"If they aren't representing you properly, then you are failing your responsibilities as a citizen."
I vote, and that's about all one can effectively do to influence government, short of taking off time from work to protest or donate $$$ to political campaigns, neither or which I can afford to do (I have to pay my taxes, you know).
"All a business cares about is maximising profits and extracting as much as they can from you."
Funny that you mention that. It seems lately that government is the one trying to separate me from my money more so than business. Isn't that what a socialistic government is all about?
If they're not, you're not working hard enough as a citizen to ensure they are."
Please explain what would constitute "hard enough" in your view. We are obviously looking at this problem from a very different point of view.
If I had a choice of which entity I would like to control this, it comes down to the simple nature of the entities to choose from.
Business - while not perfect, it is in a business interest to operate efficiently.
Government - throughout history, nothing has consistently demonstrated inefficiency as government beaurocracy.
So please, enough with the socialist propaganda. While I support anti-spam initiatives, I don't believe we should be putting our trust in an entity that has absolutely no accountability if it fails.
I've been gradually putting together a good functional Linux setup on my laptop, and was surprised to learn that there wasn't a Linux version of Kazaa or Kazaa Lite out there.
"Not the fact that Linux is used is important here but the fact that they use a system that can easily be integrated with other computer systems from different companies.
"
That reminds me of my last trip to Borders, where I found a large and rather graphic pictoral sex guide in a very public area. As a good citizen, I felt a better place for such explicit material would be in the children's section, next to the Harry Potter display.
Re:Why always "big enterprise"?
on
Opengroupware
·
· Score: 1
But then you'd have to admit this is another case of Linux playing catch-up with Microsoft, despite the desparate claims by some that OSS isinnovative.
Now don't read anything more into my words than what I wrote; I think OSS is responsible for finding better (let alone more secure) ways of doing things. But in most cases, Microsoft was the first to do these things.
Since Florida reinstituted concealed carrying permits, violent crime has plummeted, while Washington DC, with the most restrictive gun laws in the country, enjoys the highest violent crime rate in the country.
Seriously, would you want to fuck with somebody when it's very possible, even likely, thet they're packing? Apparently criminals in Florida aren't so sure about trying their luck anymore.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going for a games.slashdot.org design, done on a t-shirt of the most horrid, offensive, seziure-inducing purple I can find.
That would be a good start (if that indeed hasn't yet been tried) but in the context of a small, closed system such as the one you propose, I would wonder how applicable the results of such an experiment would be towards an infinitely larger and more random system like outer space.
"Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it."
That pretty much summed it up, until:
"Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing 'copyright' into `copyleft.'"
Honestly I believe this is a childish, not to mention inaccurate, portrayal of copyrights. Not that I'd expect anything less from RMS, but stating that the purpose of copyrights is to take away some perceived right of software users to modify and redistribute it simply isn't true. In fact, I'd say it's every bit as restrictive as copyright, in the fact that anyone using 'copylefted' software MUST redistribute any alterations publicly.
I have no problem with the concept of 'copyleft'; in fact I think it's a great idea. But all it is is a different kind of lisense, like the GPL and LGPL. It has nothing to do with being more free than copyright.
It just burns me up when a new concept in software is sold on its being more 'free', because in most cases, it's not.
"I know it was going to fly for 96 hours, but wouldn't it have been neat to just fly it around the world instead? "
You do mean at lower altitudes though, right? Considering this thing flew at almost 100k feet, a flight around the world at that height would have taken significantly longer than it would at a height of, say, 20k feet. Either way, I bet it would take longer than 96 hours.
Original question: Why should a company be forced by government to include a competitors product with their own?"
Your question: Why should IBM be forced by Microsoft to ship Windows, a competing product, with their systems?
Two COMPLETELY different issues. The first is done through law, where Microsoft doesn't have a choice in the matter, and the second is done through contract, where both parties agreed to the terms.
This might mean more than what you read here, so be careful. My former employer took
interest in a similar Microsoft offer, and because I didn't fully understand it, I ended up
losing my job.
