Here's an idea everyone- show up at these things impeccably dressed, clean cut, and be a perfect gentleman(or lady); wear only a small linux penguin pin like our lovely "patriots" in the US gov't are so fond of doing these days with the american flag pin. That will impress people far more than a freakshow, no matter how valid your ideas are. Rowdyness, immaturity, and messyness do not impress. They intimidate, scare, and irritate.
Your idea sounds good at first blush, but what is it you are trying to achieve? Your goal seems to be to attempt to gain legitimacy in a very general sort of way before making any points. I don't know of any historical example of an effective social movement whose goal was to establish legitimacy for idea X in the context of social structure Y without changing said social structure.
Changing an already established idea about something is necessarily a painful process. Trying to fade into the background will not get you noticed. It will get you ignored.
I think the problem is not a matter of technique, but of identity. I don't think we've really figured out who we are. Because of the sort of people we are, we tend to abhor conscously acting as part of a group, and when we do, we find that we're not quite so comfortable standing on the street with a sign next to that weird bearded dude with a lazy eye and a combover, wearing his stained homemade Mozilla 1.0 party T-shirt. Also, if you're in the older end of the genX crowd, you're old enough to despise the "protest anything" mentality of your 60's parents. The idea of behaving as they did, even in defense of the free exchange of ideas, is repugnant.
I think we might need to work out some of these issues before attempting any "protests", because I fear history will prove that much more is riding on our success than we might realize.
If it's about "truth", then I say "the more data, the better". For everyone. This is Slashdot, aren't we for transparency?
There have always been very important restrictions placed upon law enforcement with regard to how they acquire information and what information they may acquire. See the fourth and fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution for more information.
If a journalist's responsibility is to "the truth", what harm could there be in turning over copies of one's notes to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation?
Well, for one thing, the FBI and the current justice department have a history of abusing investigatory power; most recently, using anti-terror legislation to go after just about everyone. Do you really want the FBI data mining the work notes of every journalist in the country?
Speaking of which, if you find that your car has had a hole punched in it by something falling from the sky, do not get it repaired until you've determined the cause -- here are collectors who pay good money for cars with meteorite damage.
Now that's a business plan. I'm parking my car in India from now on.
If you talk as an individual in a matter in which your employer may have a stake
So, you honestly accept that as a litmus test for determining whether or not you have the freedom granted by the first amendment? The first amendment is about more than prayer in school, you know that, right?
As far as I am concerned, the only way this can come close to being reasonable is if he entered into an (insane) employment agreement wherein he agreed not to speak of his own accord.
They will once the OSS community start providing 0-day enterprise quality patches that actually get regression tested before being installed on mission critical servers.
Yes, because Microsoft patches have never been known to crash a server and/or fry data.
What? Can you trace for me the exact path and method of influence that brought about this "American circumstance"? If anything, it seems America has done a much better job of separating the idea of the right to bear arms from the concept of freedom.
But you can not deny that development of several huge software packages for very small market segments are not feasible without pattents.
Sure I can. Watch - Development of several huge software packages for very small market segments are feasable with copyrights. One does not need to patent radio buttons to protect the intellectual property of an accounting package written for sewing shops.
Referencing Darl's letter, I guess HfuckingP doesn't consider the trustworthiness and stability of Open Source software to be that big of a problem for enterprise customers. I can't believe they didn't come to the negotiating table.
Before you jump all over me for such a hyperbole of an analogy, no, I don't equate running an insecure machine with handing out a small arsenal to the neighborhood kids.
Agreed. Your analogy is a little more like parking a Ford Pinto in front of your house to see if it will blow up. In this context, it is much easier to determine the difference between misusing something and using something which is manifestly unsafe (Microsoft Outlook)
If we defied all the laws we didn't like, it wouldn't be much of a civilization, would it?
Well, at least in the context of the history of the United States, this civilization began through defying laws we didn't like. Whether the opponents to laws such as the Stamp Act were self-interested rabble rousers or conscientious objectors, everything we hold dear began by defiance which was not only illegal, but ultimately developed into the most dire sort of resistance to state authority.
The idea behind this republic is that the government operates at the behest of and according to the will of the people, not the other way around. The glory of America is that no matter what attempts are made to socially stratify your viewpoints by categorizing you (extremist, right winger, left winger, etc.), or, as has become immensely popular around here - the lack of a business plan (horrors!), your opinion still counts. It is the government's problem to accede to the will of the people. Everything government represents, especially the law, must necessarily reflect that purpose.
If your father-in-law is having problems getting a 2000 document to open in OfficeXP then either you're saving it wrongly or he doesn't know how to use OfficeXP. Either way, it's a user problem.
Fascinating. What kind of user problem could cause this? We produce complex styled documents (requiring user skills well above the mastery of correctly saving and retrieving documents) and have serious problems with interop between Office 2000 and XP, including randomly changing imbedded visio drawings, and all manner of style screwups. Perhaps there's an undocumented menu option, such as
that we could use to fix the problem. Clippy must have hidden the menu item since we don't use it that much. We apologize for suggesting design flaws for what is so obviously stupidity on our part.
I listened to her for years when I was a right-wing wacko. She would ban the entire Internet if she could get away with it - all to keep porno away from young, impressionable eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
Your idea sounds good at first blush, but what is it you are trying to achieve? Your goal seems to be to attempt to gain legitimacy in a very general sort of way before making any points. I don't know of any historical example of an effective social movement whose goal was to establish legitimacy for idea X in the context of social structure Y without changing said social structure.
