Our local news copied the VIN off of police cars; went to the appropriate dealership claiming to have lost their keys; had the dealer happily make them new ones with no questions other than "Is there anything else we can do for you today?"; and then opened up the trunks of the police car, to expose shotguns, and so forth.
This is investigative reporting, and the police thanked them for it. They didn't throw the reporter in jail.
I do wonder, however, whether journalists get away with this because they work for an established organization. (In other words, don't try this under the auspices of your college newspaper!)
If that's the case, our hero gets no respect because he more or less acts alone. I think that's a shame though, because he has clearly shown a history of good intentions and helpfulness to the affected parties.
I don't see that Microsoft's actions have to do so much with turning the kids of this one school into "lifetime" Microsoft customers; instead, I think this is a research lab designed to discover how to monopolize the education market, rooting out Apple and squashing Linux. The goal is to turn all the kids everywhere into lifetime customers.
What Microsoft gets in the deal, from sending in their "consultants," is data and insight into how they can push technology in and develop new technology for schools, all the while appearing "altruistic."
In all seriousness, I thought this was the open source business model: selling support and documentation.
Now, many products have freely available documentation, and some of it is really good. On the flip side, however, many open source products have "documentation" which is a mix of arcane man pages, howto's, and user lists.
If you develop a successful product (Apache, Struts, Samba), I thought the idea was to make a name for yourself as one of the alpha-geek developers, and to use that name to write a book for O'Reilly or some other outfit. Aside from documentation, you set up a consulting shop and sell support to bigger customers.
It's kind of like giving your music away for free, and making your money on tour and through merchandising.
Open source is a big, pie-in-the-sky start-up! Most projects die; but some provide a living for a small circle of coders. No?
I personally keep up with/. by using the RSS plugin for Trillian, and usually tend to look only at stories that look interesting from the titles that are displayed in its main window.
That sounds good, in theory; but if a person isn't reading through all of the stories on Slashdot, what is he supposed to do with all of his extra time?
Once government is regulating programming, the companies shrewd at gaining and exploiting political connections will be able to use that political power to squash less "able" competitors. Laws will be written to favor the "big boys," those who have the money to lobby, at the expense of start-ups, smaller companies and open source.
This will be the worst thing to happen to software development and the tech industry.
I wonder if there isn't some kind of logic to using a desktop that is different from Windows, so as to not frustrate user expectations.
Bear with my, now. If a desktop mimics Windows to too great a degree, but something short of 100%, the remaining difference could frustrate users. Non-technical types could be lulled into a kind of laziness in their approach to Linux, believing that it is "just like" what they are used to working with. Every time they use some aspect of the system that differs from Windows, the will think something is "wrong" with the way Linux works.
Better, perhaps, to train them on a system that is easy to use, but different enough to attract the attention of their brains to the difference. They may then pay more attention during training, and adapt better to the new desktop -- having an expectation that it doesn't work "just like Windows."
I have had excellent experiences with Apple tech support. The guy on the other end usually knows quite a bit, or spends time researching while I wait. I've been asked to e-mail system logs which were then submitted to the engineers, and was called back at a later date with their advice.
Another time, I had narrowed the problem down to a faulty mouse. I explained all the steps I had taken in troubleshooting to the tech person, after which he sent me a new mouse straight away. He didn't have to submit anything for approval, or ask me to send the old mouse or anything. He just took me at my word.
Unbelievable! Now I get my original comment modded down again for "flamebait"?!
Again, it's a joke!!! Let me spell it out
Oualline buys a computer package, and doesn't want a component of it, so he asks for a refund; and I -- as a joke -- write that I bought his book (which I did) and had no use for a component of that.
See the parallel? That's a joke. Maybe it's a bit too obtuse for the 14 year olds moderating -- or maybe it's just not funny. But, it isn't "offtopic," and it isn't "flamebait," which I understand as trying to start a fight with someone.
This is turning into an interesting insight into the sociology of Slashdot. Thanks for the education!
I bought and read Steve Oualline's Practical C Programming a while back, and while it was very good, I really didn't have a use for all of the chapters.
Of the 23 chapters, I totally skipped 19-22, and I actually only skimmed the chapters on bit operations (chapter 11) and floating point arithmetic (chapter 16). I guess I just don't have the attention span for all that.
Anyway, I was hoping I could have some of the $34.95 retail price pro-rated. Steve, make me an offer!
Well, what I heard about China -- and whether this is "urban legend" or fact -- is that they kill prisoners if it turns out that their organs are a match on the black market, and then sell their parts. It's sort of like a chop shop for people, rather than automobiles.
