I agree with youur premise, that it is not possible to feel real grief over someone you don't personally know.
But...
I also think that, because he had already contributed something meaningful and vastly useful, people stop and wonder: did he have anything else cranking around in his head that he just never got around to making?
I was very annoyed at the press when Princess Diana and JFK Jr died--in the case of Di, because it was the extreme interest of the press which had caused her death in the first place, and JFK Jr because he contributed even less to the world than Diana by simply being there and inheriting a name. The silliness of seeing my mother weep over JFK Jr, partly because he was young, and partly because he was son of her favorite president, sickened me. What did he ever do for her? Not a damn thing.
Say what you like about Katz, but he contributed something vital to the community, and then left. I have a lot more respect for a person who makes a contribution, and I just don't see what all these fucking celebrities are doing for the common man or the common interest, except for relieving us of the burden in our wallets and giving us something tangible to worship.
As for worship, I need none of that, and I completely agree with what you said. But respect out of awe at a creation, that I think has something more to it than simple fanaticism or feigned grief.
as far as I understand, the error is mainly introduced into the altitude precision. this way civilians can get around, everyone knows where everything is, but no one can be certain they are going to be able to hit it if they launch a missile at it.
1. This assumes there is one correct answer to the spiritual questions of life. There isn't.
2. Chances are, it would take logical points of view: atheism, and such. Which is nice, but when one thinks about it, logic being infallible is not just a quality of logic...it is a presupposition. Large aspects of reality are discarded when one limits oneself as such. Only taking that which can be logically explained to be possible as fact will obviously only lead you to conclusions which support that given.
3. I think that creatures inherit souls when they become sentient, so a machine would be an intelligence if it understood intuitively what "I" is. This knowledge should be somewhere beyond the scope of being taught.
Sega Dreamcast hardware has two API's. One of these is a proprietary Sega one, the other is Windows CE. The idea is that bad PC games can be ported to DC easily (and the WinCE games are usually the ones with the worst framerate, BTW). But yes, there is Direct X for Windows CE!
as long as you are consistent about the amount of whitespace in a given block, it doesn't matter if you use a tab, three spaces, or any combination. Python cares if you are consistent about it within the block. it does not have to be a tab.
for example, run "python" and type these in:
def myFunction(): print "two spaces"
def yourFunction(): print "eight spaces"
no problem. just use the same spaces in a given block.
As you can clearly see, these bugs affect an *add-on* product present in NT4 which became built-in to Windows 2000. This is not a W2K only bug which is how/. wants users to perceive it. That's not accurate or fair.
So the fact that the bugs are in existing products somehow makes the bugs OK? Or are you just saying that because it's Microsoft, we can expect it, but that it's unfair to expect bugs in Microsoft products in newer ones? What exactly are you trying to prove here, that Microsoft has a bad rap for holes in new software, or that Microsoft software is has a bad rap for holes in existing software? Does it really matter?
I don't know about you but as soon as I finish installing Windows I rush to Windows Update to bring me up to date fully (CDs get old fast). ANYONE installing W2K would/should run Windows Update and will be covered.
Basically, in addition to the lengthy 1-2 hour installation time that is expected, and the downloading and installing of updated drivers which is almost expected (as new hardware drivers get old fast also) one is also now required to get online immediately after installation and download patches for software which was broken before it was sold? Instead of engineering better products from scratch, we'll just give the users a permanent connection to a database of corrections and act like it's their fault if they forget to "update" once a week?
You have to know the names of the files on the remote system before they can be viewed if the exploit existed. That's not exactly getting root here ya know?! Let's not overinflate the damage potential.
The perceived damage potential may be low, but a security breach is still a security breach. If Microsoft is going to make a product and market it as a secure server operating system, and it is not secure virtually from purchase onward, regardless of the degree of insecurity, they HAVE lied to the consumer. Underestimating the power of the cracker or even the script kiddie is generally a bad idea.
he exploit is on the finders website and includes how to prevent the exploit from working. #1) you left the IISAMPLES directoy in place - stupid admin trick #323, delete or rename them before making the machine public and #2) you just disassocate.htw files until the patch can be applied.
This doesn't seem obvious to me. Should an administrator really be required to compensate for the quirks or poor design of the system? Particularly true of Microsoft software, which is both expensive and marketed primarily as a simpler solution?
