I for one believe that we should trust our new Emperor. Yes Emperor Bush may have taken away a few unimportant rights but this is only to keep us safe. It is much better to give away our rights to privacy, to protest, to habeas corpus than to let "THE TERRORISTS" ruin our way of life!
Let's look more closely at the habeas corpus right. Do "THE TERRORISTS" really need the right to be heard in a court of law when they are detained? Should we allow "THE TERRORISTS" due process? Should Emperor Bush allow "THE TERRORISTS" a chance to prove that they should not be held? Absolutely not! For God's sake man... They are "THE TERRORISTS!" And how do we know this?? Emperor Bush says so and if you question his divine knowledge than you are evil and probably one of "THE TERRORISTS!"
God has chosen Emperor Bush to save us all. We should trust our Emperor... Or is he a God?
This is not one of those "top secret" types of things. This is a "policy" of which we and other countries need to be aware. It's like making a "secret policy" that if anyone crosses some invisible line we'll punch them in the mouth but being a secret we refuse to tell anyone of the risk of crossing that line. Not exactly the best way to live in a global community.
It's really time that we tossed out the people with the "cowboy mentality" and brought in an era of reason.
"Oct. 18, 2006 -- The White House has quietly put out a new National Space Policy -- a document that, among other things, makes it clear that the Bush administration will not sign any treaty that limits America's ability to put weapons in orbit." Apparently it is, at least in part, about weaponizing space. "The document, much of which is classified,..."
Interesting that our own "policy" is a secret from the American people. Apparently we are not allowed to know our own position on this issue. Now that is retarded.
"Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."
This is a broad and bold statement that will certainly piss off a lot of people. Which "national interests" do we feel gives us the right to deny to someone else what we absolutely refuse to be denied? All to often we seem to confuse "national interests" with "corporate interests" now days.
Your argument seems to make sense only if you accept your premise that Microsoft has actually locked down their OS so that it is secure. I was told that the other security companies could STILL ACCESS THE WINDOWS KERNEL IF THEY HACKED IT LIKE THE BLACK HATS WILL.
I agree that if Microsoft could actually lock down the kernel in a way that would really secure their OS there would be no need for any other security software but your premise is not accurate.
This doesn't make any sense. It assumes that they found all the bugs in close source software or they trust the proprietary vendor to disclose all defects.
Yeah right. Like a vendor making money selling a product is going to be truthful when telling just how crappy his product really is. ROFLMAO
The parent post has serious logic flaws however; unless you believe that the characteristics of our solar system are very rare, common sense would tell you that just the quantity of solar systems out there make it improbable that we are alone.
We don't really have any data one way or the other that would conclusively tell us if the characteristics of our solar system are common, average or rare. But given the number of total solar systems even if they are rare we probably aren't the only intelligent life.
The parent post kind of reminded me of that movie that Jody Foster stared in. "Contact" I believe was the name. I don't remember the numbers but she stated that there are so many stars and if only some small percentage had planets and if only a small percentage of those could support life and if only a small percentage of those supported intelligent life then there were millions of planets with intelligent life. Maybe someone else remembers the exact quote.
Although not scientific, the Jody Foster line seems to be common sense. Common sense isn't always right but...
I though that Ted Stevens the Senator from Alaska, "Mr. Bridge to no where" had a secret hold on this, or was that something different?
I can understand the Senator's position. Obviously if you're dipping into the pork barrel to build a 200 million dollar bridge to an island that has a population about 50 people you don't want a lot of publicity because someone is going to start wondering which land developer's are going to make a killing and how much is being paid to the Alaska Senator who pushed to have it attached it to the Transportation Equity Act.
Seems to me that at some point the government should care for the multitude of poor people and not just the few very rich. Maybe if this website really makes things transparent bridges to nowhere will get enough people pissed off that the pork barrel spending will come under control.
My point is that GPL V2 the manufacturer must release his code back to the community. Nothing prevents you from taking that code, removing what you don't like and running it on hardware that you build. The GPL v3 oversteps its bounds by dictating hardware design.
"Those of us who care will probably fork Linux (which *can* be done, dispite Linus' incorrect claims to the contrary)."
That all depends on what you mean by "Linux." If you are talking about the kernel then no, you CAN NOT unilaterally put it under a different license. Not under the BSD license, not under the GPL 3 license and not under any a proprietary license.
What Stallman is trying to do is to prevent hardware from running GPL'd software if the hardware prevents its owner from running versions of the software that have been modified. Although I'm for free software as in speech, I think trying to use the software license to control what a hardware manufacturer does is inappropriate and overstepping.
If a manufacturer creates hardware that limits a person's ability to modify the software that runs on it then let the market forces apply pressure. There won't be the plethora of open source software from the community to run on it and that will give an advantage to products that do allow the community to add to the product's value.
