I'll choose a democratically elected government over a plutocratic regime of corporations (=markets) any day.
Them wanting to control the IT market
Not all government control over the markets is bad. It's a fact that a capitalist society cannot self-regulate - it's natural growth is always towards a monopoly. This unhealthy growth cannot be curbed by some internal mechanism inherent in he markets (as libertarians like to believe) and external control is always required at some stage.
It only appears so because Microsoft's is found on practically every desktop and on the majority of server computer too.
If Linux were as popular as Windows, you can bet we'd be in the same situation. Why? Because the problem is only partially software. The main problem is the clueless user and to a lesser extent the feature bloat required by the users.
Let's imagine that the open source zealots got their wish and Microsoft was broken down or, even better, stopped selling software altogether and Linux would suddenly be the mainstay operating system both for desktops and servers. Linux would suddenly be truly big business. Corporations would develop their own distributions and make them as feature rich and easy to use as the Windows was. In other words the (alleged) superior security of linux distributions would be broken down in a day: The systems would enable logging in as root and would run all the conceivable daemons by default to avoid problems with third-party software.
But getting back to the article. If operating systems were to become a government supervised commodity with stiff penalties for those who produce insecure software, would you be prepared to accept that open source companies (or the copyright owner, FSF) would get fined for every security breach - just like the manufacturers of proprietary software?
I don't agree with your first principles, either philosophically, personally, or historically.
That's OK. You're still wrong on all accounts.
The modern atheistic regimes have killed more people than all of the "religious" wars in history.
Show me the statistics.
You'll probably include the blatantly atheistic Pol Pot, Hitler and the Stalin inspired eastern-bloc of the 20th century. Feel free to add your non-religious favourites to this crowd. Once you are done with the atheistic nations, I'll make my case by invoking all the nationalistic/tribal wars - down to the ancients wars of biblical times and before that. I think you can hardly surpass this number of atrocities.
Why should I collaborate with you if I can get what I want without it?
Because being collaborative benefits you in the long run. Why do you think modern societies built on collaboration are mostly peaceful and so successful? No. It's not because of laws imposed and enforced from above either by a secular or a divine authority. Societies are collaborative and peaceful because the most people benefit from it.
It's because collaboration (which should not be confused with charity) pays off. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. The danger of getting ripped off is outweighed by the obvious benefits.
I've been trying to make this point here before but open source, linux in particular, is a religion here. You'll always get moderated down.
These zealots like to point out that linux is almost devoid of remote holes, viruses or worms. What they fail to realize is that if linux had the same market share as Windows, all the goddamn script-kiddies and black hats would concentrate on linux instead of the MS Windows. And given the errata of the most popular linux distros, they'd have a field day!
I claim there is no objective moral reference (first principles, as you call it). I think that's the only intellectually honest answer to the human condition.
"Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we chose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate who butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It's us. Only us." (Alan Moore, Watchmen)
I wish religions could be as honest about themselves.
Atheists commit no more crimes than the rest of the population. The moral center of religions is, after all, a human invention and is fundamentally as void of objective morality (or how do you feel about the atrocities that have been/are being/can be/will be carried out based on the "religion of love" aka christianity) as any belief system.
which ends up either in anarchy or totalitarianism.
A false dichotomy. You've completely missed the benefits of collaboration.
Then they decided technology was bad and Allah good and anything not done in Allah's name (i.e. science) bad.
Given GWB's attitude towards science (stem-cell research, genetics, etc.), the fact that 83% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and only 28% percent believe that evolution is valid, and that 58% of the population thinks that in order to be a moral person you have to be a christian, where do you think America is heading right now?
So if I just went out and beat the crap out of them or shot them myself that would be ok? Ok , whatever...
Sure but prepare to be treated like a criminal and locked up so that you don't pose a risk to the society.
Don't be naive. Of course criminals think about getting caught. Why do you think they bother with ski masks, getaway cars etc etc??!
That's exactly the reason why they think they won't be caught: they think they're prepared.
Yeah , that'd be why in arab countries where you can lose a hand just for stealing they have such a rampant crimewave , unlike the peaceful west and its soppy liberal policies.
