And this is precisely why control of the internet should not be moved out of the United States. Imagine what these twits could do if they had control of root servers.
And you are *far* more of the problem than you are a solution.
It is not the retailer that is having to pay that expense. Its all the other customers who have to pay higher prices. The owners and stock holders have no idea you even exist, what you're doing, or why you're doing it.
Instead, why don't you try doing your same research, purposely buy the product that *will* run on BSD, and then when you buy it, find the manager and tell him you wish the store would carry more BSD compatible equipment.
I just happen to know the manager of a big-box retailer in a near-by major city (I live in the sticks). This retailer thinks they offer the Best prices to Buy things at (hint hint). Up until a couple of years ago, this retailer stocked a selection of Linux software, mainly Suse, RedHat, and Mandrake. It wasn't a lot (5 shelves on one display section about 6 feet wide), but hey, at least it was there.
Every time a new release of Mandrake (now Madriva...at least this week) came out, I went and bought the pro package, even though I could download it for free. I figured it was necessary to show support so they would maybe expand the selection.
Then it slowly disappeared. It has now been replaced by racks of more Windows stuff.
Not long after it disappeared, I asked him why. The basic answer was because aside from me and 4 or 5 other geeks, no one else was buying it. In fact, many people straight-up asked him "why should I buy this from you when I can get it legally and still for free on the internet?"
Stores are in business for one thing, and one thing only...to make their owners (stock holders) money. Any product that doesn't turn a certain level of sales disappears. Quickly.
To get the big box retailers to carry Linux, they are going to have to be shown there is a market there AND THEY CAN MAKE MONEY DOING IT. Thousands of people can talk the talk about wanting Linux, but in the grand scheme of actually spending money on it, its a very tiny segment of us that does so.
The moral of this story is that if you want more retailers to carry more Linux, then people need to step up with their wallets and actually buy some of the stuff that is already out there.
I still get every new release of Mandriva, but now I do it via the Mandriva Club since I can't find a retailer that carries it locally. And my club membership costs me almost as much yearly as a Windows XP Home license (and I don't have to have a new license every year). So Linux does cost me money, but I want to show support so that's okay. More people need to be showing their support with pictures of dead presidents (or what ever is on the currency in your country for non-US readers). Only then will Linux offerings and support increase.
This won't happen any time soon in the US. And here's why I say that.
This past session, there was a bill in both sides of Congress that would have required all meat products to be labled as to their country of origin, etc. The industry lobby made sure the bill died. Apparently us 'mericans are too damned stupid to be trusted with such information. They don't want us to know where the meat in our burgers come from.
Are these software companies simply selling a product and should not be concerned with how it is used or are they contributing to the problems of these repressive regimes?
If, instead of an article about American software for sale, this were an article about a repressive regime using GNU/Linux on all government computer systems, would we be having this same argument? Would an article even mention the human rights issues involved?
For a real life example, if one can believe the press, China is a big user of Linux. And last I heard China is not particularly fond of human rights. So...are these software authors simply making a product and should not be concerned with how it is used, or are they contributing to the problems of these repressive regimes?
What's good for the goose, as they say, is good for the gander. If you're going to nail the bad old companies that sell software to the wall for selling it in bad countries, then those in the GNU/Linux world need to be asking themselves the same question.
Why are we still arguing over this? Wasn't a study released a few weeks ago that showed a direct corelation between the increase in temperature and the decrease in pirates sailing the seas?
I don't mind all ads. I understand that ads are what pays for a lot of the content I like to see.
What I object to is ads that block my "work flow". Your ad covers up what it is I'm trying to read. Or I have to watch your 30 second ad for a product I don't give a damn about in order to get to the content I want to see. Or your ad spawns 32 additional windows on my machine.
In the beginning, I didn't block ads. As I said above I understand that ads are what pays for a lot of content. But I finally started blocking because of what I consider to be a few bad apples in the barrel. It reached a point where ads became too obnoxious and too much of an interruption.
I bet those of you making the "but what about the animals" comments would care less about the animals if you had friends or relatives serving on a ship that could be a torpedo target.
I love animals, I'm all for ecology and protecting wildlife, etc etc. I own a big chunk of land, and I don't cut a bush or move a bolder without thinking about what it might do to the animals...and 99 percent of the time, I let the animals win. But when the choices are limited to 'humans live but animals die' and 'humans die but animals live', I'll take choice number one every time, and with no regrets what so ever.