Yes, the art of deception. The doctrine of "perception is greater than truth" is followed by people and organizations of low moral standards. One would think that in the age of instant information one could ferret out these amoral jerks but it's not easily done.
A couple of enabling factors are present that contributes to the problem.
1. In general people are lazy, complacent sheep who hear what they want to hear and don't take the trouble of getting involved until a problem directly impacts their lives. When that happens it is usually too late.
2. There is such a volume of information and disinformation that it all blends into a kind of white noise that can make shifting the truth difficult for the few who really want to get at the truth. And if they do get at the truth problem one and two kicks in. Few will listen and their warnings just become part of the white noise.
I'm just as guilty as most. It's just easier for me to sit back and watch seeds of corruption grow and bear fruit. Oh, I add to the white noise with my complaints but there are so many issues and no one really listens anyway. The shame is that the fruit of corruption will eventually be the end of mankind or maybe even all life on Earth.
"Hilf also sees RedHat in this model, with support being their core. He compares this to dating, where you have to offer your date value in order to entice them."
Offering the customer value for their money! I'm shocked!!!
...how clean is the code from Microsoft's product. I've used both FrontPage and Dreamweaver and I can tell you that most of the time Dreamweaver produces some pretty clean HTML etc. Frontpage not so much.
If the code is clean enough I could run it on my Linux Apache server using mono.
I gather that they have looked at this carefuly but there are other reasons as well.
From the article: "A sting operation by Microsoft in October 2005 had not endeared the proprietary software to PC and peripherals dealers."
Remember a while back when Microsoft tried some strong arm tactics of threatening to audit schools who ran anything but Microsoft operating systems. Well.... Payback is a bitch...
Seriously though, they are switching because they see the value in FOSS and Microsoft gave then a good look at the dark side of corporate tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one believe that we should trust our new Emperor. Yes Emperor Bush may have taken away a few unimportant rights but this is only to keep us safe. It is much better to give away our rights to privacy, to protest, to habeas corpus than to let "THE TERRORISTS" ruin our way of life!
Let's look more closely at the habeas corpus right. Do "THE TERRORISTS" really need the right to be heard in a court of law when they are detained? Should we allow "THE TERRORISTS" due process? Should Emperor Bush allow "THE TERRORISTS" a chance to prove that they should not be held? Absolutely not! For God's sake man... They are "THE TERRORISTS!" And how do we know this?? Emperor Bush says so and if you question his divine knowledge than you are evil and probably one of "THE TERRORISTS!"
God has chosen Emperor Bush to save us all. We should trust our Emperor... Or is he a God?
Perhaps you could elaborate. Being "clueless" I can't see how software patents could possibly be the ally of any Open Source programmer...
"Some of the patents in question go back to the 80s..."
Wow, I thought that patents were fairly short lived! Can someone tell a layman how long can software patents potentially crush innovation?
This is not one of those "top secret" types of things. This is a "policy" of which we and other countries need to be aware. It's like making a "secret policy" that if anyone crosses some invisible line we'll punch them in the mouth but being a secret we refuse to tell anyone of the risk of crossing that line. Not exactly the best way to live in a global community.
It's really time that we tossed out the people with the "cowboy mentality" and brought in an era of reason.
"Oct. 18, 2006 -- The White House has quietly put out a new National Space Policy -- a document that, among other things, makes it clear that the Bush administration will not sign any treaty that limits America's ability to put weapons in orbit."
... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."
Apparently it is, at least in part, about weaponizing space.
"The document, much of which is classified,..."
Interesting that our own "policy" is a secret from the American people. Apparently we are not allowed to know our own position on this issue. Now that is retarded.
"Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space
This is a broad and bold statement that will certainly piss off a lot of people. Which "national interests" do we feel gives us the right to deny to someone else what we absolutely refuse to be denied? All to often we seem to confuse "national interests" with "corporate interests" now days.
What an arrogant, pig headed, bully position.
...keeps telling us how bad FLOSS is but I always thought flossing was good.
A new product line:
Burger, small fries, small soft drink, memory stick containing the QQPass Trojan. - The unhappy meal.
Your argument seems to make sense only if you accept your premise that Microsoft has actually locked down their OS so that it is secure. I was told that the other security companies could STILL ACCESS THE WINDOWS KERNEL IF THEY HACKED IT LIKE THE BLACK HATS WILL.
I agree that if Microsoft could actually lock down the kernel in a way that would really secure their OS there would be no need for any other security software but your premise is not accurate.
This doesn't make any sense. It assumes that they found all the bugs in close source software or they trust the proprietary vendor to disclose all defects.
Yeah right. Like a vendor making money selling a product is going to be truthful when telling just how crappy his product really is. ROFLMAO
The parent post has serious logic flaws however; unless you believe that the characteristics of our solar system are very rare, common sense would tell you that just the quantity of solar systems out there make it improbable that we are alone.
We don't really have any data one way or the other that would conclusively tell us if the characteristics of our solar system are common, average or rare. But given the number of total solar systems even if they are rare we probably aren't the only intelligent life.
