what if every regular slashdotter did exactly that? What if we all went out to our libraries and checked out books on explosives and power plants and the Koran and all...? If everyone did it, it seems to me it might really show how ridiculous this is. And it would be a wonderful show of protest. I'm all for it.
She wouldn't weigh in at all... she's the willing wife of an authoritarian conservative... as such she's only allowed out of the kitchen at certain times of the day and is expected, when out, to be seen and not heard. If asked, she would put on her plastic smile and just talk about how great it all is that we're Americans with such a gosh-darn respectible man for a president!
Palladium, and what it means for Microsoft as controlling not only software but the hardware upon which it runs, and, beyond these, also the interaction security-wise between the two, is the edge of a slippery slope. These questions you are asking are missing the point. You are asking from a mindset that is already within the framework.
The point is that the framework must not be adopted. To have one company control all aspects of data manipulation is insane. And what's more, this is the company that changes their EULA in an upgrade! So even if the answer to your question now is "why sure, you can create, distribute, run, and in general do anything you want with open source or any other program!" what makes you think that they can't just change this sentiment for "security reasons" or because they decide to call open-source "flawed" or "threatening" or whatever... the point is that, by adopting the system, you give them that control.
I don't usually like to quote Star Wars, but in this case it's more than appropriate:
"Once you start down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny." --Yoda
The point isn't what will happen once we're already on the path... the point is we must never even start in that direction. Don't give up self-government of data for promises of greater security any more than you would give up your Bill of Rights for better CIA surveillance.
Are you really going to base your "half as useful" statement on the fact that you had an installation problem with a mouse? Could you not maybe switch out for a serial or PS/2 mouse, or even a USB for the purposes of the installation? Don't judge the operating system in this severe a way until you actually USE it. You didn't even install it! And make sure, when you're looking for that XP CD, you also have the license # and a copy of the EULA and have properly signed your soul away......
"A true scientist knows the difference between verifiable fact-- a poor one does not."
The thing is, most "verifiable fact" IS belief... perhaps all of it is. What was true of science and religion and the world at large 500 years ago, what was "fact" then, has changed to what is "fact" now, and will surely change again. Your belief in "fact" as a permanent condition instead of a transient quality is what makes YOU dangerous.
What's this talk about AOL Red Hat? I heard something about this awhile ago, but as far as I know, this new Wal Mart PC running Lindows doesn't contain any Red Hat Linux at all... Lindows itself is based, according to their FAQ (at lindows.com) on Debian Linux... so what's the deal?
that many in the open-source community are so violently against the implementation of the open-source idea. Most of us hate Microsoft and their domination, and hope that GNU/Linux will be able to start making real inroads in this fight. But when Red Hat, the company that already makes the most user-friendly distro and offers the best support for its product, decides to integrate the look and feel of the desktop and so stop this stupid pissing fight between KDE and GNOME, people start yelling that this is creating "crippleware" or that Red Hat is somehow in the wrong to use the basic principle of open source. The thing is, Red Hat understands that too much choice can be just as paralyzing as no choice at all.
This is just more evidence for the idea that GNU/Linux users don't really want to win the battle... don't want GNU/Linux to become popular... that there is an elitist attitude among many out there (myself included) that relishes the role of the underdog, and wants things to stay with GNU/Linux in that position. So we all need to reconcile these two feelings... ask the question-- do you really want to see GNU/Linux become mainstream? Further, are you willing to see the use of open-source through to its end? So far, in my experience, both of these answers have been "no".
yeah, and you end up with..... IE, which is crap. A different color crap, but crap nonetheless. And try distributing your new flavor to anyone... M$ will hunt you down. The Mozilla people HOPE you will. And that is the beauty of open-source.
Who the hell wants AOL anywhere NEAR the open source community anyway??? What is it with you people?? Anything AOL comes in contact with, it infects like a plague. AOL has so long been the bastion of the uneducated, the spoon-fed, and those who want everything done for them accompanied by neat graphics and gee whiz! sounds... The users who own computers simply because they can run AIM and pay huge amounts of money for crap service are NOT, I repeat NOT the people that GNU/Linux need, nor, for my part, want. Nor would they benefit from it. I wouldn't want to touch any kind of AOL product for Linux with a ten foot pole... Seriously, AOL is going to the toilet right now (see their stock performance)... they are the last company we want to associate itself with open source.
Anyway, the article doesn't say anything about a client proper anyway... just Netscape. But still, be careful what you wish for... it might come true.
What I wouldn't give for a 2 or 3 page (or more!) article in the NYTimes that runs a detailed comparison of Windows, MacOS, and GNU/Linux... one that actually has some data behind it, and one that does not read like some junior high kid's research paper. That is the kind of victory the open source community needs... not this surface-level drivel. All this does is let the public know exactly what MS wants them to know... that yes, just as they've been saying all along to the Justice Department, they've got some competition after all. Well, sure... as long as the public doesn't see that open source products are usually par or better than MS' garbage, MS will take as many of these cheap articles as it can get.