I agree with your reasons for one building their own PC. However, that's not what the parent post was talking about. The parent post stated that building your own was good for economic reasons. And I still maintain that in the current time, one cannot build a one-time custom system cheaper than one can buy a white-box system from a big-box store. I don't care if its a cheapie $299 no-name white box or if its the latest P4 screamer with all the latest gaming components. You will NOT save money by building it yourself. And that's before you even consider the "cost" of your time to do it.
Except for the notebook I am typing this reply from, I have personally built every computer I've owned since 1989 except one...that's about 10 computers just for myself. I've built dozens more for clients. And since about 1998 or so, the cost of doing so was always higher than what it would have cost to buy something similar "off the rack". When a client comes to me now and asks about having something built, and unless they need very specific components, I take them over to Circuit City, Best Buy, or Walmart and show them what to buy off the shelf.
The only reason left these days to build your own is if you want specific components, or you just want the experience. Economic reasons to build your own died when Walmart and other big-box stores started offering PCs for $299.
Yes, you are generally not under oath when you are being questioned by the police.
However, in some states in the US (and I know for sure in both Kentucky and Indiana) lying to a law enforcement officer is a crime in itself. For example, when a police officer stops you on the street and asks your name, if you give anything other than your real name you have just commited a crime for which you can be arrested. And if I'm not mistaken, these laws have been upheld in the Supreme Court.
In short, lying to the police, in either the US or UK, is not a smart move if you are otherwise innocent.
I guess I'm weird. I want applications that do one job, one job only, and does it damned good. I don't want applications that attempt to do everything, but in the process doesn't do anything as well as it could if it were more focused. Do-it-all applications tend to be jack of all trades, but master of none.
If I had a dollar for every time in the last 25 years that I've heard someone claim either Microsoft was dead or IBM was dead, I'd have enough money to buy both companies. Neither one of them is dead, and neither one of them is even gasping. As I said a couple of weeks ago the last time a story like this appeared on Slashdot, the only company that has reinvented itself more often than Microsoft is IBM. And they will both adapt to a world with Google in it. They aren't going to kill Google, and Google isn't going to kill them. Move along, there's nothing to see here.
This is not meant to be a troll. I love the space program and everything about it. But I do have a serious question to make sure I'm not overlooking something.
At this stage of the game, what is it that we can do on Mars with a manned mission that we cannot accomplish better, cheaper, and safer, with a robotic mission?
I really don't see a point in a manned mission to Mars until we've been on the Moon long enough to have a permanent station of some kind there.
As much as I loved Apollo, I'm not sure I see that it really accomplished anything with manned missions that a robotic mission couldn't have done. Especially since if I'm not mistaken only one or two real 'scientists' went on any of those missions.
I swear I've been hearing that song, and usually from Sun, for the last 15 years. The verses and lead singer may change, but the refrain always starts out "the PC is dead". Funny...I don't see any of the PC manufacturers, especially the ones who make notebooks, singing along.
Right on, dude. I wish I had mod points to give you this week.
The only computer company that has reinvented itself more times than Microsoft is IBM. And both companies are, contrary to popular belief around here, very far from dead. They aren't even sick or gasping.
You must be new here, and obviously do not know the rules. Let me help you.
AMD is always good, no matter what they do. Intel is always bad, no matter what they do. Apple is always good, no matter what they do. Microsoft is always bad, no matter what they do. Steve Jobs is always right and the sun shines out his rectum, even when he's wrong. Bill Gates is wrong and is the spawn of the Devil, even when he's right.
These rules apply even in cases where one entity does something, and then the other entity does the exact same thing two weeks later.
And finally, my reply and any like it will always be moded -1 'troll' because the majority of readers here do not want to admit they are this biased.
But you could still be charged with either trespassing or unlawful entry. While neither is as bad as breaking and entering, they are still criminal charges.
Unless some of the kids have been caught doing this before, I think anything beyond school detention is overkill. And if criminal charges are going to be brought against the kids, criminal charges should also be brought against the security administrator.
First, I will agree that felony charges here is rather extreme, and someone isn't thinking. A few days of detention (for both the students and the security administrator) would be more appropriate.
But the fact that the passwords were on the back of the iBooks does not mean everyone was free to use them at will.
I can tape the key to my house on to the front door of my house, and while that is extreme stupidity on my part, that does not give you permission to unlock the door and come inside.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is precisely why control of the internet should not be moved out of the United States. Imagine what these twits could do if they had control of root servers.
And you are *far* more of the problem than you are a solution.
It is not the retailer that is having to pay that expense. Its all the other customers who have to pay higher prices. The owners and stock holders have no idea you even exist, what you're doing, or why you're doing it.