The parent post kind of reminded me of that movie that Jody Foster stared in. "Contact" I believe was the name. I don't remember the numbers but she stated that there are so many stars and if only some small percentage had planets and if only a small percentage of those could support life and if only a small percentage of those supported intelligent life then there were millions of planets with intelligent life. Maybe someone else remembers the exact quote.
Although not scientific, the Jody Foster line seems to be common sense. Common sense isn't always right but...
"This smacks of the RIAA tactics of sue first, then force you to hand over your hard drive to incriminate yourself."
This smacks of SCO tactics to me. Accuse first, offer no proof, sue so you can fish for evidence...
Say, didn't Microsoft indirectly fund the SCO fishing expedition? Nuff said...
I though that Ted Stevens the Senator from Alaska, "Mr. Bridge to no where" had a secret hold on this, or was that something different?
I can understand the Senator's position. Obviously if you're dipping into the pork barrel to build a 200 million dollar bridge to an island that has a population about 50 people you don't want a lot of publicity because someone is going to start wondering which land developer's are going to make a killing and how much is being paid to the Alaska Senator who pushed to have it attached it to the Transportation Equity Act.
Seems to me that at some point the government should care for the multitude of poor people and not just the few very rich. Maybe if this website really makes things transparent bridges to nowhere will get enough people pissed off that the pork barrel spending will come under control.
Nah...
My point is that GPL V2 the manufacturer must release his code back to the community. Nothing prevents you from taking that code, removing what you don't like and running it on hardware that you build. The GPL v3 oversteps its bounds by dictating hardware design.
"Those of us who care will probably fork Linux (which *can* be done, dispite Linus' incorrect claims to the contrary)."
That all depends on what you mean by "Linux." If you are talking about the kernel then no, you CAN NOT unilaterally put it under a different license. Not under the BSD license, not under the GPL 3 license and not under any a proprietary license.
What Stallman is trying to do is to prevent hardware from running GPL'd software if the hardware prevents its owner from running versions of the software that have been modified. Although I'm for free software as in speech, I think trying to use the software license to control what a hardware manufacturer does is inappropriate and overstepping.
If a manufacturer creates hardware that limits a person's ability to modify the software that runs on it then let the market forces apply pressure. There won't be the plethora of open source software from the community to run on it and that will give an advantage to products that do allow the community to add to the product's value.
For that much money it had better be at least five feet tall and look good in a wig!
"The jury is still out on the CO2 angle..."
Ummm... no not really...
Yes, the art of deception. The doctrine of "perception is greater than truth" is followed by people and organizations of low moral standards. One would think that in the age of instant information one could ferret out these amoral jerks but it's not easily done.
A couple of enabling factors are present that contributes to the problem.
1. In general people are lazy, complacent sheep who hear what they want to hear and don't take the trouble of getting involved until a problem directly impacts their lives. When that happens it is usually too late.
2. There is such a volume of information and disinformation that it all blends into a kind of white noise that can make shifting the truth difficult for the few who really want to get at the truth. And if they do get at the truth problem one and two kicks in. Few will listen and their warnings just become part of the white noise.
I'm just as guilty as most. It's just easier for me to sit back and watch seeds of corruption grow and bear fruit. Oh, I add to the white noise with my complaints but there are so many issues and no one really listens anyway. The shame is that the fruit of corruption will eventually be the end of mankind or maybe even all life on Earth.
Heh, intelligent animals... Mother nature's greatest mistake!
"Hilf also sees RedHat in this model, with support being their core. He compares this to dating, where you have to offer your date value in order to entice them."
Offering the customer value for their money! I'm shocked!!!
Damn I'm feeling old...
Beam me up Scotty!
Oh wait! Under the current administration we don't have those rights anymore... Never mind...
How long will it be before the government demands those sound clips?
...how clean is the code from Microsoft's product. I've used both FrontPage and Dreamweaver and I can tell you that most of the time Dreamweaver produces some pretty clean HTML etc. Frontpage not so much.
If the code is clean enough I could run it on my Linux Apache server using mono.
Better not hold my breath...
Ah yes, the ever present and bogus "Things Will Never Change" argument.
Things are beginning to change and that change is accelerating. Like it or not "Open" is coming. The advantages are too great to be ignored.
I gather that they have looked at this carefuly but there are other reasons as well.
...
From the article: "A sting operation by Microsoft in October 2005 had not endeared the proprietary software to PC and peripherals dealers."
Remember a while back when Microsoft tried some strong arm tactics of threatening to audit schools who ran anything but Microsoft operating systems. Well.... Payback is a bitch
Seriously though, they are switching because they see the value in FOSS and Microsoft gave then a good look at the dark side of corporate tactics.
Make the spammer hand write an apology letter to each person he spammed. Oh and he has to lick each and every envelop and stamp with his tongue!