As a taxpayer, I want the hard earned money that the Imperial Federal Government takes from me to not be squandered. I want the Government to be a good steward with MY money, and not waste it as much as they do.
And I consider the purchase of a buggy, insecure, bloated Operating System like Windows a waste of my money. When some Government clerk is just typing up documents on a PC, why do they need a copy of Windows (and presumably Office) when Linux and KOffice or OpenOffice, etc, will do the exact same thing at a fraction of the cost?
I'd much prefer if the government used free, open source operating systems as much as possible, saving taxpayer money and eventually getting me another tax cut (because 4 months is too long to work just to pay your taxes).
They can't charge whatever they want because there is competition - they're selling Broadband access. If DSL prices gte too high, I'll either A. Get A Cable Modem or B. go back to dialup or C. Try to invent a new way of doing it.
Look, I am a free market capitalist. And I'm not crazy about there being only one service provider in town - but that's just it - there isn't. If Bell pisses me off then I'll call the local cable company and get a cable modem. If that doesn't work then I'll take a hard long look at wireless providers. I really think a lot of us are making a mountain out of this molehill.
I also see a HUGE business opportunity for an alternative broadband connection. Especially if it's cheaper then DSL / Cable... 802.11 may be it, it may be something else.
That technically the Bells own the wiring. In fact, there was a time when the copper in the wiring was worth more than AT(and)T! Someone could have conceivably bought AT(and)T in that time, dug up the wiring, sold the copper, and turned a profit.
But the point is - the telecoms own the wiring from the switch to your house. Why should government dictate what the owner of that wire has to do with it? Allowing other DSL providers to use that infrastructure is going to cost the Bells money. So I really feel that the court is correct in this matter.
However, I don't want to pay exhorbitant amounts of money for my DSL line. And I think the way to do this is to offer a true competitor.. maybe it's the cable companies and cable modems, maybe its 802.11 wireless, maybe it's satellite transmission, maybe it's something that hasn't even been thought up yet, but there will be a competitor.
And I don't think this is a monopoly any more then I think DISH Network is after buying Direct TV.. they still have to compete with cable companies.. much the same way DSL is still going to have to compete with cable modems, etc. They're selling broadband access, and there will be multiple ways to get it.
This court decision is not the end of the world, folks.
Now I just have to prepare myself to be modded down..;)
Microsoft will be filing suit against Home Depot and Lowes for selling windows, as well as major home builders such as Choice homes and Pulte for including windows in buildings they sell to the public.
Contact the EFF and fight this. This is simply extortion.
Of course, there is also a chance that they don't really want to go to court either (since this has scam all over it), so tell them to go fuck themselves and see what they do.
First, our right to speech is granted (i.e., it is not presumed) by the Constitution
Actually, the Constitution does not grant anyone any rights, nor was it ever intended to. The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the ability of the Government to infringe on your rights. The concept of your rights is not debatable, you have certain unalienable rights.
Therefore, this speech is colored by the other contents of the Constitution, including the possibility of limiting "Such Speach as may be Found Hurtful to the Citizens of the Nation." I think this falls into the "hurtful" category pretty clearly.
I'm not going to argue against this. Our children are too precious to sacrifice them at the altar of free speech.
I'm not going to argue that exposing kids to hardcore pr0n isn't harmful... it is. However, I am going to argue that it's dangerous ground when we try to "insulate" kids from the realities of the world via legislation. Where do you draw the line of what is acceptable? Is non-sexual nudity OK?
I feel the real issue of contention is this: It's not the Government's business what sites my children view. It's *MY* business, and as a parent it becomes my job to filter what my kids see on the Net, on TV, in games, at the movies, etc.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child, or government, it takes parents who care.
When you go see Star Wars Episode 2: try and see if you are capable of yelling "Fire". No magic goverment forces are stopping you, the only thing truly stopping you is your own moral fiber, or a fear of the consequences.
How would you define a false sense of liberty? A window in your jail cell? And "typical knee-jerk conservative response"? I guess that would make you what, the typical elitist liberal snob?
There is no such thing as true security. Any method of security can be broken, it's just a degree of difficulty. For example, do you think Fort Knox is secure? Could it keep out the Chinese Army if they invaded?
Do you think the law making it illegal to yell "fire" in a theatre actually stops anyone from doing it? Anyone can still yell "Fire" and be an ass about it. They'll likely get arrested and charged, but nothing *stopped* them from doing what they wanted to do.
