The reason I think it is worse is because, unlike stealing from the teachers desk, they will have to treat everything on the computers they hacked as suspect. If they do the smart thing and perform a full audit, you are talking hundreds or even thousands of man hours (depending on the amount of data on these machines) which could have been put to better use taking care of the users.
A few things. One, a full audit shouldn't taken "hunrdeds or even thousands of man hours". Nor should a full audit really be necessary (if nothing else, by using a known clean backup). Two, if the kids had stolen and altered the gradebook, wouldn't that entail a "full audit" of all gradebooks they could have had acccess to? And if the kids had broken into the school to alter the gradebook, wouldn't that entail a "full audit" of the entire school (they could have planted bombs, biological agents, etc)? As was pointed out, computers are feared more, so more effort/thought is put into "worst case scenario" and combating it.
I might not know what would be the entirely appropriate punishment, but pointing out bullshit fear in one instance and ignoring all the real danger that could come from people truly interested in doing harm doesn't really sell me on the idea that you're giving a fair assessment.
The evidence being that I consider it to be very reasonable through my own analysis? I never intended to suggest that I had access to some secret empirical data on the subject; simply that I believe that a life sentence for murder acts as a reasonable deterrent (I am unable to think of any better deterrent, and I take umbrage at capital punishment).
Ie, you're stating a conjecture. Oh, and while there might not be a "better" deterrent than a life sentence, that doesn't mean a much shorter sentence wouldn't have equivalent deterrent effect.
If it does not seem reasonable to you that, in the case of a person failing to contain any moral aversion to the intention killing of his peers, that that person would be deterred by a lengthy jail sentence: please state your argument.
Well, talk about a loaded assumption. I would guess (very much a guess) that most murderers have a moral aversion to killing their peers. Hell, I have a moral aversion to lying. It doesn't mean I never lie. The fact is, it is the moral aversion that is the very strong deterrent in most instances in commiting crimes. It's this reason that people are so inclined to want law and morality to overlap--personally I'm more inclined for law to be mainly a subset of morality and needed protocol.
Having said all that, I'd guess most people who are willing to overcome their own moral aversion aren't going to care a lot about the law. Besides that, most people (me included) can't reasonably grasp the time scale difference between 50 years, 25 years, or possibly even 15 years. Ie, I'd be just as deterred by the 25 years as the 50 years, as both seem like crippling death sentences. This hints, of course, that some people are able to make a distinction. But I question the mental faculties of a person who would commit a murder because they think "oh, but I'll be out in 25 years, so it's worth it"; such either indicates that crime pays or the person is irrational. The only way to remove the former is to have all crimes with a life sentence; while the latter, an irrational person who commits crimes, is a danger to society and they too should have a life sentence. A life sentence for all crimes is irrational. So, trying to use the logic of deterrence to define sentencing seems irrational.
Statistical analysis is hardly going to present governance with an optimum sentence length/type for murder, so please do not ask for it.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? It sounds like more conjecturing.
How long does it take for MS to come up with a new version of their software?
About 3 to 5 years after they announce it's to be released "reall soon".
Let alone actually do the things they once promised?
5 years, 10 years, or never.
I think MS is, perhaps, the worst possible company you want to draw examples from on IT done right. This isn't because MS is specifically bad technologically. It's because they have a killer marketing department (ie, their marketing department is full of idiots who promise the impossible (because it'll boost sales) without any real knowledge of what is possible, probable, or really understanding what is being worked on*). Or was that your point?
*If Microsoft sold adult products, someone in marketing would overhear someone in the development department talking about some software sucking and would soon announce "Microsoft Blowjob.NET".
Comcast can easily block your VPN' by blocking encrypted traffic it doesn't recognize, that is if they so chose to....
Moreover, bittorrent is a protocol,...
A few things. Comcast can't exactly detect encrypted traffic. They can detect protocols and formats that are known to use encryption; but, perhaps that's what you meant. But imagine if VPN' takes some data, encrypts it, then stegos it within *other* protocols. Now, Comcast can continue to claim they block bittorrent. But, VPN' + bittorrent can get through fine.
... whereas child porn is not a protocol. The Bittorrent protocol is easy to detect and distinguish from other traffic, and thus easy to block,
Comcast is acting to censor/block because the cost/benefit analysis shows it in their advantage. Yet by blocking content, they've shown they have the capacity to block other content, even if that means hiring many employees to create an acceptable cache of the internet. "It's not cost effective" isn't a defense against a crime. If it were, stores would ignore carding smokers and drinkers and obtaining a liquor license without fear of prosecution.