It's just sad that so many news sources seem to be so eager to oblige them.
There is a bit of a difference between allowing a server to track your next site from their own site and a hole in IE allowing a hacker to enter and exploit your system, or a hole in OE that allows viruses to propgate, using your machine like a 2-dollar whore.
You're right on two points-- it is still privacy. But there is a distinct difference between someone watching you to see where you live and the act of breaking in to your home to steal your underwear. And yes, open source software needs to be just as accountable. And I'm sure they will be... they'll fix this problem.
Whatever the semantics, it is still a problem and it will still be fixed.
I thought it was funny how in the first paragraph, the author of the column says, "...owners of the most recent software..."
Funny... to think that people who use MS actually OWN the software. HA! Sorry, but all you do is, at best, rent it, until such time as MS deems that it is more convenient for YOU to start renting the newest versions. Then, sometimes you are offered a choice as to whether you'd like to rent the new stuff, and sometimes the software you already rent just upgrades itself.
In any event, I look at the security flaw like this: it's like finding a fire hazard in a rented apartment. It doesn't matter how old the apartment is; the landlord is required to fix the problem. Now, with Microsoft, not fixing the flaw in Word97 is like the landlord saying, "well, you know how these old apartment buildings are... sometimes they just burn and there's nothing we can do (or want to) because they are too old and it wouldn't be cost effective to fix them. But we really are sorry if you die in a fire."
It doesn't matter how old the software is... if it's possible to fix it, then it should be fixed. Of course, if Word was open source, this would probably never have been a problem in the first place, but I won't go there.
I found it funny that when I wrote quite a long email letter to Bill Berman about his bill and he or his office wrote back saying 'thanks, but I won't respond to anyone not in my district'. I cannot conceive as to how this can be anything but a violation of the 4th amendment. The Government's hackers can violate your machine and not let you know (which is worse than having the police search your house with a warrant), and if they cause any damage to anything, you must file a complaint and be given permission to take them to court. Of course, since you don't know the government was in your computer in the first place since they didn't tell you, it's hard to know if a file corruption is the result of a hack or a piece of ill-written code or whatnot. And even if you can prove that it was the government, and they caused damage, you can only sue if they did more than 250$ worth of damage. Hollywood now dictates policy on your right to privacy. Anyone in Berman's district, please send him a nasty letter for me.
It's people who think that, just because they are buying Pampers and falafel, that they don't need to worry about government search/seizure issues. When we stop saying "get the hell out of my private life" and start saying, "well, they'll get so much useless stuff that it's not worth worrying about anyway", even if what they are searching through seems trivial, that we begin the slope toward facism. It doesn't matter if it's Pampers and falafel-- it's still illegal... and the more we smile and nod and continue on thinking everything is rosy, the faster our rights will be eroded. Given this political climate, you should be very worried. Your tax dollars and their use are important, of course, but your constitutional right against illegal search and seizure should be the top priority. I don't care if my data is useless... I still don't want it mined.
Slashdot Mirror
what if every regular slashdotter did exactly that? What if we all went out to our libraries and checked out books on explosives and power plants and the Koran and all...? If everyone did it, it seems to me it might really show how ridiculous this is. And it would be a wonderful show of protest. I'm all for it.
She wouldn't weigh in at all... she's the willing wife of an authoritarian conservative... as such she's only allowed out of the kitchen at certain times of the day and is expected, when out, to be seen and not heard. If asked, she would put on her plastic smile and just talk about how great it all is that we're Americans with such a gosh-darn respectible man for a president!
The point is that the framework must not be adopted. To have one company control all aspects of data manipulation is insane. And what's more, this is the company that changes their EULA in an upgrade! So even if the answer to your question now is "why sure, you can create, distribute, run, and in general do anything you want with open source or any other program!" what makes you think that they can't just change this sentiment for "security reasons" or because they decide to call open-source "flawed" or "threatening" or whatever... the point is that, by adopting the system, you give them that control.
I don't usually like to quote Star Wars, but in this case it's more than appropriate:
"Once you start down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny." --Yoda
The point isn't what will happen once we're already on the path... the point is we must never even start in that direction. Don't give up self-government of data for promises of greater security any more than you would give up your Bill of Rights for better CIA surveillance.
Oh wait... I forgot we've already done just that.
Are you really going to base your "half as useful" statement on the fact that you had an installation problem with a mouse? Could you not maybe switch out for a serial or PS/2 mouse, or even a USB for the purposes of the installation? Don't judge the operating system in this severe a way until you actually USE it. You didn't even install it! And make sure, when you're looking for that XP CD, you also have the license # and a copy of the EULA and have properly signed your soul away......
