I think we are, for the most part, in agreement. All I was saying would be for MS to have a place to remove IE without breaking the system so that normal users could remove it and use something else. I agree that duplication of code tends to make things more confusing (thus more bug prone), not less. To use your analogy, I wouldn't sue Chevy for choosing to put Delco radios in their cars as long as I can remove it and still get the steering wheel to work. The aftermarket still exists because Chevy realizes you may not want to use the raido they provide and wires their systems accordingly.
Perhaps this whole debate is a shortcoming of the other browsers that are out there. A user might try to uninstall IE only to find that critical APIs are gone which Windows uses in the GUI. Installing another browser won't help because the APIs aren't replaced just the web browser functionality. Again, to use your analogy, the aftermarket radios are still including connection wiring to connect the radio to the car's speaker system. However in our example, the other browser vendors aren't including the option to install the APIs lost through a IE uninstall.
I'm not crying foul on both sides here, but MS is. The developer in the blog is asserting the IE is not part of the operating system. Yet, to get Windows (GUI and OS) to function properly, you must have IE installed. Which is it? Is IE so bound to the GUI (and by extension the OS) that it won't function without it or not? My assertion is that a simple proof would be to have MS allow users the option of uninstalling IE through "Add/Remove Programs" and still have the Windows GUI function properly. Why should I have to have parts of a web browser installed on my desktop environment in order to get the basic GUI to work? If, as MS has asserted throughout its trials, IE is not part of the operating system then a simple uninstall of IE should keep the Windows OS and GUI running normally. However, this is not the case. The alternative here is to allow multiple Desktop Environments to run independant of the OS, but MS isn't going to allow that.
Now, if Windows is seperate from the OS then your point is valid and my use of the Windows GUI requires that those functions of IE be present. However, the Windows GUI is not seperate from the OS. The blogger in this case is directly contradicting what MS has been saying through their antitrust litigation. Show me a Windows box that allows me to use the Windows GUI to control the Windows OS without any traces of IE and I'll concede your point. Until then, it is MS that is crying foul on both sides, not me.
If IE is truly not part of the OS like this developer is claiming then prove it by making a simple option to uninstall IE from the "Add/Remove Programs" area in the control panel. I'll buy that IE is not part of the OS when MS gives us that option and my Windows computers operate normally without IE installed.
There is no doubt that the statements made regarding this study are controversial simply because they're not PC. However, its the differences between various identity politics groups out there that allows us as a species to advance. If everyone were given precisely the same skills, we'd never get anywhere. Perhaps its not the differences between the inherent math skills of men and women that are the problem, but the value our society places on those abilities that is out of whack. My wife is a homemaker, and yet the feminist movement tells her that she is a traitor to her gender because of that choice. Why is the female CEO or tenured professor more important than the homemaker?
Perhaps this study is controversial because we've become so obsessed with envy of other people's blessings (material posessions, skills/abilities, opportunities, etc.) that we have lost the ability to count our own blessings. I'm not the best in math (I struggled with Calculus), and there are certainly women out there who are much better than math than I am. My only desire would be for those women to make good use of that ability in whatever endeavor they choose to pursue. When we can no longer be happy for those who have different skills and abilities than we do, this PC nonesense is the result.
Let's say for a moment that a man's brain is more capable of handeling advanced mathematical concepts than women are. So what? Is the biology of how our brains are wired right or wrong? Of course not, its beyond our control. When we start having problems is when the President of Harvard decides to not allow women into the science, engineering, and mathematics programs based on a generalization of an entire group. It is the actions of individuals that are right or wrong, not the biology of the mind. I did not read the article, but if this guy is advocating placing caps on the number of women who can enroll in math, science, or engineering programs because of the perceived differences, then we have a major problem and this person is no longer fit to run a major University. However, it sounds like he is merely making an observation that may or may not explain why there are more men in science and engineering programs than women. But perhaps we should also look at other fields where women may have a disproportionate representation than men. Fields like psychology, social work, elementary education may be examples of where there are a disproportionate number of women in those fields than men. Would the President of Harvard making a statement that "men are naturally bad at empathy and that is why they aren't as many men in psychology or elementary education" be as controversial as the remarks he did make? If not, then perhaps he isn't the only sexist person discussing this.
Part of what truly disturbs me about the PC movement is its obsessive focus on making everyone absolutely identical. We're different and that is a good thing. We have different skills and abilities. We have different passions, and different dreams. Are women barred from pursuing degrees or certain careers? I'm not talking about being discouraged about pursuing those degrees and careers (I was discouraged about learning much about computers when I was a kid, "there is no future in computers" was what I was told). There is a place for discouraging someone from a path that, after objective evaluation, appears to be too difficult for that person. If they truly desire that career, the discouragement will roll off them like water off a duck's back and they'll redouble their efforts towards the goal. I'm talking about Universities that have "no women allowed" or similar language in their course catalogs and admissions manuals. I'm talking about HR departments dictating blatently discriminatory hiring practices. The altruistic goal is to look at individuals, not an identity politics group.
"I trust individuals, not organizations" - John Sherridan, Babylon 5
My day job is for a small business school. My main side job is teaching an online class or two each semester. As long as I keep working toward my masters degree, I can pocket a little extra cash in exchange for around 15 extra hours a week. Not glamorous, but its not out wandering the countryside fixing people's computers. This way I get to be at home and still make a little extra money, so I'm not a total stranger to my daughter.
Why is it that Microsoft's cheif bomb thrower is immediately picked up by the trade press and published to the PHBs that control most of the IT infrastructure at most companies? Ballmer's remarks were just plain infantile. I'm starting to wonder if the trade press is a bigger roadblock to wider adoption of more diverse platforms. Linux rarely gets a fair shake, Macintosh is still just a pretty little bauble, and neither having any real value to a serious computer user. All the advocacy of the professionals in your department regarding either platform is immediately lost by a piece of FUD in your PHB's trade mag of choice, or a Microsoft-funded "benchmark test", or "TCO Comparison".