Anyway, for what it's worth, that's what I heard. (And, I think you would agree, that's not a free market in organs.)
How do you explain the shortage of any good or service? Simply: the price is too low. Concerning organs ready for transplant, the fault of the shortage is the notion of organ "donors" itself.
Now, there's nothing wrong with someone wanting to give away their organs for free. That's fine, and they should be allowed to do so. There's nothing wrong with charity. It should come as no surprise, however, that many, many people do not do so.
Why not pay people for their organs. Obviously, no one can sell their heart, or lung, or whatever -- it's just too useful a thing to have if you plan to go on living. But, why couldn't people be paid to allow their organs to be harvested after their death (or clinical death)?
No cash would change hands until after the organs were actually harvested: this makes it an honest transaction for buyer and seller. The money could then be used for burial, to settle a person's affairs, or be bequeathed to heirs.
Not everyone would be interested in such a deal, of course, but many more people would be than currently donate organs. Moreover, the incentive of money would get many more people to consider allowing their organs to be used after their death. There would be a monetary incentive to get people thinking, and thinking leads to taking action.
"Charity begins at home," as the saying goes. Selling organs, and therefore allowing your organs to do some good for those close to you, your loved ones, would certainly encourage more people.
Organ transplant, as it is, is so expensive, that the added expense of the organ's price is likely to raise the price of the treatment hardly at all. Selling your organs would be no "get rich quick scheme"; rather, it would take the place of a burial insurance policy, or offer a small nest egg to a person's family.
To those who bristle at the notion of an "economic transaction," I say, get over it. As it stands, depending on donors allows thousands of people to die each year. Are these deaths under such a "noble system" preferable to a market in organs? I say it's just the opposite.
The great shame is that this has not yet been implemented, and that so many die as a result of an "altruistic" system.
Is there any difference in the purchasing of Microsoft products from the Clinton administration to Bush's? That's what I'm talking about. The U.S. government is Microsoft's biggest customer.
All the while that the Clinton administration was crying monopoly, it was writing gigantic checks to that monopoly.
[W]e are simply "training replacements" for the United States itself.
The Roman Empire began filling the ranks of its armies with foreigners from present day Germany. Soon, these men began moving up in rank and leading troops. The Germanic peoples began to learn the Roman way of doing things. Eventually, Rome fell at the hands of those they had trained.
Now, no analogy is perfect; but essentially Rome outsourced its workforce to third worlders.
Don't expect the government to destroy any information once collected. There is a registry in the US for people purchasing long guns (shotguns and rifles). It's used to perform a background check, and names on it are only supposed to be kept -- by law -- for a limited time (I believe 6 months). However, names are never taken off the list.
Political conditions change: that's why the wise worry about government lists. It's all warm and fuzzy when we talk about catching crooks, and most people in the US would find the notion of not trusting their goverment a crack-pot idea. What they never dream of happening is political conditions changing drastically within the space of a couple of years because of some "crisis."
When that happens, it suddenly becomes a very big deal what kind of information the government has been trusted with -- and by then it's too late.
It's sort of like trusting your neighbor with your house key while you go away on business for six months; only, while away, the neighbor dies and his heroin addict son gets a hold of the key (the black sheep of the family whom they never talk about). What do you think happens then?
Go ahead, trust the government without reservation! But, Washington, Jefferson, et al, understood why such trust is foolish.
But this has been the irony all along with the antitrust trial. The government is on one hand attacking M$ as a monopoly, and on the other hand using its buying power and bureaucracy to promote the platform.
How many times have you asked for a form from a government office, only to be told it is available as a Word document and nothing else. It's happened to me. (I'm not necessarily talking about forms on their Web sites, I'm talking about anything a secretary or other "administrative assistant" might try to send you. These people act as if Word is some kind of universal format.)
Rather than attack M$, the government should do everything it can to use open formats -- or at least alternatives to Windows files.
This voting should definitely have been implemented as a Web application. If banks can do it, so can the government!
If some artists want their songs sold only as part of an album, let them. If it's a bad idea, they'll be hurting themselves.
<sarcasm>
Oh wait, perhaps I, the consumer, will be "hurt" too, if I am "forced" to purchase an entire album, when all I really want is the one song I "just can't live without."
</sarcasm>
Slashdot Mirror
Our local news copied the VIN off of police cars; went to the appropriate dealership claiming to have lost their keys; had the dealer happily make them new ones with no questions other than "Is there anything else we can do for you today?"; and then opened up the trunks of the police car, to expose shotguns, and so forth.
This is investigative reporting, and the police thanked them for it. They didn't throw the reporter in jail.
