I disagree. We, as most readers of/., do not buy systems for the same reasons that the vast majority of end users do.
The end user wants a toster. Something cheap and easy to use. They also want it to look nice in their living area.
The average/. reader wants a powerful machine in with a lot of flexability, and generaly cares little about the case it comes in.
There is nothing keeping the two worlds apart except money. There is nothing wrong with what the end user wants either.
They are not idiots, they are just not interested in the workings of the machine. They just want it to work.
The best thing that the open source community can do for these users is try to make that perfect toaster work better for less.
If MS wants to make hardware, so be it. If they make great hardware, fine. If its good, someone will create a clone. Our job is to make it cost less and run better by writing better software for it.
They can do whatever they want. I personally don't care. If there's a machine that's controled in this fashion, I won't buy it. It's really that simple.
No Sales == No Production
No Production == Bad Idea
Bad Idea == Bag It.
Nope. I bet counsumers will eat this up if it meets the users wants and has a low price point.
You and I may not like it, but we don't control the end user market.
Well, its certainly clear that you are intent on dissecting my comments until they appear to be weak.
That's unfortunate, because you seem to have well thought out opinions. You are perfectly entitled to them, but I'd suggest a more objective stance if you wish to convince anyone of anything in the future.
Well, those are the government's cameras, so they presumably can turn them off when they want to.
I don't agree. The government pays for the cameras with money collected from the people, no? If thats the case, then the people deserve equal access when the cameras are placed for civilian use.
But, as far as I know, it's not illegal (yet) for private citizens to own cameras and use them. Where are your cameras? Why isn't there some effort to provide private camera coverage of these demonstrations?
There is. It's grassroots, but we are out there. For examples of what I'm talking about, I suggest you look at indymedia.
If the opponents of a protest are smarter and better prepared than you, then who is really to blame? I know that organizing demonstrators can be like herding cats, but somebody has to think of these things and get the counter-surveilance implemented.
There are also real limits imposed by the police when people try to do this. They take your cameras, arrest you, beat you, etc. I'd like to get cameras mounted from above, where they are hard to get at, and broadcast in real time, but the costs plus the government censorship is really prohibitive here.
I'd even bet that they would consider that kind of observation as some kind of domestic terrorisim.
Or they want to keep their servers from getting/.ed by all the people who want to watch the parade without going out there themselves or live too far away.
This is the government we are talking about here. Why do they care if there servers are slow? They get special rates on bandwidth that never caps, so the worst thing that could happen is that some people wouldnt be able to see anything. Still better than no one seeing anyting.
You people need to get over your frothing paranoia.
Again, this is the government we are talking about. Paranoia is justified by history.
Or, sometimes they even take the camera for "evidence". The arguement from the police department is typicialy that you were "interfering" whatever that means.
You get arrested, released, your camera gets returned empty, and you are never charged.
Sure I know the media can video events and cut them up into nice bite sized pieces, editing out the cops kicking ass and peaceful people (including women and childern) being gassed.
I've not only seen it, Ive been on the reciving end of that so called great media attention.
There is no good reason not to show this shit in real time. The only possible reason is to keep people unaware. Thats what I have a problem with.
Access to information is the issue
The government either wants to keep the parade quiet, and / or they want the ability to beat and gas the crowd without people watching it live.
Any government that abuses people in the name of "privacy" is really evil.
To me it looks a lot like the government is trying to keep people from seeing just how many other people oppose the government.
May day is a revolutionists holiday. The government is using it's power to keep people from seeing other viewpoints, and at the same time, it may do whatever ugly things to the crowd without anyone seeing them.
If a government is just, it has no reason to hide.
Don't take this the wrong way, the jokes kind of funny, but I don't think its either true or a good thing to go around promoting.
There are a growing number of computer chicks out there, and I happen to be dating one (I know, I've been told before that this can't be true as I read/. Whatever).
My point is that this type of joke is just a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Geek girls exist, go find one and try not to talk about star trek.
Lindows has made many inroads to desktop acceptance, despite the gripes the open source community has had with the concept.
That said, where do you see a break even point for Lindows financially?
Also, what is the reasoning in not allowing binary downloads? I would never consider shelling our cash for a GPL based product I had never test driven.
If you actually think that a private party should be able to acquire a list of subscribers by submitting a form, you need to take a look at US judicial history.
Verizons case here sounds quite good to me. If you want to get a list of customers who bought a book in a bookstore for example, you need a warrant, and it's pretty fucking rare to see even that stand a legal test.
I think the difference here is rather insignificant. You may say that the law was violated all you want, but unless you have proof that a court approves of, you should be SOL.