The thing is, most "verifiable fact" IS belief... perhaps all of it is. What was true of science and religion and the world at large 500 years ago, what was "fact" then, has changed to what is "fact" now, and will surely change again. Your belief in "fact" as a permanent condition instead of a transient quality is what makes YOU dangerous.
What's this talk about AOL Red Hat? I heard something about this awhile ago, but as far as I know, this new Wal Mart PC running Lindows doesn't contain any Red Hat Linux at all... Lindows itself is based, according to their FAQ (at lindows.com) on Debian Linux... so what's the deal?
This is just more evidence for the idea that GNU/Linux users don't really want to win the battle... don't want GNU/Linux to become popular... that there is an elitist attitude among many out there (myself included) that relishes the role of the underdog, and wants things to stay with GNU/Linux in that position. So we all need to reconcile these two feelings... ask the question-- do you really want to see GNU/Linux become mainstream? Further, are you willing to see the use of open-source through to its end? So far, in my experience, both of these answers have been "no".
yeah, and you end up with..... IE, which is crap. A different color crap, but crap nonetheless. And try distributing your new flavor to anyone... M$ will hunt you down. The Mozilla people HOPE you will. And that is the beauty of open-source.
Who the hell wants AOL anywhere NEAR the open source community anyway??? What is it with you people?? Anything AOL comes in contact with, it infects like a plague. AOL has so long been the bastion of the uneducated, the spoon-fed, and those who want everything done for them accompanied by neat graphics and gee whiz! sounds... The users who own computers simply because they can run AIM and pay huge amounts of money for crap service are NOT, I repeat NOT the people that GNU/Linux need, nor, for my part, want. Nor would they benefit from it. I wouldn't want to touch any kind of AOL product for Linux with a ten foot pole... Seriously, AOL is going to the toilet right now (see their stock performance)... they are the last company we want to associate itself with open source. Anyway, the article doesn't say anything about a client proper anyway... just Netscape. But still, be careful what you wish for... it might come true.
It's just sad that so many news sources seem to be so eager to oblige them.
There is a bit of a difference between allowing a server to track your next site from their own site and a hole in IE allowing a hacker to enter and exploit your system, or a hole in OE that allows viruses to propgate, using your machine like a 2-dollar whore. You're right on two points-- it is still privacy. But there is a distinct difference between someone watching you to see where you live and the act of breaking in to your home to steal your underwear. And yes, open source software needs to be just as accountable. And I'm sure they will be... they'll fix this problem. Whatever the semantics, it is still a problem and it will still be fixed.
I thought it was funny how in the first paragraph, the author of the column says, "...owners of the most recent software..." Funny... to think that people who use MS actually OWN the software. HA! Sorry, but all you do is, at best, rent it, until such time as MS deems that it is more convenient for YOU to start renting the newest versions. Then, sometimes you are offered a choice as to whether you'd like to rent the new stuff, and sometimes the software you already rent just upgrades itself. In any event, I look at the security flaw like this: it's like finding a fire hazard in a rented apartment. It doesn't matter how old the apartment is; the landlord is required to fix the problem. Now, with Microsoft, not fixing the flaw in Word97 is like the landlord saying, "well, you know how these old apartment buildings are... sometimes they just burn and there's nothing we can do (or want to) because they are too old and it wouldn't be cost effective to fix them. But we really are sorry if you die in a fire." It doesn't matter how old the software is... if it's possible to fix it, then it should be fixed. Of course, if Word was open source, this would probably never have been a problem in the first place, but I won't go there.
I found it funny that when I wrote quite a long email letter to Bill Berman about his bill and he or his office wrote back saying 'thanks, but I won't respond to anyone not in my district'. I cannot conceive as to how this can be anything but a violation of the 4th amendment. The Government's hackers can violate your machine and not let you know (which is worse than having the police search your house with a warrant), and if they cause any damage to anything, you must file a complaint and be given permission to take them to court. Of course, since you don't know the government was in your computer in the first place since they didn't tell you, it's hard to know if a file corruption is the result of a hack or a piece of ill-written code or whatnot. And even if you can prove that it was the government, and they caused damage, you can only sue if they did more than 250$ worth of damage. Hollywood now dictates policy on your right to privacy. Anyone in Berman's district, please send him a nasty letter for me.
It's people who think that, just because they are buying Pampers and falafel, that they don't need to worry about government search/seizure issues. When we stop saying "get the hell out of my private life" and start saying, "well, they'll get so much useless stuff that it's not worth worrying about anyway", even if what they are searching through seems trivial, that we begin the slope toward facism. It doesn't matter if it's Pampers and falafel-- it's still illegal... and the more we smile and nod and continue on thinking everything is rosy, the faster our rights will be eroded. Given this political climate, you should be very worried. Your tax dollars and their use are important, of course, but your constitutional right against illegal search and seizure should be the top priority. I don't care if my data is useless... I still don't want it mined.