Don't take this the wrong way--it's not a flame. But people don't dislike MS's software so much as the hypocrisy. They pretend as though they are producing powerful, easy to use "solutions," yet more often than not, we are given costly systems which are difficult and counterintuitive to configure, subject to security holes inherent in poor design, and unable to provide non-destructive patches due to the archaic monstrosity which they are patching. Sure, it's their fault--they haven't rewritten Windows in a long, long time; a friend of mine suspects that there is probably still Pascal in there somewhere. But if they are going to try to sell us a powerful easy solution for large amounts of money, they had better be able to provide it.
If you're a linux user, you've probably already got this program installed. To begin, open a text editor and begin with these lines:
\documentclass{article} \title{*YOUR TITLE HERE*} \author{*YOUR NAME HERE*} \begin{document} \maketitle
Then, you can go ahead and type your comments; remember LaTeX ignores spacing between words and sentances, it modifies the spacing to format the document better. % and $ need to be escaped with \, and when you are done with the document, end it with this line:
\end{document}
That's the whole banana. Now run latex *filename.tex and then dvips *filename*.dvi -o *filename*.ps and then ps2pdf *filename.ps* *filename.pdf* to get a PDF file. If you want to do it in a slightly more complicated way, you can add \usepackage{hyperref} right between \documentclass{article} and \title{*title*} and then run pdflatex *filename*.tex to get a better PDF file out.
Better introductions are available on the net, as are good books and good help.
Wouldn't recycling these discs consist of removing the old coating and applying a new one? I'm not in favor of it at all, but that seems to be one way to go...
aside from that, I don't think that people didn't use Divx because it was only sold by Circuit City. I think it's because the public at large know when they're being *REALLY* ripped off, even if they do prefer a little convenience for a little more expense. Most people are at least enviornmentally conscious to understand that this would be a really crappy thing to do.
I'd like to know what was so special about their login dialog that they couldn't just use HTML like everyone else.
Java developer: "Hey, let's make the login box be a popup Java applet; that way, a five second timeout can be turned into a 30 second timeout waiting for the damn applet to start working in Netscape. What a great way to show off how wonderful our language is!"
seems sad that anything could be slashdotted THIS early in the morning (4AM, localtime)
1. IIRC, there were about three arrests, and minimal injuries. This doesn't constitute "Gestapo thugs" beating people up.
2. In a mob situation, you have to believe in this sort of reaction; otherwise, you are an anti-authoritarian, and therefore a libertarian of some kind (hopefully, a libertarian socialist, AKA anarchist)
3. Anarchism is the belief that capitalism and authority lead to humans being taken advantage of. The direct result is that no government should exist, but human interrelationships should be the foundation of order in society. Anarchists don't pillage and loot. Morons pillage and loot. Anarchists are interested in a form of equality that is simply not possible with the restraints of government and capitalism. Get your terms right.
After all, the RIAA is not interested in "ripping off" the consumers, just maximizing the "extracted" money from our pockets to theirs.:) Evidently, the game works both ways.
If the RIAA have a problem with our desire to listen to music we have legally acquired, and for which the artists have been legally fairly compensated, the RIAA can screw themselves. I think it's high time the RIAA and every other commercial organization remembered that they are at our mercy, and we are tired of having our rights violated simply so they can make an easy buck. Intellectual freedom is finally a possibility, and the corporation bigwigs are just trying to win back as much turf as possible before we realize that they are completely useless middlemen.
Unfortunately for them, there are thousands of artists at www.mp3.com who have realized that they can get their message and music across without being pimped by the music industry. Do us all a favor and listen to free music while you hack free software.
Accountability means knowing that kid is six years old and being able to have a human or a machine say, "I'm sorry, but you can't go in there."
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree. Accountability is saying, "Who brought their six year old in here without keeping their eye on them?" Publicly enforced morality is what you are talking about.
Aside from that, I'd like to know why the public safety is such an issue here. For all the money we spend trying to put an end to terrorism and such. . . where was it to begin with? If your bank got cracked, you deserved it. The government's job is not to make up for people being morons. That and the majority of crackers are more interested in the crack itself than in exploiting it, and would notify the bank of the security issue.
Human beings aren't honest, and we can't make them honest
If humans aren't honest, how can we trust any of them to make decisions for us regarding what content we can or cannot see? How do you explain the Free Software Movement, if people aren't basically honest and interested in helping?
I'm not an anonymous person and I don't want to be. I also don't want other anonymous people because they can do things without being held accountable for them. People on the Internet need to grow up and realize that the Internet isn't an infant anymore. It's evolved into a real-world machine and in the real-world, people aren't anonymous.