The simple reality is that Microsoft once again missed the boat on an important innovation. They can't buy the technology so their fumbling attempt to copy it will need a few versions before anyone starts switching to the MS "solution". Apple keeps out innovating Microsoft at every turn and all guys like Ballmer can do is throw more gasoline on the PC vs. Mac fire. Ballmer simply doesn't have the charisma that Jobs does. He can't rile up the PC user base because the vast majority of them don't care about Microsoft the way Mac users care about Apple.
The iTMS + iPod combination delivers a simple solution on both the PC and the Mac, why switch to the DRM-laden, lock-in ridden MS alternative? I can still rip, mix, burn to CD in relation to my needs. I can legally buy music and upload it to my iPod. I don't have to waste money on entire records for the two songs I want. In essence, I don't have to illegally download music because Apple has made it easy to do everything legally.
This is simply MS sucking up to the RIAA in an attempt to squeeze out Apple from this market. The mantra is altered slightly to make the point of illegal downloads, but also take a jab at Ballmer's primary competition. We know that MS can't compete head-to-head on the technical merits of their products alone, so they have to undermine the credibility of the user base of the product they're competing against. Add to that the RIAA's core (almost religious) belief that all music on a computing device must be illegal, and you have Ballmer's infantile remarks. Meant to alienate those users of the iPod, and to pass "critical insight" to PHB's that make IT policy decisions.
I concur with many here who have posted a hiatus on production of Star Trek. I think 10 to 15 years would be sufficient to generate some new ideas. However, the Trek Universe is a very rich one with many different angles that could be explored. So dumping the whole thing seems a bit wasteful.
What I would prefer is to create a Sci-Fi series that appeals to both the geeks, and the normal people enough for a good run on a major network. I applaud Fox for trying with Firefly, but there hasn't been a popular Sci-Fi show on prime time networks for quite some time. Even Trek wasn't popular when it first aired. There are some very good writers out there that could write a fantastic series.
My big concern is that Sci-Fi isn't really for television anymore. Special effects are expensive (even the CGI ones). You can't really have a good Sci-Fi show with stock footage like Battlestar Galactica did. Babylon 5 (from what I've seen of it) was a great show, but no TV network is willing to risk even a good show like that on a prime time slot. If it doesn't involve situational comedy or "reality" programming, its just not going to see air time. Lets face it, the popular TV marketplace doesn't really want characters that are well developed. Everything you need to know about the characters should be part of the premise of the show, or included only in the episodes where it is relevant. How many characters on TV are well developed? We shouldn't be surprised then when we don't know much about what makes Archer or Janeway tick.
I'm wondering if all this frustration isn't so much about a perceived lack of writing talent, but that the core Sci-Fi audience has grown up. The old formulas don't work anymore. Campy plots with big holes just don't cut it. Big words don't impress as much as they used to and don't satisfy as a means to solve the conflict within the story. Our expectations are higher. And the marketplace hasn't adapted yet.
After reading the posts on this particular topic, I'm amazed at how quickly the/. community retreats to the rhetorical (albeit slightly better researched and intelligent) arguments on both sides of the Bush vs. Kerry argument.
I'm not going to advocate either candidate here as I don't really think it really matters. Both men have questionable service records during the Vietnam war. I know that service speakes to the character of each man, but just how relevant is a three decades old cold-war conflict to the modern world with regard to the completely different "war on terror"?
The grim reality we need to face is that Bush and Kerry are actually two sides to the same damn coin. Is your real tax burden really going to go down under either administration? Is the government going to be less intrusive under either administration? John Kerry hasn't met a tax increase or bigger governmental progam he didn't like. George W. Bush signed on one of the largest entitlements in over 30 years. While Bush did manage to get tax cuts handed out, how many of us felt a real impact? How many of us really believe that the cause of liberty (which I differentiate from freedom to include a measure of responsibility) will be championed by either man?
Bottom line is with either man, your taxes will go up (if you live here anyway), the government will increase its size, scope, and intrusiveness, and neither man will work toward true liberty for the citizens of the US.
Sure, John Kerry will not appoint someone as scary as Ashcroft as Attorney General, but he will appoint an equally scary Janet Reno clone. Political Correctness will be the blinders Mr. Kerry will strap on each of us to blind us from the harsh realities he doesn't believe we're capable of handeling.
On the other hand, George W. Bush won't hasten the demise of free speech via PC activism, but will use national security to the same end the blinders Mr. Kerry would see implemented. Neither man believes we the people are capable of managing our own lives and protection.
Sure GWB lowered taxes and I've heard the various arguments for and against them (left: only the rich get tax cuts, right: the rich pay the bulk of the taxes so who else should get the cuts) ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Kerry has said he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts, he's raised taxes every times he's been asked, so I believe he'll do it again. Bush tells us that the he wants the tax cuts to be permanent, but increases entitlement spending. Neither candidate is interested in really reducing the tax burden on most families. That would mean cutting too deeply into pet projects of our various congresscritters.
Why is there even a debate here about taxes? What governmental agency has gotten anything right in the past 30 years? We dump more and more money into social problems only to find them getting worse. Why not try a different approach? Oh yeah, beacuase both parties have a vested interest in getting people addicted to the heroine that is government assistance. Neither party wants to see Americans independant, able to successfully function on their own, and provide for their families needs. Republicans want us to need them for personal protection and to be good little consumers, and Democrats want us to need them for everything else.
Under either candidate's adminstrations we'll still have to deal with Ridges Retards poking around our personal possessions at airports. Under either candidate, the war on terror will take a surprisingly similar look and feel as the war on drugs. Color coded alert levels are now a permanent fixture of life here in the USA. Neither candidate will lift a finger to attempt to discredit the animating ideas that inflames those who would do us harm. While Kerry would capitulate to world opinion before acting and allow terrorists the exclusive right to the use of force, Bush's approach tends to feed fuel to the fire.
A vote for Kerry means higher taxes, a PC system designed to inhibit thoughtful int
You're right, FTP access would be a little much. However, I've inquired about using SSH/SCP and I was told they are considered "hacker tools" and as such those requests are actively blocked. The guy is so dim that if it doesn't have Microsoft's logo on it, he's never heard of it.
