"but offending and mistreating people of other countries & backgrounds is not the way to do it."
Let me get this straight. By not handing out a gift check, we're offending and mistreating Theo?
Where did you get this "gift check" thing? It wasn't in his post. My belief is that he was referring to the countries Bush alienated in his single-minded push to war (France, Germany, Russia, and Turkey), and to the Arabs and other Islamic people the Bush administration is persecuting (e.g. Mike Hawash).
So then you believe that despite numerous calls to jihad from Bin Laden that Al Queda is taking a vacation and isn't attempting further acts of terror?
They caught terrorists before the "patriot" act - remember the guy caught at the BC border? They acquired sufficient evidence to catch the 9/11 hijackers without the "patriot" act - the FBI just blew the follow-through. How is it you think that this execrable act accomplished anything?
Actually, John Ashcroft was the primary author of the USA PATRIOT act, it passed congress, most representatives not bothering to read it...
According to Peter DeFazio (Representative from Oregon), the vast majority of the Congress wasn't even allowed to read it prior to the vote. DeFazio had to demand a copy in so he would know what was in it before the "debate".
I don't have a reference for the interview in which he said this - it was on the radio. However, here's a
link to an article describing his stance on the bill.
And it's taken them this long to set up a system like this. I'm glad Bush got his act together...
What did they do that was valuable? What did they do that the existing services couldn't? The only thing they did right was they didn't pull an Ashcroft (ham-fisted intervention)...
That is indeed *one* type fo sever consequence. There are many more. Do you have any particular reason for ignoring the others?
Bush has been trying to get a second resolution to have more support but legally 1441 is more than enough.
George W. Bush wants a war in the worst way, which is why he tries so hard to spin things that way. However, the resolution does not sanction a war. The Security Council members were quite clear on that at the time. There's nothing legal about what Bush is trying to do.
The war againts Iraq is hardly immoral considering that resolution 1441 was passed with an unanimous vote. That's as moral as international politics go.
1441 does *not* authorize war. Bush demanded the UN authorize an invasion if inspections fail and the UN refused. The final resolution warned of "severe consequences" instead. Bush has been trying to spin that into authorization ever since.
Perhaps, maybe, did you even fucking acknowledge the possibility(?), that someone who came from Iraq has more insight into the situation than you do?
Better insight as to conditions inside Iraq, yes. Better insight as to the proper course of action for the United States, no. Being on the ground in Iraq does not necessarily give you insight into America's best interests. Unfortunately, it appears that the same can be said of being in the White House.
It can truthfully be said that the purpose of most guns is to prevent violence...
That's beside the point. If I give you a gun and you blow someone's head off, am I partially responsible for the death? Openheimer helped to design the original atom bombs and felt guilt for the people killed by it. This isn't an arument about gun ownership, it's about responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
Developers aren't helping the "U.S. go to war with Iraq" they're developing software.
And gun makers aren't building killing machines they're just making things that propel lead at high speed? If you build things that kill - or parts of things that kill - are you partly responsible for the killing? It's the sort of dilemma that plagued people like Oppenheimer and Einstein. It's one of the classic dilemmas scientists face and a prime issue for Slashdot.
The problem there is that Microsoft products don't have to stand on their merit. Microsoft uses sleazy tactics (exclusive contracts, etc) to lock people into buying them.
I'm not saying we should sink to their level, just that head-to-head competition isn't possible.
That's the beauty of a poison pill - you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If we let them speak, then they get ill-deserved publicity as being open source. If we don't, then Microsoft can denounce us as being totalitarian. That's the sort of game they're playing.
If that's the case, then I think it's better to tell them that their products aren't open source software and therefore aren't welcome at the conference. Refuse them publicly with cause.
What the loons on the extreme of the extreme don't understand is that Microsoft would love to have an excuse to not attend.
Wonderful. Send them away. Tell them to come back when they get their act - in terms of open source software - together.
Microsoft is bringing *nothing* to the table other than their "shared source" poison pill.
Who do you think Linux has been taking market share away from?
Linux has not been taking market share away from Microsoft. It has, however, slowed their move into the server market. Microsoft spent a lot in recent years trying to convince businesses that they're ready for use in mission critical applications. The trouble for them is that's the area where Linux is ascendant.
Their prices don't change and, all-of-a-sudden, IBM becomes synonymous with buzzword compliancy. And they get to milk developers who work for free!
