Those individuals have nothing to say - it isn't about their systems, and the ones who DO pay for the systems are chosing what sytems they're gonna be paying for. Read the post, their not making it mandatory that people in Brazil use OS, their just chosing what stuff the goverment is gonna use. As someone said, it's the same as deciding that the goverment will use Ford cars instead of Mercedeces to deliver milk. Oh, and:
The minute you take choice out of the hands of individuals, and place it in the hands of an organization, even a democratic organization, you oppress the minority who would have made some other choice.
...people like me? Please explain. Also, I'll be dead before I work in an office.
And the end users really don't have anything to say here, since it's not their system things will run on. You can't blaim your neighbour for running Mac OS 9 when you spend 5 minutes e-mailing something at his comp, because your choice is being taken away? You deal with what you get, and when you're working with your own stuff, you chose what you want.
I really don't see what's wrong with providing guidelines to what has to happen with money you (as a goverment) provide to departments...
Yes (appart from that that wouldn't really be important... this thing *does* have serious consequences for Linux/FS). And your problem with that is...? I think it's normal that you decide what you pay/don't pay for.
No I wouldn't. Any institution, including goverment, is free to chose what stuff they wanna use. I'd think Windows was a very, very stupid choice of course, but they have all right to say that their employees have to use software they want them to use. I don't imagine your boss'd like it if you'd come to the office with your own OS CD's, hardware, etc., and demand that he pays for it. They're basically deciding what software they're gonna buy for their employees (goverment workers). I think you're the one making "sophistic dramatizations": "Oh no! OS is about choice! They're taking it away from their people! Dirty Stalinists!".
Erm.. you're wrong. The point is that that "choice" you speak of was made. This is all about Brazil's goverment - they can decide for themselves if they want everything OS or not, and they did, which is just as much a choice as chosing to buy Windoze computers/software. As long as they don't make it mandatory for Brazil's inhabitants to use OSS, they're only chosing what software they themselves want to use - you can't be against that, can you?
[i]It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.[/i]
I don't think so. I think the main thing here is that stuff needs to be cheap (Brazil's a poor country), and has to be able to do the job - not necessaraly in the best way possible. FS is definetly free money-wise, and because techs can get the source too, any specific needs Brazil might have can cheaply be added. Also, don't forget, the sooner the mass of the people use open source, the sooner those open source apps will become the "best for the job", as people start contributing.
Oh yes, with Brazil's *new* president/goverment, it wouldn't suprise me if there's an ideological bit involved, too, which, I think, is good.
Ok, so what about Io? I know it's not as interesting as Europa from a "there might be life there" point of view, but the same goes for Calisto and Ganymedes. Is it just so hard to gather the power to orbit all four Galilean moons that they're not even gonna try?
Hohoho! Read the post well! I was saying most people believe... etc. - which I think is ignorant as well as bad for the reasons you described, because if an induvidual'd try to that, they would mind, even though the person I was replying to was saying you don't have a right to privacy in public places. Easy now, we're on the same side her.:) That, and.. I definatly do not live in a police state (man, pot is legal here:P), and I like it.:)
My point is that there's more to privacy than just being seen in public places. The author of the post I replied on stated that in public areas you have no right whatsoever to privacy. That is not the case. You always, everywhere, have your right to privacy, but sometimes, you willing give some of your privacy up - when I go outside I let people see and tape me. Because it's willing, it is not a violation. The moment you do or say something outside, you make it public bussiness, that means you willingly give up your privacy for the moment, but not that you don't have your rights any longer on other subjects. This is not just about the camera's.
The question is if your homeland's security needs a bunch of webcams. Terrorists (the excuse for everything these days) are too smart to be fooled by normal security camera's, and this will be no different. You shouldn't put a very doubtful result for security above the fact that you're creating a state in which "patriots" spy on their neighbours, reporting anything they think is bad.
Where did I say I was against this webcam idea? It's true, when going outside, you willing let others see you, and thus, a camera isn't a problem either. But again, that doesn't mean you don't have a right to privacy, as the original post said. I am against the idea, btw, but only because of what the second replier to the original post mentioned: it's having people spy on their neighbours etc.
No it isn't. Cite the part of the constitution that says "We have the right to privacy wherever we go."...
