Hey, I know the feeling of quitting a job that sucked and I was glad I was in a position once to do that once upon a time. It's great! But it's a luxury, and some things are worth sticking with the most soul crushing job in the world.
I, for one, wouldn't want to set your example for my kids. Yeah, some jobs you should keep in spite of how much they suck, but some jobs require you to leave them regardless of whether or not you'll be working again soon after. Your actions have greater ramifications, and the moral lessons you teach are just as important, if not more important, than the fiscal lessons you teach.
Touch me Baystar Can't you see that I am not afraid? What was that promise that you made? Why won't you tell me what MS said? What was that promise that you made?
Now I'm gonna love you, 'till IBM stops the suit I'm gonna love you 'till the suits descend from the news from Big Blue
Not to mention that we were working on nukes because Germany was working on them, we just didn't get them to the field in time to use them against Germany. Rest assured, we would've tossed 'em at Berlin and Dresden if we had them ready, and the rest of Europe would have thanked us for it.
Let's not forget that there was actually a report done, and nuclear fallout wasn't totally understood (I don't even know if they knew about it). Basically, we could've kept fighting Japan for another year or more and lost millions more in a slow win, killing millions more, etc. Or we could ask for their surrender and threaten to drop a doomsday weapon. Our firebombing in Tokyo (and a few other places) did a whole lot more damage than those nukes, and was a lot less humane, even considering what we know now about nuclear fallout. We didn't win because nukes themselves were so big. We don't know why Japan surrendered, but there are strong indications that Japan surrendered not because of the doomsday bombs, but because it really did look like we could keep this up for years/decades, bringing on newer and more powerful weapons. They didn't surrender because they thought they could still win.;)
I think Truman made the right decision, dropping the bombs, and I think he showed the right amount of restraint. We could have nuked Japan into oblivion, instead of just making a token drop. If we were dropping the bomb just to be mean, why did we only drop two? You know?;)
BUT... this has nothing to do with the countless hours of labor and the trillions upon trillions of dollars that the world's nations have spent to refine TNT into highly specialized weapons that are designed for more than just "shock and awe".
Yes and no. In your specific example, maybe. You see, how many scientists work on bombs and don't at least try to imagine how the bombs might be used for good, solid, peaceful purposes? How much asteroid mining are we going to be able to accomplish with our fission drives and our fancy TNT thanks to decades of military research? (Assuming we ever get to the asteroid belt in the first place, of course)
There are numerous examples of technologies we use every day that came out of military research whose intent was to find ways to either "make the other bastard die for their country" or to reduce the number of losses of our own (increased efficiency, more kills per individual, etc). Hell, the original moonshot was done with old military rockets, and rocket technology itself was originally designed for Nazi explosives to be propelled across the channel and into English cities, indiscriminately slaughtering civilians and troops, women, children, etc. All of us slashdotters, for the most part anyway, seem to be hoping all this rocket technology will turn out to be useful, but only time will tell, still.
It's not like a few scientists grab some parts off the shelf at Circuit City and lego together a smart bomb. It takes a lot of hard human labor to turn basic technology into what we might consider "reliable" evil.
True, but how many of the parts currently available at Circuit City were invented/originally engineered for smart bombs? It takes "pure evil" to build weapons without even thinking of how they can be used for "non-evil" purposes, and I really doubt there are that many scientists and engineers that are willing to work under such conditions. While killing and war seem to be a pretty popular sport even in our "civilized" times, designing with the sole intent of killing goes against basic human nature.
Um, that's a direct quote from one of the Pink Panther movies, you hypersensitive idiot.
And in the Pink Panther movies, Kato really is a yellow-skinned fool, and Lt Clouseau is nothing but a bunch of shots taken at Frenchies. "He was holding, a Minkey." "Minkey? What is a Minkey? It's MONKEY YOU IDIOT!"
but that all kinds of other European ethnic stereotypes are considered acceptable but ANY ethnic stereotype of non-Europeans is considered taboo,
You know, I think that has something to do with a number of things. First, Europeans, throughout all history, have all managed to take a turn at being both the oppressor and the oppressee. As a result, they're generally more light-hearted about this sort of thing, because they know it doesn't really mean jack. I mean, take a walk through a Jules Verne book one of these days. Even the French aren't perfect for him, and he pretty much romps on every nationality.