And you have any reliable statistics to back up this claim?
That's no excuse. Killing and raping fellow human beings is also in the human nature (check the secular history, Bible or any major religion for a reference).
If you suffer because of what someone does
to do you they should suffer equally in return.
No. I can sort of understand crimes of passion of individuals (like avenging a crime in blind rage), but having your revenge carried out for you by the nameless and faceless ranks of the society in a cold and calculated fashion is just horrific. That's revenge via proxy. Juvenile, cruel and a coward's way.
If they don't then what exactly is the deterrant?
Losing one's freedom? Ever been locked up for a day, a week or a month. Imagine spending years like that.
Anyway, you keep using the word "deterrant" as it if it were an solution to crime. But can you tell me how well exactly has the ultimate deterrant, the death penalty, worked? Did torture and slavery work in the past? Innocent people have been put to death, death penalties cost more than a life sentence in jail and it still does not stop people from raping and murdering each other.
Deterrant implies that the criminal stops to think the consequences of getting caught. But if he thinks he's going to get caught in the first place, why would he even commit the crime! No. Deterrant as a crime fighting idea does not work because the criminals believe that they'll never be caught.
Furthermore, draconian punishments only promote ruthlessness in criminals. Why leave any witnesses when they can put you in "federal pound-ass prison"?
If it wasn't then what would be the fucking point of it???!
Prisons primary function is to to stop the criminals harming the society any further. Thinking about it in terms of revenge is just juvenile - just like any revenge is.
anti-SPEWS folks - is they think they have a right to send me e-mail and that I must accept that e-mail.
Nope. I hate spam myself, but since my personal SPEWS incident is has become a lesser nuisance. A bit like getting verbally abused by an angry drunk on the street becomes a lesser nuisance after you've been seriously beaten.
they think they have a right to send me e-mail and that I must accept that e-mail. I quite disagree.
Uhhhh, what do the salem witch trials have to do with being "with us or against us"? You're mixing metaphors.
I don't care if I'm mixing the metaphors. You are taking a fanatical stance here. Everything you do is right. You can do no wrong. You really don't see anything wrong with that attitude?
You are giving money to an organization which supports spam.
So, give me a surefire way to avoid getting on your witch-list? ISP hopping is not an option and neither is changing my e-mail address and url.
If you seriously argue that ISP, e-mail and url hopping is my only option, that's just sabotaging my right to use the net in an effortless way. Spammers sure are annoying but they don't make me do that.
More apt than I think you intend.
Then why are you causing me more trouble than the spammers? In your holy self-righteousness you are simply absolving yourselves of any collateral damage your little crusade is causing - like someone waging a holy war. You really think you are on a mission from god?
I read convinced me a little more that you are, indeed, a spammer who has been caught in the SPEWS net
Oooh... you "scanned" my posts in this thread. Did you read any of my previous threads? I suppose not.
But yes, you wield the unlogic of a true believer with a commendable skill: if you are not with us, you're against us. Let's go burn all those witches right away.
My gripe with you assholes is that you cost me money. Not because I spam, but because I subscribed to a network that got banned.
"Oh, too bad. Try smarthosting", "But it's not fair", "Yes, it is. Effective too."
So you are right and everybody else is wrong. Way to make friends net-nazi. Oh, but I forgot. You are not trying to make friends. You are on a mission from the god to save the world - who cares if the world wants to be saved in the first place.
You'd sound like an "angry spammer" too the e-mail you bought became unsable - not because of the spammers - but because a fucking flock of zealots decided to block the entire subnet.
I couldn't care less about the kernel. Just how much performance do you think you could potentially gain in improving the kernel? Kernel is irrelevant.
You need to optimize the applications and, if you are dealing with serious mathematically heavy programs, you need a compiler to really bang the hardware bits.
To put it bluntly, GCC is a worthless piece of shite on anything else than a ix86 architecture. Furthermore, on ix86 arch the Intel compiler beats the shit out of GCC and a Linux version is available at an affordable price.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, GPL tends to do that.
Way to go Wine. Bow to the pressure from open source zealots, ghange to GPL and drive away businesses.