I know this is a touchy subject for some of you out there, but:
The Constitution isn't perfect. Which is why you can make amendments in the first place, and why in most countries, the constitution can even be altered.
I'm not talking about your legal rights here, I'm talking about your moral rights, which are what the law should be modelled after - what is right and what isn't? Just that something isn't in the law doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
There is a difference to watching me on a street corner, and taking away someones right to privacy when he's in a public place. When I'm outside, I know people can watch me. If I don't like that, I don't go outside - and I am outside, so that means I don't mind (and if I don't mind, my right to privacy is not violated, even though I do have less privacy) . But that doesn't mean I don't have a right to privacy when I'm outside (which is what the post I replied to said) - just because I'm standing at that corner doesn't mean you have a right to know, for instance, what I'm carrying in my right pocket (except when that's a threath to you, in which case I'm violating your freedom, and not vice-versa.
So when I'm on the street, you have the right to know everything about me? I can walk up to you and demand to know how much money you earn, what diseases run in your familly etc.? I know you wouldn't tell me if I did that. Interesting thing is some believe that I can't do that, but that the state does have that right - a policeman should be able to walk up to you and ask what he wants to know, even when you're not suspected of anything.
Privacy isn't something limited by your location, it's a universal right - when violated, you've violated someones personal freedom, and thats about the most important thing we have.
What? That's crazed - you're actually saying that te right to privacy is limited by your property. By your reasoning, a homeless man doesn't have any right to privacy - after all, he's always outside his own home - he doesn't have one, but he's just as human as we are, that's what it's about. Privacy is a right, and it means that noone may force you to reveal stuff you want to keep hidden, if its none of their bussiness. The point of a right like this is that it *is* your right, no matter what. The only question here is if placing cameras is an actual violation of that right.
...that open source authors prefer solutions they like over "standard" solutions.
To add to the reply on this, I think that this particular "problem" is in fact quite and advantage to OS development. Fabricated standards are often not as good as they can be, and are only revised after a long, long time. As far as I know, W3C isn't that quick on updating their standards, for example. An OS developer that implements a solution "he likes" does this for a reason, and can show that there's a problem with an old standard, and a solution. Evolution of standards is pushed that, far quicker than the committees could, simply because those committess don't know what problems there are with a standard when developing an application x, simply because they don't write it - they don't write a whole lot, I believe.
Realistically, no one system can actually work in it's "pure" form. I have no problem stealing ideas from other philosophies in order to patch the problems in pure capitalism. Government-provided education, regulation of utilities, building and maintainence of roads -- these are all socialist ideas welcomed in the United States and other mostly-capitalist nations.
I agree - but the fact that capitalism needs regulation means that capitalism as called for by hard-line conservatives (Okay, so your success-o-meter ranges from Terrible all the way up to Normal?
Nah. What I ment is that I know socialists call it Terrible, and many conservatives/liberals (politicians, that is) are only moderatly pleased with the current system, and want an even more de-regulated, right-wing system, so no, I don't think there's a large group of people that actually believes the current system is good enough, dependless of if they thing it should be more or less capitalistic.
Okay, that was uncalled for. I am actually curious to see if some kind of socialist system would work on a large scale, but I still say we may never find out.
I agree we *may* never find out - I just hope we will, its worth to try, at least.
Am I supposed to think you're some kind of important politician or something? Sure.
Ok, I don't like that comment. Where did I say I was? Here you make an assumption that's not founded on anything, and only servers to make a degrading comment on my behalf. Who I *am* is someone who desperatly wants to do at least History/Philosophy when he goes to uni because it's the only subjects he really, really likes and is good at. If you didn't understand the remark, you could have asked instead of rushing to make an assumption that basically says to the whole net "this guy is a fool trying to impress me with false statements and implying false things" (aka, "he's a dirty lier").
Slashdot Mirror
But who's gonna get the money? There's hardly one big open-source organisation entitled to all the money.
WTF? It renders it when it's Plain Text too. Sorry, guys. :P Here's the code once more:
<a href="url">Your text for the link here</a>
*slaps himself*
Select 'HTML Formatted' from below the comment-text box, and use the follwing code:
Your text for the link here
With all the people that seem to read /., I think we could get CowboyNeal a seat in their Board in no time.