In the real world, information is anonymous. Therefore information access should also be anonymous. It seems silly to me that everyone thinks they can barge into the Internet and start enforcing their laws there. The fact of the matter is that if we needed rules and regulations, we would already have had them. Doesn't anyone realize that the people who are trying to enforce laws online are the same people who are trying to enforce laws in the "real world"? Could it maybe be because they don't want their power to be snatched away, into the hands of the "non-ruling class"?
It is a foregone conclusion to governmental types like you that your way of thinking is the only way. Perhaps it's time for the real world to grow up and realize that people and information are meant to be free, and that any time we put anyone else in charge of what one can or cannot see or say, that freedom has been compromised.
No, your mind is shaped by Nature and Nurture. Your brain is physically created by physical processes (is that a duh?). These processes have nothing to do with the time Billy beat you up and took your lunch money. They have everything to do with how cells are instructed in the creation of other cells. These instructions are in the DNA
DHartung wrote: > My objective in supporting Linux is to have an OS that can be used in a corporate > environment, with a much smaller total-cost-of-ownership, and reasonable support > requirements. Now, Windows ain't gonna go away, but Linux has a shot at occupying a big > chunk of the corporate market.
Well, that's not my objective. My objective is to have something that works better for me on my home system. Clearly, we have different points of view, for different circumstances.
My article was designed to get people thinking. It was intentional. I don't want to see Linux turn into Windows--by which I mean, I want it to stay fast, pretty, and somewhat arcane.
> I'm actually supporting Linux because it's better for people.
? How is any OS better for anyone? According to your argument, as long as it is usable, it is good. Why is Windows not good enough for *YOU*?
> In other words, I'm not supporting Linux because I think Torvalds is cool and open source > is cool and I like being part of a subculture and, oh yeah, Microsoft is evil; I'm > actually supporting Linux because it's better for people.
Where do you get this? I don't see the word "cool" anywhere in my article. For that matter, I didn't mention open source or Linus Torvaldes. Or the "subculture". Now, I will admit that I do greatly agree, Linus is cool, and so is open source. I like being a part of the subculture. But that's not what I'm trying to protect. I think Linux is just a better system.
> Your "let's keep Linux arcane and difficult so the masses don't find out about it" > argument is juvenile. As far as I'm concerned, Linux advocacy does not need people like > you. You don't "love Linux"; you love being part of the Linux subculture, and you want to > keep it exclusionary and secretive. You're part of the problem. Please stop.
Why is my argument juvenile? What is wrong with savoring something and not having to force everyone to use it? I assure you, I do love Linux. I patrol various Linux-related newsgroups to help newbies get acqainted with the system. I certainly don't want Linux to be exclusionary or secretive. I just don't think that condescension should be part of the system. And I think that having uneducated users is certainly going to push the system in that direction.
And how can you argue with that? A properly configured Linux system with an administrator is just as capable of userfriendliness now as it was two or more years ago. Sure, it may look more like Windows now, and it may have prettier themes, and it may have filemanagers, but what do these really add? If you are using it as a graphics workstation, what do you REALLY need to be able to do, besides launch the program and copy the files around? Or get email? And I don't think that GNOME or KDE really change that, from a corporate perspective.
Furthermore, I'd like to know what the "problem" here is. Linux was made by hackers not too different from myself for themselves. It was not made to be a "[small] total-cost-of-ownership solution [with] reasonable support requirements". How can the creators be themselves the problem, if their system is so glorious?
Let me first state that if you don't love linux, don't read this post. You're going to get pissed off.
I'd like to know what the rush is to make everyone use Linux. I wasn't online before it became so simple, but I can tell you, since then we've had to deal with a host of new problems. For example, people who post nothing but flamebait, morons, script kiddies, and spam. From what I understand, these things were not nearly so commonplace before it became this easy.
What are the things that make Linux shine? Eveyrone contributes. It's extremely fast and powerful. Moreover, we love it.
The average Windows user is not equipped to deal with Linux. That's just a fact. The question is, why do we want to ruin the things that make Linux so great? As soon as we start making EVERYTHING simple to use, EVERYONE will start using it. The complexity of it will grow to insane levels. It will no longer be within the capabilities of the average hacker to program for it. And as all of these levels of simplification stack higher and higher, they will place more and more of a burden on the system.
Translation: Linux becomes as awful as Windows. Linux users migrate to FreeBSD.
It's a fate I don't want to see. I think we need to make something clear: Linux is for elitists. If you aren't willing to learn to use it, you aren't worthy of the title. It's just that simple.
