No, lego has gotten into the business of dumbing down their products by making huge specialized pieces and now real lego enthusiasts are buying both themselves and their children bulk used sets off of ebay.
I don't think their plan is to collect license fees for Linux. That would totally kill Linux itself. They're not too stupid to not realize that most Linux developers would switch if they had to pony up 600 bucks just to code for it.
If the kernel has SCO code, then it will be replaced. Also, retroactive damages couldn't possibly be tallied onto SOHO users, just the big guns.
SCO claims that the amount of code in question is simply too big to replace, which implies they are using Linux being a UNIX clone as a defense. I highly doubt rewriting simple bits and pieces would be as tough as, say, a disk IO layer.
You have a point, though. The grandparent was a bit comfy in his dismissal.
you cannot blame hollywood for sex and violence in their films, you have to blame the amercian public: that's what they want to see, they vote with their pocketbooks
Technically, yes, we are responsible for what we watch. However, the entertainment industry has slowly been lowering the bottom line for years. What happens now is that people that are appauled by this stop watching movies and TV altogether, so the dissenting voices take themselves out of the debate altogether.
This is like vegetarians who are speaking out against unfair treatment of animals. By taking themselves out of the market, they're increasing the percentage of meat eaters that are "ok" with skinning the cows alive, letting them wallow in their own feces, etc. The best way to fight this is to buy free ranged meat, not adopt a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle.
It's exactly the same with entertainment media (especially music). Don't just turn off the tube, continue watching the "good" channels. Even some of those are getting lame; start sending letters to the Biography channel that their material is getting stale and/or lame. If you want to speak with your vote, don't make yourself a non-voter.
Well, one way not to get stability is to turn over the computing infrastructure to another big American corporation that made big contributions to Bush's election campaign. It doesn't take a deep understanding of politics to realize where that approach leads.
I'm gonna call you on that. I don't believe MS is a huge contributor of the Bush campaign, and I don't believe that by using Microsoft software, Iraq forfeits their chance at a stable government.
This seems to be more corporate-demonizing hogwash that gets modded up here at/. Honestly, even if MS did make unusually large contributions to the Bush campaign, I fail (in my shallow understanding of politics) to see how that translates to an unstable government in Iraq. Please enlighten me.
A default Gnome setup does not have a "Start Button" or a Foot icon.
Gnome more closely resembles a Mac anyways. But that's not the point. OSS software generally doesn't imitate other software, except for when imitation is both practical and pragmatic.
There is a difference between borrowing ideas from all sorts of places and buying someone out and slapping your corporate logo on their flagship product.
I would like to see more evidence that public educational institutions are shifting to software with more open standards.
It's not that easy. Shifting from Windows to Linux and standard file formats to nonstandard ones would be received with hostility. You're asking them to face a few years of hell by means of imposing our values onto regular Joes. Frankly, I don't blame them for being a bit reluctant.
Yes I certainly am. It's your job to protect your kids, not the government's.
To admit that "current policies sacrifice child protect on the altar of adult prohibition" one has to admit that the "current policies" are working. If they aren't protecting our children from using cannabis, we are sacrificing adult liberty in exchange for nothing.
Don't be so cynical. Google and Yahoo! are in the business of search engines. If they think people are put off by shady legal drug fly-by-night operations, then they'll pull them off of their search lists.
Inasmuch as they might be greedy cuthroats, they could also care about the Internet (their source of income), and not want to pollute it and turn off visitors. They also might be nice people.
Right, but our drug policy reflects the idea that children (under 18, how silly) cannot effectively educated themselves, or at least can't do so reliably.
This is less about big business (which, frankly, profits when their drugs are bought legally with a prescription, or illegally via an online pharmacy with no prescription) and more about complying with existing laws.
There's still a lot of legal-for-research drugs (triptomines) that are fairly easy to aquire (apply for a research permit, get accepted, then you're "in"). The reason no one cares is because we're too busy dealing with pot.