No, sorry, I'd prefer to be in charge of my own security, and lot leave it up to an inefficient government.
Don't get me wrong, I like freedom as much as the next man. As long as it doesn't come at such a price.
No amount of liberty to give up is ever worth a false sense of security. The Government can pass as many laws as it wishes, and yet you are no more safer then you were before. From the uneducated "profeesionalized" goons patting down attractive single women at the airport in the name of security to the outright paranoia of not letting people take nail clippers to school, we are no safer then we were.
Criminals will find a way to break the law if they want to bad enough. It's not worth any of your liberty, and it never will be.
The reason the media got so quiet on Enron is because the Bush Administration did nothing to help bail them out, while there is an incredible amount of evidence of Enron getting special favors from the CLINTON Administration.
The Media is just protecting their boy Clinton.
For a true eye-opener on the liberal media, I suggest you read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg.
"And after children are prohibited from buying games featuring all these vile actions, the next logical step is to prevent networks from airing the News until at least 9PM. It's for the children's own protection, they might not be able to handle the violence of the real world, so Government should protect them as much as possible."
What a crock of sh*t.
There is one entity and one entity only that should govern the lives of children in matters like these: PARENTS. It's entirely up to the parents to monitor what their kids are watching on TV or at the theater, or what games they are playing on any given console, or what games or websites they are seeing with their PC. And the "Parents are too busy" excuse doesn't hold water - it's all a matter of priority.
If, as a parent, you don't mind your kid playing GTA3 (or any other violent game), then that's your business, not mine, not the governments. And the flipside is true, if you don't want your kids playing a violent game, then don't let them. Pay attention to your kids lives, don't expect TV or any other activity to babysit or otherwise replace YOUR job.. which is to raise your kids to be responsible members of society.
Yes, it's a big job, but maybe you should have thought about that before you went and had kids.
Remember, if more Government is the answer, then it's time to re-evaluate the question.
I got hit with it here at work.. running IE 6 on Windows 2000. I don't know if the problem in IE has been fixed, and I don't care. This was the final straw, and I won't be using IE anymore.
I came in to work the last friday morning and noted that McAfee Virus Scan had found this spyware on my machine. It's actually a bit of a pain to remove, but fortunately there doesn't seem to be any super destructive payload.
However, this did prompt me to do a few things at work, home, parents, in-laws, etc:
1. Check for the spyware
2. Remove all shortcuts to Internet Exploder
3. Install Opera 6.01
4. Install Mozilla RC1
5. Explain to less technologically inclined family that if a page doesn't render correctly in one, try the other, if it still doesn't render correctly, then email the webmaster of the site.
6. Despise Microsoft even more... even though I don't care who knows I visit Slashdot and Drudgereport.com... (though the principle of spyware pisses me off)
I can't speak for all Religious people, but I can certainly speak for myself. (In case you want clarification, I am a Christian. Catholic, more specifically.)
I'm against embryonic stem cell research, because the stem cells came from aborted human babies, and I personally believe abortion is murder.
However, I can't see anyone having a problem with stem cell research where the stem cells come from human fat. Nor can I see any reason to oppose stem cell research when the stem cells come from the umbilical cord of a newborn baby.
If you can, then you are probably also against blood transfusions, organ transplants, and other medical necessities because you mis-read your Bible.
But please.. not all of us religious people are "nuts". If you are a liberal and think that all religious people are nuts, then maybe you should practice some of that "tolerance" you like to preach about.
Templates are not supported when targetting the CLR - target Win32 and you'll be just fine.
If you're targetting the CLR - you not only lose templates, but also multiple inheritance. You effectively get a subset of C++.. (so much for M$'s claim of language independence for the CLR.. hehehehe)
.. because it keeps predators like this out of your life. The BSA is nothing more then a modern day mafia - pay them protection money, and they won't tell on you for having an unlicensed copy of an application. It's a total racket, and we ought to get a class action suit against them for extortion.
As far as whether or not they can do this, if anyone (person or organization) who wants to audit you like this is not an official department of a Government Law Enforcement Agency, whether it's federal, state, or city, then tell them to fuck off. Otherwise, you are guaranteed due process and they will need to obtain a search warrant.
Privately owned PC's would be a separate search warrant - as they are not owned by the University they the University is not liable for it's contents.
