If teachers were allowed to have concealed carry at school and allowed to carry at school after special training,
...then nothing. Harris' diaries show meticulous planning and the intention to make it a one-way trip. If teachers carried guns, the script would run differently, but with just as many fatalities. What else are you gonna suggest? Have every kid wear a concealed handgun? Eeesh...
The problem is that those jails serves a function.
And this function is to keep users helpless, powerless, deprived of rights, separated from each other, and under constant surveillance.
When you enforce very strict rules how somethings behave or look that it is decreases the learnability factor and that users will perceive it as easier to use. Even the "elegance" (look at the aesthetic usability effects) has a role.
It is only the elegance that makes it easier to use. You totally failed to demonstrate how the missing freedoms (to run, to study, to modify, and to share modifications) are making it easier to use. A simple mind experiment will show how much you are confused. Imagine that the entire Android-related stack was exactly, almost literally the same, but free: the core OS, the hardware drivers (including the firmware), and everything in the store. It would be identical to what people have on their phones right now, except cheaper overall (because free software is cheaper to develop), and missing the mandatory spying features and the stupidity like uninstallable, unavoidable ads. How would it be harder to use? It would be the same exact stuff. Same menus, same options, same default almost-total lockdown. But the freedom would keep malicious features out and provide a way (to power-users) to mod the OS up the wazoo.
Sorry, dude, but this your post can't pass even a very tolerant bullshit detector.
You sound like a sap. RMS does not care to discuss some issues because there is no fucking silver lining to the proprietary software. It's really expensive, really poor quality, really insecure, it abuses everyone but the vendor, and it propagates thanks only to monopolistic practices, advertisement, and consumer stupidity. There is only one way to benefit from proprietary software: by selling it and mistreating its users.
Defending non-free software in any context (except may be pure entertainment) is like defending spamming and confidence tricks. People should have a right to use it, but they should know it is always a terrible idea, because they get ripped off every time. What non-free software vendors do is obviously immoral, and is only barely legal. For example, since Apple actively, purposefully prevents users from finding and fixing bugs in Apple Maps, then it should be liable when people get killed due to those bugs.
at any company or group that makes moves which earn them some money and make things easier for non-technical users.
Not in this case, though. Unless by "making things easier" you mean spying on users and selling them to advertisers and proprietary software vendors, who then abuse users even more thoroughly. Because that's what Canonical proudly does.
Seriously?! It was mentioned a number of times. You're just acting like a dick.
No, I'm not. Mentioned does not mean proven to be true. In the link you gave me, some iOS hacker claims it to be disabled. Is that your most authoritative source? I am not being a dick, buddy, you are being a gullible sap.
CarrierIQ, as implemented on iOS, *DID NOT* have the spyware pieces enabled.
Prove it. Oops, you can't. So we can assume it was enabled, and whoever told you it wasn't simply lied. Companies can do that because feds refuse to charge them with felonies even in clear-cut cases (see SONY rootkit incident), so it's safe to assume Apple is doing it.
If you post something on FB and then FB removes it, that's just censorship. It would only be self-censorship if you were a FB employee, and your FB speech was limited by your contract.
Hahaha, I NEVER read behind konsole, that would be retarded, and probably damage my eyes, as its alpha is around 0.1. But this is a piece of eye candy I happen to really enjoy.
While I don't understand the summary at all, I am quite happy with running openbox and xcompmgr. All I ever want is konsole transparency, anyway. Couldn't care less for other eye-candy.
We've seen some of these alerts here. After ignoring half-a-dozen of them or so, I simply called Comcast and told them I am dropping them for RCN. The reason? 6 strikes. The lady on the phone did not know what that was, so I told her to google it and click the first link, and she did. So do us all a favor, folks: if you are dropping them now, give them 6 strikes as reason #1. Make sure the rep knows what it is. If there's one thing an ISP listens to, it's the reason why a customer leaves.
Decent science education, at least until recently. Besides, the Russian law enforcement has lots of blackhats on payroll, almost certainly, since that's exactly their MO. They are masters of spoofing, misinformation, and sabotage. I bet half the time China hacks US, it's actually Russians hacking China, and then US through China.
This is like saying: given that malware exists on every platform, it stands to reason that computers are structurally disposed to run malware. Which is, of course, nonsense. Setting aside non-world religions for a second, because they are fundamentally different from the world ones, consider the following. World religions like Christianity and Islam are so successful because they are designed to be self-propagating, very similar to the malware. The clergy's number one job is to create adherents, and they take it very seriously. If they fail, they can't get paid. So parents are instructed to indoctrinate children, and lay people are told to proselytize at every opportunity. When appropriate, wholesale violence is used to convert entire countries.
