Authoritarian foreign governments such as the Governments of Belarus, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, North Korea, the People's Republic of China, Tunisia, Vietnam, and The United States block, restrict, and monitor the information their citizens try to obtain.
Flamebait? LOL,/. mods are on crack again. The OP obviously has issues with the MS product activation policies... one solution is to switch to an OS that does not have such policies. You may disagree with the choice of any particular option I mentioned, but to say that pointing out that he has options - other than sticking with XP - is hardly "flamebait."
Added to bypass the stupid slashdot lameness filter which apparently doesn't like a post full of links. WTF is wrong with the stupid lameness filter? Jeez, what does it want, for us to type paragraphs of meaningless drivel just to get past the lameness filter? Sheeesh. OK, this is really stupid. Why don't ajfajf al;djal a fa fa lkdf jaa fal ja;ljf af af ajf;lajf alfjalf a fjal;fjafl; jaflakjf af;laj jalkfaj fjf af af fajjjajal jajfa f afjdlakej2233 2235t2352 dsfalkfjal f 222j2 afdkja f23 2 2 2t2352322 233252352 2323232.
The failure of people to take responsibility for what they do - along with the general sense of entitlement that people seem to have for everything from "free" food to "free" retirement benefits at the hands of the government - is speeding not just their own demise, but the demise of everyone's freedoms. More laws get enacted to prevent so-called frivolous lawsuits, preventing people who NEED to sue from suing, and the government takes more and more money to fund "just one more social program, 'for the children.'"
I left my kids in front of the computer because I was working two jobs to put food on the table and keep them clothed because corporate America thinks I don't need a living wage.
If you couldn't afford to support a family - to the level you believe appropriate - then maybe you should have thought twice about having kids in the first place?
Still though, if you look at it from a different viewpoint...maybe that of how bars are sometimes legally responsible for the deaths in drunk driving accidents should a person leave the establishment with the bartender/employees knowing they are not fit to drive
Those cases are bullshit just like this is though. Individuals are responsible for their own actions... it's ridiculous to think that my actions (getting drunk, driving, getting in a wreck) can in any way involuntarily impose any sort of legal obligation on someone else (bartender, bar owner).
Now I'll accept that it might not be ethical for a bar to continue serving someone who is wasted, at least without checking to see if they're driving, but unethical != illegal.
I wasn't the one who modded you flamebait, but I do disagree. I think every generation (to the extent that that term even means anything) tends to assume the worst about the younger generations. It seems to be human nature to make disparaging generalizations about "today's youth." Having had the misfortune to be born into "Generation X" I've really grown to resent that mentality and try to avoid it myself. Tomorrow's generation is probably never as bad as the older folks actually think, IMO.
It is dangerous and foolhardy to place the future of the human race at the mercy of the planet Earth. And viewing the planet as a closed system, without access to off-world resources is equally short sighted. As someone else once said, Humanity is too valuable to place all our eggs in one basket.
But the human race is doomed anyway. Chances are, the Sun will become a red giant and destroy human life, before we colonize the galaxy. And even if we get off this rock before that happens, the universe will eventually either experience heat death or collapse into a singularity; either one of which almost certainly ends all life.
And what exactly is the value of humanity anyway? If all humans were destroyed, would anybody else care? I mean, in the grand scheme of things, what exactly does humanity contribute?
While I am not prepared to argue that expecting animals to some day demand legal rights, nor would I propose that such a thing would be bad, it does distress me that we as human beings are concerning ourselves with the theoretical possibilities of the future when right here and now we have human friends who so obviously need legal rights, yet we ignore them.
What will it take for us to recognize the inherent sovereignty of the humans who share the planet with us? Sovereign individuals deserve much better treatment than we have shown them. Just because we do not understand individual sovereignty we ignore it, declare it unintelligent and marginalize those who speak of it. Enslave them and call them 'subjects' or 'citizens'. When human beings are referred to as such the offenders should be resisted at any cost. Elevating all individuals to the same legal status that sovereignty confers would be the mark of a truly enlightened society and show that we are indeed as intelligent as we think.