ISPs aren't common carriers. Even if they were, the act of interfering with the content carried in any way shows a willingness to be held responsible for that which makes it through. Forgetting the whole "child pornography" angle, if the RIAA/MPAA/whoever sues one of Comcast's customers for copyright infringement over bittorrent carried content, the fact that Comcast only decides to slow/stop traffic after they "use too much" isn't going to be any defense against contributory copyright infringement. As you pointed out, they can easily distinguish and block bittorrent.
Shouldn't market forces be allowed to decide whether
or not the public wants their internet and mobile
communications blocked or censored?
You know, that sounds like a great idea. In fact, you know what I want? An internet service that censors child pornography, bestiality, and any other information that could get me into legal trouble as well as blocks spam. I mean, the fact that Comcast *isn't* ofering to block child porn *right now* sure seems to indicate that Comcast is a willful accessory to commercial child porn production*!
Besides that, what if Comcast did promise "we'll block p2p". Well, use a VPN tunnel. They promise to block those too? Create VPN', a proprietary version of VPN that only you and another user know about. They try to only claim to block certain ports? Well, we'll make sure to spam the use of so many they'll have to block all the useful ones to really mean anything. And any time they fail? Time to sue them for false advertising and fraud.
So, yea, I welcome the free market on trying to do the impossible. Next up, Comcast can start throwing water balloons at customers' cars in their parking-lots in a step to sell year-round comfort control.
*Before you try to fault my logic, it follows simply. Comcast has shown an ability to block content. Hence, it is within the power of Comcast to block child porn. Hence, their chosing not to is because either (a) it's not cost effective, (b) no one really wants it, or (c) that they can lure in pedophile customers. Both (a) and (c) are totally commercial interests on why they wouldn't block child porn, which would clearly show they value their commercial interests more than they care if they aid criminal behavior. I think that shows them to be a willful accessory, so long as one person is ever charged with accessing child porn through their network (something that's pretty definite to happen eventually, regardless). As for (b), I already stated I wanted to block child porn, so (b) isn't true.
With a tone like this, you'd wonder how tape recorders ever got sold.
That's because they weren't sold; they were pirated.
(Hey, if copyright infringement can be called theft, then legitimate sales can be called piracy (I mean, after all, them selling me that tape recorder and those cassette tapes means lost [potential] sales for all those bands at the clubs.).)
Um...they'd buy the specification so that there'd be free software to surplant closed software. Once the free software is written, the underlying formats/protocols would be open. I'm not sure how any of this could be taken to be "encourage[s] use of closed source software", except in the way *any* software written can be somehow used in conjunction with existing software, closed or open.
I'd just like to add my two cents to this. Personally, I've yet to find a computer system where I've not been frustrated and wasted my time. The very act of using the computer tends to be a waste of time. And while overtime or odd jobs might provide the money to buy software, it's unlikely in many cases that the time to make the money is less than the sum time spent in known frustration. This is precisely the same logic that tends people to not switch way from Windows/OS X/Linux/et al.
General computers are frustating. Such is primarily unavoidable. The only frustration reduction that can be easily avoided is the one created by exchanging one set of known frustrations (that one can subconsciously minimize) to a new set of apparent frustrations. In short, if one really wants to stop wasting one's precious time with computers, one shouldn't use a computer; one should get an appliance.
The nation is at war. The people in "fly-over country" get that.
I'm in "fly-over country". And I'm not stupid enough to believe we're at war.
If they get serious about the war, then perhaps they will get more cooperation in defining the limits.
Yea, that's great. And next up, once parents recognize that the police using tasers on toddlers isn't a form of torture but is merely part of an education program, perhaps they'll have more cooperation in defining the limits of that education. You, after all, have to drink the kool-aid to get any say in the cult.
Denying reality is not the best way to get the masses to support you in your paranoia.
Really? It worked pretty well with the "War on Terror". Terror is a distortion of reality to cause unreasonable paranoia, resulting in unreasonable actions. Instead of working to ease that paranoia by showing how it *was* a distortion, wars were started that only further fueled that paranoia.
The public will be more-likely to listen to your concerns about the dangers of our own government once you admit that there is a war and the enemy is actually more dangerous.
Who is "the enemy"? To our government, the enemy is, in part, whoever our army kills. Even when the government sends our army into another soverign nation, it is those civilians and soliders who defend their home who are "the enemy". So, I say the argument of who is more dangerous is a non-sequitor. Our government is a danger to whoever they chose to be a danger to. Our government creates most of our enemies (quantitatively; qualitative is another debate).
Seriousness on the war gains credibility on the rest.