I don't have a problem with people learning to use Linux. I have a problem with everyone trying to make life simple for the users, because that's just going to invite them to come in and stomp all over what we've made so far.
There is a difference between teaching users, and catering to them. We have to draw a line.
Firstly, I painted my new box purple. I had a friend who painted his black. SGI machines have been coming in purple for a long time. Did you think that you were the first person to notice this? PC's are modular, and the various cards that go inside them need to fit within fairly good precision. Why spend a lot of money coming up with a design that will be prohibitively expensive; especially when the market for people buying *just cases* are the people who care the least about them?
I don't know about you, but when I pop the hood on my car, I get confused pretty quickly. Usually, there's some sort of stick for checking the oil. Sometimes I can find it. Hell, sometimes I can even figure out if I'm low or not.
But I'm not clamoring for "user friendly engines". It's just not a priority. There are some people who understand my engine, and many other engines. I call these people "mechanics". You may have heard of them. They do a better job fixing my car's engine than I do. I respect them for that.
Also, you may have heard of these people called doctors. If I had taken an anatomy/physiology class last year, I could probably name some of my organs. But when I'm sick, I go to the doctor, and s/he'll usually find out what is wrong with me, and even present a solution. I respect her for that. But no matter how many times you read "Doctor's Guide to Home Remedies", you'll still have to go to the doctor sometimes.
Additionally, if you ever get a cavity, you may understand that it is fixed by drilling a hole in the tooth and filling it with something. I have yet to see a home dentistry kit that offers you this ability.
My point is very simple: humans have finite brains that can only learn so much. The solution in the past has been to allow certain members of society who indicate an interest to specialize their knowledge in a particular field. These people become the experts or the doctors or the mechanics or dentists or whatever. You go to them when you have a problem.
Why does everybody seem to think that computers should be the exception? Is it because you don't die if you don't use them? Seems like some pretty strange mentality. Do you think that everyone who, like me, have spent countless hours trying to learn this thing should just be cast aside as "just like everyone else"? I know people who have their car as their hobby, and I respect them for having more knowledge. Why do people like you have such a hard time understanding that there will always be someone who knows more than you do in at least one area?
People who've never used a computer before still need a few lessons before they can figure out the basic stuff, whether the OS is Windows or MacOS (in spite of the claims on both sides). Perhaps if I'd had a few lessons in fixing my car, I wouldn't rely on my mechanic as much. But things aren't really that bad, having to have someone else fix it. I fix lots of computers; is it my fault they're complicated? Why is this an issue?
In any field there are going to be people with more sheer knowledge about a concept. With anything but computers, everyone seems to think it's OK. What is it about computers that everyone thinks they have a right? I worked for this knowledge! I'd be glad to share it--GLAD to share it! But I'm not going to make it so much easier on you that you lose the point.
First off, I heard from a not-at-all reliable source that MD's actually store information in the MP3 format internally. : ) food for thought.
Secondly, the MD is not a mature platform, and I doubt it will ever mature. There are several reasons for this:
1. You cannot create a MD without a CD
2. There is a limit to the number of digital copies that can be made from an MD. While this sounds silly, most people who don't like this kind of restraint, especially if they already own the CD which is digital, and can be copied as such without any limit. Why should I get an expensive MD recording unit which doesn't allow unlimited digital copies when I can get a CD recorder that does?
3. Why should I get an MD recorder when the CD is much more established? If I record a CD, there will be a player at my destination. This is not the case with the MD.
4. The MD recorder assumes the existance of a separate player, and vice versa. I wouldn't purchase an MD recorder just to record MD's: I would want a portable player to go with it. Most people don't need another way to make a "personal greatest hits" album; they want MD's for their digital, skip-free qualities--qualities which are best demonstrated in stressful enviornments such as car audio. And who would get a player without the capability to record? I haven't seen a combo package of the two for less than $500 here. I'd rather get a new palm pilot for that kind of money!
5. If I can only make one digital copy, why don't I just get a peripheral that plays MP3s? MP3's are much more established than MDs are, and they can be stored anywhere that digital information can.
6. Blank MDs much more expensive than blank CDs.
Clearly, this is why we are having this discussion. : )
Slashdot Mirror
I believe I installed all of Office 2000 without a single reboot, although I may be mistaken.
Oh, so they've made it so hypnotic you can hardly even notice anymore...
Daniel
I agree with youur premise, that it is not possible to feel real grief over someone you don't personally know.
But...