IBM is integrating Linux into almost everything they do (X Series being one of the few exceptions.) They have also contributed to the Linux community in a number of ways. For example: JFS, Winmodem specs, and kernel patches. It is obviously more than buzword compliance. It's also more than milking developers, IBM is contributing.
Personally, I've found milking developers to be unsatisfying. You don't get milk and they complain really loud.
Did you miss the LAWFUL interception part? There are plenty of good reasons to tap phones, rooms and net traffic.
The part you're missing is that recent legislation - like the "patriot" act - has greatly expanded what can be considered lawful interception. Concurrently King George II has limited your ability to get information out of the government. The result is a civil rights train-wreck waiting to happen.
Wow. Let's play this one out a little closer to home. Chicago should never have sent all those highpaying meatpacking jobs out to Omaha. That's why Chicago is poor. Even closer to home: are you letting your wife wash the dishes? Don't you realize that's taking away work that you could be doing? She's impoverishing you!
Nice bit of reductio ad absurdum reasoning. Surely there must have be a valid argument you could have used instead.
On the one hand Microsoft is doomed as the purportedly superior Linux/Apache/MySQL/Postgresql stomps its way into the hearts and mind of shops everywhere...
Those programs *are* superior to their microsoft opposites. But, as Microsoft has so often proved, the best technology often doesn't win. What you hear on Slashdot is the hope that good software can overcome Microsoft's sleazy tactics - not the certainly that it will.
...but on the other hand Microsoft is an evil monopoly that must be stopped...
The court system declared Microsoft to be an abusive monopoly. The majority of Slashdot reader would probably agree. This does not in any way suggest that Free/Opensource software can not leverage them out of that position. They're an abusive monopoly now, tomorrow they're dust. Where's the dichotomy in that? It worked with the Huns, the Romans, and that guy with the funny mustache (what was his name again?:) - it will eventually work with Bill.
Verizon sent out warning letters to sites with "verizon" in their domain name. In the case of 2600, they dropped the suit because they said verizonreallysucks.com clearly met "the standards of fair use".
You can see 2600's pages on the matter:
here
and
here
You're presupposing that all closed-source apps have a closed data format. You and I both know that that's simply not true.
The closed source applications I'm familiar with all save in closed formats. If you "export" your document in a "foreign" format (html for example) several things happen:
1) you loose format information.
2) They produce broken output (like MS and their idiotic quoting feature or their broken local attach points).
3) Saving as html, postscript, or (ugh) pdf is never the default. The user has to explicitly choose to do so every time and the process takes several extra menu selections. So, you run the risk that people will accidentally save in the wrong fromat.
If you can't sell it on cost effective don't force it on me. I pay taxes as well.
OK, how about public access to data? That's not a cost factor, but it's none the less important. You think it's a good thing that data paid by your tax dollars be locked up in formats that can only be read by one vendor's products? What happens when that vendor discards the old "standard" for a new one (in order to force users into buying new software)?
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but I did. Let's recap:
OpenBSD Journal Title:"The Emerging DARPA Reasoning"
Subject of Theo's post: "Unbelievable"
Slashdot topic: "Open Source Enables Terrorist States"
Topic of the post you were responding to: "This is getting crazy.." (#5787674)
Where's the topic with "gift check" in it? RTFA yourself and tell me.
Let me get this straight. By not handing out a gift check, we're offending and mistreating Theo?
Where did you get this "gift check" thing? It wasn't in his post. My belief is that he was referring to the countries Bush alienated in his single-minded push to war (France, Germany, Russia, and Turkey), and to the Arabs and other Islamic people the Bush administration is persecuting (e.g. Mike Hawash).
They caught terrorists before the "patriot" act - remember the guy caught at the BC border? They acquired sufficient evidence to catch the 9/11 hijackers without the "patriot" act - the FBI just blew the follow-through. How is it you think that this execrable act accomplished anything?
According to Peter DeFazio (Representative from Oregon), the vast majority of the Congress wasn't even allowed to read it prior to the vote. DeFazio had to demand a copy in so he would know what was in it before the "debate".
I don't have a reference for the interview in which he said this - it was on the radio. However, here's a link to an article describing his stance on the bill.
Are you thinking of Caldera?
Bingo. I've made the same mistake my self more than once.
What did they do that was valuable? What did they do that the existing services couldn't? The only thing they did right was they didn't pull an Ashcroft (ham-fisted intervention)...
So, I guess, talking Bush into not invading Iraq is out of the question...
That is indeed *one* type fo sever consequence. There are many more. Do you have any particular reason for ignoring the others?