Dextromethorphan has recently gotten some news, but there are many others that aren't seeing much airtime. For those who don't know, DXM is an anticongestant agent in cough syrup that, when taken by itself, has extremely potent dissociative and hallucigenic results.
It is a lot scarier than pot or prescription painkillers, since a lot of kids are drinking cough syrup in order to get the effects (and thereby introducing insane levels of other chemicals in the syrup into their bodies).
Yo, the US government already has all the machinery for tyranny it needs -- mostly in the form of guns, but the people also have some machinery to prevent tyrrany -- such as the constitution, and the fact that the governemt, and its "enforcers" (the military) are citizens too.
The military are not citizens. You do have a point though; as long as the Constitution is honored, we are pretty much safe.
No, I do not trust them with that. Not even figuratively. I don't have to, either. See above.
Great. You trust a mechanism that was designed with limiting powers vis a vis checks and balances (as well as distributed power).
This is not "ability to monitor where everyone 24/7". And, you did not explain why this is so helpful for enslavement. (Because it's not really, I suppose)
No, it is not the ability. It is an alarming step, however. At least I feel that way. I look at your compelling rational arguments, and I look at an article about kids having to pass through face scans to get into school. The article is a lot more convincing.
If you were going about enslaving a population, there are numerous ways in which the ability to monitor specific individuals (or non-specific individuals, for that matter) would be helpful to maintaining your power. Use your imagination. My argument is not based on fact; merely an ideological opposition to bold increase in public surveillances based on future precedences they would set. You can tell me I'm a fool for thinking this way, but, again, kids are getting their faces scanned every day when they walk into school. Not to mention the armed officers that are probably already there.
capital n.
Here we go pulling out the dictionary. I should have saved you the trouble by correcting myself, but I'll own up to it now. I misused the term on accident.
I meant that most of our spending and taxation at the federal level is utterly unconstitutional. The constitution makes things pretty clear ("Necessary and Proper" being the only part ever really in dispute).
How is spending money on defense "setting up a future generation for tyranny"? It's rather annoying to me when people spout this kind of insane nonsense without any attempt to back it up.
It's rather annoying to me when I'm quoted without context, and scorned by those words alone.
Big military spending, decline in civil liberties, and government espionage are all really good things to hand "future generations" if you want them to be exploited. I never said this was fact; merely that we should think about the ramifications our decisions make for future generations.
All major empires have fallen, largely due to corruption.
I agree that Governments don't GIVE rights, they however MUST limit them for the best good for all.
The rights aren't theirs to take away. The government doesn't have the ability to take away rights, even if doing so actually saved lives.
I think you are WAY out to lunch on that one. Iraq and Afghanistan are both places where the military is protecting us against another 9/11, Or have you forgotten that date?
I do not think 9/11 is relevant here. At any rate, if the cost of 9/11 is liberty, I would rather take the risk of death than the certainty of the destruction of liberties. Call me an extremist, but the USA has never been a nation of pansies (until recently). As for the military, I don't think they're attacking terrorists responsible for 9/11.
The US cannot afford to be isolationist and let world affairs take whatever course.
What are the demands of terrorists? What are these people apparently so upset about? I'd say we can't afford not to be isolationists.
As for the police bit, yes the ID is implied in taking your name. However, if you read the 6th Amendment carefully, you'll see that you are guaranteed the right not to divulge anything else.
If you choose to believe that US soldiers are out fighting for our freedom, then you're implying that those who are fighting against us are attacking our freedom. This is ironically true, since terrorism seems to have the effect of coercing our populace into accepting the curtailment of our liberties.
The idea that terrorists attack us because they are jealous of our freedom is ludicrous. If they desired freedom, then they would attack their own governments, not our cities. If you believe all the crap you see on TV, then you'll have to conclude that they're upset at our presence in the Middle East. In which case isolation is the cure, not "no longer an option" as you put it.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Greg Palast is totally on board with the black helicopter crew.