Non-world religions are a different matter, since they are either restricted to an ethnicity, like Judaism, or a nation, like Hinduism, and the rest require even less commitment, being not much more than collections of myths peppered with superstition. Now, superstition, or magical thinking, as J.G. Frazer calls it, well may be in our genes. World religions, on the other hand, which are arguably the poster religions of today, are thinly veiled confidence tricks, and they spread their roots in every corner of the world because they are extremely well designed to fulfill this particular purpose.
The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite
files.
I think it's pretty clear that this is a fundamental shortfall of those files and formats, not of LO. The latter would have no problem opening and saving them if they were not obfuscated and undocumented. Just as with the nouveau driver, it's Jesus- worthy miracle that it works at all.
I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents.
One would think, after reviewing them 3 times, you could be more specific. Can you name one fundamental way in which LO fell short? Define "large document" and "disaster"? No, of course not, because LO is strictly better than MSO: it doesn't spy on you, doesn't hold your data hostage, not a significant malware vector, has simpler, more familiar, and highly customizable interface, can be fully supported (including adding features and bug fixes) by a third party, runs natively on every major consumer OS, streamlines licensing. Notice that every point above is a fundamental flaw in MSO. So stop it. We all know that MS Office has always been a steaming pile of crap, and it remains a popular program today for one reason only: MS spent years of time and billions of dollars perfecting their "solution", which is to tie together OS, Internet utilities, and the productivity suite, so that abandoning any one component is impossible without dropping the rest, and hence unaffordable.
This is a tiny fraction of the current subscription price, and is affordable by anyone. And it would buy a lot more than blobs on TPB: it would pay for a fast Web front-end where you could search the entire collection of all research works ever published. I suppose the budget would be comparable to that of Wikipedia, something like a few million USD per year. USA's 1000 richest universities could completely cover the cost, passing it to the students if need be at less than $1/year.
The more interesting question is whether my legal theory holds any water.
At least in USA, there should be a non-profit online library already containing all research papers for free, or for a nominal sum (like $1/year for full individual access, $1000/year for a university, just enough to pay for hosting). This is because fair use makes an explicit exceptions for scholarship, research and classroom teaching, including multiple copies for classroom use, and research articles are not ever used for anything else. They really aren't. Just reading one is "research".
Any lawyers out there? Am I just dreaming or is it something that has a chance of going to the court and winning?
Amen. It is asinine to think that even purely recording musicians need any copyright protection to make money. All they really need is promotion. Once known, they can offer reasonably-priced downloads on their Web site. Every fan who can actually afford their files will be more than willing to pay, as they would (1) get authentic, properly labeled albums, art, and merchandise (2) put 100% of their dollar toward supporting the artist, instead of 10% which is typical for all but superstars today (3) obtain bragging rights.
The only thing to brag about after buying from a RIAA label is how you helped to finance a 1M lawsuit against some single mother or a piss-broke college student. IMHO, buying from them is scummier than nicking a CD from Walmart.
Until the advent of the Internet, "piracy" referred exclusively to commercial distribution. You decided to side with **AA and start calling non-commercial distributors, a.k.a. sharers, pirates. Have you ever copied or made a mix tape or CD for you friend, pirate?
But it's not a excuse to download it for free...
Hey, let's see what UDHR says. I don't know if you care at all about this particular document, but we have to start somewhere, and UDHR represents a rather broad consensus on the subject of human rights.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
It is very clear that consenting parties have a bloody right to exchange any information, and especially anything of cultural or scientific value, and you have no business meddling, as long as the exchange is non-commercial. If a Chinese printer is selling bootleg CDs, shut him down. If a torrent site makes ad money, take it down. But when you bring the hammer to individual sharers, that's a clear-cut case of censorship and oppression. Do you want to live in a country where people are jailed for emailing a file to a friend? Because that's what you are advocating.
There are many ways to reward artists for their labor, but you and your MAFIAA friends pretend that isn't so. You would like us to believe that the ONLY way to reward recording artists and movie makers is through a system of universal censorship and surveillance. You ignore the fact that other options are on the table: a system of voluntary donations and a culture tax are among them. These are perfectly sound ways to protect material interests of artists without throwing people in jail, but I guess you'd rather continue living in an oppressive state where the human right of free expression is spit upon, and where music, movie, and news businesses are run by racketeers. Good sailing, my friend.