But these other guys, Mexico being an exception (and Messcans are also generally of the European approach, I've never known a Messcan that took offense at being called a spic or a landscaper) haven't yet taken a turn as oppressor that they're willing to admit. Call yourself African American? Great, if you want to adopt African history as your own. Except that African history is generally much more brutal than European and/or American history.
But all this is part and parcel of the idea that racism is something exclusive to whites.
Man oh man. Just the idea that racism is exclusive to whites is racist. Sinfest has a thread going right now about the old "why can't I call black people nigga, they call each other that?" question. When I was down in Texas, I saw racism going back and forth all the time, black people hating white people and white people hating black people. Hell, the only people in Texas that don't seem to hate anybody are the no-green-card-carrying messcans that get sent back over the river when INS knocks on their door.
Racism is stupid, agreed. But this politically correct way of approaching the problem is doing more to prolong it than fight it. Of course, if I were a minority member (and everytime someone calls themself a Latino I call them countryman and point out that Latin comes from Rome, and being of Italian descent that makes me Latino. NObody likes that explanation, of course) I would do everything I could to try to prolong the problem, because in the meantime I get all these nice benefits just by being in a minority. I get to tell everyone how to talk (so as not to offend my minority sensibilities). I get to tell everyone how to act, or the DOJ investigates. I get to whine about how I'm not being paid what I'm worth because I'm in a minority and know that I'll get a raise to "shut me up".
Blah. If people really wanted to solve this problem, they would. Nobody really wants it solved. The racists want to keep hating, and the poor victims want to keep being victims for the preferential treatment it gets. The rest of us will eventually out-evolve them all, but it'll take some time before the problem finally goes away.
it had the feel of an independent comic book from the late 1980s transferred onto a movie set with lots of plastic props.
That's *exactly* why I like this movie so much. It's not serious sci-fi, and it was obviously not meant to be. It's a helluva action flick, and Bruce Willis plays a role that so closely resembles his original Moonlighting role (only without the slapstick part of the role, admittedly a large part). All the characters are satirical in nature, including and especially the President. It's a great flick with a lot of depth. Even Chris Tucker (or was it Chris Rock? I can't tell those guys apart) wasn't annoying, he was actually useful!
Also the writing was awful
How so? You indicated it was like a comic book, and it definitely has a plot similar to what you'd find in a 4 or 5 book series. Yeah, it's oozing cheese, but if you wanted a not-cheesy sci-fi flick, then this movie isn't for you. In fact, if you want a not-cheesy sci-fi flick with Bruce Willis in the lead, check out 12 Monkeys.
the villian was hammy and broad.
Eh? Hammy and broad? The villain was pure, unadulterated evil. Or are you talking about the guy with the Texan accent? He rules! He's a villain that's very easy to love and still oppose philosophically.
On top of that, the directing was just plain awesome. Plenty of good comic-strip stuff going on, like when old half-baldy opens the box and says "Where's the stones?" and then it cuts to the blue lady telling Bruce WIllis where the stones are. Absolutely nowhere is it possible to even lose track of where the story is and what each character is doing. And every single actor played their part about as perfectly as it could be done (except, possibly, for the President).
Man, it was a very well made movie. I'm sorry you didn't like it, but it's definitely a very well-made movie, well deserving a place in the annals of good classic sci-fi flicks, and it's a classic in its own time, I'd say. Except maybe it didn't get as much popular appeal as it should've, even with all the cheese that's guaranteed to appeal popularly.
Um, what's wrong with this, exactly? Don't we keep whining about adding value to the stuff, and don't they keep adding value? Personally, I really appreciate the fact that they keep releasing the stuff like this, because that usually means that I can always buy it, whenever I decide I want it.
Compare it to Disney, who holds a release for years, waiting for everybody to build up anticipation and crap, and then releases it in limited quantities at really high prices, only to hold it again for many years. *THat* is beating the sheep.
For the record, I'm really really pissed at George Lucas for doing the same thing with Star Wars. I'm really happy he did the makeover on the series (although I'd really like to get the original footage again for the first movie, because that CG Jabba really sucks, and god dammit Jabba the Hutt was originally a fat guy with a beard) and released it again in the theaters, so I could relive TESB in the theater. But I'm really pissed he's been holding out so long on the DVD release of those things. I went ahead and downloaded some high-quality VHS rips, and I don't think I'll be *that* interested in the DVDs. (Not that I'd buy them anyway, DVDs with CSS fall under one of my current boycotts;) )
Well, it is grey area.;) I was responding more to the "I hate Micro$oft, they must be hung from the highest tree!" mentality than anything else.