No, lego has gotten into the business of dumbing down their products by making huge specialized pieces and now real lego enthusiasts are buying both themselves and their children bulk used sets off of ebay.
Forgot to include this; I think their plan is to kill Linux to resume collecting licenses on UNIX.
I don't think their plan is to collect license fees for Linux. That would totally kill Linux itself. They're not too stupid to not realize that most Linux developers would switch if they had to pony up 600 bucks just to code for it.
SCO claims that the amount of code in question is simply too big to replace, which implies they are using Linux being a UNIX clone as a defense. I highly doubt rewriting simple bits and pieces would be as tough as, say, a disk IO layer.
You have a point, though. The grandparent was a bit comfy in his dismissal.
Look up the definition of sociopath. Nothing about the careless behavior of some smokers is sociopathic.
Gotta...stop...playing...taking...over...life...
Technically, yes, we are responsible for what we watch. However, the entertainment industry has slowly been lowering the bottom line for years. What happens now is that people that are appauled by this stop watching movies and TV altogether, so the dissenting voices take themselves out of the debate altogether.
This is like vegetarians who are speaking out against unfair treatment of animals. By taking themselves out of the market, they're increasing the percentage of meat eaters that are "ok" with skinning the cows alive, letting them wallow in their own feces, etc. The best way to fight this is to buy free ranged meat, not adopt a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle.
It's exactly the same with entertainment media (especially music). Don't just turn off the tube, continue watching the "good" channels. Even some of those are getting lame; start sending letters to the Biography channel that their material is getting stale and/or lame. If you want to speak with your vote, don't make yourself a non-voter.
Linux is a process, not a product.
However, Microsoft donated much of that to Democratic candidates.
It doesn't turn on magic electricity, you have to emerge it manually (after all, Gentoo is for l33t h4x0rz who don't like hand-holding).
I'm gonna call you on that. I don't believe MS is a huge contributor of the Bush campaign, and I don't believe that by using Microsoft software, Iraq forfeits their chance at a stable government.
This seems to be more corporate-demonizing hogwash that gets modded up here at /. Honestly, even if MS did make unusually large contributions to the Bush campaign, I fail (in my shallow understanding of politics) to see how that translates to an unstable government in Iraq. Please enlighten me.
Gnome more closely resembles a Mac anyways. But that's not the point. OSS software generally doesn't imitate other software, except for when imitation is both practical and pragmatic.
There is a difference between borrowing ideas from all sorts of places and buying someone out and slapping your corporate logo on their flagship product.
Not really. Most Linux desktops don't really borrow a whole lot from MS.
What's the worst that could happen? A PR nightmare...
It's not that easy. Shifting from Windows to Linux and standard file formats to nonstandard ones would be received with hostility. You're asking them to face a few years of hell by means of imposing our values onto regular Joes. Frankly, I don't blame them for being a bit reluctant.
I've never heard of students needing to send e-mails or organize their day at school.
If the teachers need it that bad (and cannot settle for Evolution; ridiculous), then at least they can switch the bulk of the computers to Linux.
To admit that "current policies sacrifice child protect on the altar of adult prohibition" one has to admit that the "current policies" are working. If they aren't protecting our children from using cannabis, we are sacrificing adult liberty in exchange for nothing.
Inasmuch as they might be greedy cuthroats, they could also care about the Internet (their source of income), and not want to pollute it and turn off visitors. They also might be nice people.
Yes; five times more teens drink themselves to death than die of any other drug. Interesting...
Right, but our drug policy reflects the idea that children (under 18, how silly) cannot effectively educated themselves, or at least can't do so reliably.
Totally...the idea that "big businesses" are screwing the consumer here is a really gross misinterpretation of facts.
This is less about big business (which, frankly, profits when their drugs are bought legally with a prescription, or illegally via an online pharmacy with no prescription) and more about complying with existing laws.