Changing an already established idea about something is necessarily a painful process. Trying to fade into the background will not get you noticed. It will get you ignored.
I think the problem is not a matter of technique, but of identity. I don't think we've really figured out who we are. Because of the sort of people we are, we tend to abhor conscously acting as part of a group, and when we do, we find that we're not quite so comfortable standing on the street with a sign next to that weird bearded dude with a lazy eye and a combover, wearing his stained homemade Mozilla 1.0 party T-shirt. Also, if you're in the older end of the genX crowd, you're old enough to despise the "protest anything" mentality of your 60's parents. The idea of behaving as they did, even in defense of the free exchange of ideas, is repugnant.
I think we might need to work out some of these issues before attempting any "protests", because I fear history will prove that much more is riding on our success than we might realize.
There have always been very important restrictions placed upon law enforcement with regard to how they acquire information and what information they may acquire. See the fourth and fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution for more information.
If a journalist's responsibility is to "the truth", what harm could there be in turning over copies of one's notes to the FBI in the course of a criminal investigation?Well, for one thing, the FBI and the current justice department have a history of abusing investigatory power; most recently, using anti-terror legislation to go after just about everyone. Do you really want the FBI data mining the work notes of every journalist in the country?
Now that's a business plan. I'm parking my car in India from now on.
So, you honestly accept that as a litmus test for determining whether or not you have the freedom granted by the first amendment? The first amendment is about more than prayer in school, you know that, right?
As far as I am concerned, the only way this can come close to being reasonable is if he entered into an (insane) employment agreement wherein he agreed not to speak of his own accord.
Yes, because Microsoft patches have never been known to crash a server and/or fry data.
We need an astroturf moderation option.
What? Can you trace for me the exact path and method of influence that brought about this "American circumstance"? If anything, it seems America has done a much better job of separating the idea of the right to bear arms from the concept of freedom.
Sure I can. Watch - Development of several huge software packages for very small market segments are feasable with copyrights. One does not need to patent radio buttons to protect the intellectual property of an accounting package written for sewing shops.
Referencing Darl's letter, I guess HfuckingP doesn't consider the trustworthiness and stability of Open Source software to be that big of a problem for enterprise customers. I can't believe they didn't come to the negotiating table.
I guess I would have more respect for the theory if it weren't consistently confused with ozone depletion.
Before you jump all over me for such a hyperbole of an analogy, no, I don't equate running an insecure machine with handing out a small arsenal to the neighborhood kids.
Agreed. Your analogy is a little more like parking a Ford Pinto in front of your house to see if it will blow up. In this context, it is much easier to determine the difference between misusing something and using something which is manifestly unsafe (Microsoft Outlook)
"Hey, look we finally got the antenna open.. oh, wait, never mind."
I bet if Osama Bin Laden were watching he'd be cackling with laughter knowing you are destroying your own society and economy.
I think this calls for an extension of Godwin's law.
If we defied all the laws we didn't like, it wouldn't be much of a civilization, would it?
Well, at least in the context of the history of the United States, this civilization began through defying laws we didn't like. Whether the opponents to laws such as the Stamp Act were self-interested rabble rousers or conscientious objectors, everything we hold dear began by defiance which was not only illegal, but ultimately developed into the most dire sort of resistance to state authority.
The idea behind this republic is that the government operates at the behest of and according to the will of the people, not the other way around. The glory of America is that no matter what attempts are made to socially stratify your viewpoints by categorizing you (extremist, right winger, left winger, etc.), or, as has become immensely popular around here - the lack of a business plan (horrors!), your opinion still counts. It is the government's problem to accede to the will of the people. Everything government represents, especially the law, must necessarily reflect that purpose.
That is a pretty brilliant point, as is the essay.
Will I still be cool if I admit that I am a Christian and a parent?
If your father-in-law is having problems getting a 2000 document to open in OfficeXP then either you're saving it wrongly or he doesn't know how to use OfficeXP. Either way, it's a user problem.
Fascinating. What kind of user problem could cause this? We produce complex styled documents (requiring user skills well above the mastery of correctly saving and retrieving documents) and have serious problems with interop between Office 2000 and XP, including randomly changing imbedded visio drawings, and all manner of style screwups. Perhaps there's an undocumented menu option, such as
that we could use to fix the problem. Clippy must have hidden the menu item since we don't use it that much. We apologize for suggesting design flaws for what is so obviously stupidity on our part.
The merits of your statement notwithstanding, thanks for being above board about this rather than just astroturfing.
I listened to her for years when I was a right-wing wacko. She would ban the entire Internet if she could get away with it - all to keep porno away from young, impressionable eyes.
Uh, ever heard of incitement to commit a crime?
Actually, no. Could you provide some examples?
I guess the NRA can now add video games to their ever expanding list of things that kill people (guns and god excluded).
I'm confused. When somebody does something bad, is the fault of:
Prepare not the path for the child; prepare the child for the path.
I wonder what Dr. Laura would say about that little snippet. It pretty much shuts down the entire parenting impetus among the religious right.
No faith you have. Teach you I will.
The courts decide what laws are just or not. The problem is that people would like to empower themselves this right.
...government of the people, by the people, for the people...
Still looking to find a legal loophole to avoid being penalized for knowingly breaking the law. Sad.
That someone knowingly breaks an unjust law imparts it no justice.
What?? You don't trust software compiled by flying butt monkeys?