There's plenty of blame to spread around, here. As other posters have mentioned, the sysadmin who installed Windows on these machines without taking preventive maintenance steps is to blame, as well as the person who made the purchasing decision to put Microsoft Windows in this installation, and also the virus writer himself.
I like some of the other analogies given, actually. The situation is more like a car manufacturer who makes a car with doors that appear to lock, but in reality don't lock. In that case, this situation is analogous to such a car that has been widely reported on not working, no consumer groups rising to defend consumer rights, so the car continues to be produced with its flaw. A buyer, probably not being able to avoid the news, still buys the car. POssibly not being aware of a recall being issued, he continues to depend on it for his business, and then whammo. The virus writer comes along and opens the door and sets fire to the interior.
It's too easy to just blame Microsoft, but I'm not saying they don't get any blame. Just make sure it gets spread around to all accountable parties, that's all.;)
if the gun exploded in someones hand then that would be a result of a defect, and something that is not caused by a malicious user. Slam Microsoft all you want, nothing wrong with that, but realize this specific incident would not have happened with out a malicious user.
The analogy is still wrong.
Say a gun manufacturer manufactures a gun that will work for most people most of the time, and failures only involve reloading, no actual damages. This same gun, through poor engineering, has a weakness in the barrel that can only be affected by a certain type of ammunition. The manufacturer doesn't consider this important because nobody manufactures that type of ammunition, it's worthless ammo.
So someone handcrafts the ammunition that will exploit the flaw, sneaks into your house and loads your gun with it, then escapes without leaving any trace other than the ammo in the gun.
Now the gun blows up in your hand. Who's at fault?
Even stretched to the limits as the analogy is, there's one primary difference between this analogy and the actual topic. For guns there aren't thousands of individuals building ammunition specifically designed to ruin the guns and possibly hurt the people firing them. For computers, there are. If this were to happen for real with a gun manufacturer, the manufacturer would be acquitted of all charges, because he had a reasonable expectation that what became an engineering flaw through exploit would not ever be a problem. Not so with the OS producer. They have a reasonable expectation that their OS will be attacked, and the more market share they have, the more this expectation resembles waiting for the sun to rise, i.e. you *know* it'll happen.
The OS producer must bear some responsibility for it, for the same reason a car manufacturer must bear some responsibility for injuries sustained in a car accident due to safety systems not well-engineered. Even then, we tend to forgive the car manufacturer, because accidents aren't supposed to happen, and there's usually some idiot at fault.
I'm all for pointing at Windows and saying it sucks any day of the week, but I'm not so sanguine to blame microsoft for the script kiddie that wrote the virus. It's grey area, there. And let's not forget that our beloved GPL disclaims all warranties as well...
Only if it's unspecified. If the model is specified, it generally refers to the size of the model as built during the '80s, but it's not very often we get the model specified, hence the beatle default.
When I compared Windows and Linux, using my wife as a test user, I was very specific in the requirements, and the rules. I was only comparing installers, and at that I was comparing how easy it was to install one vs the other by an average idiot user. And it was only Mandrake 9.2, not "all Linux distributions".
Thing is, to properly review an entire distribution really would take days for each distribution, weeks even. I haven't given a hard look at distrowatch, but with them as a possible exception, I've never read a review of a distribution that I'd consider complete. There's too much information to review, too much software to look at, too many issues to consider just for the market you've chosen to review for. I estimate that you should spend a week, at least 2 hours a day, for one distribution in one market. So if I'm going to review Mandrake Linux 9.2 for, say, CAD workers, that's one week, at least two hours a day. Now I want to review the *same* distribution for, hmm, how about people that make guitar strings? Ok. That's another week, at least two hours a day.
In the old days, computers weren't as specialized as they are today, and it wasn't necessary to review for a lot of specific markets. At that, there were a lot of markets who couldn't find reviews that suited them for the uses they needed to put the computers. But this 'old school' style of review doesn't cut it, anymore. I agree with the article poster on this one.;)
Are you fucking retarded? Internet2 is a network for academic research projects, not for you to leech l33t warez.
Are you fucking retarded? DARPA is a network for academic/military research, not for you to surf pr0n or whatever it is you anonymous cowards do with your time.