I first became concerned when I noticed our mail admin returning from a meeting with our
comapny's board of directors. The conversation had gotten rather heated, as there had been a
good deal of shouting and cursing coming from the board room. Two days later he was fired.
Rumors began spreading when 3 more people were laid off under similar circumstances, and
the general consensus was that these people had been unfairly screwed by management.
I had no idea how true those rumors were. I soon found myself before the board of
directors, being asked what I thought about replacing our older Linux servers with Windows
2000 servers. I answered truthfully: that I was concerned that such a move might generate
concern among our customers about their privacy. My supervisor considered this thoughtfully
for a second, nodded, and the secretary locked the door of the office. Two of the directors,
with deceptive strength and agility, bound and gagged me. My memory is somewhat blurry about
this part, but I remember having my pants torn from my waist, and then all of the board
members took turns ravaging my virgin cornhole. The rumors were true: there I was, being
screwed by management because of my mistrust of Microsoft.
In the kind of shock that only comes with a brutal ass-raping, I stumbled back to my desk,
thankfully unaware of the small stream of blood and man-cheese that had stained my underwear,
oozed down my leg and began to pool in my shoe. To complete my utter humiliation, I was given
my pink slip 3 days later, before I had even recovered from my ordeal.
I have always been concerned about Microsoft's security shortcomings, but I could never
have prepared myself for the amount of personal violation that opposing the conglomerate
would bring.
"I've said Understand Linux. Not learn or learn to use Linux. Even Joe can spot the meaning and the significance."
Joe probably doesn't really care that information wants to be free, or that Linux is a fight against the evil Microsoft empire. Joe doesn't want a philosophy, he wants an OS that lets him do what he wants to do. If it doesn't cost him any money, that much the better!
A lot of people (myself included) are turned off by the evangelizing nature of some Linux proponents. They feel like they're being talked down to when they're told to "RTFM", or that non-Linux users "deserve what they get". If Linux was promoted as a feasable, easy-to-learn OS, instead of a noble philosophical crusade of the free against the oppressors, I think more people would be inclined to try it out.
But telling them that they need to understand the philosophy behind Linux probably turns them off to it before they've even tried it.
Slashdot Mirror
I vote, and that's about all one can effectively do to influence government, short of taking off time from work to protest or donate $$$ to political campaigns, neither or which I can afford to do (I have to pay my taxes, you know).
"All a business cares about is maximising profits and extracting as much as they can from you."
Funny that you mention that. It seems lately that government is the one trying to separate me from my money more so than business. Isn't that what a socialistic government is all about?
If they're not, you're not working hard enough as a citizen to ensure they are."
Please explain what would constitute "hard enough" in your view. We are obviously looking at this problem from a very different point of view.
Business - while not perfect, it is in a business interest to operate efficiently.
Government - throughout history, nothing has consistently demonstrated inefficiency as government beaurocracy.
So please, enough with the socialist propaganda. While I support anti-spam initiatives, I don't believe we should be putting our trust in an entity that has absolutely no accountability if it fails.
Is there an alternative I am unaware of?
...unless that company is Microsoft.
Evidence? That implies facts, doesn't it?
All they're going to find here is wild speculation from people who only think they know enough about the case to comment on it.
"Think of it as open-source lawyering.
For some reason, this is what came to mind when I read that.
The real high-altitude balloon record-holder, surprisingly, was not mentioned in this article.
I'm going to hell, aren't I...
As always, links to pictures will be posted.
Now don't read anything more into my words than what I wrote; I think OSS is responsible for finding better (let alone more secure) ways of doing things. But in most cases, Microsoft was the first to do these things.
Seriously, would you want to fuck with somebody when it's very possible, even likely, thet they're packing? Apparently criminals in Florida aren't so sure about trying their luck anymore.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm going for a games.slashdot.org design, done on a t-shirt of the most horrid, offensive, seziure-inducing purple I can find.
While I agree with your basic premise, cultivating peace isn't going to be cheap, and it certainly won't happen overnight.