Instead, why don't you try doing your same research, purposely buy the product that *will* run on BSD, and then when you buy it, find the manager and tell him you wish the store would carry more BSD compatible equipment.
I just happen to know the manager of a big-box retailer in a near-by major city (I live in the sticks). This retailer thinks they offer the Best prices to Buy things at (hint hint). Up until a couple of years ago, this retailer stocked a selection of Linux software, mainly Suse, RedHat, and Mandrake. It wasn't a lot (5 shelves on one display section about 6 feet wide), but hey, at least it was there.
Every time a new release of Mandrake (now Madriva...at least this week) came out, I went and bought the pro package, even though I could download it for free. I figured it was necessary to show support so they would maybe expand the selection.
Then it slowly disappeared. It has now been replaced by racks of more Windows stuff.
Not long after it disappeared, I asked him why. The basic answer was because aside from me and 4 or 5 other geeks, no one else was buying it. In fact, many people straight-up asked him "why should I buy this from you when I can get it legally and still for free on the internet?"
Stores are in business for one thing, and one thing only...to make their owners (stock holders) money. Any product that doesn't turn a certain level of sales disappears. Quickly.
To get the big box retailers to carry Linux, they are going to have to be shown there is a market there AND THEY CAN MAKE MONEY DOING IT. Thousands of people can talk the talk about wanting Linux, but in the grand scheme of actually spending money on it, its a very tiny segment of us that does so.
The moral of this story is that if you want more retailers to carry more Linux, then people need to step up with their wallets and actually buy some of the stuff that is already out there.
I still get every new release of Mandriva, but now I do it via the Mandriva Club since I can't find a retailer that carries it locally. And my club membership costs me almost as much yearly as a Windows XP Home license (and I don't have to have a new license every year). So Linux does cost me money, but I want to show support so that's okay. More people need to be showing their support with pictures of dead presidents (or what ever is on the currency in your country for non-US readers). Only then will Linux offerings and support increase.
Farmer Jones has 12 sheep. All but 4 die. How many sheep does Farmer Jones have left?
You would be amazed how many people will get this wrong the first time they answer it.
This won't happen any time soon in the US. And here's why I say that.
This past session, there was a bill in both sides of Congress that would have required all meat products to be labled as to their country of origin, etc. The industry lobby made sure the bill died. Apparently us 'mericans are too damned stupid to be trusted with such information. They don't want us to know where the meat in our burgers come from.
Are these software companies simply selling a product and should not be concerned with how it is used or are they contributing to the problems of these repressive regimes?
If, instead of an article about American software for sale, this were an article about a repressive regime using GNU/Linux on all government computer systems, would we be having this same argument? Would an article even mention the human rights issues involved?
For a real life example, if one can believe the press, China is a big user of Linux. And last I heard China is not particularly fond of human rights. So...are these software authors simply making a product and should not be concerned with how it is used, or are they contributing to the problems of these repressive regimes?
What's good for the goose, as they say, is good for the gander. If you're going to nail the bad old companies that sell software to the wall for selling it in bad countries, then those in the GNU/Linux world need to be asking themselves the same question.
Why are we still arguing over this? Wasn't a study released a few weeks ago that showed a direct corelation between the increase in temperature and the decrease in pirates sailing the seas?
I don't mind all ads. I understand that ads are what pays for a lot of the content I like to see.
What I object to is ads that block my "work flow". Your ad covers up what it is I'm trying to read. Or I have to watch your 30 second ad for a product I don't give a damn about in order to get to the content I want to see. Or your ad spawns 32 additional windows on my machine.
In the beginning, I didn't block ads. As I said above I understand that ads are what pays for a lot of content. But I finally started blocking because of what I consider to be a few bad apples in the barrel. It reached a point where ads became too obnoxious and too much of an interruption.
I bet those of you making the "but what about the animals" comments would care less about the animals if you had friends or relatives serving on a ship that could be a torpedo target.
I love animals, I'm all for ecology and protecting wildlife, etc etc. I own a big chunk of land, and I don't cut a bush or move a bolder without thinking about what it might do to the animals...and 99 percent of the time, I let the animals win. But when the choices are limited to 'humans live but animals die' and 'humans die but animals live', I'll take choice number one every time, and with no regrets what so ever.
I agree with your reasons for one building their own PC. However, that's not what the parent post was talking about. The parent post stated that building your own was good for economic reasons. And I still maintain that in the current time, one cannot build a one-time custom system cheaper than one can buy a white-box system from a big-box store. I don't care if its a cheapie $299 no-name white box or if its the latest P4 screamer with all the latest gaming components. You will NOT save money by building it yourself. And that's before you even consider the "cost" of your time to do it.