There's still a lot of legal-for-research drugs (triptomines) that are fairly easy to aquire (apply for a research permit, get accepted, then you're "in"). The reason no one cares is because we're too busy dealing with pot.
Dextromethorphan has recently gotten some news, but there are many others that aren't seeing much airtime. For those who don't know, DXM is an anticongestant agent in cough syrup that, when taken by itself, has extremely potent dissociative and hallucigenic results.
It is a lot scarier than pot or prescription painkillers, since a lot of kids are drinking cough syrup in order to get the effects (and thereby introducing insane levels of other chemicals in the syrup into their bodies).
Yo, the US government already has all the machinery for tyranny it needs -- mostly in the form of guns, but the people also have some machinery to prevent tyrrany -- such as the constitution, and the fact that the governemt, and its "enforcers" (the military) are citizens too.
The military are not citizens. You do have a point though; as long as the Constitution is honored, we are pretty much safe.
No, I do not trust them with that. Not even figuratively. I don't have to, either. See above.
Great. You trust a mechanism that was designed with limiting powers vis a vis checks and balances (as well as distributed power).
This is not "ability to monitor where everyone 24/7". And, you did not explain why this is so helpful for enslavement. (Because it's not really, I suppose)
No, it is not the ability. It is an alarming step, however. At least I feel that way. I look at your compelling rational arguments, and I look at an article about kids having to pass through face scans to get into school. The article is a lot more convincing.
If you were going about enslaving a population, there are numerous ways in which the ability to monitor specific individuals (or non-specific individuals, for that matter) would be helpful to maintaining your power. Use your imagination. My argument is not based on fact; merely an ideological opposition to bold increase in public surveillances based on future precedences they would set. You can tell me I'm a fool for thinking this way, but, again, kids are getting their faces scanned every day when they walk into school. Not to mention the armed officers that are probably already there.
capital n.
Here we go pulling out the dictionary. I should have saved you the trouble by correcting myself, but I'll own up to it now. I misused the term on accident.
I meant that most of our spending and taxation at the federal level is utterly unconstitutional. The constitution makes things pretty clear ("Necessary and Proper" being the only part ever really in dispute).
How is spending money on defense "setting up a future generation for tyranny"? It's rather annoying to me when people spout this kind of insane nonsense without any attempt to back it up.
It's rather annoying to me when I'm quoted without context, and scorned by those words alone.
Big military spending, decline in civil liberties, and government espionage are all really good things to hand "future generations" if you want them to be exploited. I never said this was fact; merely that we should think about the ramifications our decisions make for future generations.
All major empires have fallen, largely due to corruption.
The rights aren't theirs to take away. The government doesn't have the ability to take away rights, even if doing so actually saved lives.
I think you are WAY out to lunch on that one. Iraq and Afghanistan are both places where the military is protecting us against another 9/11, Or have you forgotten that date?
I do not think 9/11 is relevant here. At any rate, if the cost of 9/11 is liberty, I would rather take the risk of death than the certainty of the destruction of liberties. Call me an extremist, but the USA has never been a nation of pansies (until recently). As for the military, I don't think they're attacking terrorists responsible for 9/11.
The US cannot afford to be isolationist and let world affairs take whatever course.
What are the demands of terrorists? What are these people apparently so upset about? I'd say we can't afford not to be isolationists.
As for the police bit, yes the ID is implied in taking your name. However, if you read the 6th Amendment carefully, you'll see that you are guaranteed the right not to divulge anything else.
If you choose to believe that US soldiers are out fighting for our freedom, then you're implying that those who are fighting against us are attacking our freedom. This is ironically true, since terrorism seems to have the effect of coercing our populace into accepting the curtailment of our liberties.
The idea that terrorists attack us because they are jealous of our freedom is ludicrous. If they desired freedom, then they would attack their own governments, not our cities. If you believe all the crap you see on TV, then you'll have to conclude that they're upset at our presence in the Middle East. In which case isolation is the cure, not "no longer an option" as you put it.