I think it is better to argue that human corruption of faith is the underpinnings behind such misadventures. Furthermore, I would argue that in these instances, faith was the vehicle, the gullible nature of humans was the road and the corrupted "leaders" were the drivers.
Science COULD have the same effect on making people do seemingly illogical things. See the Milgram Experiments for reference. I would argue that if everyone ditched religion for science, it is inevitable that someone would use science in the same way to corrupt people into achieving their agenda.
I have memories of playing tabletop arcade games and those memories are quite mixed. I seem to remember getting a very stiff neck and back from hovering over the screen.
It only takes one conversation with something along the lines of "You should behave all the time whether at school or on the internet like we are with you and watching over you because sometimes, we are when you don't think we are. It isn't that we don't trust you because we do. It is that we don't trust other people and want to do everything in our power to make sure others don't hurt you."
Problem solved. Besides, I reiterate that kids should never expect total freedom. The only place they should ever expect their parents not to spy/snoop/watch over/supervise/etc is in their diary (if they have one). That is an outlet for their own private thoughts. And no, putting it on a computer doesn't apply because a computer is not a guaranteed safe medium (from parents or otherwise). Pick up a pen or pencil and put it in a place that guarantees no access unless physically breeched.
Parents don't generally give their children complete freedom in the real world. This is accomplished by being in control of where they take them and allow them to go. Sure kids can circumvent their control if they REALLY want to short of their parents locking them up in a cage. That isn't the point of this discussion.
But the internet is a whole new problem. Parents that stick a computer in their hands with no supervision is like giving kids their own personal vehicle to go anywhere they want and do anything they want. Parents wouldn't do it in the real world and the virtual world shouldn't be any different.
Let's not pretend that the internet is special from the rest of the world. Kids do not have and should not expect to have complete and total freedom. As I understand, it isn't healthy for their development. They need proper parental supervision and guidance every step of the way. What you think of as "spying" probably does fit into supervision and guidance much of the time. There is a line to be sure, but it's a hazy one and I would argue good parenting requires parents to be vigilant to stay as close as they can to that line without actually crossing it.
When kids become adults (the legal kind) then and only then should they expect freedom to go their own way. But that's just my $0.02.
Even better is the fact that there are a mountain of patents* that could (and would) be used to assault Microsoft back to the stone age if they fired a shot at Linux and/or OSS. There are a large number of companies that stand to lost considerably if Microsoft wins any sort of patent war on Linux and OSS.
*The real kind of mountain and not the Darl McBride version of a mountain.
Either I'm missing something or this is a short-sighted move.
No offense, but you are missing something quite subtle yet extremely profound. It is no big secret that the prices of computers have plummeted over the last ten years or so. From the consumer's perspective, this is a great thing. However, this has the interesting side effect of making computer repair less economically attractive. In the age of the disposable society, people just dispose of their computer and buy a new one rather than spend money on repair.
This is where Wal-Mart comes in. They have thrived and to some degree promoted (even if unintentionally) the disposable society. Many things are so cheap that people just go buy a new one if their old one breaks. Selling computers at Wal-Mart is a natural fit for this mentality. While you don't want to sell lemons, you don't have to sell the top of the line $5000 desktop there (in fact, you wouldn't want to). Rather, just sell your low end and low margin PCs there and watch as every couple of years, a consumer buys a new one.
It is this kind of approach to selling low cost goods that led Snapper lawn mowers to refuse to do business with Wal-Mart. Quality is one of their core values. Quantity isn't if it affects quality.
Actually I think it boils down to many wealthy backers tend to finance leaders that align with their philosophy or ones that they can easily influence. In the most recent elections, it just so happens that it was an idiot. His next in command conveniently aligns with their philosophies. They got the best of both worlds.
While technically a valid approach, this opens the door for red flags from privacy advocates. I'm not as paranoid as the most ardent advocates, but I can see where the slope starts getting slippery.
Remember that the more avenues you open up for the government to have information about you, the more you open up the possibility of them doing things with it that you will not be happy about. History has shown that once you put more power and information in the government's hands, the likelihood of removing it is very slim.
I thought we were discussing ATI, but I don't disagree with you. I've always felt the reasons many hardware vendors are reluctant to be more open doesn't solely revolve around "trade secrets" and such. Being open shines lights in dark corners that can make some people nervous about.
Or maybe they have some sloppy hacks to try to improve frame rates for certain games so that they score better in comparisons. Anyone remember the Quake 3 fiasco that ATI was involved with?
I think you're missing the point, which is that the OSS philosophy that someone will just come along and pick up the project
No, you missed the point with that one word--WILL. The open source philosophy is that someone can pick up the project. The fact that you can means that if necessity dictates, someone will.
Whoops, forgot to include what to say in the email:
I will install this software despite my objections because I am required to do so as my job, but I just wanted to remind you that we need to buy the licenses for these software installations as soon as possible.