PJ does have a point though - a little more explicit recognition that this is Linux Powered GPL software probably wouldn't go astray. I suspect you'll find that convincing Sun of that is a very hard task indeed.
I don't know what PJ is after, specifically, but all Sun needs to do with this thing is something to notify the user of their rights under the GPL. If they use a splash screen during the installer, fine. If they use a splash screen during the installer that just says "This product contains a lot of open source software. Consult/usr/share/license/LICENSE for details. You have rights under these licenses that you should be aware of" I'd say that's fine too. I don't think they need to be out giving all sorts of credit all over the place, but a note in the bundled documentation wouldn't hurt. It's normal to have a "Credits" document that lists who all made the software what it is, and I understand that Sun normally does this anyway, although I don't know it for a fact.
As far as pointing out that it's Linux-powered, that's purely a marketing decision that they have to make. On the one hand, they might scare away people that think Linux is some weird mold that grows in the swamps of Louisiana. On the other hand, they might attract customers that need to know if their in-house apps that aren't Java will even run on the thing before they migrate all of it to Java.
But as far as their moral obligation, I think that just notifying the user that they have rights to the source code, to modify it, and to copy it freely for others, is good enough. They might have to say something like "The reason you can't copy the whole CD is because the CD contains software that does not give you those rights, but you may copy any software on this CD for which you have a license that gives you that permission". The GPL is pretty clear about what a company's moral and legal obligations are and does a pretty good job of coding the moral obligations into the license.
The fact of the matter is that if you want attribution every time you contribute code to a project, you need to use a different license. There are others, and you can certainly find one that you can add an attribution clause if you really want it. The GPL does require that you mark your changes in the code and claim your copyright (or blatantly disclaim your copyright) right there in the code, so if you lack either attribution or ownership in the code, it's probably your own fault (or Sun violated the license by removing it).
But Sun doesn't have to make a freely-downloadable iso image of the thing. They don't have to put the source code on an ftp site or anything. They just have to give the code to someone who legally acquired the software that they distributed when asked. That's all. They can't even say "You pirated the CD, we're not giving you the code!" They must give the code for the GPL stuff (and probably the other open source stuff, with exceptions) because no matter what the license on the bundled proprietary stuff, the open source stuff was copied legally.
But one thing that's really irritating me about this discussion is all you guys that are screaming because Sun isn't behaving idealistically. They're a corporation. The mission of a corporation is to survive and grow. If embracing idealistic pursuits will help them to survive and grow, they will. If not, they won't. Don't cry about it. Now, they do need to behave in a basic moral and ethical fashion because all entities in society need to behave in a basic moral and ethical fashion (I'm sure we can hammer out agreeable common morals and ethics without being oppressive or religious). But that behavior is just "operating conditions of the environment". It's like having to live in a forest, or a desert. You adapt.
For their benefit, they are trying to adapt to open source. They're also behaving in a schizophrenic fashion. I own Sun stock, and I figure one of two things will happen soon and make my
Last time I checked, both RedHat and Mandrake offered all of their own tools under the GPL, and Mandrake is particularly proud of the fact that the 3CD download edition of their distribution has no proprietary software on it. Didn't suse recently GPL their YaST stuff? (not that YaST is any good or anything. Notice how there's always a gentoo, debian, and mandrake zealot talking about their config software but never a SuSE zealot?)
Um, did you fail to read the other posts in this thread before writing? Obviously I already knew what you're saying. Did you fail to notice the Score 5, Funny? That means it was obviously a joke. (Score 3, Funny is a marginal joke and might not have been intended a joke, considering I post at Score 2 as base)
Jesus fucking Christ. Why would I think the Ark they're looking for on the top of a frickin' mountain is the same Ark that's obviously buried in the City of Tanis, in the Well of the Souls?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I know the feeling of quitting a job that sucked and I was glad I was in a position once to do that once upon a time. It's great! But it's a luxury, and some things are worth sticking with the most soul crushing job in the world.
I, for one, wouldn't want to set your example for my kids. Yeah, some jobs you should keep in spite of how much they suck, but some jobs require you to leave them regardless of whether or not you'll be working again soon after. Your actions have greater ramifications, and the moral lessons you teach are just as important, if not more important, than the fiscal lessons you teach.
Touch me Baystar
Can't you see that I am not afraid?
What was that promise that you made?
