I completely agree - furthermore, a non-religious person with good moral values could be considered more genuinely morally-minded than a religious person, who may be following their religion's code of morals for fear of not getting into Heaven (or their religion's equivalent).
I have known religious people who have said that if it could be proved that God didn't exist, they believe law and order would break down because people would no longer have a reason not to steal/murder etc....!! I believe those things are wrong on a more profound, altruistic level, not because that's how the Bible tells me I should lead my life.
To accompany the new vehicle monitoring network, the British government is also introducing a law whereby you have to park in front of each camera for 90 days in order to be identified and tracked.
The US isn't perfect, but our track record when it comes to human rights is second to none
In that case your own track record for being oblivious to the real world is second to none! Perhaps you overlooked all the peaceful / militarily neutral nations of the world. If you look at the history of a large number of countries, you will find that your statement is very literally incorrect.
Consider that the U.S. demands immunity from being tried for war crimes for official acts of government officials. If Iraq demanded such immunity, Sadam Hussein would be immune from all he is being tried for.
The only reason why the UN is wanting control of the internet is because the UN is comprised of criminal regimes whose power is being threatened by the freedom that the internet represents
It's been a very long time since Britain was a criminal regime. In fact it was long before the U.S. even existed.
The reality is that non-U.S. countries want a say in the Internet because they use it, and invest heavily in it, and so of course they want a say in its control. Many residents of the U.S. would see things differently if they knew more about the world they live in beyond their shores.
One pitfall imperialistic nations often fall into is the feeling within that everything they do is right, and beyond question. But of course their motives are always self-serving, never for the good of everyone who shares the planet with them, although this is one of the things such nations are blind to. The closest thing we have to a worldwide democracy is the United Nations, where all member nations have a say, and imperialism can be countered in the same way non-democratic rogue nations can be countered, for the good of the world. Of course it's not perfect, but neither is centralised control by a single self-believing, self-serving nation that ignores even its historic allies for its own gain. This relates to the point above about immunity from being tried for war crimes in an international court. If a nation wants to play at policing the world, it has to live by the laws it preaches to the states it invades.
However, the original question of control over the DNS roots is in my opinion a separate issue - I've just been responding to the pro-U.S. anti-U.N. people. I'm not aware of any nations complaining about how the U.S. has controlled the DNS roots so far, so why break what's working?
I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say - your grammar definitely comes from the George W Bush school of fragmented nonsense!
And regardless of Germany's true feelings about Katrina, even if the whole German population felt no sympathy towards America, which is clearly ludicrous, how can you sit there and generalise by saying the whole of Europe's 728 million people thought the people of New Orleans deserved it??
Well although I don't condone this stand by the German government, which is clearly a way to try to make a point, I do have an understanding of what motivates it. Perhaps much of the US is oblivious to the anger felt by much of the world towards the US government's environmental policies.
considering how they reacted to Katrina, I find it very hard to feel sorry for anything that happens to Europe
So what you're saying is that because someone somewhere in Europe wasn't entirely sympathetic towards the US regarding the hurricane, you therefore have no sympathy for anyone anywhere in Europe when something bad happens, regardless of what their specific views on Katrina were.
Sounds like the same illogic that made sense of invading Iraq because some Saudis carried out 9/11. After all, they're all in the Middle East, eh? They're all the same, right?
Personally, as a European, I was horrified at the effects of Katrina, and contributed money to one of the hurricane relief organisations (did you?). Thus I find your attitude deeply offensive and ignorant.
We all know that this is a massively flawed document, and any one of us could rip it to pieces on dozens of points. But handed over to someone of influence, who isn't armed with the understanding of open source, UNIX history and the way software development works, couldn't it appear credible? Handed to a person of influence in the government along with another hundred documents, couldn't the truth simply now shine through? I worry about this.
There could come a day where consumers can no longer upgrade their OS. It may come built into the hardware "appliance" in the same way as games consoles today. When a new OS is released, you buy a new subscription, and get a new PC with the new software installed.
Total lock-in.
It seems most of the problems with consumer computing these days are driven by the fact that the vast majority of consumers are ignorant of what's really going on, what choices there are, and why the market is what it is. For example, a monopoly like Microsoft's can only be driven by consumer ignorance.
If you need to keep upgrading your hardware every couple of years in order to run the latest software, then hardware price is a big issue. This tends to be the case in the Windows world where each new release demands more CPU power, more RAM, more HD etc.