You don't work from home, you don't carry a pager, and you don't give them your cell phone number. If they don't want to pay for the means of contacting you, they can try your answering machine and hope for the best.
I pretty much have that arrangement with my employer. Fortunately, my boss and I have the same opinions about that level of 24x7 support, that if you aren't willing to provide the means to contact the employee and provide them the access to the systems at work from home, then you can't expect them to be on call all the time. Since our IT head won't even allow FTP access to our webservers, I won't be working from home any time soon.
over Washington state. It was incredibly foggy and the pilot and passenger quickly became lost. The decided to fly close to a building and ask for directions. The found a building and wrote a note to the people inside the building. The note read, "Where are we?". One of the office workers noticed the helicopter outside the window and quickly wrote a note back saying, "in a helicopter." The pilot immediately seemed to know where he was and flew directly back to the helicopter pad and landed. The passenger was astounded.
"How did you know where we were?"
"That was the Microsoft building. Where else would you get a technically correct, but completely useless answer," replied the pilot.
I can speak from experience here. I work at a small 4 year University. We have Microsoft's open license here. Every full-time employee has the opportunity to get a free copy of anything in the Microsoft catalog for their home use. This deal has our IT head so blinded against anything beside Microsoft that we have started a program for computer security with no classes offered in Linux or Unix. Even modest attempts to get applications like Dreamweaver taught for basic web design courses are met with open hostility bordering on outright hatred. Every attempt I've done to open the administrations eyes to a more inclusive software policy has been shut down. Even when faced with facts (like web browser polls from Netcraft), they maintain their myopic position. I guess its what one should expect when even non-technical people can see (and mention) that our IT head is hopelessly out of his depth.
My last year of teaching (2000), the Senior class motto was: "Shoot for the moon and even if you miss, you'll land amongst the stars." If that doesn't sum up the struggle for mediocraty that is our public education system, I don't know a better statement that would. After all, aren't kids today are entitled to a corner office and company car the day after graduation.
I find it interesting that Valenti said that because there are only a thousand or so engineers that could build their own high-def TVs that we can't base public policy on such a small minority. Yet later he asserts that because one person could use anti-CSS software (or other decryption software) to illegally distribute content, we then need the DMCA.
I'm fully aware that there are far many more than one person downloading movies and music off the internet. My point is that his argument is flawed. Because there might be one person who would abuse the ability to decrypt digital content, we all need to be restrained. Yet if one person knows how to build a DVD player for Linux that is too small a minority to allow people the ability to customize and create their own solutions. Sounds to me like he wants it both ways.
BTW - isn't this the same Jack Valenti that said the VCR would be the doom of the movie business? How is someone who has been so consistantly wrong with each new technology still able to convince our congresscritters that he knows what he is talking about? I suspect its not Mr. Valenti's silver tongue and gift for pursuasion, but more likely the bags of money sitting behind him that is the key to his "success".
I agree that there are ethical considerations, when new technologies are developed, but I disagree with where to put the responsibility for ethical behavior. Your position indicates that the ethical considerations must be completely covered by the inventor, they alone must decide wether or not to proceed, and that the user has no responsibility to behave ethically with a device that has the potential to do harm. Do we not invent something because someone somewhere might possibly someday in the future use my invention for evil?
In my area a man was sentenced yesterday to 10 years in prison for running someone over with his car. Is the car a bad invention because of it? You don't think Henry Ford (I know he's not the inventor of the automobile) didn't see that potential and went ahead anyway? Is he one of the bad guys because he threw the burden of responsible behavior back to the user?
How about something closer to home? Alcohol destroys thousands of lives each year. Death, violence, abuse are some of the effects of alcohol. Are the people who produce these beverages to blame for all that? Many of us here are distrustful of government and nanny state policies to varying degrees, but isn't that the logical conclusion of your statement? If the devices themselves are inherently good or evil, wouldn't we be comitting a crime of negligence if we fail to outlaw devices deemed evil? And more importantly, who gets to decide then what gets invented and what doesn't? Those idiots in Washington? The bigger idiots in the EU and UN?
Does the inventor carry an ethical burden? Yes. Something that has absolutely no redeemable qualities ought not be invented. But we cannot see the future, and cannot see the potential good uses of what we consider evil devices. What if the pit of a nuclear bomb could be easily retrofitted to provide cheap, clean, reliable power to thousands of homes? Was the invention of the nuclear bomb worth it?
"Not even the wisest can see all ends." - Tolkein.
What is the answer? There is no answer. Anything can be used as a weapon.
Perhaps the answer is that inanimate objects are in and of themselves incapable of moral or immoral behavior. A gun is no more intrinsically good or evil than a toaster, yet some attempt to ascribe a morality to a gun that simply isn't there.
I could load a gun, put it in the middle of my living room, and barring some outside influence, the gun will never fire (indeed its more likely to rust away before it fires on its own). The same is true of my toaster. Left to itself, it will never rise up and strike someone in the temple rendering them just as dead as they would be had I fired the aforementioned gun (again, its more likely to rust away before it kills or even cooks another piece of toast without user intervention).
Will my decision likely have consequences if my daughter should come across it and manage to fire it? Absolutely. Should I therefore keep such items away from my daughter to prevent accidents? I'd be comitting a vast crime of negligence if I didn't. However, that doesn't negate the fact that it is my decision to put the gun in the middle of the living room that is inherently wrong, not the gun itself.
It is only when I pick it up and use it as an extension of my will that the device becomes an instrument of good or evil. If I use the toaster for its specified purpose, a good outcome of toasted bread is the result. If I use the gun to defend my wife and daughter from a potential murderer/rapist then the outcome is good.
Conversely, if my wife starts nagging me and I pick up the toaster and hit her in the temple with it, then the toaster has become an instrument of evil. The same is all to frequently true of people with no impulse control who kill people with guns.