If you are too lazy to vote, chances are you are definitely too lazy to get deep into the issues you are voting for.
I've never met this "too lazy to vote" person. Perhaps they are out there, but I've never met them.
People I talk to who don't vote do so for more complex reasons. Those reasons mostly include the following:
1. They don't feel that they have a choice.
2. They feel like it's a hassle.
3. They don't care about the issue.
Number one can be helped by incorporating run-off voting.
Number two can be fixed by implementing easier ways to vote (mail has been effective, the internet could be too.), and by incorporating same-day registration systems.
Number three is really not a problem. If you don't care, don't vote.
My point is that if you feel strongly about something, you will just through some hoops to make yourself heard. You have the capability to change whatever it is you are trying to change, but you have to show some knowledge about the subject and respect to other people first. And will learn something valuable in the process.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but that sounds awfully elitist. Everyone should be heard if they care to be. That's how the democratic process is supposed to work.
With E-Voting you have to worry about another problem. Spontaneous, apathetic voters who are voting.
Have you ever been in a political discussion where you wonder how the other person can even begin to believe his or her arguments are sound? Remember what AOL joining the Internet did to newsgroups, etc?
True, but one must observe that the AOL users slowly but surely have become much more educated and dare I say better netizins since the merge.
I suspect that we may find the same thing with internet voting. If voters start voting online, I belive they will have a greater tendancy to find information online.
Voters are already voting on soundbites. Any exposure to more communicative media should be encouraged.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not all that fond of them filtering results based on where people are searching from.
Not sure I buy the first part of his theroy. I see some screenshots, but when I do the search myself, I get no results. One should question anything from an internet stalker like Seth though.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe she is 'right', but she's a bitch.
Anyone who uses TLA's like TCO for short ideas like labor costs is fucking stupid.
My advice?
Kill her.
I disagree. We, as most readers of /., do not buy systems for the same reasons that the vast majority of end users do. /. reader wants a powerful machine in with a lot of flexability, and generaly cares little about the case it comes in.
The end user wants a toster. Something cheap and easy to use. They also want it to look nice in their living area.
The average
There is nothing keeping the two worlds apart except money. There is nothing wrong with what the end user wants either.
They are not idiots, they are just not interested in the workings of the machine. They just want it to work.
The best thing that the open source community can do for these users is try to make that perfect toaster work better for less.
If MS wants to make hardware, so be it. If they make great hardware, fine. If its good, someone will create a clone. Our job is to make it cost less and run better by writing better software for it.
They can do whatever they want. I personally don't care. If there's a machine that's controled in this fashion, I won't buy it. It's really that simple.
No Sales == No Production
No Production == Bad Idea
Bad Idea == Bag It.
Nope. I bet counsumers will eat this up if it meets the users wants and has a low price point.
You and I may not like it, but we don't control the end user market.
Oops. I goofed. Here it is
Cache
Yes, fingerprint scans often can be defeated easily.
Are cheap and effective. Keep a list of people allowed in and out, and check ID's religously.
Not what you were looking for? I suggest implimenting a system involving some kind of 'frikin lasers'
And for the handful of us that like graphics, we have Intel's product..
Nope. I tunnel port 80 over ssh at home all the time. I don't like my neighborhood watching my web browsing when I use 802.11.
SHH does more than Intel's poor little handheld could ever hope to.
I had another take on this...
I have broadband and ssh.
Leave the server at home. There is a thing called "the internet" that does this well already.
Well, its certainly clear that you are intent on dissecting my comments until they appear to be weak.
That's unfortunate, because you seem to have well thought out opinions. You are perfectly entitled to them, but I'd suggest a more objective stance if you wish to convince anyone of anything in the future.
Well, those are the government's cameras, so they presumably can turn them off when they want to.
I don't agree. The government pays for the cameras with money collected from the people, no? If thats the case, then the people deserve equal access when the cameras are placed for civilian use.
But, as far as I know, it's not illegal (yet) for private citizens to own cameras and use them. Where are your cameras? Why isn't there some effort to provide private camera coverage of these demonstrations?
There is. It's grassroots, but we are out there. For examples of what I'm talking about, I suggest you look at indymedia.
If the opponents of a protest are smarter and better prepared than you, then who is really to blame? I know that organizing demonstrators can be like herding cats, but somebody has to think of these things and get the counter-surveilance implemented.
There are also real limits imposed by the police when people try to do this. They take your cameras, arrest you, beat you, etc. I'd like to get cameras mounted from above, where they are hard to get at, and broadcast in real time, but the costs plus the government censorship is really prohibitive here.
I'd even bet that they would consider that kind of observation as some kind of domestic terrorisim.