If the latest version of your software runs acceptably on 5+ year old technology, the price of the hardware isn't such a major issue.
At one big corporation I worked at, they rolled out a security patch and it caused my Windows machine to start acting up, so I called the IT support (we were encouraged not to fix problems ourselves), and the guy on the phone took control of my desktop remotely from his end, so I could see what he was doing. He got the Task Manager up, paused a few seconds, and then said "That's really odd, there's a process taking up 99% of your processor time". He tried to kill the process, but it wouldn't go away, and he repeatedly tried to kill it about five times.
He didn't seem to realise that the "Idle" entry isn't actually a process...
But the very fact that IBM will have won the case for Linux will score highly with corporate IT managers. Whereas Microsoft say that nobody is accountable for Linux (and so it's unsafe to use), this court case will show that IBM are prepared to be accountable for it, and can win against some pretty damning accusations/FUD.
In response to their decision to ban employee-owned technology in the workplace, I would recognise that my brain is employee owned, and therefore I should switch it off on entry to the building.
More companies use software than create software, and if there is free or low-cost open source software available to them, all of those companies will benefit in the form of money freed up to use for other things, such as employing more staff. Perhaps proprietary software companies will suffer, but this is a small price for the economy to pay compared to the benefit all other companies will see.
And that's not even to mention the other benefits companies will see, such as openness, choice, no vendor lock-in etc.
Everything about the show is intended to look mundane and dull. Everything from the opening titles, showing shots of traffic driving about in dull commuter-belt town Slough, to the mundane way everyone in the office is sitting there looking ordinary and bored, adds to effect. Use models and good looking actors and it would destroy the effect the show is aiming for.
Or maybe it's just that us Brits are less superficial than you Americans...:-)
Absolutely - and don't forget that numerous US Mars missions have failed in the past too.
I'd be interested to hear the difference in budget between Beagle 2 and the successful US lander. The EU space budget is tiny in comparison to that of the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, having to go and click on the EULA really makes Gentoo emerges feel like they take ages!
I completely agree - furthermore, a non-religious person with good moral values could be considered more genuinely morally-minded than a religious person, who may be following their religion's code of morals for fear of not getting into Heaven (or their religion's equivalent).
I have known religious people who have said that if it could be proved that God didn't exist, they believe law and order would break down because people would no longer have a reason not to steal/murder etc....!! I believe those things are wrong on a more profound, altruistic level, not because that's how the Bible tells me I should lead my life.
To accompany the new vehicle monitoring network, the British government is also introducing a law whereby you have to park in front of each camera for 90 days in order to be identified and tracked.
The US isn't perfect, but our track record when it comes to human rights is second to none
In that case your own track record for being oblivious to the real world is second to none! Perhaps you overlooked all the peaceful / militarily neutral nations of the world. If you look at the history of a large number of countries, you will find that your statement is very literally incorrect.
Consider that the U.S. demands immunity from being tried for war crimes for official acts of government officials. If Iraq demanded such immunity, Sadam Hussein would be immune from all he is being tried for.
The only reason why the UN is wanting control of the internet is because the UN is comprised of criminal regimes whose power is being threatened by the freedom that the internet represents
It's been a very long time since Britain was a criminal regime. In fact it was long before the U.S. even existed.
The reality is that non-U.S. countries want a say in the Internet because they use it, and invest heavily in it, and so of course they want a say in its control. Many residents of the U.S. would see things differently if they knew more about the world they live in beyond their shores.
One pitfall imperialistic nations often fall into is the feeling within that everything they do is right, and beyond question. But of course their motives are always self-serving, never for the good of everyone who shares the planet with them, although this is one of the things such nations are blind to. The closest thing we have to a worldwide democracy is the United Nations, where all member nations have a say, and imperialism can be countered in the same way non-democratic rogue nations can be countered, for the good of the world. Of course it's not perfect, but neither is centralised control by a single self-believing, self-serving nation that ignores even its historic allies for its own gain. This relates to the point above about immunity from being tried for war crimes in an international court. If a nation wants to play at policing the world, it has to live by the laws it preaches to the states it invades.
However, the original question of control over the DNS roots is in my opinion a separate issue - I've just been responding to the pro-U.S. anti-U.N. people. I'm not aware of any nations complaining about how the U.S. has controlled the DNS roots so far, so why break what's working?
