Doesn't such a complex arrangement of input devices and this "society of devices" seem just a bit much? It seems to me that it would be much easier to try to streamline our current system. There's already too many kinds of recival and input devices, why should you make more? Such a system, while perhaps being logical, would not be the most efficient. You need single devices that can easily mulitask, and input devices that can be mulitfunctioned, not a messy slew of devices. So where is this multifunctioned device you ask? Anyone one heard of this recent invention called the computer? Looks to me like this article was meant for 1980 instead of 2003.
I agree, SlasherX, in almost every sense of your argument. However, don't tell me you're not interested at all in the case, hmm? I know I've got nothing better to pay attention to in the news. George Boring-Idiot Bush is president, all the media wants to tell us about is how bad everything is, and the only good international TV news coverage I can get is from BBC America, cause all the major networks are biased in one way or another. Don't tell me you've got something better to pay attention to in the news, hmm?
I see the point made here about Linus being wrong at some points, but the man didn't major in law, and niether did Darl, so between the two I'd have to say that Linus definatly comes out the overwhelming winner.
Some of you seem to think SCO is trying to disrupt the Linux community, or is taking out some kind of a vendetta against users of Linux because their product failed, and a free product is winning. I'll tell you right now, they're not trying to disrupt anything. That's just silly and counter-productive, though I wouldn't put it past SCO's execs to engauge in such nonsense, but I doubt the stockholders and chair members would support such a thing. Perhaps they're enacting some kind of rage on the community for their jealousy and vengful anger witch undoubtedly exists, but it's unlikely. The thing that seems most likely to me is an idea which has been presented many times before, which is that SCO is a failing company, and they are using this little scandel to become annoying enough to companies such as IBM and Sun that they'll be bought out or merged with, thus eliminating any responsibility the execs SHOULD have to pull the company out of the gutter.
Whatever the cases, whatever the reasons, though, I still say this is just another sick example of stupid corporate execs who lack any sense, logic, or morality, being stupid corporate execs. In my perfect world, this so-called white collar crime (or maybe just white-collar stupidity, in some cases) would be punishable by death, without any stops in court. But that's just me.
This is terrible. I would hope such a thing never happened, but it probably will [starts an online fund to hire a hitman for RIAA execs] [jk legal people]
Whoever thinks putting an ID on yourself is some sort of demonic practice leading to the end of the world, or even thinks that it strips you from your originality, is just an idiot. I'm sorry, but such chips are nothing more than inevidable convieniances that will make our world more efficient. Now, granted, I wouldn't want EVERYTHING to depend on some unremovable ID tag. Only some services, and nothing relating to personal security, should use such a device, however I see such a device a useful and needed improvment to our ever-growing interdependant society.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't such a complex arrangement of input devices and this "society of devices" seem just a bit much? It seems to me that it would be much easier to try to streamline our current system. There's already too many kinds of recival and input devices, why should you make more? Such a system, while perhaps being logical, would not be the most efficient. You need single devices that can easily mulitask, and input devices that can be mulitfunctioned, not a messy slew of devices. So where is this multifunctioned device you ask? Anyone one heard of this recent invention called the computer? Looks to me like this article was meant for 1980 instead of 2003.
I agree, SlasherX, in almost every sense of your argument. However, don't tell me you're not interested at all in the case, hmm? I know I've got nothing better to pay attention to in the news. George Boring-Idiot Bush is president, all the media wants to tell us about is how bad everything is, and the only good international TV news coverage I can get is from BBC America, cause all the major networks are biased in one way or another. Don't tell me you've got something better to pay attention to in the news, hmm?
I see the point made here about Linus being wrong at some points, but the man didn't major in law, and niether did Darl, so between the two I'd have to say that Linus definatly comes out the overwhelming winner. Some of you seem to think SCO is trying to disrupt the Linux community, or is taking out some kind of a vendetta against users of Linux because their product failed, and a free product is winning. I'll tell you right now, they're not trying to disrupt anything. That's just silly and counter-productive, though I wouldn't put it past SCO's execs to engauge in such nonsense, but I doubt the stockholders and chair members would support such a thing. Perhaps they're enacting some kind of rage on the community for their jealousy and vengful anger witch undoubtedly exists, but it's unlikely. The thing that seems most likely to me is an idea which has been presented many times before, which is that SCO is a failing company, and they are using this little scandel to become annoying enough to companies such as IBM and Sun that they'll be bought out or merged with, thus eliminating any responsibility the execs SHOULD have to pull the company out of the gutter. Whatever the cases, whatever the reasons, though, I still say this is just another sick example of stupid corporate execs who lack any sense, logic, or morality, being stupid corporate execs. In my perfect world, this so-called white collar crime (or maybe just white-collar stupidity, in some cases) would be punishable by death, without any stops in court. But that's just me.
This is terrible. I would hope such a thing never happened, but it probably will [starts an online fund to hire a hitman for RIAA execs] [jk legal people]
Whoever thinks putting an ID on yourself is some sort of demonic practice leading to the end of the world, or even thinks that it strips you from your originality, is just an idiot. I'm sorry, but such chips are nothing more than inevidable convieniances that will make our world more efficient. Now, granted, I wouldn't want EVERYTHING to depend on some unremovable ID tag. Only some services, and nothing relating to personal security, should use such a device, however I see such a device a useful and needed improvment to our ever-growing interdependant society.