The point here is that Linux doesn't make wars on people, anymore than a gun makes me a killer. Both only act as a tool in the users hand. The outcome may be good or it may be bad, but the simple fact is that it is my decisions, and my reactions that are good or evil. I refuse to give that kind of control over to an inanimate object. Perhaps this guy needs to reevaluate his position as a rational thinking person or political idealogue who attempts to politicize Linux as apparently only acceptable for use by the Democratic Party or other left leaning organizations.
"a sword never kills anybody, its a tool in the killer's hand" - Seneca the Younger
Perhaps its just me, but is it now SCO's belief that if they repeat their lies often enough that somehow their lies will magically become the truth? If so, why don't they replace McBride with a parrot? It would have to be cheaper than McBride's salary.
Exchange Poly want a cracker...Poly want a cracker
With Linux has our code...Linux has our code
I've never trained a parrot, but that can't be too difficult. I guess the only thing we should expect from the biggest horse's ass in the IT industry is crap.
Agreed. Another federal law won't accomplish anything productive. Changing the protocol might, but only for a short time. The real problem is that Spamming is profitable. If you want to get rich, you can make quite a bit of money Spamming the world hocking worthless merchandise. Opt-in won't work, for several reasons mentioned above. We need to hit the spammers where it hurts them the most...their pocketbooks. Like all industries, it will exist until there is no profit to be made. Once again, our elected officials (and not just Bush this time) have tried to demonstrate their relevance by passing a law doomed to failure (they'll never learn). Rather than pass a law, stop buying things from these bottom feeders of the internet (perhaps that would be better directed to non-Slashdot readers).
As always, however, it will be the lawyers that will benefit from this law. When they can find a way to twist the wording of this law around and drum up a few witless clients, the lawyers will make a killing in legal fees. Free speech will be the first to go, turned into a priviledge of those who are wealthy enough to battle it out all the way to the supreme court. One is left to wonder which of our freedoms will be left when the politicans and lawyers get finished. Quite possibly the "freedom to peaceably assemble" (I don't see how spam effects that).
The moral that Darl and his lawyers/thugs should probably learn here is that if you repeat an outrageous lie over and over, it never becomes the truth.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree. However, like many other technology related issues before the courts or legislatures in this country, technical merits matter very little. In the end, a largely technically ignorant judge will decide that a couple hundred lines of ubiquitous code will mean that Linux will be in violation of IP laws and removed from the market for the short term. All the inroads Linux has made in the business world will disappear overnight and the same government that said Microsoft had an illegal monopoly will hand that company the keys to the computer future. Hang on for the all Microsoft future. Its closer than you think.
From my limited experience, I've found that trusting users with HTML is just a total pain. Granted I was working with people who had no HTML experience but were entering content via a WYSIWYG type interface.
I agree that the formatting of a website needs to be left in the hands of those who understand web design. And from my experience, marketing people should be kept to simply offering advice on the look of the website. In my organization we have a "Director of Interactive Marketing" who makes all decisions (even technical ones) for any communication from our organization that is delivered via e-mail or a web browser. The problem is is that this person's one class in HTML doesn't make her anymore of a web developer than my one course in Marketing makes me a marketroid. These CMS's are targeted toward easily impressed marketroids and other suit types, and as such, are hated by the technical people (at least in my organization they are). Usually, the marketroids are so far removed from the actual effort of building the web site that they don't see the day-to-day frustrations their decisions generate for developers and therefore never garner an appreciation for making good technical decisions. But yet they continue to make them regardless of how much their decisions cost in both actual capital and also in development time.
And when it starts to hit you is when your boss says that it doesn't work on a big clients browser (they still use Netscape 4) and that sales want to access the intranet on their PDA's. Using HTML here will just not work.
The marketing department where I work decided to use Microsoft's Content Management Server, and more so than other content management systems I've seen, its total crap. To say our website doesn't work well with other browsers is an understatement. It works fine in IE (of course), but just try it in Mozilla or Opera and not only do you loose functionality, but with Opera the page doesn't even start to render properly. With this CMS, HTML is your only choice so forget about PDA's.
Once a site gets to a certain stage, simple tools aren't that powerful and you will usually find that managers don't like simple looking UI's - they want Javascripts, Flash, you name it. If your site is being used to promote your company it -needs- to look good.
Unfortunately, most CMS's don't allow a practical way to incorporate Javascript and/or Flash even for developers (the only one I've seen that does is the Dreamweaver/Contribute combination from Macromedia). Most of these systems are so involved in making sure that any idiot can add/change/remove content, that they have forgotten that developers need to be able to add/create/remove much more compicated content/functionality under much more constrained timelines. MSCMS allows no practical ability to incorporate Flash and/or Javascript even when you're willing to develop entirely in Visual Studio.Net (the only development tool that works with MSCMS) and work within that framework only. So forget about easy to use, well constructed UI's and browser compatibility for that matter. With MSCMS, the UI is determined by a system of channels. Trying to link out of a channel within the navigation structure and you're basically stuck with a redirect workaround. We have actually had to dumb down our level of functionality in order to work within this framework. And forget about using anything but Visual Studio.Net to do your development within MSCMS.
The truly disturbing thing about MSCMS is the inextricable binding of the server envrionment with the development environment that should be avoided at all costs. In working with MSCMS it becomes very difficult to see where a web page begins and the server environment ends. The other CMS's that I've seen at least keep the files that make up the web page seperate from the server environment. That and the major cost involved ($40K per processor) makes this product over price and under powered. And
As a Blackboard GUI adminstrator at a college in Michigan, I can say that the security flaws in Blackboard are only the tip of the holes they have in their software. In Release 6 of their software there is a major issue concerning tests offered through their software. Basically you can enter the test twice (two separate browsers) and take the test in one with the answers in the other. Fortunately, Blackboard is pretty good about patching their software.
"I doubt the RIAA would really want to sue a fairly large public university like this one."
Ordinarily I'd agree with you. However, with the State of Michigan budget cuts, MTU's budget is in the process of being cut pretty deeply. They've already gotten rid of the football team, which (I think) was only saved by unhappy alumni. I don't think they have the financial resources available to fight an extended battle with the deep pockets of the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
And the right to defend yourself and your freedoms a la the Second.