Copyright is very different, and TFA's arguments for abolishing patents do not apply to copyright. Patents should be abolished because any patent system results in a struggle between the manufacturers, trolls, lawyers, judges, and patent office on one hand and the public on the other. While the former all stand to gain a lot by slightly increasing the patent protection, the public losses are marginal, so it is inevitable that even the best patent law will be eventually perverted to abuse the public.
With copyright, the picture is completely different. The public will never have the manufacturing capacity to produce things like cars, smartphones, or cancer-treating drugs. But thanks to the Internet, it now has a tremendous capacity for making exact copies of information. If only non-commercial copying is legalized (in US, fair use can be extended to include it), then the public will instantly gain cheap and effective access to all of the important, useful, and desirable information. This measure alone, besides being the ethical thing to do, will fix the information market even in the presence of unlimited terms.
Emacs is included, as is the build script. From my experience, the build scripts often work with higher versions, so upgrading to the bleeding edge is straightforward: get the source and run the script.
Thanks to sbopkg, slackbuilds.org, and the collections of build queue files, installing almost everything else is extremely painless and can be achieved in a simple menu-driven interface.
As for dependencies, no one tracks them except for the slackbuild maintainers. This may sound insane to people who tasted apt, but this turns out to be an incredible blessing. You can install or uninstall any individual package with surgical precision, without wrecking the rest of the system. With a bit of fiddling, you can have multiple versions of the same package co-existing peacefully, but that of course is package-dependent. For a personal computer this boils down to not caring about dependencies ever: you make a full install, then build the extra apps with sbopkg, make sure everything works, and then sit back and relax. For a more structured deployment, like in a corporate setting, you do need to get into the dependency resolution, but then you get paid for it, right?
Slashdot Mirror
If teachers were allowed to have concealed carry at school and allowed to carry at school after special training,
...then nothing. Harris' diaries show meticulous planning and the intention to make it a one-way trip. If teachers carried guns, the script would run differently, but with just as many fatalities. What else are you gonna suggest? Have every kid wear a concealed handgun? Eeesh...
The problem is that those jails serves a function.
And this function is to keep users helpless, powerless, deprived of rights, separated from each other, and under constant surveillance.
When you enforce very strict rules how somethings behave or look that it is decreases the learnability factor and that users will perceive it as easier to use. Even the "elegance" (look at the aesthetic usability effects) has a role.
It is only the elegance that makes it easier to use. You totally failed to demonstrate how the missing freedoms (to run, to study, to modify, and to share modifications) are making it easier to use. A simple mind experiment will show how much you are confused. Imagine that the entire Android-related stack was exactly, almost literally the same, but free: the core OS, the hardware drivers (including the firmware), and everything in the store. It would be identical to what people have on their phones right now, except cheaper overall (because free software is cheaper to develop), and missing the mandatory spying features and the stupidity like uninstallable, unavoidable ads. How would it be harder to use? It would be the same exact stuff. Same menus, same options, same default almost-total lockdown. But the freedom would keep malicious features out and provide a way (to power-users) to mod the OS up the wazoo.
Sorry, dude, but this your post can't pass even a very tolerant bullshit detector.
You sound like a sap. RMS does not care to discuss some issues because there is no fucking silver lining to the proprietary software. It's really expensive, really poor quality, really insecure, it abuses everyone but the vendor, and it propagates thanks only to monopolistic practices, advertisement, and consumer stupidity. There is only one way to benefit from proprietary software: by selling it and mistreating its users.
Defending non-free software in any context (except may be pure entertainment) is like defending spamming and confidence tricks. People should have a right to use it, but they should know it is always a terrible idea, because they get ripped off every time. What non-free software vendors do is obviously immoral, and is only barely legal. For example, since Apple actively, purposefully prevents users from finding and fixing bugs in Apple Maps, then it should be liable when people get killed due to those bugs.
at any company or group that makes moves which earn them some money and make things easier for non-technical users.
Not in this case, though. Unless by "making things easier" you mean spying on users and selling them to advertisers and proprietary software vendors, who then abuse users even more thoroughly. Because that's what Canonical proudly does.
Seriously?! It was mentioned a number of times. You're just acting like a dick.