Red Hat is important in only one way, from what I can see: they make Linux a commercial venture. Other than SCO, I don't think anybody has done a worse job from that perspective, either. Ximian, eventually bought by Novell, at least contributed to the development of Evolution and other GNOME software. Corel got into the Office for Linux market at a time when the biggest complaint about Linux was that there were no good applications available. IBM has contributed to the idea of commercial Linux more than anyone I can think of, both in terms of GPL-ed contributions to the codebase, and as a vendor promoting Linux-based solutions. Red Hat has been a purely profit-based venture, sacrificing the quality of the free distribution to make a few extra bucks.
Right, because Red Hat has never contributed anything to the community:
Fedora isn't perfect, and RH did make - IMO - do a poor job of transitioning from the "old" RHL series to Fedora, but to suggest that they don't contribute anything to Linux and OSS is just ridiculous.
No, you have it completely backwards. The first two clauses are simply explanatory and could be deleted without changing the meaning of the amendment. It can be just read as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
For IS/IT people, what have you really done? It's a larger scale equivalent of breaking a window. You've caused trouble for other people, but there is no benefit to you.
Also, consider that by contributing his version of improvements to the OSS community, his company can get free maintenance and further improvements. This imposes a cost on their competitors, who now must either essentially maintain a fork of the software with their own now-incompatible secret changes (thus losing out on the community's improvements), or spend money to convert their own secret changes to be compatible with the new "official" version.
Bingo. That's the key right there... as long as you don't contribute anything upstream, you're now not reallying using "Foo" you're using your own private fork of Foo, which *you* are on the hook to maintain and keep compatible. And the longer this goes on, the more your version diverges from the core code, which makes it progressively more difficult to merge changes *from* upstream. Keep it up long enough and you lose many the benefits of using an open source package in the first place.
In some cases this may be an acceptable trade-off, but it's definitely a point that should be considered.
So this is what passes as insightful on this site nowadays. It's more like libertarian utopianism.
Well, seeing as how Libertarianism is the most insightful political ideology, I'd have to say "what's the difference?"
No laws restricting free speech are necessary or valid. Period. Even the archetypal example of "yelling fire in a crowded theater." If I do, indeed, yell "fire" in a theater and nothing happens, has any crime been committed? No, absolutely not. OTOH, if a panic ensues and people are trampled and injured, then I should be held civilly liable for the damages I cause. And that alone is deterrent to keep me from randomly yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. A law saying I can't is redundant and pointless.
The only possible reason to want to curtail freedom of speech is to maintain a tighter control on a domestic population, which falls right in line with the current Fascist agenda, so it's no surprise that that's what he wants, but I'm surprised even he would come right out and say it.
Slashdot Mirror
Authoritarian foreign governments such as the Governments of Belarus, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, North Korea, the People's Republic of China, Tunisia, Vietnam, and The United States block, restrict, and monitor the information their citizens try to obtain.
There, fixed that for ya.
Flamebait? LOL, /. mods are on crack again. The OP obviously has issues with the MS product activation policies... one solution is to switch to an OS that does not have such policies. You may disagree with the choice of any particular option I mentioned, but to say that pointing out that he has options - other than sticking with XP - is hardly "flamebait."
Perhaps there's a reason why long posts full of links are considered lame...
Yes
because
the
slashdot
lameness
filter
only understands
the notion
of characters
per line
but doesn't
understand the
semantics of the
text it's
looking at.
