So, what part of the article was biased in such a way that he presented false information? I read through the thing, and it does a good job of giving reason and fact. At several points, he also makes it clear that while he is presenting a point, and though it applies to Linux, it's not something that is a good way to measure security. So even though certain facts support his position, he tells you why those facts are misleading (biased), and what you should be looking for instead.
Really? Sounds like the same false argument shop lifters make when trying to say there isn't work for them. No, it is just easier to steal/write malicious code then get a real job. They can say his code is a work of art, but it is still easier than trying to work at a corporation or starting a legitimate business. This criminal needs to get off his ass and get a real job.
Yeah, also sounds like all those pirates downloading music from the internet when they say that the item is priced to high! No, it's just easier to steal music then save up to buy the album. They can say it's all because the RIAA is over-pricing music they have a legal right to price at whatever they want. Those criminals need to be put behind bars.
That's the whole point of the supreme court. They are appointed to the position for life, so they don't have to worry about being reelected and have to play up to special interest groups.
It's not that literacy is being treated as elitism, it's that the elitists are treating literacy as elitism. The original post stated one movie for the literates, one movie for the Nascar fans. Their is definetly implied elitism there.
Next, being literate is not simply mere. Literate doesn't just mean being able to read and write. In fact, literate usually means well read, or well learned.
The implication is that people who are educated will like one, while those who are not educated will like the other.
Which is all very interesting, because the purpose of movies and books are basically to entertain. Therefore, a movie that entertains more people could be considered better than a movie that only entertains a select few (the elitists). After all, the movie that entertains more people has accomplished it's main goal more-so than the other movie.
Note: Please do not take the above as me saying I like X type of movies. Assuming that from reading the above is very Nascar-like of you. =)
I agree, they were good answers, and seemed rather straight forward.
I recently installed Real 10, and it has greatly improved, and is hardly instrusive (as much as any other program is), and it's a very nice media player, IMO.
And honestly, after this, I might look at their music store...
I find it funny that I have NEVER had this problem with Firefox. Never, not once. I honestly have no idea what people are referring to./. has never rendered poorly via Firefox.
That's all fine. But the parent poster was making it seem like people are stupid and will not convict because their is no law that covers what the person did.
That's actually smart! It's the prosecutors job to levy the correct charges. You can't charge someone with watching a DVD in a car if their isn't a law against it. However, you are right in saying that their could be other laws that cover it, but I never argued that.
"unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal"
That's because that's pretty much how it works. If their is no law that says it's illegal to speed, than guess what? I can't be charged with a crime of speeding.
This doesn't mean this guys isn't guilty, but it doesn't mean watching a DVD while driving is illegal. Laws aren't their to tell us what we can do. Quite the opposite.
Actually, my problem is that/. is posting spam. This guy is spamming his message all over the place, even in places it's off topic. And now he "anonymously" submits this spam to/.
If he wants to build up a project, fine. But so far all he has done is 1) change the button order in Gnome, and 2) spammed all over the place.
Actually, I live in Montreal (and I am an American who moved up here 2 1/2 years ago), and I have a 2 bdrm apartment as well, and it only costs me $450. And it's a nice apartment. Gas prices here are the same as what you mention. Really, the prices in Montreal are very reasonable, cost of living is low, and basically the city is just beautiful.
As an American in Canada, I have no desire to leave anytime soon. Montreal is a beautiful city with wonderful people.
Except they drive like crap. Don't get me started! =)
It also depends on what software he is using. Not all software is goign to be easy to use, just as not all cameras are simple.
I have a simple camera. Turn it on, point, and shoot. Now, it's a digital camera, and gives me other options, but I don't have to use them.
He complains about software that he purchases. Fine, that's all good, but that doesn't make the software or product bad because he doesnt' like it. It just means he selected a product he didn't want.
Some people want the Encyclopedia on their computer that has the audio/visual aspect. And yes, the installation might take long, but that's a one and done thing.
He uses a car as an example: If he want's to use his car, he has to just turn the key. If it was only that simple: he has to fill it with gas, fill it with oil and other fluids, get it inspected, and what happens when their is a flat? He has to change it.
A toaster is a single purpose item: it has one purcpose, to toast. A computer is a multi-purpose item. It's used for many different things. You can just magically make a button on the computer that says "Do what I want you to do" (Well, you can, but will it actually do what you want it to do?).
While I agree that software is not always easy, his generalized statements are nothing new. Basically, all he is saying is software developers should try and make their software easy to use.