If you truly object, meet with someone in HR and let them know you are being told to do something illegal and, therefore, against your moral principles.
If you are given no other choice but to install anyway to save your job, send an email to your boss, the person that told you to install the software illegally (if a different person than your boss) and to the person you spoke with in HR. Blind carbon copy an outside email of yours. If you have a lawyer, I'd BCC him or her as well. If and when the stinky hits the fan, let them try to hang you out to dry.
Just because distribution is easier on the internet does not give anyone with access to a computer the right to distribute content they do not hold the copyrights to.
This is completely irrelevant to what I believe the majority of us who abhor DRM are all about.
First, understand that people who want to pirate/get "free" content will regardless of whatever DRM is created. If that means they get movies that are nothing more than low quality videos from pointing a home video camera at a monitor, then they won't care. Getting a perfect digital copy need not apply. They just don't want to pay for it. Ever. Whatever that takes.
Second, understand that DRM can never ever prevent material from being reproduced (whatever the quality of the copy). Ever.
Now that we have those two things out of the way, let's talk about what the fight is REALLY all about. When I buy a DVD, I would prefer to create a copy of it and put the original somewhere where I won't spill something on it, scratch it, the dog can't chew it up or allow it to get swiped by a visitor when you aren't looking (see the first point above). That copy may be a physical burned copy or it might be a copy put on a MythTV box where I can watch it any time without pulling out a disc.
What I'd really like is if I can just download it and skip the unnecessary initial physical copy part. I'll burn a local backup if need. Just let me re-download it should my own backup methods fail. Just let me pay for it, don't charge me stupid amounts for it and don't expect me to pay for it again when I download it the second time. Use bittorrent to distribute it so you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for the bandwidth. The technology has matured and there's no need to pay millions to reinvent the wheel. I will gladly provide a generous portion of my upload bandwidth to help you distribute what I've already paid for.
Do that, and despite your piracy fears, I allege that you will see fewer people pirating because you will have provided what the market wants--an inexpensive and hassle-free way to get content. And remember boys and girls--what the market wants, the market gets. If you don't provide it, someone else will.
As has been stated in other threads, if you are having Linux totally hand and/or crash, then that is way outside normal. At least in my experience it is. I've been running Linux servers for a few years now in various applications with various loads, and I've NEVER had a Linux server die. Not once.
It could well be that there is something wrong with your configuration or hardware. Cause if it's anything else, it's a kernel bug that should be submitted. It will get fixed and then your problem will go away.
If [value of expected energy output over lifetime of panels] > [cost of panels] * [interest rate on lease/loan] then people/companies are more likely to buy.
The closer the number of years it takes to recover the cost of the investment gets to one year, the greater the likelihood of a buy goes up.
If the government would make the cost of buying solar cells a 100% tax credit with no limit, I bet you would see a huge increase in installations.
I don't know about the validity of their testing or the best scientific way of going about it, but some common sense provides quite a bit of insight here. Try doing a belly flop from a height of about 5 feet in a pool. Stings, doesn't it? Now do it from a 15 foot height and tell me how you feel. That numbness you feel is from the increased pressure of the impact. You can also do it with your hand. Smack the water real hard with your hand flat. You feel the impact of the water. Now do the same thing only VERY slowly. No impact pressure, huh?
Now consider the increased impact on a bullet the higher the velocity. It isn't difficult to understand that the faster the bullet is traveling, the greater the damage to the bullet. Further common sense would tell us that the shape of the bullet would matter too. The sharper the point in the end, the better it should be able to enter the water without damage.
Scientifically, it's all about viscosity. Water has a high enough viscosity so that at great speeds it can be frighteningly destructive. You can cut through steel plates with a stream of water thin enough and at a high enough velocity. Bullets hitting water is the reverse scenario, but the ability to do damage is still the same, it just isn't concentrated like it would be with a stream of water.
I've seen documentation from about every single major IT vendor on the planet and there's one thing I can say with great confidence. Wiki documentation for Ubuntu Linux is at least as "good" overall as any I've seen. I can't count the number of times I've tried to follow documentation to the letter from many vendors only to find the wheels come off in the middle of going through a process. To be fair, I've run into the same thing with Ubuntu Wiki documentation, but no more than commercial vendors.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is better to argue that human corruption of faith is the underpinnings behind such misadventures. Furthermore, I would argue that in these instances, faith was the vehicle, the gullible nature of humans was the road and the corrupted "leaders" were the drivers.
Science COULD have the same effect on making people do seemingly illogical things. See the Milgram Experiments for reference. I would argue that if everyone ditched religion for science, it is inevitable that someone would use science in the same way to corrupt people into achieving their agenda.