Too bad the powers that be at the University won't do this. But what they should do is just install the Open Source, Free OS of their choice and tell the BSA jackals to burn in hell.
And to any member of the BSA who might be reading this: I run Red Hat Linux 7.1 at home. Go away.
Kapisch?
And to make it even easier, provide links to ISO images of every major Linux distros, and FreeBSD, and every other free OS.
Which leads me to another idea. Red Hat or another large distro ought to donate a bunch of CD's to schools.. especially if those schools offer any kind of intro programming course. Sure, Visual Studio is a nice IDE, but it's overkill when you're still trying to grasp the concept of a pointer. KWrite and g++ work just fine for 1st year or high school CS students..
Slashdot Mirror
And I consider the purchase of a buggy, insecure, bloated Operating System like Windows a waste of my money. When some Government clerk is just typing up documents on a PC, why do they need a copy of Windows (and presumably Office) when Linux and KOffice or OpenOffice, etc, will do the exact same thing at a fraction of the cost?
I'd much prefer if the government used free, open source operating systems as much as possible, saving taxpayer money and eventually getting me another tax cut (because 4 months is too long to work just to pay your taxes).
Cause it's our damn money, after all.
They can't charge whatever they want because there is competition - they're selling Broadband access. If DSL prices gte too high, I'll either A. Get A Cable Modem or B. go back to dialup or C. Try to invent a new way of doing it.
Look, I am a free market capitalist. And I'm not crazy about there being only one service provider in town - but that's just it - there isn't. If Bell pisses me off then I'll call the local cable company and get a cable modem. If that doesn't work then I'll take a hard long look at wireless providers. I really think a lot of us are making a mountain out of this molehill.
I also see a HUGE business opportunity for an alternative broadband connection. Especially if it's cheaper then DSL / Cable... 802.11 may be it, it may be something else.
But the point is - the telecoms own the wiring from the switch to your house. Why should government dictate what the owner of that wire has to do with it? Allowing other DSL providers to use that infrastructure is going to cost the Bells money. So I really feel that the court is correct in this matter.
However, I don't want to pay exhorbitant amounts of money for my DSL line. And I think the way to do this is to offer a true competitor.. maybe it's the cable companies and cable modems, maybe its 802.11 wireless, maybe it's satellite transmission, maybe it's something that hasn't even been thought up yet, but there will be a competitor.
And I don't think this is a monopoly any more then I think DISH Network is after buying Direct TV.. they still have to compete with cable companies.. much the same way DSL is still going to have to compete with cable modems, etc. They're selling broadband access, and there will be multiple ways to get it.
This court decision is not the end of the world, folks.
Now I just have to prepare myself to be modded down.. ;)
C'mon guys, if David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar can co-exist and tour, then you two ought to be able to find some common ground.
Of course, there is also a chance that they don't really want to go to court either (since this has scam all over it), so tell them to go fuck themselves and see what they do.
Actually, the Constitution does not grant anyone any rights, nor was it ever intended to. The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the ability of the Government to infringe on your rights. The concept of your rights is not debatable, you have certain unalienable rights.
Therefore, this speech is colored by the other contents of the Constitution, including the possibility of limiting "Such Speach as may be Found Hurtful to the Citizens of the Nation." I think this falls into the "hurtful" category pretty clearly. I'm not going to argue against this. Our children are too precious to sacrifice them at the altar of free speech.
I'm not going to argue that exposing kids to hardcore pr0n isn't harmful... it is. However, I am going to argue that it's dangerous ground when we try to "insulate" kids from the realities of the world via legislation. Where do you draw the line of what is acceptable? Is non-sexual nudity OK?
I feel the real issue of contention is this: It's not the Government's business what sites my children view. It's *MY* business, and as a parent it becomes my job to filter what my kids see on the Net, on TV, in games, at the movies, etc.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child, or government, it takes parents who care.
There is no such thing as true security. Any method of security can be broken, it's just a degree of difficulty. For example, do you think Fort Knox is secure? Could it keep out the Chinese Army if they invaded?
Do you think the law making it illegal to yell "fire" in a theatre actually stops anyone from doing it? Anyone can still yell "Fire" and be an ass about it. They'll likely get arrested and charged, but nothing *stopped* them from doing what they wanted to do.
No, sorry, I'd prefer to be in charge of my own security, and lot leave it up to an inefficient government.