You know what? No matter how hard you try, it won't always be easy to use for everyone and have it do what they want. Heck, even Apple fails with the iPod if you really want to address issues.
Of course it was reported in Oct. 2002, but it's not as if it was ignored. It was questioned as to whether or not it was a valid Mozilla bug, or was it an OS bug.
Frankly, I think in the end, they did the right thing. In hindsight, it's easy to say it should have been fixed at first, but in reality, it's an OS problem, not a Mozilla problem. Even still, Mozilla in the end decided that rather than wait for MS to fix the problem, they could do it and solve the problem.
What's nice though, is that we know when it was originally reported, and we can trace the bug's history, but we can do that with the Windows bug. Just because something is reported publically doesn't mean that's when MS found out about it. It's just when we found out about it.
But now I am sounding like a conspiracy theorist, and I should stop there.
You know, for some reason, I feel bad for the IE Developers, who are probably a bunch of well meaning people that are hampered by upper-management decisions.
This is not something you want to wake up to as a developer, whether it's proprietary or open source. It's just that they can't make decisions based on solving the problem alone, they have so much red tape to go through to make changes, that even though they might want to solve this problem, someone on the top is making it difficult.
Malware/Spyware isn't anything other than software or a plugin for software. It's a program. So if a user wishes to install software, nothing the OS can do will fix that.
Linux might be secure by design, but someone with software to install and root access can still install malware or spyware.
However, as far as your question is concerned in how Mozilla will avert people from doing this, the answer is in the article. It's called a whitelist.
We already have that with Apache v.s. IIS. Consider that Apache is way more popular than IIS, so you can easily take a look at something like that as an example of OSS v.s. non-OSS.
However, you do have a point that Mozilla will allow us to look at the consumer/user end of things and see how this plays out.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what part of the article was biased in such a way that he presented false information? I read through the thing, and it does a good job of giving reason and fact. At several points, he also makes it clear that while he is presenting a point, and though it applies to Linux, it's not something that is a good way to measure security. So even though certain facts support his position, he tells you why those facts are misleading (biased), and what you should be looking for instead.
Really? Sounds like the same false argument shop lifters make when trying to say there isn't work for them. No, it is just easier to steal/write malicious code then get a real job. They can say his code is a work of art, but it is still easier than trying to work at a corporation or starting a legitimate business. This criminal needs to get off his ass and get a real job.
Yeah, also sounds like all those pirates downloading music from the internet when they say that the item is priced to high! No, it's just easier to steal music then save up to buy the album. They can say it's all because the RIAA is over-pricing music they have a legal right to price at whatever they want. Those criminals need to be put behind bars.
That's the whole point of the supreme court. They are appointed to the position for life, so they don't have to worry about being reelected and have to play up to special interest groups.
Hehe, but searching for 'web browser' brings up Mozilla.
Just found that amusing.
Of course, being a monopoly is not illegal. Using certain tactics as a monopoly, however, is.
It's not that literacy is being treated as elitism, it's that the elitists are treating literacy as elitism. The original post stated one movie for the literates, one movie for the Nascar fans. Their is definetly implied elitism there.
Next, being literate is not simply mere. Literate doesn't just mean being able to read and write. In fact, literate usually means well read, or well learned.
The implication is that people who are educated will like one, while those who are not educated will like the other.
Which is all very interesting, because the purpose of movies and books are basically to entertain. Therefore, a movie that entertains more people could be considered better than a movie that only entertains a select few (the elitists). After all, the movie that entertains more people has accomplished it's main goal more-so than the other movie.
Note: Please do not take the above as me saying I like X type of movies. Assuming that from reading the above is very Nascar-like of you. =)
I agree, they were good answers, and seemed rather straight forward.
I recently installed Real 10, and it has greatly improved, and is hardly instrusive (as much as any other program is), and it's a very nice media player, IMO.
And honestly, after this, I might look at their music store...
I find it funny that I have NEVER had this problem with Firefox. Never, not once. I honestly have no idea what people are referring to. /. has never rendered poorly via Firefox.
Search for "intelligent life"
Results returned: 0
That's all fine. But the parent poster was making it seem like people are stupid and will not convict because their is no law that covers what the person did.
That's actually smart! It's the prosecutors job to levy the correct charges. You can't charge someone with watching a DVD in a car if their isn't a law against it. However, you are right in saying that their could be other laws that cover it, but I never argued that.
"unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal"
That's because that's pretty much how it works. If their is no law that says it's illegal to speed, than guess what? I can't be charged with a crime of speeding.