Note: Added to bypass the lameness filter, 235 2 235 fjadlskjf 23 k2ql4 `csdf ja;lfja d-a faqkl;c `qKWERJU`Q2-3R` LDKSJ L;DKJ2Q
ADF A FALFJ 23 ASDFLJALKDF Q 32TQ3 5Q` 32 FDCLAJD A 3JR 3V22JFLAJF AJDLFJAL DF ADLJF ADFJL ADJA DFJ AFLKJ232 23 234 232 L;DKAJFL;AJF
AFDLKAJF LJ2 3`AJDL;MALK;DSMN `AKLJFR3J ALDS FADLSJFL23KJ 23 2J43LJALFJ ADF A FKAD F2 3 2 AJDALKJFLKD 2 23JLJALJ D 22 323JAL S
You can find a solution(s) to your problem at one or more
of the following locations:
http://www.centos.org
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/
http://en.opensuse.org
http://www.opensolaris.org/
http://www.ecomstation.com/
http://www.redhat.com
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html
http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/
http://www.openbsd.org/
http://www.freebsd.org/
http://www.netbsd.org/
http://www.dragonflybsd.org/
http://www.osfree.org/doku/en:start
http://www.skyos.org/
http://www.freeos.com/
http://www.minix3.org/
Added to bypass the stupid slashdot lameness filter which apparently doesn't like a post full of links. WTF is wrong with the
stupid lameness filter? Jeez, what does it want, for us to type paragraphs of meaningless drivel just to get past the lameness filter?
Sheeesh. OK, this is really stupid. Why don't ajfajf al;djal a fa fa lkdf jaa fal ja;ljf af af ajf;lajf alfjalf a fjal;fjafl; jaflakjf af;laj
jalkfaj fjf af af fajjjajal jajfa f afjdlakej2233 2235t2352 dsfalkfjal f 222j2 afdkja f23 2 2 2t2352322 233252352 2323232.
and good that the BBC has given equal time to the major alternatives."
What, and no mention of OS/2? Feh... what a bloody useless study...
Yeah, I've been waiting forever for these things to come out as well. Can you actually buy one
yet or are they still just "in development?"
The failure of people to take responsibility for what they do - along with the general sense of entitlement that people seem to have for everything from "free" food to "free" retirement benefits at the hands of the government - is speeding not just their own demise, but the demise of everyone's freedoms. More laws get enacted to prevent so-called frivolous lawsuits, preventing people who NEED to sue from suing, and the government takes more and more money to fund "just one more social program, 'for the children.'"
Well said. I personally could not agree more.
I left my kids in front of the computer because I was working two jobs to put food on the table and keep them clothed because corporate America thinks I don't need a living wage.
If you couldn't afford to support a family - to the level you believe appropriate - then maybe you should have thought twice about having kids in the first place?
Still though, if you look at it from a different viewpoint...maybe that of how bars are sometimes legally responsible for the deaths in drunk driving accidents should a person leave the establishment with the bartender/employees knowing they are not fit to drive
Those cases are bullshit just like this is though. Individuals are responsible for their own actions... it's ridiculous to think that my actions (getting drunk, driving, getting in a wreck) can in any way involuntarily impose any sort of legal obligation on someone else (bartender, bar owner).
Now I'll accept that it might not be ethical for a bar to continue serving someone who is wasted, at least without checking to see if they're driving, but unethical != illegal.
You failed to do my job for me by protecting my child from his/her own stupidity. Now you must make me rich.
Well said.
No doubt. OCW has been discussed many times here on Slashdot.
What is your favorite nontag?
!nontag
I wasn't the one who modded you flamebait, but I do disagree. I think every generation (to the extent that that term even means anything) tends
to assume the worst about the younger generations. It seems to be human nature to make disparaging generalizations about "today's youth." Having
had the misfortune to be born into "Generation X" I've really grown to resent that mentality and try to avoid it myself. Tomorrow's generation
is probably never as bad as the older folks actually think, IMO.
agree with you when I say "Why bring the iPod into this?" and I'm going to be very angry if this stupid label sticks.
:-(
It probably will. People seem to LOVE stupid generational labels. I'm still pissed about the whole
"Generation X" label.
It is dangerous and foolhardy to place the future of the human race at the mercy of the planet Earth. And viewing the planet as a closed system, without access to off-world resources is equally short sighted. As someone else once said, Humanity is too valuable to place all our eggs in one basket.
But the human race is doomed anyway. Chances are, the Sun will become a red giant and destroy human life, before we colonize the galaxy. And even if
we get off this rock before that happens, the universe will eventually either experience heat death or collapse into a singularity; either one
of which almost certainly ends all life.