It's a great goal, but quite an undertaking, for sure!
Does that make me a bad person?
Now go forth, Slashdot readers, and give that server a good kick in the ethernuts!
That would be a good start (if that indeed hasn't yet been tried) but in the context of a small, closed system such as the one you propose, I would wonder how applicable the results of such an experiment would be towards an infinitely larger and more random system like outer space.
Now I haven't read Slashdot forever, but how many articles throughout /. history do you suppose were titled "Bill Gates On Linux"?
MPlayer uses DeCSS for its DVD playback, which technically makes it illegal.
That makes about as much sense as putting a screen door on a submarine.
That pretty much summed it up, until:
"Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing 'copyright' into `copyleft.'"
Honestly I believe this is a childish, not to mention inaccurate, portrayal of copyrights. Not that I'd expect anything less from RMS, but stating that the purpose of copyrights is to take away some perceived right of software users to modify and redistribute it simply isn't true. In fact, I'd say it's every bit as restrictive as copyright, in the fact that anyone using 'copylefted' software MUST redistribute any alterations publicly.
I have no problem with the concept of 'copyleft'; in fact I think it's a great idea. But all it is is a different kind of lisense, like the GPL and LGPL. It has nothing to do with being more free than copyright.
It just burns me up when a new concept in software is sold on its being more 'free', because in most cases, it's not.
It almost sounds to me like those "Womyn's" groups who are offended by the presence of "men" in the proper spelling of the word.
You're new here, aren't you?
You do mean at lower altitudes though, right? Considering this thing flew at almost 100k feet, a flight around the world at that height would have taken significantly longer than it would at a height of, say, 20k feet. Either way, I bet it would take longer than 96 hours.
Your question: Why should IBM be forced by Microsoft to ship Windows, a competing product, with their systems?
Two COMPLETELY different issues. The first is done through law, where Microsoft doesn't have a choice in the matter, and the second is done through contract, where both parties agreed to the terms.
I first became concerned when I noticed our mail admin returning from a meeting with our comapny's board of directors. The conversation had gotten rather heated, as there had been a good deal of shouting and cursing coming from the board room. Two days later he was fired.
Rumors began spreading when 3 more people were laid off under similar circumstances, and the general consensus was that these people had been unfairly screwed by management.
I had no idea how true those rumors were. I soon found myself before the board of directors, being asked what I thought about replacing our older Linux servers with Windows 2000 servers. I answered truthfully: that I was concerned that such a move might generate concern among our customers about their privacy. My supervisor considered this thoughtfully for a second, nodded, and the secretary locked the door of the office. Two of the directors, with deceptive strength and agility, bound and gagged me. My memory is somewhat blurry about this part, but I remember having my pants torn from my waist, and then all of the board members took turns ravaging my virgin cornhole. The rumors were true: there I was, being screwed by management because of my mistrust of Microsoft.
In the kind of shock that only comes with a brutal ass-raping, I stumbled back to my desk, thankfully unaware of the small stream of blood and man-cheese that had stained my underwear, oozed down my leg and began to pool in my shoe. To complete my utter humiliation, I was given my pink slip 3 days later, before I had even recovered from my ordeal.
I have always been concerned about Microsoft's security shortcomings, but I could never have prepared myself for the amount of personal violation that opposing the conglomerate would bring.
Joe probably doesn't really care that information wants to be free, or that Linux is a fight against the evil Microsoft empire. Joe doesn't want a philosophy, he wants an OS that lets him do what he wants to do. If it doesn't cost him any money, that much the better!
A lot of people (myself included) are turned off by the evangelizing nature of some Linux proponents. They feel like they're being talked down to when they're told to "RTFM", or that non-Linux users "deserve what they get". If Linux was promoted as a feasable, easy-to-learn OS, instead of a noble philosophical crusade of the free against the oppressors, I think more people would be inclined to try it out.
But telling them that they need to understand the philosophy behind Linux probably turns them off to it before they've even tried it.