I also think that, because he had already contributed something meaningful and vastly useful, people stop and wonder: did he have anything else cranking around in his head that he just never got around to making?
I was very annoyed at the press when Princess Diana and JFK Jr died--in the case of Di, because it was the extreme interest of the press which had caused her death in the first place, and JFK Jr because he contributed even less to the world than Diana by simply being there and inheriting a name. The silliness of seeing my mother weep over JFK Jr, partly because he was young, and partly because he was son of her favorite president, sickened me. What did he ever do for her? Not a damn thing.
Say what you like about Katz, but he contributed something vital to the community, and then left. I have a lot more respect for a person who makes a contribution, and I just don't see what all these fucking celebrities are doing for the common man or the common interest, except for relieving us of the burden in our wallets and giving us something tangible to worship.
As for worship, I need none of that, and I completely agree with what you said. But respect out of awe at a creation, that I think has something more to it than simple fanaticism or feigned grief.
Daniel
as far as I understand, the error is mainly introduced into the altitude precision. this way civilians can get around, everyone knows where everything is, but no one can be certain they are going to be able to hit it if they launch a missile at it.
Daniel
1. This assumes there is one correct answer to the spiritual questions of life. There isn't.
2. Chances are, it would take logical points of view: atheism, and such. Which is nice, but when one thinks about it, logic being infallible is not just a quality of logic...it is a presupposition. Large aspects of reality are discarded when one limits oneself as such. Only taking that which can be logically explained to be possible as fact will obviously only lead you to conclusions which support that given.
3. I think that creatures inherit souls when they become sentient, so a machine would be an intelligence if it understood intuitively what "I" is. This knowledge should be somewhere beyond the scope of being taught.
Daniel
Sega Dreamcast hardware has two API's. One of these is a proprietary Sega one, the other is Windows CE. The idea is that bad PC games can be ported to DC easily (and the WinCE games are usually the ones with the worst framerate, BTW). But yes, there is Direct X for Windows CE!
Daniel
as long as you are consistent about the amount of whitespace in a given block, it doesn't matter if you use a tab, three spaces, or any combination. Python cares if you are consistent about it within the block. it does not have to be a tab.
for example, run "python" and type these in:
def myFunction():
print "two spaces"
def yourFunction():
print "eight spaces"
no problem. just use the same spaces in a given block.
Daniel
As you can clearly see, these bugs affect an *add-on* product present in NT4 which became built-in to Windows 2000. This is not a W2K only bug which is how /. wants users to perceive it. That's not accurate or fair.
.htw files until the patch can be applied.
So the fact that the bugs are in existing products somehow makes the bugs OK? Or are you just saying that because it's Microsoft, we can expect it, but that it's unfair to expect bugs in Microsoft products in newer ones? What exactly are you trying to prove here, that Microsoft has a bad rap for holes in new software, or that Microsoft software is has a bad rap for holes in existing software? Does it really matter?
I don't know about you but as soon as I finish installing Windows I rush to Windows Update to bring me up to date fully (CDs get old fast). ANYONE installing W2K would/should run Windows Update and will be covered.
Basically, in addition to the lengthy 1-2 hour installation time that is expected, and the downloading and installing of updated drivers which is almost expected (as new hardware drivers get old fast also) one is also now required to get online immediately after installation and download patches for software which was broken before it was sold? Instead of engineering better products from scratch, we'll just give the users a permanent connection to a database of corrections and act like it's their fault if they forget to "update" once a week?
You have to know the names of the files on the remote system before they can be viewed if the exploit existed. That's not exactly getting root here ya know?! Let's not overinflate the damage potential.
The perceived damage potential may be low, but a security breach is still a security breach. If Microsoft is going to make a product and market it as a secure server operating system, and it is not secure virtually from purchase onward, regardless of the degree of insecurity, they HAVE lied to the consumer. Underestimating the power of the cracker or even the script kiddie is generally a bad idea.
he exploit is on the finders website and includes how to prevent the exploit from working. #1) you left the IISAMPLES directoy in place - stupid admin trick #323, delete or rename them before making the machine public and #2) you just disassocate
This doesn't seem obvious to me. Should an administrator really be required to compensate for the quirks or poor design of the system? Particularly true of Microsoft software, which is both expensive and marketed primarily as a simpler solution?