Them wanting to control the IT market
Not all government control over the markets is bad. It's a fact that a capitalist society cannot self-regulate - it's natural growth is always towards a monopoly. This unhealthy growth cannot be curbed by some internal mechanism inherent in he markets (as libertarians like to believe) and external control is always required at some stage.
It only appears so because Microsoft's is found on practically every desktop and on the majority of server computer too.
If Linux were as popular as Windows, you can bet we'd be in the same situation. Why? Because the problem is only partially software. The main problem is the clueless user and to a lesser extent the feature bloat required by the users.
Let's imagine that the open source zealots got their wish and Microsoft was broken down or, even better, stopped selling software altogether and Linux would suddenly be the mainstay operating system both for desktops and servers. Linux would suddenly be truly big business. Corporations would develop their own distributions and make them as feature rich and easy to use as the Windows was. In other words the (alleged) superior security of linux distributions would be broken down in a day: The systems would enable logging in as root and would run all the conceivable daemons by default to avoid problems with third-party software.
But getting back to the article. If operating systems were to become a government supervised commodity with stiff penalties for those who produce insecure software, would you be prepared to accept that open source companies (or the copyright owner, FSF) would get fined for every security breach - just like the manufacturers of proprietary software?
That's OK. You're still wrong on all accounts.
The modern atheistic regimes have killed more people than all of the "religious" wars in history.
Show me the statistics.
You'll probably include the blatantly atheistic Pol Pot, Hitler and the Stalin inspired eastern-bloc of the 20th century. Feel free to add your non-religious favourites to this crowd. Once you are done with the atheistic nations, I'll make my case by invoking all the nationalistic/tribal wars - down to the ancients wars of biblical times and before that. I think you can hardly surpass this number of atrocities.
Why should I collaborate with you if I can get what I want without it?
Because being collaborative benefits you in the long run. Why do you think modern societies built on collaboration are mostly peaceful and so successful? No. It's not because of laws imposed and enforced from above either by a secular or a divine authority. Societies are collaborative and peaceful because the most people benefit from it.
It's because collaboration (which should not be confused with charity) pays off. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. The danger of getting ripped off is outweighed by the obvious benefits.
I've been trying to make this point here before but open source, linux in particular, is a religion here. You'll always get moderated down.
These zealots like to point out that linux is almost devoid of remote holes, viruses or worms. What they fail to realize is that if linux had the same market share as Windows, all the goddamn script-kiddies and black hats would concentrate on linux instead of the MS Windows. And given the errata of the most popular linux distros, they'd have a field day!
I wish religions could be as honest about themselves.
Atheists commit no more crimes than the rest of the population. The moral center of religions is, after all, a human invention and is fundamentally as void of objective morality (or how do you feel about the atrocities that have been/are being/can be/will be carried out based on the "religion of love" aka christianity) as any belief system.
which ends up either in anarchy or totalitarianism.
A false dichotomy. You've completely missed the benefits of collaboration.
They are not my statistics. Check out the CNN link.
Given GWB's attitude towards science (stem-cell research, genetics, etc.), the fact that 83% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus and only 28% percent believe that evolution is valid, and that 58% of the population thinks that in order to be a moral person you have to be a christian, where do you think America is heading right now?
Sure but prepare to be treated like a criminal and locked up so that you don't pose a risk to the society.
Don't be naive. Of course criminals think about getting caught. Why do you think they bother with ski masks, getaway cars etc etc??!
That's exactly the reason why they think they won't be caught: they think they're prepared.
Yeah , that'd be why in arab countries where you can lose a hand just for stealing they have such a rampant crimewave , unlike the peaceful west and its soppy liberal policies.
And you have any reliable statistics to back up this claim?
That's no excuse. Killing and raping fellow human beings is also in the human nature (check the secular history, Bible or any major religion for a reference).
If you suffer because of what someone does to do you they should suffer equally in return. No. I can sort of understand crimes of passion of individuals (like avenging a crime in blind rage), but having your revenge carried out for you by the nameless and faceless ranks of the society in a cold and calculated fashion is just horrific. That's revenge via proxy. Juvenile, cruel and a coward's way.
If they don't then what exactly is the deterrant?