Why won't you tell me what MS said?
What was that promise that you made?
Now I'm gonna love you, 'till IBM stops the suit
I'm gonna love you 'till the suits descend from the news
from Big Blue
Not to mention that we were working on nukes because Germany was working on them, we just didn't get them to the field in time to use them against Germany. Rest assured, we would've tossed 'em at Berlin and Dresden if we had them ready, and the rest of Europe would have thanked us for it.
Let's not forget that there was actually a report done, and nuclear fallout wasn't totally understood (I don't even know if they knew about it). Basically, we could've kept fighting Japan for another year or more and lost millions more in a slow win, killing millions more, etc. Or we could ask for their surrender and threaten to drop a doomsday weapon. Our firebombing in Tokyo (and a few other places) did a whole lot more damage than those nukes, and was a lot less humane, even considering what we know now about nuclear fallout. We didn't win because nukes themselves were so big. We don't know why Japan surrendered, but there are strong indications that Japan surrendered not because of the doomsday bombs, but because it really did look like we could keep this up for years/decades, bringing on newer and more powerful weapons. They didn't surrender because they thought they could still win. ;)
I think Truman made the right decision, dropping the bombs, and I think he showed the right amount of restraint. We could have nuked Japan into oblivion, instead of just making a token drop. If we were dropping the bomb just to be mean, why did we only drop two? You know? ;)
BUT... this has nothing to do with the countless hours of labor and the trillions upon trillions of dollars that the world's nations have spent to refine TNT into highly specialized weapons that are designed for more than just "shock and awe".
Yes and no. In your specific example, maybe. You see, how many scientists work on bombs and don't at least try to imagine how the bombs might be used for good, solid, peaceful purposes? How much asteroid mining are we going to be able to accomplish with our fission drives and our fancy TNT thanks to decades of military research? (Assuming we ever get to the asteroid belt in the first place, of course)
There are numerous examples of technologies we use every day that came out of military research whose intent was to find ways to either "make the other bastard die for their country" or to reduce the number of losses of our own (increased efficiency, more kills per individual, etc). Hell, the original moonshot was done with old military rockets, and rocket technology itself was originally designed for Nazi explosives to be propelled across the channel and into English cities, indiscriminately slaughtering civilians and troops, women, children, etc. All of us slashdotters, for the most part anyway, seem to be hoping all this rocket technology will turn out to be useful, but only time will tell, still.
It's not like a few scientists grab some parts off the shelf at Circuit City and lego together a smart bomb. It takes a lot of hard human labor to turn basic technology into what we might consider "reliable" evil.
True, but how many of the parts currently available at Circuit City were invented/originally engineered for smart bombs? It takes "pure evil" to build weapons without even thinking of how they can be used for "non-evil" purposes, and I really doubt there are that many scientists and engineers that are willing to work under such conditions. While killing and war seem to be a pretty popular sport even in our "civilized" times, designing with the sole intent of killing goes against basic human nature.
And you should yell up the basement stairs and have your mother right your post...
I don't want the red box, man. That's the one most likely to get stolen, destroyed, mangled, or otherwise rendered completely useless.
Give me the blue, nothing ever happens to people wearing blue.
Um, that's a direct quote from one of the Pink Panther movies, you hypersensitive idiot.
And in the Pink Panther movies, Kato really is a yellow-skinned fool, and Lt Clouseau is nothing but a bunch of shots taken at Frenchies. "He was holding, a Minkey." "Minkey? What is a Minkey? It's MONKEY YOU IDIOT!"
The Pink Panther rules, and so does Kato.
but that all kinds of other European ethnic stereotypes are considered acceptable but ANY ethnic stereotype of non-Europeans is considered taboo,
You know, I think that has something to do with a number of things. First, Europeans, throughout all history, have all managed to take a turn at being both the oppressor and the oppressee. As a result, they're generally more light-hearted about this sort of thing, because they know it doesn't really mean jack. I mean, take a walk through a Jules Verne book one of these days. Even the French aren't perfect for him, and he pretty much romps on every nationality.
But these other guys, Mexico being an exception (and Messcans are also generally of the European approach, I've never known a Messcan that took offense at being called a spic or a landscaper) haven't yet taken a turn as oppressor that they're willing to admit. Call yourself African American? Great, if you want to adopt African history as your own. Except that African history is generally much more brutal than European and/or American history.