Don't take this the wrong way--it's not a flame. But people don't dislike MS's software so much as the hypocrisy. They pretend as though they are producing powerful, easy to use "solutions," yet more often than not, we are given costly systems which are difficult and counterintuitive to configure, subject to security holes inherent in poor design, and unable to provide non-destructive patches due to the archaic monstrosity which they are patching. Sure, it's their fault--they haven't rewritten Windows in a long, long time; a friend of mine suspects that there is probably still Pascal in there somewhere. But if they are going to try to sell us a powerful easy solution for large amounts of money, they had better be able to provide it.
Daniel
If you're a linux user, you've probably already got this program installed. To begin, open a text editor and begin with these lines:
\documentclass{article}
\title{*YOUR TITLE HERE*}
\author{*YOUR NAME HERE*}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
Then, you can go ahead and type your comments; remember LaTeX ignores spacing between words and sentances, it modifies the spacing to format the document better. % and $ need to be escaped with \, and when you are done with the document, end it with this line:
\end{document}
That's the whole banana. Now run latex *filename.tex and then dvips *filename*.dvi -o *filename*.ps and then ps2pdf *filename.ps* *filename.pdf* to get a PDF file. If you want to do it in a slightly more complicated way, you can add \usepackage{hyperref} right between \documentclass{article} and \title{*title*} and then run pdflatex *filename*.tex to get a better PDF file out.
Better introductions are available on the net, as are good books and good help.
Daniel
Wouldn't recycling these discs consist of removing the old coating and applying a new one? I'm not in favor of it at all, but that seems to be one way to go...
aside from that, I don't think that people didn't use Divx because it was only sold by Circuit City. I think it's because the public at large know when they're being *REALLY* ripped off, even if they do prefer a little convenience for a little more expense. Most people are at least enviornmentally conscious to understand that this would be a really crappy thing to do.
Daniel
I'd like to know what was so special about their login dialog that they couldn't just use HTML like everyone else.
Java developer: "Hey, let's make the login box be a popup Java applet; that way, a five second timeout can be turned into a 30 second timeout waiting for the damn applet to start working in Netscape. What a great way to show off how wonderful our language is!"
seems sad that anything could be slashdotted THIS early in the morning (4AM, localtime)
Daniel
1. IIRC, there were about three arrests, and minimal injuries. This doesn't constitute "Gestapo thugs" beating people up.
2. In a mob situation, you have to believe in this sort of reaction; otherwise, you are an anti-authoritarian, and therefore a libertarian of some kind (hopefully, a libertarian socialist, AKA anarchist)
3. Anarchism is the belief that capitalism and authority lead to humans being taken advantage of. The direct result is that no government should exist, but human interrelationships should be the foundation of order in society. Anarchists don't pillage and loot. Morons pillage and loot. Anarchists are interested in a form of equality that is simply not possible with the restraints of government and capitalism. Get your terms right.
Daniel
After all, the RIAA is not interested in "ripping off" the consumers, just maximizing the "extracted" money from our pockets to theirs. :) Evidently, the game works both ways.
If the RIAA have a problem with our desire to listen to music we have legally acquired, and for which the artists have been legally fairly compensated, the RIAA can screw themselves. I think it's high time the RIAA and every other commercial organization remembered that they are at our mercy, and we are tired of having our rights violated simply so they can make an easy buck. Intellectual freedom is finally a possibility, and the corporation bigwigs are just trying to win back as much turf as possible before we realize that they are completely useless middlemen.
Unfortunately for them, there are thousands of artists at www.mp3.com who have realized that they can get their message and music across without being pimped by the music industry. Do us all a favor and listen to free music while you hack free software.
Daniel
Accountability means knowing that kid is six years old and being able to have a human or a machine say, "I'm sorry, but you can't go in there."
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree. Accountability is saying, "Who brought their six year old in here without keeping their eye on them?" Publicly enforced morality is what you are talking about.
Aside from that, I'd like to know why the public safety is such an issue here. For all the money we spend trying to put an end to terrorism and such. . . where was it to begin with? If your bank got cracked, you deserved it. The government's job is not to make up for people being morons. That and the majority of crackers are more interested in the crack itself than in exploiting it, and would notify the bank of the security issue.
Human beings aren't honest, and we can't make them honest
If humans aren't honest, how can we trust any of them to make decisions for us regarding what content we can or cannot see? How do you explain the Free Software Movement, if people aren't basically honest and interested in helping?
I'm not an anonymous person and I don't want to be. I also don't want other anonymous people because they can do things without being held accountable for them. People on the Internet need to grow up and realize that the Internet isn't an infant anymore. It's evolved into a real-world machine and in the real-world, people aren't anonymous.