Those individuals have nothing to say - it isn't about their systems, and the ones who DO pay for the systems are chosing what sytems they're gonna be paying for. Read the post, their not making it mandatory that people in Brazil use OS, their just chosing what stuff the goverment is gonna use. As someone said, it's the same as deciding that the goverment will use Ford cars instead of Mercedeces to deliver milk. Oh, and:
The minute you take choice out of the hands of individuals, and place it in the hands of an organization, even a democratic organization, you oppress the minority who would have made some other choice.
That goes for almost every democratic decision.
...people like me? Please explain. Also, I'll be dead before I work in an office.
And the end users really don't have anything to say here, since it's not their system things will run on. You can't blaim your neighbour for running Mac OS 9 when you spend 5 minutes e-mailing something at his comp, because your choice is being taken away? You deal with what you get, and when you're working with your own stuff, you chose what you want.
I really don't see what's wrong with providing guidelines to what has to happen with money you (as a goverment) provide to departments...
Yes (appart from that that wouldn't really be important... this thing *does* have serious consequences for Linux/FS). And your problem with that is...? I think it's normal that you decide what you pay/don't pay for.
No I wouldn't. Any institution, including goverment, is free to chose what stuff they wanna use. I'd think Windows was a very, very stupid choice of course, but they have all right to say that their employees have to use software they want them to use. I don't imagine your boss'd like it if you'd come to the office with your own OS CD's, hardware, etc., and demand that he pays for it. They're basically deciding what software they're gonna buy for their employees (goverment workers). I think you're the one making "sophistic dramatizations": "Oh no! OS is about choice! They're taking it away from their people! Dirty Stalinists!".
What happened to the FS community that people think "Torvaldia" before "Stallmania"? :P
Erm.. you're wrong. The point is that that "choice" you speak of was made. This is all about Brazil's goverment - they can decide for themselves if they want everything OS or not, and they did, which is just as much a choice as chosing to buy Windoze computers/software. As long as they don't make it mandatory for Brazil's inhabitants to use OSS, they're only chosing what software they themselves want to use - you can't be against that, can you?
[i]It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.[/i]
I don't think so. I think the main thing here is that stuff needs to be cheap (Brazil's a poor country), and has to be able to do the job - not necessaraly in the best way possible. FS is definetly free money-wise, and because techs can get the source too, any specific needs Brazil might have can cheaply be added. Also, don't forget, the sooner the mass of the people use open source, the sooner those open source apps will become the "best for the job", as people start contributing.
Oh yes, with Brazil's *new* president/goverment, it wouldn't suprise me if there's an ideological bit involved, too, which, I think, is good.
Ok, so what about Io? I know it's not as interesting as Europa from a "there might be life there" point of view, but the same goes for Calisto and Ganymedes. Is it just so hard to gather the power to orbit all four Galilean moons that they're not even gonna try?
Same problem here. I'll see if I can come up with something. shouldn't be too hard, all the functions are cross platform, I think.
Better yet: in platform.h, under the #define CreateDirectory(x,y) mkdir(x,y); (at least, that's where I did it), add a line:
:)
#define RemoveDirectory(x) rmdir(x)
I think they did write an rmdir function, but they just forgot to define RemoveDirectory as rmdir.
Can anyone tell me how to build this thing on OS X?
Hohoho! Read the post well! I was saying most people believe... etc. - which I think is ignorant as well as bad for the reasons you described, because if an induvidual'd try to that, they would mind, even though the person I was replying to was saying you don't have a right to privacy in public places. Easy now, we're on the same side her. :) That, and.. I definatly do not live in a police state (man, pot is legal here :P), and I like it. :)
My point is that there's more to privacy than just being seen in public places. The author of the post I replied on stated that in public areas you have no right whatsoever to privacy. That is not the case. You always, everywhere, have your right to privacy, but sometimes, you willing give some of your privacy up - when I go outside I let people see and tape me. Because it's willing, it is not a violation. The moment you do or say something outside, you make it public bussiness, that means you willingly give up your privacy for the moment, but not that you don't have your rights any longer on other subjects. This is not just about the camera's.
The question is if your homeland's security needs a bunch of webcams. Terrorists (the excuse for everything these days) are too smart to be fooled by normal security camera's, and this will be no different. You shouldn't put a very doubtful result for security above the fact that you're creating a state in which "patriots" spy on their neighbours, reporting anything they think is bad.