No amount of liberty to give up is ever worth a false sense of security. The Government can pass as many laws as it wishes, and yet you are no more safer then you were before. From the uneducated "profeesionalized" goons patting down attractive single women at the airport in the name of security to the outright paranoia of not letting people take nail clippers to school, we are no safer then we were.
Criminals will find a way to break the law if they want to bad enough. It's not worth any of your liberty, and it never will be.
The Media is just protecting their boy Clinton.
For a true eye-opener on the liberal media, I suggest you read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg.
Wouldn't surprise me if they did, given how hostile they are against the good folks at Samba.
But it's still a transfer of responsibility from the parent to the Government, and that's what I'm opposed to.
"And after children are prohibited from buying games featuring all these vile actions, the next logical step is to prevent networks from airing the News until at least 9PM. It's for the children's own protection, they might not be able to handle the violence of the real world, so Government should protect them as much as possible."
What a crock of sh*t.
There is one entity and one entity only that should govern the lives of children in matters like these: PARENTS. It's entirely up to the parents to monitor what their kids are watching on TV or at the theater, or what games they are playing on any given console, or what games or websites they are seeing with their PC. And the "Parents are too busy" excuse doesn't hold water - it's all a matter of priority.
If, as a parent, you don't mind your kid playing GTA3 (or any other violent game), then that's your business, not mine, not the governments. And the flipside is true, if you don't want your kids playing a violent game, then don't let them. Pay attention to your kids lives, don't expect TV or any other activity to babysit or otherwise replace YOUR job.. which is to raise your kids to be responsible members of society.
Yes, it's a big job, but maybe you should have thought about that before you went and had kids.
Remember, if more Government is the answer, then it's time to re-evaluate the question.
I got hit with it here at work.. running IE 6 on Windows 2000. I don't know if the problem in IE has been fixed, and I don't care. This was the final straw, and I won't be using IE anymore.
However, this did prompt me to do a few things at work, home, parents, in-laws, etc:
1. Check for the spyware
2. Remove all shortcuts to Internet Exploder
3. Install Opera 6.01
4. Install Mozilla RC1
5. Explain to less technologically inclined family that if a page doesn't render correctly in one, try the other, if it still doesn't render correctly, then email the webmaster of the site.
6. Despise Microsoft even more... even though I don't care who knows I visit Slashdot and Drudgereport.com... (though the principle of spyware pisses me off)
Of course, even though I was disappointed in Ep.1, I'm still going to see Episode 2.
No to mention the awfulness of Jar Jar Binks..
Here's hoping Episode 2 is better. I'll play it safe and catch it matinee...
I'm against embryonic stem cell research, because the stem cells came from aborted human babies, and I personally believe abortion is murder.
However, I can't see anyone having a problem with stem cell research where the stem cells come from human fat. Nor can I see any reason to oppose stem cell research when the stem cells come from the umbilical cord of a newborn baby.
If you can, then you are probably also against blood transfusions, organ transplants, and other medical necessities because you mis-read your Bible.
But please.. not all of us religious people are "nuts". If you are a liberal and think that all religious people are nuts, then maybe you should practice some of that "tolerance" you like to preach about.
Templates are not supported when targetting the CLR - target Win32 and you'll be just fine. If you're targetting the CLR - you not only lose templates, but also multiple inheritance. You effectively get a subset of C++.. (so much for M$'s claim of language independence for the CLR.. hehehehe)
As far as whether or not they can do this, if anyone (person or organization) who wants to audit you like this is not an official department of a Government Law Enforcement Agency, whether it's federal, state, or city, then tell them to fuck off. Otherwise, you are guaranteed due process and they will need to obtain a search warrant.
Privately owned PC's would be a separate search warrant - as they are not owned by the University they the University is not liable for it's contents.
Too bad the powers that be at the University won't do this. But what they should do is just install the Open Source, Free OS of their choice and tell the BSA jackals to burn in hell.
And to any member of the BSA who might be reading this: I run Red Hat Linux 7.1 at home. Go away. Kapisch?
Well, in my case it was just me being lazy.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=30866&cid=3317 924
Make sure you strip that space in 3317924 when you paste that link into your browser.
Which leads me to another idea. Red Hat or another large distro ought to donate a bunch of CD's to schools.. especially if those schools offer any kind of intro programming course. Sure, Visual Studio is a nice IDE, but it's overkill when you're still trying to grasp the concept of a pointer. KWrite and g++ work just fine for 1st year or high school CS students..