No, I'm not. Mentioned does not mean proven to be true. In the link you gave me, some iOS hacker claims it to be disabled. Is that your most authoritative source? I am not being a dick, buddy, you are being a gullible sap.
CarrierIQ, as implemented on iOS, *DID NOT* have the spyware pieces enabled.
Prove it. Oops, you can't. So we can assume it was enabled, and whoever told you it wasn't simply lied. Companies can do that because feds refuse to charge them with felonies even in clear-cut cases (see SONY rootkit incident), so it's safe to assume Apple is doing it.
Yo momma is so fat, she has her own exact solution of the field equations.
If you post something on FB and then FB removes it, that's just censorship. It would only be self-censorship if you were a FB employee, and your FB speech was limited by your contract.
So if the software is smart enough to write software, then it needs free speech.
Hahaha, I NEVER read behind konsole, that would be retarded, and probably damage my eyes, as its alpha is around 0.1. But this is a piece of eye candy I happen to really enjoy.
While I don't understand the summary at all, I am quite happy with running openbox and xcompmgr. All I ever want is konsole transparency, anyway. Couldn't care less for other eye-candy.
We've seen some of these alerts here. After ignoring half-a-dozen of them or so, I simply called Comcast and told them I am dropping them for RCN. The reason? 6 strikes. The lady on the phone did not know what that was, so I told her to google it and click the first link, and she did. So do us all a favor, folks: if you are dropping them now, give them 6 strikes as reason #1. Make sure the rep knows what it is. If there's one thing an ISP listens to, it's the reason why a customer leaves.
Decent science education, at least until recently. Besides, the Russian law enforcement has lots of blackhats on payroll, almost certainly, since that's exactly their MO. They are masters of spoofing, misinformation, and sabotage. I bet half the time China hacks US, it's actually Russians hacking China, and then US through China.
This is like saying: given that malware exists on every platform, it stands to reason that computers are structurally disposed to run malware. Which is, of course, nonsense. Setting aside non-world religions for a second, because they are fundamentally different from the world ones, consider the following. World religions like Christianity and Islam are so successful because they are designed to be self-propagating, very similar to the malware. The clergy's number one job is to create adherents, and they take it very seriously. If they fail, they can't get paid. So parents are instructed to indoctrinate children, and lay people are told to proselytize at every opportunity. When appropriate, wholesale violence is used to convert entire countries.
Non-world religions are a different matter, since they are either restricted to an ethnicity, like Judaism, or a nation, like Hinduism, and the rest require even less commitment, being not much more than collections of myths peppered with superstition. Now, superstition, or magical thinking, as J.G. Frazer calls it, well may be in our genes. World religions, on the other hand, which are arguably the poster religions of today, are thinly veiled confidence tricks, and they spread their roots in every corner of the world because they are extremely well designed to fulfill this particular purpose.
If they don't have Flash spying on you, how do they know which ads are best for you?
The only fundamental way where LibreOffice falls short is when dealing with unnecessary complexity in the proprietary suite files.
I think it's pretty clear that this is a fundamental shortfall of those files and formats, not of LO. The latter would have no problem opening and saving them if they were not obfuscated and undocumented. Just as with the nouveau driver, it's Jesus- worthy miracle that it works at all.
I remember at least three incidents where I was instructed to evaluate Open Office, Libre Office or other F/OSS word processing or layout packages. In each instance, the F/OSS products fell short in fundamental ways, and were a total disaster for larger documents.
One would think, after reviewing them 3 times, you could be more specific. Can you name one fundamental way in which LO fell short? Define "large document" and "disaster"? No, of course not, because LO is strictly better than MSO: it doesn't spy on you, doesn't hold your data hostage, not a significant malware vector, has simpler, more familiar, and highly customizable interface, can be fully supported (including adding features and bug fixes) by a third party, runs natively on every major consumer OS, streamlines licensing. Notice that every point above is a fundamental flaw in MSO. So stop it. We all know that MS Office has always been a steaming pile of crap, and it remains a popular program today for one reason only: MS spent years of time and billions of dollars perfecting their "solution", which is to tie together OS, Internet utilities, and the productivity suite, so that abandoning any one component is impossible without dropping the rest, and hence unaffordable.
Apparently, they never read Peace on Earth.
This is being proposed in a country where minors can buy alcohol virtually anywhere.