And what exactly is the value of humanity anyway? If all humans were destroyed, would anybody else care? I mean, in the grand
scheme of things, what exactly does humanity contribute?
While I am not prepared to argue that expecting animals to some day demand legal rights, nor would I propose that such a thing would be bad, it does distress me that we as human beings are concerning ourselves with the theoretical possibilities of the future when right here and now we have human friends who so obviously need legal rights, yet we ignore them.
What will it take for us to recognize the inherent sovereignty of the humans who share the planet with us? Sovereign individuals deserve much better treatment than we have shown them. Just because we do not understand individual sovereignty we ignore it, declare it unintelligent and marginalize those
who speak of it. Enslave them and call them 'subjects' or 'citizens'. When human beings are referred to as such the offenders should be resisted at any cost. Elevating all individuals to the same legal status that sovereignty confers would be the mark of a truly enlightened society and show that we are indeed as intelligent as we think.
Red Hat is important in only one way, from what I can see: they make Linux a commercial venture. Other than SCO, I don't think anybody has done a worse job from that perspective, either. Ximian, eventually bought by Novell, at least contributed to the development of Evolution and other GNOME software. Corel got into the Office for Linux market at a time when the biggest complaint about Linux was that there were no good applications available. IBM has contributed to the idea of commercial Linux more than anyone I can think of, both in terms of GPL-ed contributions to the codebase, and as a vendor promoting Linux-based solutions. Red Hat has been a purely profit-based venture, sacrificing the quality of the free distribution to make a few extra bucks.
Right, because Red Hat has never contributed anything to the community:
http://sources.redhat.com/projects.html
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions
Fedora isn't perfect, and RH did make - IMO - do a poor job of transitioning from the "old" RHL series to Fedora, but to suggest that they don't
contribute anything to Linux and OSS is just ridiculous.
There isn't anything 'cool' that doesn't involve computers, slashdot, WoW, etc!
No, you have it completely backwards. The first two clauses are simply explanatory and could be deleted without changing the meaning of the amendment. It can be just read as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
For IS/IT people, what have you really done? It's a larger scale equivalent of breaking a window. You've caused trouble for other people, but there is no benefit to you.
Obviously, you've never seen Superman 3!
or Office Space.
Also, consider that by contributing his version of improvements to the OSS community, his company can get free maintenance and further improvements. This imposes a cost on their competitors, who now must either essentially maintain a fork of the software with their own now-incompatible secret changes (thus losing out on the community's improvements), or spend money to convert their own secret changes to be compatible with the new "official" version.
Bingo. That's the key right there... as long as you don't contribute anything upstream, you're now not reallying using "Foo" you're using your own private fork of Foo, which *you* are on the hook to maintain and keep compatible. And the longer this goes on, the more your version diverges from the core code, which makes it progressively more difficult to merge changes *from* upstream. Keep it up long enough and you lose many the benefits of using an open source package in the first place.
In some cases this may be an acceptable trade-off, but it's definitely a point that should be considered.
"I actually read 'geek' first and sat here wondering 'when did we get our own language?"
About the time regular expressions were invented...
So this is what passes as insightful on this site nowadays. It's more like libertarian utopianism.
Well, seeing as how Libertarianism is the most insightful political ideology, I'd have to say "what's the difference?"
No laws restricting free speech are necessary or valid. Period. Even the archetypal example of "yelling fire in a crowded theater."
If I do, indeed, yell "fire" in a theater and nothing happens, has any crime been committed? No, absolutely not. OTOH, if a panic
ensues and people are trampled and injured, then I should be held civilly liable for the damages I cause. And that alone
is deterrent to keep me from randomly yelling "fire" in crowded theaters. A law saying I can't is redundant and pointless.
Not a dupe. There really have been two distinct SCO stories in the last 24 hours or so.
The only possible reason to want to curtail freedom of speech is to maintain a tighter control on a domestic population, which falls right in line with the current Fascist agenda, so it's no surprise that that's what he wants, but I'm surprised even he would come right out and say it.
There, fixed that for ya.