I think we are, for the most part, in agreement. All I was saying would be for MS to have a place to remove IE without breaking the system so that normal users could remove it and use something else. I agree that duplication of code tends to make things more confusing (thus more bug prone), not less. To use your analogy, I wouldn't sue Chevy for choosing to put Delco radios in their cars as long as I can remove it and still get the steering wheel to work. The aftermarket still exists because Chevy realizes you may not want to use the raido they provide and wires their systems accordingly.
Perhaps this whole debate is a shortcoming of the other browsers that are out there. A user might try to uninstall IE only to find that critical APIs are gone which Windows uses in the GUI. Installing another browser won't help because the APIs aren't replaced just the web browser functionality. Again, to use your analogy, the aftermarket radios are still including connection wiring to connect the radio to the car's speaker system. However in our example, the other browser vendors aren't including the option to install the APIs lost through a IE uninstall.
I'm not crying foul on both sides here, but MS is. The developer in the blog is asserting the IE is not part of the operating system. Yet, to get Windows (GUI and OS) to function properly, you must have IE installed. Which is it? Is IE so bound to the GUI (and by extension the OS) that it won't function without it or not? My assertion is that a simple proof would be to have MS allow users the option of uninstalling IE through "Add/Remove Programs" and still have the Windows GUI function properly. Why should I have to have parts of a web browser installed on my desktop environment in order to get the basic GUI to work? If, as MS has asserted throughout its trials, IE is not part of the operating system then a simple uninstall of IE should keep the Windows OS and GUI running normally. However, this is not the case. The alternative here is to allow multiple Desktop Environments to run independant of the OS, but MS isn't going to allow that.
Now, if Windows is seperate from the OS then your point is valid and my use of the Windows GUI requires that those functions of IE be present. However, the Windows GUI is not seperate from the OS. The blogger in this case is directly contradicting what MS has been saying through their antitrust litigation. Show me a Windows box that allows me to use the Windows GUI to control the Windows OS without any traces of IE and I'll concede your point. Until then, it is MS that is crying foul on both sides, not me.
If IE is truly not part of the OS like this developer is claiming then prove it by making a simple option to uninstall IE from the "Add/Remove Programs" area in the control panel. I'll buy that IE is not part of the OS when MS gives us that option and my Windows computers operate normally without IE installed.
There is no doubt that the statements made regarding this study are controversial simply because they're not PC. However, its the differences between various identity politics groups out there that allows us as a species to advance. If everyone were given precisely the same skills, we'd never get anywhere. Perhaps its not the differences between the inherent math skills of men and women that are the problem, but the value our society places on those abilities that is out of whack. My wife is a homemaker, and yet the feminist movement tells her that she is a traitor to her gender because of that choice. Why is the female CEO or tenured professor more important than the homemaker?
Perhaps this study is controversial because we've become so obsessed with envy of other people's blessings (material posessions, skills/abilities, opportunities, etc.) that we have lost the ability to count our own blessings. I'm not the best in math (I struggled with Calculus), and there are certainly women out there who are much better than math than I am. My only desire would be for those women to make good use of that ability in whatever endeavor they choose to pursue. When we can no longer be happy for those who have different skills and abilities than we do, this PC nonesense is the result.
Let's say for a moment that a man's brain is more capable of handeling advanced mathematical concepts than women are. So what? Is the biology of how our brains are wired right or wrong? Of course not, its beyond our control. When we start having problems is when the President of Harvard decides to not allow women into the science, engineering, and mathematics programs based on a generalization of an entire group. It is the actions of individuals that are right or wrong, not the biology of the mind. I did not read the article, but if this guy is advocating placing caps on the number of women who can enroll in math, science, or engineering programs because of the perceived differences, then we have a major problem and this person is no longer fit to run a major University. However, it sounds like he is merely making an observation that may or may not explain why there are more men in science and engineering programs than women. But perhaps we should also look at other fields where women may have a disproportionate representation than men. Fields like psychology, social work, elementary education may be examples of where there are a disproportionate number of women in those fields than men. Would the President of Harvard making a statement that "men are naturally bad at empathy and that is why they aren't as many men in psychology or elementary education" be as controversial as the remarks he did make? If not, then perhaps he isn't the only sexist person discussing this.
Part of what truly disturbs me about the PC movement is its obsessive focus on making everyone absolutely identical. We're different and that is a good thing. We have different skills and abilities. We have different passions, and different dreams. Are women barred from pursuing degrees or certain careers? I'm not talking about being discouraged about pursuing those degrees and careers (I was discouraged about learning much about computers when I was a kid, "there is no future in computers" was what I was told). There is a place for discouraging someone from a path that, after objective evaluation, appears to be too difficult for that person. If they truly desire that career, the discouragement will roll off them like water off a duck's back and they'll redouble their efforts towards the goal. I'm talking about Universities that have "no women allowed" or similar language in their course catalogs and admissions manuals. I'm talking about HR departments dictating blatently discriminatory hiring practices. The altruistic goal is to look at individuals, not an identity politics group.
"I trust individuals, not organizations" - John Sherridan, Babylon 5
My day job is for a small business school. My main side job is teaching an online class or two each semester. As long as I keep working toward my masters degree, I can pocket a little extra cash in exchange for around 15 extra hours a week. Not glamorous, but its not out wandering the countryside fixing people's computers. This way I get to be at home and still make a little extra money, so I'm not a total stranger to my daughter.
Why is it that Microsoft's cheif bomb thrower is immediately picked up by the trade press and published to the PHBs that control most of the IT infrastructure at most companies? Ballmer's remarks were just plain infantile. I'm starting to wonder if the trade press is a bigger roadblock to wider adoption of more diverse platforms. Linux rarely gets a fair shake, Macintosh is still just a pretty little bauble, and neither having any real value to a serious computer user. All the advocacy of the professionals in your department regarding either platform is immediately lost by a piece of FUD in your PHB's trade mag of choice, or a Microsoft-funded "benchmark test", or "TCO Comparison".