In the real world, information is anonymous. Therefore information access should also be anonymous. It seems silly to me that everyone thinks they can barge into the Internet and start enforcing their laws there. The fact of the matter is that if we needed rules and regulations, we would already have had them. Doesn't anyone realize that the people who are trying to enforce laws online are the same people who are trying to enforce laws in the "real world"? Could it maybe be because they don't want their power to be snatched away, into the hands of the "non-ruling class"?
It is a foregone conclusion to governmental types like you that your way of thinking is the only way. Perhaps it's time for the real world to grow up and realize that people and information are meant to be free, and that any time we put anyone else in charge of what one can or cannot see or say, that freedom has been compromised.
Daniel
We (our brains) are shaped in two ways:
No, your mind is shaped by Nature and Nurture. Your brain is physically created by physical processes (is that a duh?). These processes have nothing to do with the time Billy beat you up and took your lunch money. They have everything to do with how cells are instructed in the creation of other cells. These instructions are in the DNA
Daniel
DHartung wrote:
> My objective in supporting Linux is to have an OS that can be used in a corporate
> environment, with a much smaller total-cost-of-ownership, and reasonable support
> requirements. Now, Windows ain't gonna go away, but Linux has a shot at occupying a big
> chunk of the corporate market.
Well, that's not my objective. My objective is to have something that works better for me on my home system. Clearly, we have different points of view, for different circumstances.
My article was designed to get people thinking. It was intentional. I don't want to see Linux turn into Windows--by which I mean, I want it to stay fast, pretty, and somewhat arcane.
> I'm actually supporting Linux because it's better for people.
? How is any OS better for anyone? According to your argument, as long as it is usable, it is good. Why is Windows not good enough for *YOU*?
> In other words, I'm not supporting Linux because I think Torvalds is cool and open source
> is cool and I like being part of a subculture and, oh yeah, Microsoft is evil; I'm
> actually supporting Linux because it's better for people.
Where do you get this? I don't see the word "cool" anywhere in my article. For that matter, I didn't mention open source or Linus Torvaldes. Or the "subculture". Now, I will admit that I do greatly agree, Linus is cool, and so is open source. I like being a part of the subculture. But that's not what I'm trying to protect. I think Linux is just a better system.
> Your "let's keep Linux arcane and difficult so the masses don't find out about it"
> argument is juvenile. As far as I'm concerned, Linux advocacy does not need people like
> you. You don't "love Linux"; you love being part of the Linux subculture, and you want to
> keep it exclusionary and secretive. You're part of the problem. Please stop.
Why is my argument juvenile? What is wrong with savoring something and not having to force everyone to use it? I assure you, I do love Linux. I patrol various Linux-related newsgroups to help newbies get acqainted with the system. I certainly don't want Linux to be exclusionary or secretive. I just don't think that condescension should be part of the system. And I think that having uneducated users is certainly going to push the system in that direction.
And how can you argue with that? A properly configured Linux system with an administrator is just as capable of userfriendliness now as it was two or more years ago. Sure, it may look more like Windows now, and it may have prettier themes, and it may have filemanagers, but what do these really add? If you are using it as a graphics workstation, what do you REALLY need to be able to do, besides launch the program and copy the files around? Or get email? And I don't think that GNOME or KDE really change that, from a corporate perspective.
Furthermore, I'd like to know what the "problem" here is. Linux was made by hackers not too different from myself for themselves. It was not made to be a "[small] total-cost-of-ownership solution [with] reasonable support requirements". How can the creators be themselves the problem, if their system is so glorious?
FusionGyro
Let me first state that if you don't love linux, don't read this post. You're going to get pissed off.
I'd like to know what the rush is to make everyone use Linux. I wasn't online before it became so simple, but I can tell you, since then we've had to deal with a host of new problems. For example, people who post nothing but flamebait, morons, script kiddies, and spam. From what I understand, these things were not nearly so commonplace before it became this easy.
What are the things that make Linux shine? Eveyrone contributes. It's extremely fast and powerful. Moreover, we love it.
The average Windows user is not equipped to deal with Linux. That's just a fact. The question is, why do we want to ruin the things that make Linux so great? As soon as we start making EVERYTHING simple to use, EVERYONE will start using it. The complexity of it will grow to insane levels. It will no longer be within the capabilities of the average hacker to program for it. And as all of these levels of simplification stack higher and higher, they will place more and more of a burden on the system.
Translation: Linux becomes as awful as Windows. Linux users migrate to FreeBSD.