Where did I say I was against this webcam idea? It's true, when going outside, you willing let others see you, and thus, a camera isn't a problem either. But again, that doesn't mean you don't have a right to privacy, as the original post said. I am against the idea, btw, but only because of what the second replier to the original post mentioned: it's having people spy on their neighbours etc.
No it isn't. Cite the part of the constitution that says "We have the right to privacy wherever we go." ...
I know this is a touchy subject for some of you out there, but:
The Constitution isn't perfect. Which is why you can make amendments in the first place, and why in most countries, the constitution can even be altered.
I'm not talking about your legal rights here, I'm talking about your moral rights, which are what the law should be modelled after - what is right and what isn't? Just that something isn't in the law doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
There is a difference to watching me on a street corner, and taking away someones right to privacy when he's in a public place. When I'm outside, I know people can watch me. If I don't like that, I don't go outside - and I am outside, so that means I don't mind (and if I don't mind, my right to privacy is not violated, even though I do have less privacy) . But that doesn't mean I don't have a right to privacy when I'm outside (which is what the post I replied to said) - just because I'm standing at that corner doesn't mean you have a right to know, for instance, what I'm carrying in my right pocket (except when that's a threath to you, in which case I'm violating your freedom, and not vice-versa.
So when I'm on the street, you have the right to know everything about me? I can walk up to you and demand to know how much money you earn, what diseases run in your familly etc.? I know you wouldn't tell me if I did that. Interesting thing is some believe that I can't do that, but that the state does have that right - a policeman should be able to walk up to you and ask what he wants to know, even when you're not suspected of anything.
Privacy isn't something limited by your location, it's a universal right - when violated, you've violated someones personal freedom, and thats about the most important thing we have.
What? That's crazed - you're actually saying that te right to privacy is limited by your property. By your reasoning, a homeless man doesn't have any right to privacy - after all, he's always outside his own home - he doesn't have one, but he's just as human as we are, that's what it's about. Privacy is a right, and it means that noone may force you to reveal stuff you want to keep hidden, if its none of their bussiness. The point of a right like this is that it *is* your right, no matter what. The only question here is if placing cameras is an actual violation of that right.
...that open source authors prefer solutions they like over "standard" solutions.
To add to the reply on this, I think that this particular "problem" is in fact quite and advantage to OS development. Fabricated standards are often not as good as they can be, and are only revised after a long, long time. As far as I know, W3C isn't that quick on updating their standards, for example. An OS developer that implements a solution "he likes" does this for a reason, and can show that there's a problem with an old standard, and a solution. Evolution of standards is pushed that, far quicker than the committees could, simply because those committess don't know what problems there are with a standard when developing an application x, simply because they don't write it - they don't write a whole lot, I believe.
Realistically, no one system can actually work in it's "pure" form. I have no problem stealing ideas from other philosophies in order to patch the problems in pure capitalism. Government-provided education, regulation of utilities, building and maintainence of roads -- these are all socialist ideas welcomed in the United States and other mostly-capitalist nations.
I agree - but the fact that capitalism needs regulation means that capitalism as called for by hard-line conservatives (Okay, so your success-o-meter ranges from Terrible all the way up to Normal?
Nah. What I ment is that I know socialists call it Terrible, and many conservatives/liberals (politicians, that is) are only moderatly pleased with the current system, and want an even more de-regulated, right-wing system, so no, I don't think there's a large group of people that actually believes the current system is good enough, dependless of if they thing it should be more or less capitalistic.
Okay, that was uncalled for. I am actually curious to see if some kind of socialist system would work on a large scale, but I still say we may never find out.
I agree we *may* never find out - I just hope we will, its worth to try, at least.
Am I supposed to think you're some kind of important politician or something? Sure.
Ok, I don't like that comment. Where did I say I was? Here you make an assumption that's not founded on anything, and only servers to make a degrading comment on my behalf. Who I *am* is someone who desperatly wants to do at least History/Philosophy when he goes to uni because it's the only subjects he really, really likes and is good at. If you didn't understand the remark, you could have asked instead of rushing to make an assumption that basically says to the whole net "this guy is a fool trying to impress me with false statements and implying false things" (aka, "he's a dirty lier").