The simple reality is that Microsoft once again missed the boat on an important innovation. They can't buy the technology so their fumbling attempt to copy it will need a few versions before anyone starts switching to the MS "solution". Apple keeps out innovating Microsoft at every turn and all guys like Ballmer can do is throw more gasoline on the PC vs. Mac fire. Ballmer simply doesn't have the charisma that Jobs does. He can't rile up the PC user base because the vast majority of them don't care about Microsoft the way Mac users care about Apple.
The iTMS + iPod combination delivers a simple solution on both the PC and the Mac, why switch to the DRM-laden, lock-in ridden MS alternative? I can still rip, mix, burn to CD in relation to my needs. I can legally buy music and upload it to my iPod. I don't have to waste money on entire records for the two songs I want. In essence, I don't have to illegally download music because Apple has made it easy to do everything legally.
This is simply MS sucking up to the RIAA in an attempt to squeeze out Apple from this market. The mantra is altered slightly to make the point of illegal downloads, but also take a jab at Ballmer's primary competition. We know that MS can't compete head-to-head on the technical merits of their products alone, so they have to undermine the credibility of the user base of the product they're competing against. Add to that the RIAA's core (almost religious) belief that all music on a computing device must be illegal, and you have Ballmer's infantile remarks. Meant to alienate those users of the iPod, and to pass "critical insight" to PHB's that make IT policy decisions.
I concur with many here who have posted a hiatus on production of Star Trek. I think 10 to 15 years would be sufficient to generate some new ideas. However, the Trek Universe is a very rich one with many different angles that could be explored. So dumping the whole thing seems a bit wasteful.
What I would prefer is to create a Sci-Fi series that appeals to both the geeks, and the normal people enough for a good run on a major network. I applaud Fox for trying with Firefly, but there hasn't been a popular Sci-Fi show on prime time networks for quite some time. Even Trek wasn't popular when it first aired. There are some very good writers out there that could write a fantastic series.
My big concern is that Sci-Fi isn't really for television anymore. Special effects are expensive (even the CGI ones). You can't really have a good Sci-Fi show with stock footage like Battlestar Galactica did. Babylon 5 (from what I've seen of it) was a great show, but no TV network is willing to risk even a good show like that on a prime time slot. If it doesn't involve situational comedy or "reality" programming, its just not going to see air time. Lets face it, the popular TV marketplace doesn't really want characters that are well developed. Everything you need to know about the characters should be part of the premise of the show, or included only in the episodes where it is relevant. How many characters on TV are well developed? We shouldn't be surprised then when we don't know much about what makes Archer or Janeway tick.
I'm wondering if all this frustration isn't so much about a perceived lack of writing talent, but that the core Sci-Fi audience has grown up. The old formulas don't work anymore. Campy plots with big holes just don't cut it. Big words don't impress as much as they used to and don't satisfy as a means to solve the conflict within the story. Our expectations are higher. And the marketplace hasn't adapted yet.
After reading the posts on this particular topic, I'm amazed at how quickly the /. community retreats to the rhetorical (albeit slightly better researched and intelligent) arguments on both sides of the Bush vs. Kerry argument.
I'm not going to advocate either candidate here as I don't really think it really matters. Both men have questionable service records during the Vietnam war. I know that service speakes to the character of each man, but just how relevant is a three decades old cold-war conflict to the modern world with regard to the completely different "war on terror"?
The grim reality we need to face is that Bush and Kerry are actually two sides to the same damn coin. Is your real tax burden really going to go down under either administration? Is the government going to be less intrusive under either administration? John Kerry hasn't met a tax increase or bigger governmental progam he didn't like. George W. Bush signed on one of the largest entitlements in over 30 years. While Bush did manage to get tax cuts handed out, how many of us felt a real impact? How many of us really believe that the cause of liberty (which I differentiate from freedom to include a measure of responsibility) will be championed by either man?
Bottom line is with either man, your taxes will go up (if you live here anyway), the government will increase its size, scope, and intrusiveness, and neither man will work toward true liberty for the citizens of the US.
Sure, John Kerry will not appoint someone as scary as Ashcroft as Attorney General, but he will appoint an equally scary Janet Reno clone. Political Correctness will be the blinders Mr. Kerry will strap on each of us to blind us from the harsh realities he doesn't believe we're capable of handeling.
On the other hand, George W. Bush won't hasten the demise of free speech via PC activism, but will use national security to the same end the blinders Mr. Kerry would see implemented. Neither man believes we the people are capable of managing our own lives and protection.
Sure GWB lowered taxes and I've heard the various arguments for and against them (left: only the rich get tax cuts, right: the rich pay the bulk of the taxes so who else should get the cuts) ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Kerry has said he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts, he's raised taxes every times he's been asked, so I believe he'll do it again. Bush tells us that the he wants the tax cuts to be permanent, but increases entitlement spending. Neither candidate is interested in really reducing the tax burden on most families. That would mean cutting too deeply into pet projects of our various congresscritters.
Why is there even a debate here about taxes? What governmental agency has gotten anything right in the past 30 years? We dump more and more money into social problems only to find them getting worse. Why not try a different approach? Oh yeah, beacuase both parties have a vested interest in getting people addicted to the heroine that is government assistance. Neither party wants to see Americans independant, able to successfully function on their own, and provide for their families needs. Republicans want us to need them for personal protection and to be good little consumers, and Democrats want us to need them for everything else.
Under either candidate's adminstrations we'll still have to deal with Ridges Retards poking around our personal possessions at airports. Under either candidate, the war on terror will take a surprisingly similar look and feel as the war on drugs. Color coded alert levels are now a permanent fixture of life here in the USA. Neither candidate will lift a finger to attempt to discredit the animating ideas that inflames those who would do us harm. While Kerry would capitulate to world opinion before acting and allow terrorists the exclusive right to the use of force, Bush's approach tends to feed fuel to the fire.
A vote for Kerry means higher taxes, a PC system designed to inhibit thoughtful int
You're right, FTP access would be a little much. However, I've inquired about using SSH/SCP and I was told they are considered "hacker tools" and as such those requests are actively blocked. The guy is so dim that if it doesn't have Microsoft's logo on it, he's never heard of it.