In a recent chat with a rep, I was given this phone number:
866-622-1947
When I called it, the person that answered said they were the Dell Linux tech support group. So I think they DO have people in house to support Linux.
I have memories of playing tabletop arcade games and those memories are quite mixed. I seem to remember getting a very stiff neck and back from hovering over the screen.
It only takes one conversation with something along the lines of "You should behave all the time whether at school or on the internet like we are with you and watching over you because sometimes, we are when you don't think we are. It isn't that we don't trust you because we do. It is that we don't trust other people and want to do everything in our power to make sure others don't hurt you."
Problem solved. Besides, I reiterate that kids should never expect total freedom. The only place they should ever expect their parents not to spy/snoop/watch over/supervise/etc is in their diary (if they have one). That is an outlet for their own private thoughts. And no, putting it on a computer doesn't apply because a computer is not a guaranteed safe medium (from parents or otherwise). Pick up a pen or pencil and put it in a place that guarantees no access unless physically breeched.
Parents don't generally give their children complete freedom in the real world. This is accomplished by being in control of where they take them and allow them to go. Sure kids can circumvent their control if they REALLY want to short of their parents locking them up in a cage. That isn't the point of this discussion.
But the internet is a whole new problem. Parents that stick a computer in their hands with no supervision is like giving kids their own personal vehicle to go anywhere they want and do anything they want. Parents wouldn't do it in the real world and the virtual world shouldn't be any different.
Let's not pretend that the internet is special from the rest of the world. Kids do not have and should not expect to have complete and total freedom. As I understand, it isn't healthy for their development. They need proper parental supervision and guidance every step of the way. What you think of as "spying" probably does fit into supervision and guidance much of the time. There is a line to be sure, but it's a hazy one and I would argue good parenting requires parents to be vigilant to stay as close as they can to that line without actually crossing it.
When kids become adults (the legal kind) then and only then should they expect freedom to go their own way. But that's just my $0.02.
Even better is the fact that there are a mountain of patents* that could (and would) be used to assault Microsoft back to the stone age if they fired a shot at Linux and/or OSS. There are a large number of companies that stand to lost considerably if Microsoft wins any sort of patent war on Linux and OSS.
*The real kind of mountain and not the Darl McBride version of a mountain.
Either I'm missing something or this is a short-sighted move.
No offense, but you are missing something quite subtle yet extremely profound. It is no big secret that the prices of computers have plummeted over the last ten years or so. From the consumer's perspective, this is a great thing. However, this has the interesting side effect of making computer repair less economically attractive. In the age of the disposable society, people just dispose of their computer and buy a new one rather than spend money on repair.
This is where Wal-Mart comes in. They have thrived and to some degree promoted (even if unintentionally) the disposable society. Many things are so cheap that people just go buy a new one if their old one breaks. Selling computers at Wal-Mart is a natural fit for this mentality. While you don't want to sell lemons, you don't have to sell the top of the line $5000 desktop there (in fact, you wouldn't want to). Rather, just sell your low end and low margin PCs there and watch as every couple of years, a consumer buys a new one.
It is this kind of approach to selling low cost goods that led Snapper lawn mowers to refuse to do business with Wal-Mart. Quality is one of their core values. Quantity isn't if it affects quality.
No, the problem is only idiots run for election.
Actually I think it boils down to many wealthy backers tend to finance leaders that align with their philosophy or ones that they can easily influence. In the most recent elections, it just so happens that it was an idiot. His next in command conveniently aligns with their philosophies. They got the best of both worlds.
One word: sociopath.
There is no solution (at least that I've ever heard of).
Zelda 2 was radically different and radically sucked. It had side-scrolling action and RPG-like features that were totally alien for Zelda.
Change isn't necessarily bad, but Zelda 2 is the poster child for what can happen if you deviate too far from what makes your series fun.
While technically a valid approach, this opens the door for red flags from privacy advocates. I'm not as paranoid as the most ardent advocates, but I can see where the slope starts getting slippery.
Remember that the more avenues you open up for the government to have information about you, the more you open up the possibility of them doing things with it that you will not be happy about. History has shown that once you put more power and information in the government's hands, the likelihood of removing it is very slim.
I thought we were discussing ATI, but I don't disagree with you. I've always felt the reasons many hardware vendors are reluctant to be more open doesn't solely revolve around "trade secrets" and such. Being open shines lights in dark corners that can make some people nervous about.
Or maybe they have some sloppy hacks to try to improve frame rates for certain games so that they score better in comparisons. Anyone remember the Quake 3 fiasco that ATI was involved with?
And yet in answering the demands of customers, Microsoft still found time to inject patents into the issue and crow about it to the media.
If there was anything about the deal that was positive, that event alone made the positive superfluous.
Did the issues deal with shared calendaring by any chance? They have allegedly made great strides in that department over the last year.