But all this is part and parcel of the idea that racism is something exclusive to whites.
Man oh man. Just the idea that racism is exclusive to whites is racist. Sinfest has a thread going right now about the old "why can't I call black people nigga, they call each other that?" question. When I was down in Texas, I saw racism going back and forth all the time, black people hating white people and white people hating black people. Hell, the only people in Texas that don't seem to hate anybody are the no-green-card-carrying messcans that get sent back over the river when INS knocks on their door.
Racism is stupid, agreed. But this politically correct way of approaching the problem is doing more to prolong it than fight it. Of course, if I were a minority member (and everytime someone calls themself a Latino I call them countryman and point out that Latin comes from Rome, and being of Italian descent that makes me Latino. NObody likes that explanation, of course) I would do everything I could to try to prolong the problem, because in the meantime I get all these nice benefits just by being in a minority. I get to tell everyone how to talk (so as not to offend my minority sensibilities). I get to tell everyone how to act, or the DOJ investigates. I get to whine about how I'm not being paid what I'm worth because I'm in a minority and know that I'll get a raise to "shut me up".
Blah. If people really wanted to solve this problem, they would. Nobody really wants it solved. The racists want to keep hating, and the poor victims want to keep being victims for the preferential treatment it gets. The rest of us will eventually out-evolve them all, but it'll take some time before the problem finally goes away.
"Politically correct means tagalong stupid."
Just in case you didn't already know. ;)
it had the feel of an independent comic book from the late 1980s transferred onto a movie set with lots of plastic props.
That's *exactly* why I like this movie so much. It's not serious sci-fi, and it was obviously not meant to be. It's a helluva action flick, and Bruce Willis plays a role that so closely resembles his original Moonlighting role (only without the slapstick part of the role, admittedly a large part). All the characters are satirical in nature, including and especially the President. It's a great flick with a lot of depth. Even Chris Tucker (or was it Chris Rock? I can't tell those guys apart) wasn't annoying, he was actually useful!
Also the writing was awful
How so? You indicated it was like a comic book, and it definitely has a plot similar to what you'd find in a 4 or 5 book series. Yeah, it's oozing cheese, but if you wanted a not-cheesy sci-fi flick, then this movie isn't for you. In fact, if you want a not-cheesy sci-fi flick with Bruce Willis in the lead, check out 12 Monkeys.
the villian was hammy and broad.
Eh? Hammy and broad? The villain was pure, unadulterated evil. Or are you talking about the guy with the Texan accent? He rules! He's a villain that's very easy to love and still oppose philosophically.
On top of that, the directing was just plain awesome. Plenty of good comic-strip stuff going on, like when old half-baldy opens the box and says "Where's the stones?" and then it cuts to the blue lady telling Bruce WIllis where the stones are. Absolutely nowhere is it possible to even lose track of where the story is and what each character is doing. And every single actor played their part about as perfectly as it could be done (except, possibly, for the President).
Man, it was a very well made movie. I'm sorry you didn't like it, but it's definitely a very well-made movie, well deserving a place in the annals of good classic sci-fi flicks, and it's a classic in its own time, I'd say. Except maybe it didn't get as much popular appeal as it should've, even with all the cheese that's guaranteed to appeal popularly.
Um, what's wrong with this, exactly? Don't we keep whining about adding value to the stuff, and don't they keep adding value? Personally, I really appreciate the fact that they keep releasing the stuff like this, because that usually means that I can always buy it, whenever I decide I want it.
Compare it to Disney, who holds a release for years, waiting for everybody to build up anticipation and crap, and then releases it in limited quantities at really high prices, only to hold it again for many years. *THat* is beating the sheep.
For the record, I'm really really pissed at George Lucas for doing the same thing with Star Wars. I'm really happy he did the makeover on the series (although I'd really like to get the original footage again for the first movie, because that CG Jabba really sucks, and god dammit Jabba the Hutt was originally a fat guy with a beard) and released it again in the theaters, so I could relive TESB in the theater. But I'm really pissed he's been holding out so long on the DVD release of those things. I went ahead and downloaded some high-quality VHS rips, and I don't think I'll be *that* interested in the DVDs. (Not that I'd buy them anyway, DVDs with CSS fall under one of my current boycotts ;) )
Well, it is grey area. ;) I was responding more to the "I hate Micro$oft, they must be hung from the highest tree!" mentality than anything else.