You don't work from home, you don't carry a pager, and you don't give them your cell phone number. If they don't want to pay for the means of contacting you, they can try your answering machine and hope for the best.
I pretty much have that arrangement with my employer. Fortunately, my boss and I have the same opinions about that level of 24x7 support, that if you aren't willing to provide the means to contact the employee and provide them the access to the systems at work from home, then you can't expect them to be on call all the time. Since our IT head won't even allow FTP access to our webservers, I won't be working from home any time soon.
over Washington state. It was incredibly foggy and the pilot and passenger quickly became lost. The decided to fly close to a building and ask for directions. The found a building and wrote a note to the people inside the building. The note read, "Where are we?". One of the office workers noticed the helicopter outside the window and quickly wrote a note back saying, "in a helicopter." The pilot immediately seemed to know where he was and flew directly back to the helicopter pad and landed. The passenger was astounded.
"How did you know where we were?"
"That was the Microsoft building. Where else would you get a technically correct, but completely useless answer," replied the pilot.
I can speak from experience here. I work at a small 4 year University. We have Microsoft's open license here. Every full-time employee has the opportunity to get a free copy of anything in the Microsoft catalog for their home use. This deal has our IT head so blinded against anything beside Microsoft that we have started a program for computer security with no classes offered in Linux or Unix. Even modest attempts to get applications like Dreamweaver taught for basic web design courses are met with open hostility bordering on outright hatred. Every attempt I've done to open the administrations eyes to a more inclusive software policy has been shut down. Even when faced with facts (like web browser polls from Netcraft), they maintain their myopic position. I guess its what one should expect when even non-technical people can see (and mention) that our IT head is hopelessly out of his depth.
My last year of teaching (2000), the Senior class motto was: "Shoot for the moon and even if you miss, you'll land amongst the stars." If that doesn't sum up the struggle for mediocraty that is our public education system, I don't know a better statement that would. After all, aren't kids today are entitled to a corner office and company car the day after graduation.
I find it interesting that Valenti said that because there are only a thousand or so engineers that could build their own high-def TVs that we can't base public policy on such a small minority. Yet later he asserts that because one person could use anti-CSS software (or other decryption software) to illegally distribute content, we then need the DMCA.
I'm fully aware that there are far many more than one person downloading movies and music off the internet. My point is that his argument is flawed. Because there might be one person who would abuse the ability to decrypt digital content, we all need to be restrained. Yet if one person knows how to build a DVD player for Linux that is too small a minority to allow people the ability to customize and create their own solutions. Sounds to me like he wants it both ways.
BTW - isn't this the same Jack Valenti that said the VCR would be the doom of the movie business? How is someone who has been so consistantly wrong with each new technology still able to convince our congresscritters that he knows what he is talking about? I suspect its not Mr. Valenti's silver tongue and gift for pursuasion, but more likely the bags of money sitting behind him that is the key to his "success".
Many thanks.
I agree that there are ethical considerations, when new technologies are developed, but I disagree with where to put the responsibility for ethical behavior. Your position indicates that the ethical considerations must be completely covered by the inventor, they alone must decide wether or not to proceed, and that the user has no responsibility to behave ethically with a device that has the potential to do harm. Do we not invent something because someone somewhere might possibly someday in the future use my invention for evil?
In my area a man was sentenced yesterday to 10 years in prison for running someone over with his car. Is the car a bad invention because of it? You don't think Henry Ford (I know he's not the inventor of the automobile) didn't see that potential and went ahead anyway? Is he one of the bad guys because he threw the burden of responsible behavior back to the user?
How about something closer to home? Alcohol destroys thousands of lives each year. Death, violence, abuse are some of the effects of alcohol. Are the people who produce these beverages to blame for all that? Many of us here are distrustful of government and nanny state policies to varying degrees, but isn't that the logical conclusion of your statement? If the devices themselves are inherently good or evil, wouldn't we be comitting a crime of negligence if we fail to outlaw devices deemed evil? And more importantly, who gets to decide then what gets invented and what doesn't? Those idiots in Washington? The bigger idiots in the EU and UN?
Does the inventor carry an ethical burden? Yes. Something that has absolutely no redeemable qualities ought not be invented. But we cannot see the future, and cannot see the potential good uses of what we consider evil devices. What if the pit of a nuclear bomb could be easily retrofitted to provide cheap, clean, reliable power to thousands of homes? Was the invention of the nuclear bomb worth it?
"Not even the wisest can see all ends." - Tolkein.
What is the answer? There is no answer. Anything can be used as a weapon.
Perhaps the answer is that inanimate objects are in and of themselves incapable of moral or immoral behavior. A gun is no more intrinsically good or evil than a toaster, yet some attempt to ascribe a morality to a gun that simply isn't there.
I could load a gun, put it in the middle of my living room, and barring some outside influence, the gun will never fire (indeed its more likely to rust away before it fires on its own). The same is true of my toaster. Left to itself, it will never rise up and strike someone in the temple rendering them just as dead as they would be had I fired the aforementioned gun (again, its more likely to rust away before it kills or even cooks another piece of toast without user intervention).
Will my decision likely have consequences if my daughter should come across it and manage to fire it? Absolutely. Should I therefore keep such items away from my daughter to prevent accidents? I'd be comitting a vast crime of negligence if I didn't. However, that doesn't negate the fact that it is my decision to put the gun in the middle of the living room that is inherently wrong, not the gun itself.
It is only when I pick it up and use it as an extension of my will that the device becomes an instrument of good or evil. If I use the toaster for its specified purpose, a good outcome of toasted bread is the result. If I use the gun to defend my wife and daughter from a potential murderer/rapist then the outcome is good.
Conversely, if my wife starts nagging me and I pick up the toaster and hit her in the temple with it, then the toaster has become an instrument of evil. The same is all to frequently true of people with no impulse control who kill people with guns.