I think you're missing the point, which is that the OSS philosophy that someone will just come along and pick up the project
No, you missed the point with that one word--WILL. The open source philosophy is that someone can pick up the project. The fact that you can means that if necessity dictates, someone will.
If their employment page is any indication, I'd say Ubuntu will be very soon.
Whoops, forgot to include what to say in the email:
I will install this software despite my objections because I am required to do so as my job, but I just wanted to remind you that we need to buy the licenses for these software installations as soon as possible.
If you truly object, meet with someone in HR and let them know you are being told to do something illegal and, therefore, against your moral principles.
If you are given no other choice but to install anyway to save your job, send an email to your boss, the person that told you to install the software illegally (if a different person than your boss) and to the person you spoke with in HR. Blind carbon copy an outside email of yours. If you have a lawyer, I'd BCC him or her as well. If and when the stinky hits the fan, let them try to hang you out to dry.
Just because distribution is easier on the internet does not give anyone with access to a computer the right to distribute content they do not hold the copyrights to.
This is completely irrelevant to what I believe the majority of us who abhor DRM are all about.
First, understand that people who want to pirate/get "free" content will regardless of whatever DRM is created. If that means they get movies that are nothing more than low quality videos from pointing a home video camera at a monitor, then they won't care. Getting a perfect digital copy need not apply. They just don't want to pay for it. Ever. Whatever that takes.
Second, understand that DRM can never ever prevent material from being reproduced (whatever the quality of the copy). Ever.
Now that we have those two things out of the way, let's talk about what the fight is REALLY all about. When I buy a DVD, I would prefer to create a copy of it and put the original somewhere where I won't spill something on it, scratch it, the dog can't chew it up or allow it to get swiped by a visitor when you aren't looking (see the first point above). That copy may be a physical burned copy or it might be a copy put on a MythTV box where I can watch it any time without pulling out a disc.
What I'd really like is if I can just download it and skip the unnecessary initial physical copy part. I'll burn a local backup if need. Just let me re-download it should my own backup methods fail. Just let me pay for it, don't charge me stupid amounts for it and don't expect me to pay for it again when I download it the second time. Use bittorrent to distribute it so you don't have to pay an arm and a leg for the bandwidth. The technology has matured and there's no need to pay millions to reinvent the wheel. I will gladly provide a generous portion of my upload bandwidth to help you distribute what I've already paid for.
Do that, and despite your piracy fears, I allege that you will see fewer people pirating because you will have provided what the market wants--an inexpensive and hassle-free way to get content. And remember boys and girls--what the market wants, the market gets. If you don't provide it, someone else will.
As has been stated in other threads, if you are having Linux totally hand and/or crash, then that is way outside normal. At least in my experience it is. I've been running Linux servers for a few years now in various applications with various loads, and I've NEVER had a Linux server die. Not once.
It could well be that there is something wrong with your configuration or hardware. Cause if it's anything else, it's a kernel bug that should be submitted. It will get fixed and then your problem will go away.
With a few exceptions, it's economics--period.
If [value of expected energy output over lifetime of panels] > [cost of panels] * [interest rate on lease/loan] then people/companies are more likely to buy.
The closer the number of years it takes to recover the cost of the investment gets to one year, the greater the likelihood of a buy goes up.
If the government would make the cost of buying solar cells a 100% tax credit with no limit, I bet you would see a huge increase in installations.
I don't know about the validity of their testing or the best scientific way of going about it, but some common sense provides quite a bit of insight here. Try doing a belly flop from a height of about 5 feet in a pool. Stings, doesn't it? Now do it from a 15 foot height and tell me how you feel. That numbness you feel is from the increased pressure of the impact. You can also do it with your hand. Smack the water real hard with your hand flat. You feel the impact of the water. Now do the same thing only VERY slowly. No impact pressure, huh?
Now consider the increased impact on a bullet the higher the velocity. It isn't difficult to understand that the faster the bullet is traveling, the greater the damage to the bullet. Further common sense would tell us that the shape of the bullet would matter too. The sharper the point in the end, the better it should be able to enter the water without damage.
Scientifically, it's all about viscosity. Water has a high enough viscosity so that at great speeds it can be frighteningly destructive. You can cut through steel plates with a stream of water thin enough and at a high enough velocity. Bullets hitting water is the reverse scenario, but the ability to do damage is still the same, it just isn't concentrated like it would be with a stream of water.
Do you really think lawyers don't work on the weekends? You don't know many lawyers I take it.
Wikis suck for documentation.
I've seen documentation from about every single major IT vendor on the planet and there's one thing I can say with great confidence. Wiki documentation for Ubuntu Linux is at least as "good" overall as any I've seen. I can't count the number of times I've tried to follow documentation to the letter from many vendors only to find the wheels come off in the middle of going through a process. To be fair, I've run into the same thing with Ubuntu Wiki documentation, but no more than commercial vendors.