Except for the notebook I am typing this reply from, I have personally built every computer I've owned since 1989 except one...that's about 10 computers just for myself. I've built dozens more for clients. And since about 1998 or so, the cost of doing so was always higher than what it would have cost to buy something similar "off the rack". When a client comes to me now and asks about having something built, and unless they need very specific components, I take them over to Circuit City, Best Buy, or Walmart and show them what to buy off the shelf.
The only reason left these days to build your own is if you want specific components, or you just want the experience. Economic reasons to build your own died when Walmart and other big-box stores started offering PCs for $299.
Yes, you are generally not under oath when you are being questioned by the police.
However, in some states in the US (and I know for sure in both Kentucky and Indiana) lying to a law enforcement officer is a crime in itself. For example, when a police officer stops you on the street and asks your name, if you give anything other than your real name you have just commited a crime for which you can be arrested. And if I'm not mistaken, these laws have been upheld in the Supreme Court.
In short, lying to the police, in either the US or UK, is not a smart move if you are otherwise innocent.
I guess I'm weird. I want applications that do one job, one job only, and does it damned good. I don't want applications that attempt to do everything, but in the process doesn't do anything as well as it could if it were more focused. Do-it-all applications tend to be jack of all trades, but master of none.
If I had a dollar for every time in the last 25 years that I've heard someone claim either Microsoft was dead or IBM was dead, I'd have enough money to buy both companies. Neither one of them is dead, and neither one of them is even gasping. As I said a couple of weeks ago the last time a story like this appeared on Slashdot, the only company that has reinvented itself more often than Microsoft is IBM. And they will both adapt to a world with Google in it. They aren't going to kill Google, and Google isn't going to kill them. Move along, there's nothing to see here.
Okay, I can't resist...even though it goes against my better judgement, someone's gotta say it, and it might as well be me.
Just imagine a beowulf cluster of these...
This is not meant to be a troll. I love the space program and everything about it. But I do have a serious question to make sure I'm not overlooking something.
At this stage of the game, what is it that we can do on Mars with a manned mission that we cannot accomplish better, cheaper, and safer, with a robotic mission?
I really don't see a point in a manned mission to Mars until we've been on the Moon long enough to have a permanent station of some kind there.
As much as I loved Apollo, I'm not sure I see that it really accomplished anything with manned missions that a robotic mission couldn't have done. Especially since if I'm not mistaken only one or two real 'scientists' went on any of those missions.
I swear I've been hearing that song, and usually from Sun, for the last 15 years. The verses and lead singer may change, but the refrain always starts out "the PC is dead". Funny...I don't see any of the PC manufacturers, especially the ones who make notebooks, singing along.
Right on, dude. I wish I had mod points to give you this week.
The only computer company that has reinvented itself more times than Microsoft is IBM. And both companies are, contrary to popular belief around here, very far from dead. They aren't even sick or gasping.
We also need BFR..."Big Fucking Rock".
Hey dude, pass what ever you're drinking and smoking over here and let me have a hit...
SCO wasn't relevant 20 years ago when they actually had a product...why should they matter now? :-)
You must be new here, and obviously do not know the rules. Let me help you.
AMD is always good, no matter what they do.
Intel is always bad, no matter what they do.
Apple is always good, no matter what they do.
Microsoft is always bad, no matter what they do.
Steve Jobs is always right and the sun shines out his rectum, even when he's wrong.
Bill Gates is wrong and is the spawn of the Devil, even when he's right.
These rules apply even in cases where one entity does something, and then the other entity does the exact same thing two weeks later.
And finally, my reply and any like it will always be moded -1 'troll' because the majority of readers here do not want to admit they are this biased.
But you could still be charged with either trespassing or unlawful entry. While neither is as bad as breaking and entering, they are still criminal charges.
Unless some of the kids have been caught doing this before, I think anything beyond school detention is overkill. And if criminal charges are going to be brought against the kids, criminal charges should also be brought against the security administrator.
First, I will agree that felony charges here is rather extreme, and someone isn't thinking. A few days of detention (for both the students and the security administrator) would be more appropriate.
But the fact that the passwords were on the back of the iBooks does not mean everyone was free to use them at will.
I can tape the key to my house on to the front door of my house, and while that is extreme stupidity on my part, that does not give you permission to unlock the door and come inside.
I have a feeling that Intel and a few other parts manufacturers are going to decree that this voids their warranty.
And the fact that this is done out of the box and without the user's knowledge, yes, its a bad thing.