The point here is that Linux doesn't make wars on people, anymore than a gun makes me a killer. Both only act as a tool in the users hand. The outcome may be good or it may be bad, but the simple fact is that it is my decisions, and my reactions that are good or evil. I refuse to give that kind of control over to an inanimate object. Perhaps this guy needs to reevaluate his position as a rational thinking person or political idealogue who attempts to politicize Linux as apparently only acceptable for use by the Democratic Party or other left leaning organizations.
"a sword never kills anybody, its a tool in the killer's hand" - Seneca the Younger
Perhaps its just me, but is it now SCO's belief that if they repeat their lies often enough that somehow their lies will magically become the truth? If so, why don't they replace McBride with a parrot? It would have to be cheaper than McBride's salary.
Exchange Poly want a cracker...Poly want a cracker
With Linux has our code...Linux has our code
I've never trained a parrot, but that can't be too difficult. I guess the only thing we should expect from the biggest horse's ass in the IT industry is crap.
Agreed. Another federal law won't accomplish anything productive. Changing the protocol might, but only for a short time. The real problem is that Spamming is profitable. If you want to get rich, you can make quite a bit of money Spamming the world hocking worthless merchandise. Opt-in won't work, for several reasons mentioned above. We need to hit the spammers where it hurts them the most...their pocketbooks. Like all industries, it will exist until there is no profit to be made. Once again, our elected officials (and not just Bush this time) have tried to demonstrate their relevance by passing a law doomed to failure (they'll never learn). Rather than pass a law, stop buying things from these bottom feeders of the internet (perhaps that would be better directed to non-Slashdot readers).
As always, however, it will be the lawyers that will benefit from this law. When they can find a way to twist the wording of this law around and drum up a few witless clients, the lawyers will make a killing in legal fees. Free speech will be the first to go, turned into a priviledge of those who are wealthy enough to battle it out all the way to the supreme court. One is left to wonder which of our freedoms will be left when the politicans and lawyers get finished. Quite possibly the "freedom to peaceably assemble" (I don't see how spam effects that).
The moral that Darl and his lawyers/thugs should probably learn here is that if you repeat an outrageous lie over and over, it never becomes the truth.
They have no legal legs to stand on.
Under normal circumstances, I would agree. However, like many other technology related issues before the courts or legislatures in this country, technical merits matter very little. In the end, a largely technically ignorant judge will decide that a couple hundred lines of ubiquitous code will mean that Linux will be in violation of IP laws and removed from the market for the short term. All the inroads Linux has made in the business world will disappear overnight and the same government that said Microsoft had an illegal monopoly will hand that company the keys to the computer future. Hang on for the all Microsoft future. Its closer than you think.
From my limited experience, I've found that trusting users with HTML is just a total pain. Granted I was working with people who had no HTML experience but were entering content via a WYSIWYG type interface.
I agree that the formatting of a website needs to be left in the hands of those who understand web design. And from my experience, marketing people should be kept to simply offering advice on the look of the website. In my organization we have a "Director of Interactive Marketing" who makes all decisions (even technical ones) for any communication from our organization that is delivered via e-mail or a web browser. The problem is is that this person's one class in HTML doesn't make her anymore of a web developer than my one course in Marketing makes me a marketroid. These CMS's are targeted toward easily impressed marketroids and other suit types, and as such, are hated by the technical people (at least in my organization they are). Usually, the marketroids are so far removed from the actual effort of building the web site that they don't see the day-to-day frustrations their decisions generate for developers and therefore never garner an appreciation for making good technical decisions. But yet they continue to make them regardless of how much their decisions cost in both actual capital and also in development time.
And when it starts to hit you is when your boss says that it doesn't work on a big clients browser (they still use Netscape 4) and that sales want to access the intranet on their PDA's. Using HTML here will just not work.
The marketing department where I work decided to use Microsoft's Content Management Server, and more so than other content management systems I've seen, its total crap. To say our website doesn't work well with other browsers is an understatement. It works fine in IE (of course), but just try it in Mozilla or Opera and not only do you loose functionality, but with Opera the page doesn't even start to render properly. With this CMS, HTML is your only choice so forget about PDA's.
Once a site gets to a certain stage, simple tools aren't that powerful and you will usually find that managers don't like simple looking UI's - they want Javascripts, Flash, you name it. If your site is being used to promote your company it -needs- to look good.
Unfortunately, most CMS's don't allow a practical way to incorporate Javascript and/or Flash even for developers (the only one I've seen that does is the Dreamweaver/Contribute combination from Macromedia). Most of these systems are so involved in making sure that any idiot can add/change/remove content, that they have forgotten that developers need to be able to add/create/remove much more compicated content/functionality under much more constrained timelines. MSCMS allows no practical ability to incorporate Flash and/or Javascript even when you're willing to develop entirely in Visual Studio .Net (the only development tool that works with MSCMS) and work within that framework only. So forget about easy to use, well constructed UI's and browser compatibility for that matter. With MSCMS, the UI is determined by a system of channels. Trying to link out of a channel within the navigation structure and you're basically stuck with a redirect workaround. We have actually had to dumb down our level of functionality in order to work within this framework. And forget about using anything but Visual Studio .Net to do your development within MSCMS.
The truly disturbing thing about MSCMS is the inextricable binding of the server envrionment with the development environment that should be avoided at all costs. In working with MSCMS it becomes very difficult to see where a web page begins and the server environment ends. The other CMS's that I've seen at least keep the files that make up the web page seperate from the server environment. That and the major cost involved ($40K per processor) makes this product over price and under powered. And
As a Blackboard GUI adminstrator at a college in Michigan, I can say that the security flaws in Blackboard are only the tip of the holes they have in their software. In Release 6 of their software there is a major issue concerning tests offered through their software. Basically you can enter the test twice (two separate browsers) and take the test in one with the answers in the other. Fortunately, Blackboard is pretty good about patching their software.
"I doubt the RIAA would really want to sue a fairly large public university like this one."
Ordinarily I'd agree with you. However, with the State of Michigan budget cuts, MTU's budget is in the process of being cut pretty deeply. They've already gotten rid of the football team, which (I think) was only saved by unhappy alumni. I don't think they have the financial resources available to fight an extended battle with the deep pockets of the RIAA.