libertarian techno-geeks () I see here once in a while - they don't care about anyone else and wouldn't lift a finger to save them: after all, the victim should take responsibility for him/herself and to hell with everyone else.
Frankly, these people NEED their own society - preferably as far away from the one I live in as possible.