I do wonder, however, whether journalists get away with this because they work for an established organization. (In other words, don't try this under the auspices of your college newspaper!)
If that's the case, our hero gets no respect because he more or less acts alone. I think that's a shame though, because he has clearly shown a history of good intentions and helpfulness to the affected parties.
Would somebody google his address and get back to me? I'm in the market for a new television and stereo!
Well, plenty of musicians play for "exposure" (translation: free). If your project does become successful -- big time! -- I think my analogy holds.
I don't see that Microsoft's actions have to do so much with turning the kids of this one school into "lifetime" Microsoft customers; instead, I think this is a research lab designed to discover how to monopolize the education market, rooting out Apple and squashing Linux. The goal is to turn all the kids everywhere into lifetime customers.
What Microsoft gets in the deal, from sending in their "consultants," is data and insight into how they can push technology in and develop new technology for schools, all the while appearing "altruistic."
This is pure PR and R&D -- nothing more.
I'm glad I'm currently out of moderator points, because I couldn't handle the responsibility of modding the parent comment ;-)
We can only hope the script kiddies have the same insight as you.
I'm surprised this genius wasn't smart enough to switch from OS X to Windows. After all, I don't remember seeing him in that ad.
In all seriousness, I thought this was the open source business model: selling support and documentation.
Now, many products have freely available documentation, and some of it is really good. On the flip side, however, many open source products have "documentation" which is a mix of arcane man pages, howto's, and user lists.
If you develop a successful product (Apache, Struts, Samba), I thought the idea was to make a name for yourself as one of the alpha-geek developers, and to use that name to write a book for O'Reilly or some other outfit. Aside from documentation, you set up a consulting shop and sell support to bigger customers.
It's kind of like giving your music away for free, and making your money on tour and through merchandising.
Open source is a big, pie-in-the-sky start-up! Most projects die; but some provide a living for a small circle of coders. No?
That sounds good, in theory; but if a person isn't reading through all of the stories on Slashdot, what is he supposed to do with all of his extra time?
Once government is regulating programming, the companies shrewd at gaining and exploiting political connections will be able to use that political power to squash less "able" competitors. Laws will be written to favor the "big boys," those who have the money to lobby, at the expense of start-ups, smaller companies and open source.
This will be the worst thing to happen to software development and the tech industry.
I wonder if there isn't some kind of logic to using a desktop that is different from Windows, so as to not frustrate user expectations.
Bear with my, now. If a desktop mimics Windows to too great a degree, but something short of 100%, the remaining difference could frustrate users. Non-technical types could be lulled into a kind of laziness in their approach to Linux, believing that it is "just like" what they are used to working with. Every time they use some aspect of the system that differs from Windows, the will think something is "wrong" with the way Linux works.
Better, perhaps, to train them on a system that is easy to use, but different enough to attract the attention of their brains to the difference. They may then pay more attention during training, and adapt better to the new desktop -- having an expectation that it doesn't work "just like Windows."
You're darn right there were copyright issues with the name "Astro."
I have had excellent experiences with Apple tech support. The guy on the other end usually knows quite a bit, or spends time researching while I wait. I've been asked to e-mail system logs which were then submitted to the engineers, and was called back at a later date with their advice.
Another time, I had narrowed the problem down to a faulty mouse. I explained all the steps I had taken in troubleshooting to the tech person, after which he sent me a new mouse straight away. He didn't have to submit anything for approval, or ask me to send the old mouse or anything. He just took me at my word.
All in all, a good experience every time!
Why was this modded up as "funny," when it obviously falls under "insightful"?
Exactly! When I saw the headline for this article, my first thought was this company will end up the "Napster" of the auto industry.
Unbelievable! Now I get my original comment modded down again for "flamebait"?!
Again, it's a joke!!! Let me spell it out
Oualline buys a computer package, and doesn't want a component of it, so he asks for a refund; and I -- as a joke -- write that I bought his book (which I did) and had no use for a component of that.
See the parallel? That's a joke. Maybe it's a bit too obtuse for the 14 year olds moderating -- or maybe it's just not funny. But, it isn't "offtopic," and it isn't "flamebait," which I understand as trying to start a fight with someone.
This is turning into an interesting insight into the sociology of Slashdot. Thanks for the education!
</disbelief>Wow! I guess if a guy doesn't enclose his post in <humor></humor> the joke totally goes over the heads of the moderators!
I would've preferred being modded down for "not funny."
I bought and read Steve Oualline's Practical C Programming a while back, and while it was very good, I really didn't have a use for all of the chapters.
Of the 23 chapters, I totally skipped 19-22, and I actually only skimmed the chapters on bit operations (chapter 11) and floating point arithmetic (chapter 16). I guess I just don't have the attention span for all that.