This is a tiny fraction of the current subscription price, and is affordable by anyone. And it would buy a lot more than blobs on TPB: it would pay for a fast Web front-end where you could search the entire collection of all research works ever published. I suppose the budget would be comparable to that of Wikipedia, something like a few million USD per year. USA's 1000 richest universities could completely cover the cost, passing it to the students if need be at less than $1/year. The more interesting question is whether my legal theory holds any water.
At least in USA, there should be a non-profit online library already containing all research papers for free, or for a nominal sum (like $1/year for full individual access, $1000/year for a university, just enough to pay for hosting). This is because fair use makes an explicit exceptions for scholarship, research and classroom teaching, including multiple copies for classroom use, and research articles are not ever used for anything else. They really aren't. Just reading one is "research".
Any lawyers out there? Am I just dreaming or is it something that has a chance of going to the court and winning?
Amen. It is asinine to think that even purely recording musicians need any copyright protection to make money. All they really need is promotion. Once known, they can offer reasonably-priced downloads on their Web site. Every fan who can actually afford their files will be more than willing to pay, as they would (1) get authentic, properly labeled albums, art, and merchandise (2) put 100% of their dollar toward supporting the artist, instead of 10% which is typical for all but superstars today (3) obtain bragging rights.
The only thing to brag about after buying from a RIAA label is how you helped to finance a 1M lawsuit against some single mother or a piss-broke college student. IMHO, buying from them is scummier than nicking a CD from Walmart.
Until the advent of the Internet, "piracy" referred exclusively to commercial distribution. You decided to side with **AA and start calling non-commercial distributors, a.k.a. sharers, pirates. Have you ever copied or made a mix tape or CD for you friend, pirate?
But it's not a excuse to download it for free...
Hey, let's see what UDHR says. I don't know if you care at all about this particular document, but we have to start somewhere, and UDHR represents a rather broad consensus on the subject of human rights.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
It is very clear that consenting parties have a bloody right to exchange any information, and especially anything of cultural or scientific value, and you have no business meddling, as long as the exchange is non-commercial. If a Chinese printer is selling bootleg CDs, shut him down. If a torrent site makes ad money, take it down. But when you bring the hammer to individual sharers, that's a clear-cut case of censorship and oppression. Do you want to live in a country where people are jailed for emailing a file to a friend? Because that's what you are advocating.
There are many ways to reward artists for their labor, but you and your MAFIAA friends pretend that isn't so. You would like us to believe that the ONLY way to reward recording artists and movie makers is through a system of universal censorship and surveillance. You ignore the fact that other options are on the table: a system of voluntary donations and a culture tax are among them. These are perfectly sound ways to protect material interests of artists without throwing people in jail, but I guess you'd rather continue living in an oppressive state where the human right of free expression is spit upon, and where music, movie, and news businesses are run by racketeers. Good sailing, my friend.
Copyright is very different, and TFA's arguments for abolishing patents do not apply to copyright. Patents should be abolished because any patent system results in a struggle between the manufacturers, trolls, lawyers, judges, and patent office on one hand and the public on the other. While the former all stand to gain a lot by slightly increasing the patent protection, the public losses are marginal, so it is inevitable that even the best patent law will be eventually perverted to abuse the public.
With copyright, the picture is completely different. The public will never have the manufacturing capacity to produce things like cars, smartphones, or cancer-treating drugs. But thanks to the Internet, it now has a tremendous capacity for making exact copies of information. If only non-commercial copying is legalized (in US, fair use can be extended to include it), then the public will instantly gain cheap and effective access to all of the important, useful, and desirable information. This measure alone, besides being the ethical thing to do, will fix the information market even in the presence of unlimited terms.
Emacs is included, as is the build script. From my experience, the build scripts often work with higher versions, so upgrading to the bleeding edge is straightforward: get the source and run the script.
Thanks to sbopkg, slackbuilds.org, and the collections of build queue files, installing almost everything else is extremely painless and can be achieved in a simple menu-driven interface.
As for dependencies, no one tracks them except for the slackbuild maintainers. This may sound insane to people who tasted apt, but this turns out to be an incredible blessing. You can install or uninstall any individual package with surgical precision, without wrecking the rest of the system. With a bit of fiddling, you can have multiple versions of the same package co-existing peacefully, but that of course is package-dependent. For a personal computer this boils down to not caring about dependencies ever: you make a full install, then build the extra apps with sbopkg, make sure everything works, and then sit back and relax. For a more structured deployment, like in a corporate setting, you do need to get into the dependency resolution, but then you get paid for it, right?