There's plenty of blame to spread around, here. As other posters have mentioned, the sysadmin who installed Windows on these machines without taking preventive maintenance steps is to blame, as well as the person who made the purchasing decision to put Microsoft Windows in this installation, and also the virus writer himself.
I like some of the other analogies given, actually. The situation is more like a car manufacturer who makes a car with doors that appear to lock, but in reality don't lock. In that case, this situation is analogous to such a car that has been widely reported on not working, no consumer groups rising to defend consumer rights, so the car continues to be produced with its flaw. A buyer, probably not being able to avoid the news, still buys the car. POssibly not being aware of a recall being issued, he continues to depend on it for his business, and then whammo. The virus writer comes along and opens the door and sets fire to the interior.
It's too easy to just blame Microsoft, but I'm not saying they don't get any blame. Just make sure it gets spread around to all accountable parties, that's all. ;)
if the gun exploded in someones hand then that would be a result of a defect, and something that is not caused by a malicious user. Slam Microsoft all you want, nothing wrong with that, but realize this specific incident would not have happened with out a malicious user.
The analogy is still wrong.
Say a gun manufacturer manufactures a gun that will work for most people most of the time, and failures only involve reloading, no actual damages. This same gun, through poor engineering, has a weakness in the barrel that can only be affected by a certain type of ammunition. The manufacturer doesn't consider this important because nobody manufactures that type of ammunition, it's worthless ammo.
So someone handcrafts the ammunition that will exploit the flaw, sneaks into your house and loads your gun with it, then escapes without leaving any trace other than the ammo in the gun.
Now the gun blows up in your hand. Who's at fault?
Even stretched to the limits as the analogy is, there's one primary difference between this analogy and the actual topic. For guns there aren't thousands of individuals building ammunition specifically designed to ruin the guns and possibly hurt the people firing them. For computers, there are. If this were to happen for real with a gun manufacturer, the manufacturer would be acquitted of all charges, because he had a reasonable expectation that what became an engineering flaw through exploit would not ever be a problem. Not so with the OS producer. They have a reasonable expectation that their OS will be attacked, and the more market share they have, the more this expectation resembles waiting for the sun to rise, i.e. you *know* it'll happen.
The OS producer must bear some responsibility for it, for the same reason a car manufacturer must bear some responsibility for injuries sustained in a car accident due to safety systems not well-engineered. Even then, we tend to forgive the car manufacturer, because accidents aren't supposed to happen, and there's usually some idiot at fault.
I'm all for pointing at Windows and saying it sucks any day of the week, but I'm not so sanguine to blame microsoft for the script kiddie that wrote the virus. It's grey area, there. And let's not forget that our beloved GPL disclaims all warranties as well...
Forget Bruce Willis, we need Dave Lister!
A single ISO VW unit is, of course, a Beetle.
Only if it's unspecified. If the model is specified, it generally refers to the size of the model as built during the '80s, but it's not very often we get the model specified, hence the beatle default.
Erm, Dear, did you just call me an "average idiot user" on Slashdot?
No sex tonight-
*phew* *sighs in relief*
I'm still wiped out from this morning.
When I compared Windows and Linux, using my wife as a test user, I was very specific in the requirements, and the rules. I was only comparing installers, and at that I was comparing how easy it was to install one vs the other by an average idiot user. And it was only Mandrake 9.2, not "all Linux distributions".
Thing is, to properly review an entire distribution really would take days for each distribution, weeks even. I haven't given a hard look at distrowatch, but with them as a possible exception, I've never read a review of a distribution that I'd consider complete. There's too much information to review, too much software to look at, too many issues to consider just for the market you've chosen to review for. I estimate that you should spend a week, at least 2 hours a day, for one distribution in one market. So if I'm going to review Mandrake Linux 9.2 for, say, CAD workers, that's one week, at least two hours a day. Now I want to review the *same* distribution for, hmm, how about people that make guitar strings? Ok. That's another week, at least two hours a day.
In the old days, computers weren't as specialized as they are today, and it wasn't necessary to review for a lot of specific markets. At that, there were a lot of markets who couldn't find reviews that suited them for the uses they needed to put the computers. But this 'old school' style of review doesn't cut it, anymore. I agree with the article poster on this one. ;)
Are you fucking retarded? Internet2 is a network for academic research projects, not for you to leech l33t warez.