Bush has been trying to get a second resolution to have more support but legally 1441 is more than enough.
George W. Bush wants a war in the worst way, which is why he tries so hard to spin things that way. However, the resolution does not sanction a war. The Security Council members were quite clear on that at the time. There's nothing legal about what Bush is trying to do.
1441 does *not* authorize war. Bush demanded the UN authorize an invasion if inspections fail and the UN refused. The final resolution warned of "severe consequences" instead. Bush has been trying to spin that into authorization ever since.
Golly, do you think that the military may actually use those BlackHawks to *kill* people???
Better insight as to conditions inside Iraq, yes. Better insight as to the proper course of action for the United States, no. Being on the ground in Iraq does not necessarily give you insight into America's best interests. Unfortunately, it appears that the same can be said of being in the White House.
That's beside the point. If I give you a gun and you blow someone's head off, am I partially responsible for the death? Openheimer helped to design the original atom bombs and felt guilt for the people killed by it. This isn't an arument about gun ownership, it's about responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
And gun makers aren't building killing machines they're just making things that propel lead at high speed? If you build things that kill - or parts of things that kill - are you partly responsible for the killing? It's the sort of dilemma that plagued people like Oppenheimer and Einstein. It's one of the classic dilemmas scientists face and a prime issue for Slashdot.
The problem there is that Microsoft products don't have to stand on their merit. Microsoft uses sleazy tactics (exclusive contracts, etc) to lock people into buying them.
I'm not saying we should sink to their level, just that head-to-head competition isn't possible.
If that's the case, then I think it's better to tell them that their products aren't open source software and therefore aren't welcome at the conference. Refuse them publicly with cause.
Wonderful. Send them away. Tell them to come back when they get their act - in terms of open source software - together. Microsoft is bringing *nothing* to the table other than their "shared source" poison pill.
Linux has not been taking market share away from Microsoft. It has, however, slowed their move into the server market. Microsoft spent a lot in recent years trying to convince businesses that they're ready for use in mission critical applications. The trouble for them is that's the area where Linux is ascendant.
So, it's not like Linux isn't hurting Microsoft.
IBM is integrating Linux into almost everything they do (X Series being one of the few exceptions.) They have also contributed to the Linux community in a number of ways. For example: JFS, Winmodem specs, and kernel patches. It is obviously more than buzword compliance. It's also more than milking developers, IBM is contributing.
Personally, I've found milking developers to be unsatisfying. You don't get milk and they complain really loud.
The part you're missing is that recent legislation - like the "patriot" act - has greatly expanded what can be considered lawful interception. Concurrently King George II has limited your ability to get information out of the government. The result is a civil rights train-wreck waiting to happen.
Nice bit of reductio ad absurdum reasoning. Surely there must have be a valid argument you could have used instead.
On the one hand Microsoft is doomed as the purportedly superior Linux/Apache/MySQL/Postgresql stomps its way into the hearts and mind of shops everywhere...
Those programs *are* superior to their microsoft opposites. But, as Microsoft has so often proved, the best technology often doesn't win. What you hear on Slashdot is the hope that good software can overcome Microsoft's sleazy tactics - not the certainly that it will.
The court system declared Microsoft to be an abusive monopoly. The majority of Slashdot reader would probably agree. This does not in any way suggest that Free/Opensource software can not leverage them out of that position. They're an abusive monopoly now, tomorrow they're dust. Where's the dichotomy in that? It worked with the Huns, the Romans, and that guy with the funny mustache (what was his name again? :) - it will eventually work with Bill.
Possibly, but it's just amusing to actually see evidence that Microsoft knows the truth (they aren't entirely self-deluded).
BTW, why exactly did this posting get a +5? I see nothing informative here...
You can see 2600's pages on the matter: here and here
The closed source applications I'm familiar with all save in closed formats. If you "export" your document in a "foreign" format (html for example) several things happen:
1) you loose format information.
2) They produce broken output (like MS and their idiotic quoting feature or their broken local attach points).
3) Saving as html, postscript, or (ugh) pdf is never the default. The user has to explicitly choose to do so every time and the process takes several extra menu selections. So, you run the risk that people will accidentally save in the wrong fromat.
OK, how about public access to data? That's not a cost factor, but it's none the less important. You think it's a good thing that data paid by your tax dollars be locked up in formats that can only be read by one vendor's products? What happens when that vendor discards the old "standard" for a new one (in order to force users into buying new software)?
I don't think you've thought this out.