Or they want to keep their servers from getting /.ed by all the people who want to watch the parade without going out there themselves or live too far away.
This is the government we are talking about here. Why do they care if there servers are slow? They get special rates on bandwidth that never caps, so the worst thing that could happen is that some people wouldnt be able to see anything. Still better than no one seeing anyting.
You people need to get over your frothing paranoia.
Again, this is the government we are talking about. Paranoia is justified by history.
Or, sometimes they even take the camera for "evidence". The arguement from the police department is typicialy that you were "interfering" whatever that means.
You get arrested, released, your camera gets returned empty, and you are never charged.
What a police state.
Sure I know the media can video events and cut them up into nice bite sized pieces, editing out the cops kicking ass and peaceful people (including women and childern) being gassed.
I've not only seen it, Ive been on the reciving end of that so called great media attention.
There is no good reason not to show this shit in real time. The only possible reason is to keep people unaware. Thats what I have a problem with.
Privacy is not the issue.
Access to information is the issue
The government either wants to keep the parade quiet, and / or they want the ability to beat and gas the crowd without people watching it live.
Any government that abuses people in the name of "privacy" is really evil.
No. This is really a "Bad Thing"(c)
To me it looks a lot like the government is trying to keep people from seeing just how many other people oppose the government.
May day is a revolutionists holiday. The government is using it's power to keep people from seeing other viewpoints, and at the same time, it may do whatever ugly things to the crowd without anyone seeing them.
If a government is just, it has no reason to hide.
Don't take this the wrong way, the jokes kind of funny, but I don't think its either true or a good thing to go around promoting.
/. Whatever).
There are a growing number of computer chicks out there, and I happen to be dating one (I know, I've been told before that this can't be true as I read
My point is that this type of joke is just a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Geek girls exist, go find one and try not to talk about star trek.
Lindows has made many inroads to desktop acceptance, despite the gripes the open source community has had with the concept.
That said, where do you see a break even point for Lindows financially?
Also, what is the reasoning in not allowing binary downloads? I would never consider shelling our cash for a GPL based product I had never test driven.
Its obvious, but something to note, that you need to have a yahoo/aol/msn email account to see all the benefits of this anti-spam initiative.
Nope. RTFA. It clearly says the plan includes suing the hell out of the spammers. If they can't turn a profit, everyone gets less spam.
Also, why do we really care?
AOL, MSN, and Compuserve tried to do this, but users wanted to access the "whole net"
Users, not laws, have kept the internet open. I say let them try to offer service no one will one want.
Quite frankly sir, you are a troll.
If you actually think that a private party should be able to acquire a list of subscribers by submitting a form, you need to take a look at US judicial history.
Verizons case here sounds quite good to me. If you want to get a list of customers who bought a book in a bookstore for example, you need a warrant, and it's pretty fucking rare to see even that stand a legal test.
I think the difference here is rather insignificant. You may say that the law was violated all you want, but unless you have proof that a court approves of, you should be SOL.
If you are too lazy to vote, chances are you are definitely too lazy to get deep into the issues you are voting for.
I've never met this "too lazy to vote" person. Perhaps they are out there, but I've never met them.
People I talk to who don't vote do so for more complex reasons. Those reasons mostly include the following:
1. They don't feel that they have a choice.
2. They feel like it's a hassle.
3. They don't care about the issue.
Number one can be helped by incorporating run-off voting.
Number two can be fixed by implementing easier ways to vote (mail has been effective, the internet could be too.), and by incorporating same-day registration systems.
Number three is really not a problem. If you don't care, don't vote.
My point is that if you feel strongly about something, you will just through some hoops to make yourself heard. You have the capability to change whatever it is you are trying to change, but you have to show some knowledge about the subject and respect to other people first. And will learn something valuable in the process.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but that sounds awfully elitist. Everyone should be heard if they care to be. That's how the democratic process is supposed to work.
They aren't going to attack the poles with "Bunker Buster" missles.
Yeah, they already did that about 60 years ago.
With E-Voting you have to worry about another problem. Spontaneous, apathetic voters who are voting.
Have you ever been in a political discussion where you wonder how the other person can even begin to believe his or her arguments are sound? Remember what AOL joining the Internet did to newsgroups, etc?
True, but one must observe that the AOL users slowly but surely have become much more educated and dare I say better netizins since the merge.
I suspect that we may find the same thing with internet voting. If voters start voting online, I belive they will have a greater tendancy to find information online.
Voters are already voting on soundbites. Any exposure to more communicative media should be encouraged.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not all that fond of them filtering results based on where people are searching from.
Not sure I buy the first part of his theroy. I see some screenshots, but when I do the search myself, I get no results.
One should question anything from an internet stalker like Seth though.