Anyway, I was hoping I could have some of the $34.95 retail price pro-rated. Steve, make me an offer!
Well, what I heard about China -- and whether this is "urban legend" or fact -- is that they kill prisoners if it turns out that their organs are a match on the black market, and then sell their parts. It's sort of like a chop shop for people, rather than automobiles.
Anyway, for what it's worth, that's what I heard. (And, I think you would agree, that's not a free market in organs.)
How do you explain the shortage of any good or service? Simply: the price is too low. Concerning organs ready for transplant, the fault of the shortage is the notion of organ "donors" itself.
Now, there's nothing wrong with someone wanting to give away their organs for free. That's fine, and they should be allowed to do so. There's nothing wrong with charity. It should come as no surprise, however, that many, many people do not do so.
Why not pay people for their organs. Obviously, no one can sell their heart, or lung, or whatever -- it's just too useful a thing to have if you plan to go on living. But, why couldn't people be paid to allow their organs to be harvested after their death (or clinical death)?
No cash would change hands until after the organs were actually harvested: this makes it an honest transaction for buyer and seller. The money could then be used for burial, to settle a person's affairs, or be bequeathed to heirs.
Not everyone would be interested in such a deal, of course, but many more people would be than currently donate organs. Moreover, the incentive of money would get many more people to consider allowing their organs to be used after their death. There would be a monetary incentive to get people thinking, and thinking leads to taking action.
"Charity begins at home," as the saying goes. Selling organs, and therefore allowing your organs to do some good for those close to you, your loved ones, would certainly encourage more people.
Organ transplant, as it is, is so expensive, that the added expense of the organ's price is likely to raise the price of the treatment hardly at all. Selling your organs would be no "get rich quick scheme"; rather, it would take the place of a burial insurance policy, or offer a small nest egg to a person's family.
To those who bristle at the notion of an "economic transaction," I say, get over it. As it stands, depending on donors allows thousands of people to die each year. Are these deaths under such a "noble system" preferable to a market in organs? I say it's just the opposite.
The great shame is that this has not yet been implemented, and that so many die as a result of an "altruistic" system.
Is there any difference in the purchasing of Microsoft products from the Clinton administration to Bush's? That's what I'm talking about. The U.S. government is Microsoft's biggest customer.
All the while that the Clinton administration was crying monopoly, it was writing gigantic checks to that monopoly.
The Roman Empire began filling the ranks of its armies with foreigners from present day Germany. Soon, these men began moving up in rank and leading troops. The Germanic peoples began to learn the Roman way of doing things. Eventually, Rome fell at the hands of those they had trained.
Now, no analogy is perfect; but essentially Rome outsourced its workforce to third worlders.
I don't know about anyone else, but this hurts my eyes.
Don't expect the government to destroy any information once collected. There is a registry in the US for people purchasing long guns (shotguns and rifles). It's used to perform a background check, and names on it are only supposed to be kept -- by law -- for a limited time (I believe 6 months). However, names are never taken off the list.
Political conditions change: that's why the wise worry about government lists. It's all warm and fuzzy when we talk about catching crooks, and most people in the US would find the notion of not trusting their goverment a crack-pot idea. What they never dream of happening is political conditions changing drastically within the space of a couple of years because of some "crisis."
When that happens, it suddenly becomes a very big deal what kind of information the government has been trusted with -- and by then it's too late.
It's sort of like trusting your neighbor with your house key while you go away on business for six months; only, while away, the neighbor dies and his heroin addict son gets a hold of the key (the black sheep of the family whom they never talk about). What do you think happens then?
Go ahead, trust the government without reservation! But, Washington, Jefferson, et al, understood why such trust is foolish.
But this has been the irony all along with the antitrust trial. The government is on one hand attacking M$ as a monopoly, and on the other hand using its buying power and bureaucracy to promote the platform.
How many times have you asked for a form from a government office, only to be told it is available as a Word document and nothing else. It's happened to me. (I'm not necessarily talking about forms on their Web sites, I'm talking about anything a secretary or other "administrative assistant" might try to send you. These people act as if Word is some kind of universal format.)
Rather than attack M$, the government should do everything it can to use open formats -- or at least alternatives to Windows files.
This voting should definitely have been implemented as a Web application. If banks can do it, so can the government!
If some artists want their songs sold only as part of an album, let them. If it's a bad idea, they'll be hurting themselves.
<sarcasm>
Oh wait, perhaps I, the consumer, will be "hurt" too, if I am "forced" to purchase an entire album, when all I really want is the one song I "just can't live without."
</sarcasm>