It's a fate I don't want to see. I think we need to make something clear: Linux is for elitists. If you aren't willing to learn to use it, you aren't worthy of the title. It's just that simple.
I don't have a problem with people learning to use Linux. I have a problem with everyone trying to make life simple for the users, because that's just going to invite them to come in and stomp all over what we've made so far.
There is a difference between teaching users, and catering to them. We have to draw a line.
FusionGyro
Isn't it odd that this is the week the slashdot poll is asking about the most powerful doctors? Looks like we should add a new name to the list!
Daniel
Firstly, I painted my new box purple. I had a friend who painted his black. SGI machines have been coming in purple for a long time. Did you think that you were the first person to notice this? PC's are modular, and the various cards that go inside them need to fit within fairly good precision. Why spend a lot of money coming up with a design that will be prohibitively expensive; especially when the market for people buying *just cases* are the people who care the least about them?
I don't know about you, but when I pop the hood on my car, I get confused pretty quickly. Usually, there's some sort of stick for checking the oil. Sometimes I can find it. Hell, sometimes I can even figure out if I'm low or not.
But I'm not clamoring for "user friendly engines". It's just not a priority. There are some people who understand my engine, and many other engines. I call these people "mechanics". You may have heard of them. They do a better job fixing my car's engine than I do. I respect them for that.
Also, you may have heard of these people called doctors. If I had taken an anatomy/physiology class last year, I could probably name some of my organs. But when I'm sick, I go to the doctor, and s/he'll usually find out what is wrong with me, and even present a solution. I respect her for that. But no matter how many times you read "Doctor's Guide to Home Remedies", you'll still have to go to the doctor sometimes.
Additionally, if you ever get a cavity, you may understand that it is fixed by drilling a hole in the tooth and filling it with something. I have yet to see a home dentistry kit that offers you this ability.
My point is very simple: humans have finite brains that can only learn so much. The solution in the past has been to allow certain members of society who indicate an interest to specialize their knowledge in a particular field. These people become the experts or the doctors or the mechanics or dentists or whatever. You go to them when you have a problem.
Why does everybody seem to think that computers should be the exception? Is it because you don't die if you don't use them? Seems like some pretty strange mentality. Do you think that everyone who, like me, have spent countless hours trying to learn this thing should just be cast aside as "just like everyone else"? I know people who have their car as their hobby, and I respect them for having more knowledge. Why do people like you have such a hard time understanding that there will always be someone who knows more than you do in at least one area?
People who've never used a computer before still need a few lessons before they can figure out the basic stuff, whether the OS is Windows or MacOS (in spite of the claims on both sides). Perhaps if I'd had a few lessons in fixing my car, I wouldn't rely on my mechanic as much. But things aren't really that bad, having to have someone else fix it. I fix lots of computers; is it my fault they're complicated? Why is this an issue?
In any field there are going to be people with more sheer knowledge about a concept. With anything but computers, everyone seems to think it's OK. What is it about computers that everyone thinks they have a right? I worked for this knowledge! I'd be glad to share it--GLAD to share it! But I'm not going to make it so much easier on you that you lose the point.
First off, I heard from a not-at-all reliable source that MD's actually store information in the MP3 format internally. : ) food for thought.
Secondly, the MD is not a mature platform, and I doubt it will ever mature. There are several reasons for this:
1. You cannot create a MD without a CD
2. There is a limit to the number of digital copies that can be made from an MD. While this sounds silly, most people who don't like this kind of restraint, especially if they already own the CD which is digital, and can be copied as such without any limit. Why should I get an expensive MD recording unit which doesn't allow unlimited digital copies when I can get a CD recorder that does?
3. Why should I get an MD recorder when the CD is much more established? If I record a CD, there will be a player at my destination. This is not the case with the MD.
4. The MD recorder assumes the existance of a separate player, and vice versa. I wouldn't purchase an MD recorder just to record MD's: I would want a portable player to go with it. Most people don't need another way to make a "personal greatest hits" album; they want MD's for their digital, skip-free qualities--qualities which are best demonstrated in stressful enviornments such as car audio. And who would get a player without the capability to record? I haven't seen a combo package of the two for less than $500 here. I'd rather get a new palm pilot for that kind of money!
5. If I can only make one digital copy, why don't I just get a peripheral that plays MP3s? MP3's are much more established than MDs are, and they can be stored anywhere that digital information can.
6. Blank MDs much more expensive than blank CDs.
Clearly, this is why we are having this discussion. : )
FusionGyro