Are you fucking retarded? DARPA is a network for academic/military research, not for you to surf pr0n or whatever it is you anonymous cowards do with your time.
Aziz, light!
*sounds of slashdot users rumbling around*
Ah, much better, Aziz.
Sadly, no cache of google's cache of google, so if it gets slashdotted yer outta luck.
PJ does have a point though - a little more explicit recognition that this is Linux Powered GPL software probably wouldn't go astray. I suspect you'll find that convincing Sun of that is a very hard task indeed.
I don't know what PJ is after, specifically, but all Sun needs to do with this thing is something to notify the user of their rights under the GPL. If they use a splash screen during the installer, fine. If they use a splash screen during the installer that just says "This product contains a lot of open source software. Consult /usr/share/license/LICENSE for details. You have rights under these licenses that you should be aware of" I'd say that's fine too. I don't think they need to be out giving all sorts of credit all over the place, but a note in the bundled documentation wouldn't hurt. It's normal to have a "Credits" document that lists who all made the software what it is, and I understand that Sun normally does this anyway, although I don't know it for a fact.
As far as pointing out that it's Linux-powered, that's purely a marketing decision that they have to make. On the one hand, they might scare away people that think Linux is some weird mold that grows in the swamps of Louisiana. On the other hand, they might attract customers that need to know if their in-house apps that aren't Java will even run on the thing before they migrate all of it to Java.
But as far as their moral obligation, I think that just notifying the user that they have rights to the source code, to modify it, and to copy it freely for others, is good enough. They might have to say something like "The reason you can't copy the whole CD is because the CD contains software that does not give you those rights, but you may copy any software on this CD for which you have a license that gives you that permission". The GPL is pretty clear about what a company's moral and legal obligations are and does a pretty good job of coding the moral obligations into the license.
The fact of the matter is that if you want attribution every time you contribute code to a project, you need to use a different license. There are others, and you can certainly find one that you can add an attribution clause if you really want it. The GPL does require that you mark your changes in the code and claim your copyright (or blatantly disclaim your copyright) right there in the code, so if you lack either attribution or ownership in the code, it's probably your own fault (or Sun violated the license by removing it).
But Sun doesn't have to make a freely-downloadable iso image of the thing. They don't have to put the source code on an ftp site or anything. They just have to give the code to someone who legally acquired the software that they distributed when asked. That's all. They can't even say "You pirated the CD, we're not giving you the code!" They must give the code for the GPL stuff (and probably the other open source stuff, with exceptions) because no matter what the license on the bundled proprietary stuff, the open source stuff was copied legally.
But one thing that's really irritating me about this discussion is all you guys that are screaming because Sun isn't behaving idealistically. They're a corporation. The mission of a corporation is to survive and grow. If embracing idealistic pursuits will help them to survive and grow, they will. If not, they won't. Don't cry about it. Now, they do need to behave in a basic moral and ethical fashion because all entities in society need to behave in a basic moral and ethical fashion (I'm sure we can hammer out agreeable common morals and ethics without being oppressive or religious). But that behavior is just "operating conditions of the environment". It's like having to live in a forest, or a desert. You adapt.
For their benefit, they are trying to adapt to open source. They're also behaving in a schizophrenic fashion. I own Sun stock, and I figure one of two things will happen soon and make my
next on PJones radio: "Smells Like Linuxy Spirit"
next on KRMS: 'Why it should be called \'Smells like GNU/Linuxy Spirit\''
Last time I checked, both RedHat and Mandrake offered all of their own tools under the GPL, and Mandrake is particularly proud of the fact that the 3CD download edition of their distribution has no proprietary software on it. Didn't suse recently GPL their YaST stuff? (not that YaST is any good or anything. Notice how there's always a gentoo, debian, and mandrake zealot talking about their config software but never a SuSE zealot?)
Incorrect useage of improper words makes any argument less convincing and subtracts from the author's credibility
D'oh! Eat your own dog food, dude. U S A G E
Um, did you fail to read the other posts in this thread before writing? Obviously I already knew what you're saying. Did you fail to notice the Score 5, Funny? That means it was obviously a joke. (Score 3, Funny is a marginal joke and might not have been intended a joke, considering I post at Score 2 as base)
Jesus fucking Christ. Why would I think the Ark they're looking for on the top of a frickin' mountain is the same Ark that's obviously buried in the City of Tanis, in the Well of the Souls?