This doesn't mean this guys isn't guilty, but it doesn't mean watching a DVD while driving is illegal. Laws aren't their to tell us what we can do. Quite the opposite.
It's a teaser, not a trailer. It's not supposed to have substance. Just to say "Yes, we are making this movie..."
Actually, my problem is that /. is posting spam. This guy is spamming his message all over the place, even in places it's off topic. And now he "anonymously" submits this spam to /.
If he wants to build up a project, fine. But so far all he has done is 1) change the button order in Gnome, and 2) spammed all over the place.
4 Places or 4,000, it doesn't matter. It's spam. Your promoting a project, and it's off-topic. It's merely a copy-paste of the original message.
It's spam. You're a spammer. Spammers suck.
You have spammed this message on OSNews, and now you are spamming it here, and God knows where else. This is called spam.
Project GoneME: Spamming my Gnome Project.
Actually, I live in Montreal (and I am an American who moved up here 2 1/2 years ago), and I have a 2 bdrm apartment as well, and it only costs me $450. And it's a nice apartment. Gas prices here are the same as what you mention. Really, the prices in Montreal are very reasonable, cost of living is low, and basically the city is just beautiful.
As an American in Canada, I have no desire to leave anytime soon. Montreal is a beautiful city with wonderful people.
Except they drive like crap. Don't get me started! =)
vimr l
sudo
apt-get
wget
rsync
ssh
ps
php
pe
make
It also depends on what software he is using. Not all software is goign to be easy to use, just as not all cameras are simple.
I have a simple camera. Turn it on, point, and shoot. Now, it's a digital camera, and gives me other options, but I don't have to use them.
He complains about software that he purchases. Fine, that's all good, but that doesn't make the software or product bad because he doesnt' like it. It just means he selected a product he didn't want.
Some people want the Encyclopedia on their computer that has the audio/visual aspect. And yes, the installation might take long, but that's a one and done thing.
He uses a car as an example: If he want's to use his car, he has to just turn the key. If it was only that simple: he has to fill it with gas, fill it with oil and other fluids, get it inspected, and what happens when their is a flat? He has to change it.
A toaster is a single purpose item: it has one purcpose, to toast. A computer is a multi-purpose item. It's used for many different things. You can just magically make a button on the computer that says "Do what I want you to do" (Well, you can, but will it actually do what you want it to do?).
While I agree that software is not always easy, his generalized statements are nothing new. Basically, all he is saying is software developers should try and make their software easy to use.
You know what? No matter how hard you try, it won't always be easy to use for everyone and have it do what they want. Heck, even Apple fails with the iPod if you really want to address issues.
Aren't Windows XP installs broken by default?
=)
Of course it was reported in Oct. 2002, but it's not as if it was ignored. It was questioned as to whether or not it was a valid Mozilla bug, or was it an OS bug.
Frankly, I think in the end, they did the right thing. In hindsight, it's easy to say it should have been fixed at first, but in reality, it's an OS problem, not a Mozilla problem. Even still, Mozilla in the end decided that rather than wait for MS to fix the problem, they could do it and solve the problem.
What's nice though, is that we know when it was originally reported, and we can trace the bug's history, but we can do that with the Windows bug. Just because something is reported publically doesn't mean that's when MS found out about it. It's just when we found out about it.
But now I am sounding like a conspiracy theorist, and I should stop there.
You know, for some reason, I feel bad for the IE Developers, who are probably a bunch of well meaning people that are hampered by upper-management decisions.
This is not something you want to wake up to as a developer, whether it's proprietary or open source. It's just that they can't make decisions based on solving the problem alone, they have so much red tape to go through to make changes, that even though they might want to solve this problem, someone on the top is making it difficult.
And considering it's a bug in Windows, it's still not fixed.
Malware/Spyware isn't anything other than software or a plugin for software. It's a program. So if a user wishes to install software, nothing the OS can do will fix that.
Linux might be secure by design, but someone with software to install and root access can still install malware or spyware.
However, as far as your question is concerned in how Mozilla will avert people from doing this, the answer is in the article. It's called a whitelist.
We already have that with Apache v.s. IIS. Consider that Apache is way more popular than IIS, so you can easily take a look at something like that as an example of OSS v.s. non-OSS.
However, you do have a point that Mozilla will allow us to look at the consumer/user end of things and see how this plays out.
Okay, but if you actually read the article, these types of issues mentioned are ALREADY fixed.