I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say - your grammar definitely comes from the George W Bush school of fragmented nonsense!
And regardless of Germany's true feelings about Katrina, even if the whole German population felt no sympathy towards America, which is clearly ludicrous, how can you sit there and generalise by saying the whole of Europe's 728 million people thought the people of New Orleans deserved it??
Ignorance.
Well although I don't condone this stand by the German government, which is clearly a way to try to make a point, I do have an understanding of what motivates it. Perhaps much of the US is oblivious to the anger felt by much of the world towards the US government's environmental policies.
So what you're saying is that because someone somewhere in Europe wasn't entirely sympathetic towards the US regarding the hurricane, you therefore have no sympathy for anyone anywhere in Europe when something bad happens, regardless of what their specific views on Katrina were.
Sounds like the same illogic that made sense of invading Iraq because some Saudis carried out 9/11. After all, they're all in the Middle East, eh? They're all the same, right?
Personally, as a European, I was horrified at the effects of Katrina, and contributed money to one of the hurricane relief organisations (did you?). Thus I find your attitude deeply offensive and ignorant.
We all know that this is a massively flawed document, and any one of us could rip it to pieces on dozens of points. But handed over to someone of influence, who isn't armed with the understanding of open source, UNIX history and the way software development works, couldn't it appear credible? Handed to a person of influence in the government along with another hundred documents, couldn't the truth simply now shine through? I worry about this.
There could come a day where consumers can no longer upgrade their OS. It may come built into the hardware "appliance" in the same way as games consoles today. When a new OS is released, you buy a new subscription, and get a new PC with the new software installed.
Total lock-in.
It seems most of the problems with consumer computing these days are driven by the fact that the vast majority of consumers are ignorant of what's really going on, what choices there are, and why the market is what it is. For example, a monopoly like Microsoft's can only be driven by consumer ignorance.
If you need to keep upgrading your hardware every couple of years in order to run the latest software, then hardware price is a big issue. This tends to be the case in the Windows world where each new release demands more CPU power, more RAM, more HD etc.
If the latest version of your software runs acceptably on 5+ year old technology, the price of the hardware isn't such a major issue.
At one big corporation I worked at, they rolled out a security patch and it caused my Windows machine to start acting up, so I called the IT support (we were encouraged not to fix problems ourselves), and the guy on the phone took control of my desktop remotely from his end, so I could see what he was doing. He got the Task Manager up, paused a few seconds, and then said "That's really odd, there's a process taking up 99% of your processor time". He tried to kill the process, but it wouldn't go away, and he repeatedly tried to kill it about five times.
He didn't seem to realise that the "Idle" entry isn't actually a process...
Beware - I've heard that eating Microsoft apples leads to endless core dumps...
Subpoena the "friendly" guys like Novel/Oracle etc to get a better idea of specifically what to subpoena from Microsoft in round 2...
But the very fact that IBM will have won the case for Linux will score highly with corporate IT managers. Whereas Microsoft say that nobody is accountable for Linux (and so it's unsafe to use), this court case will show that IBM are prepared to be accountable for it, and can win against some pretty damning accusations/FUD.
In response to their decision to ban employee-owned technology in the workplace, I would recognise that my brain is employee owned, and therefore I should switch it off on entry to the building.
If they are so hot to find water on Mars why don't they send a lander to the polar regions?
There's simply not enough sunlight to power the solar panels in the polar regions.
More companies use software than create software, and if there is free or low-cost open source software available to them, all of those companies will benefit in the form of money freed up to use for other things, such as employing more staff. Perhaps proprietary software companies will suffer, but this is a small price for the economy to pay compared to the benefit all other companies will see.
And that's not even to mention the other benefits companies will see, such as openness, choice, no vendor lock-in etc.
Everything about the show is intended to look mundane and dull. Everything from the opening titles, showing shots of traffic driving about in dull commuter-belt town Slough, to the mundane way everyone in the office is sitting there looking ordinary and bored, adds to effect. Use models and good looking actors and it would destroy the effect the show is aiming for.
:-)
Or maybe it's just that us Brits are less superficial than you Americans...
Absolutely - and don't forget that numerous US Mars missions have failed in the past too.
I'd be interested to hear the difference in budget between Beagle 2 and the successful US lander. The EU space budget is tiny in comparison to that of the US.
Yeah, and if it wasn't for us Brits you'd still be speaking Apache Indian.... :-)