Losing one's freedom? Ever been locked up for a day, a week or a month. Imagine spending years like that.
Anyway, you keep using the word "deterrant" as it if it were an solution to crime. But can you tell me how well exactly has the ultimate deterrant, the death penalty, worked? Did torture and slavery work in the past? Innocent people have been put to death, death penalties cost more than a life sentence in jail and it still does not stop people from raping and murdering each other.
Deterrant implies that the criminal stops to think the consequences of getting caught. But if he thinks he's going to get caught in the first place, why would he even commit the crime! No. Deterrant as a crime fighting idea does not work because the criminals believe that they'll never be caught.
Furthermore, draconian punishments only promote ruthlessness in criminals. Why leave any witnesses when they can put you in "federal pound-ass prison"?
Prisons primary function is to to stop the criminals harming the society any further. Thinking about it in terms of revenge is just juvenile - just like any revenge is.
Nope. I hate spam myself, but since my personal SPEWS incident is has become a lesser nuisance. A bit like getting verbally abused by an angry drunk on the street becomes a lesser nuisance after you've been seriously beaten.
they think they have a right to send me e-mail and that I must accept that e-mail. I quite disagree.
Ever heard of whitelists?
Ok.
Tell me how an ISP can be 100% sure that the new user application they just received will not be used for spamming?
That's fundamentally what SPEWS is requiring of the ISPs.
I don't care if I'm mixing the metaphors. You are taking a fanatical stance here. Everything you do is right. You can do no wrong. You really don't see anything wrong with that attitude?
You are giving money to an organization which supports spam.
So, give me a surefire way to avoid getting on your witch-list? ISP hopping is not an option and neither is changing my e-mail address and url.
If you seriously argue that ISP, e-mail and url hopping is my only option, that's just sabotaging my right to use the net in an effortless way. Spammers sure are annoying but they don't make me do that.
More apt than I think you intend.
Then why are you causing me more trouble than the spammers? In your holy self-righteousness you are simply absolving yourselves of any collateral damage your little crusade is causing - like someone waging a holy war. You really think you are on a mission from god?
But yes, you wield the unlogic of a true believer with a commendable skill: if you are not with us, you're against us. Let's go burn all those witches right away.
My gripe with you assholes is that you cost me money. Not because I spam, but because I subscribed to a network that got banned.
"Oh, too bad. Try smarthosting", "But it's not fair", "Yes, it is. Effective too."
So you are right and everybody else is wrong. Way to make friends net-nazi. Oh, but I forgot. You are not trying to make friends. You are on a mission from the god to save the world - who cares if the world wants to be saved in the first place.
You'd sound like an "angry spammer" too the e-mail you bought became unsable - not because of the spammers - but because a fucking flock of zealots decided to block the entire subnet.
Ok. So your purpose is to get the end-users pissed off at you instead of the spammers.
Well done. I'm one of them. Your cure is worse than the disesase, you fucking net-nazis!
Ok. No analogies.
Fuck you you SPEWS assholes! You blocked a perfect ISP for me.
I regard SPEWS as pure terrorism and I keep reporting you to the feds as such. Maybe some day they'll crack down on you.
I'd rather have spam than you.
Ok. And what's banning a very popular site like something awful in the bigger picture?
After all, when "we" are fighting spam, it doesn't matter if we use draconian measures...
And when you buy these computing platforms you speak of, you can you not afford a native compiler?
If there is any red tape to get off the list.
Most spam-blockers seem to have an implicit policy of never unblocking the IPs.
It's obvious that you do not read Slashdot at -1.
I couldn't care less about the kernel. Just how much performance do you think you could potentially gain in improving the kernel? Kernel is irrelevant.
You need to optimize the applications and, if you are dealing with serious mathematically heavy programs, you need a compiler to really bang the hardware bits.
To put it bluntly, GCC is a worthless piece of shite on anything else than a ix86 architecture. Furthermore, on ix86 arch the Intel compiler beats the shit out of GCC and a Linux version is available at an affordable price.
Of if you've got the money to burn just to cover your ass (and don't give a shit about the future of Linux)?
So, could this be the reason why the successful DoS attack on SCO by an overly zealous open source advocate was so successful?