I'm serious about "the war". I'm serious that I want to see Bush impeached, most of Congress censored for their "authorization" to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, for the countless troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to be recalled immediately, and for all funding in "war efforts" to stop. There's only one way to end a war when you create your own enemy: find the will to stop fighting.
the generally accepted interpretation of the prohibition on ex-post facto laws is that Congress may not make something illegal after-the-fact; this does not, however, prevent them from retroactively making it legal.
You know, at first I was going to disagree with you. But, then, I ended up reading about a ruling made in 1798 on the interpretation of ex-post facto. It's made pretty clear that you're right. I can only interpret this to mean that it was assumed that at the point that the government would begin to legalize all its and its cohorts' criminal acts after the fact that the republic was lost, leaving the only option being one of an overthrow of the sitting government. After all, with a power-hungry government, being able to legally legalize your illegal actions after the fact makes it trivial to perform *any* action with the knowledge that you can fix the results in the future; such logically makes whoever has the most power above the law.
Your arguments are mostly valid, but you seem to be struggling with something- It's not my job to *prove* that Vista was everything promised. On the contrary, it's the job of the consumers in question to prove that Vista was less-than-promised, if they want to deem it "faulty" and that they were "defrauded."
Again, you're taking my argument out of context. I never claimed to know what was promised, require you to know what was promised (although I'd expect you to know for your own sake given how you now own Vista), or tried to specifically claim that the people in question were defrauded (although my example might lead claim that some people were defrauded). By all means, yes, there should be proof of fault if demands are made with expectation of resolution. But, the argument at hand was more generic, specifically to address the points you raised/tried to raise.
My point is that they haven't.
Granted. They haven't specifically drawn out the logic, which one can fault them for. Instead, it's assumed that those at Microsoft have the mental power and will of mind to come to the conclusion the evidence offers.
There's no proof, beyond your lacking* sound driver argument that Vista has failed to deliver on any premise.
*We can all agree that it's silly to expect any operating system to come with drivers for all hardware configurations by default. Or were you expecting SPARC support in Vista, too?
I think that's a vapid example. Two better ones are (a) buying a new machine with Vista were the sound card isn't supported or (b) upgrading an XP machine where the sound card works to Vista where the sound card doesn't work. Now, the former is in many ways more an OEM problem. However, MS issuing Vista compatability certification before Vista was even released has pushed people into category (b). And category (b) people have a lot more reasonable expectation that hardware will work.
Btw, before CP/M, most hardware came from the OS vendor, to the point that it was reasonable to expect all drivers to come with the OS. Most Apple hardware, AFAIK, has necessary drivers with the OS. The issue, I guess, comes down less to whether all configurations are supported and more on whether any common or many uncommon configurations are not supported. Of course, hardware for Windows tends to be lots of uncommon configurations; but, given that's well known, it'd seem important to inform consumers if you knew you were scrapping support for a lot of drivers/hardware.
The fallacy in your argument lies in your assertion that "people feel defrauded" by Vista, or rather, that they have a right to "feel defrauded" by Vista.
we can even pretend for a minute that [Vista] really is garbage.
YOU STILL BOUGHT IT.
The GGP created a context. I argued within that context, under the assumption Vista was garbage (ie, it failed to live up to its description/reasonable expectations given its description) and was sold to some people. That would be fraud. Those people would be defrauded. People in that circumstance could feel defrauded. And there'd be a sound basis to demand redress for harm because for no one to do so would lead to significant economic harm (among other things). Is that clear?
Vista is EXACTLY what was promised.
I'm not entirely sure what was promised for Vista (beyond, of course, the newsworthy feature removals that occurred prior to release), so I can't argue on this point.
It works the same as [or better than] the betas, the RCs,
I can't really argue with that. But, the issue at hand is how well Vista works in comparison to XP, not in comparison to beta versions of itself. I will admit, however, that I don't recall hearing Microsoft specifically state that Vista would have any XP backwards compatability, so perhaps any assumption that Vista can run any Win32/Win64 application is entirely invalid.
it works like every product description says.
Given that the official Vista feature list is 60MB+ big and seems to only work in Vista, I can't readily take Microsoft's word to quote. But, if you wish to include every product description:
"Delivers all of the entertainment features available in Windows Vista Home Premium; includes everything you need to enjoy the latest in digital photography, music, movies, analog TV, or even HDTV" -- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Now, given people are having trouble with their sound cards, requiring the d/l of sound card drivers (if they exist), I'd say it doesn't include everything needed to enjoy music.
Every program I had running on XP now runs on Vista. Every movie I have plays on Vista. Every part of the operating system works as advertised.
If that's the case for you, that's great. But that doesn't make it true for everyone.
People just didn't know what they were buying.
Why do you believe this is the case? Are the product descriptions not descriptive enough? Is it reasonable impossible to properly describe all things properly in English? Is there a gap in Microsoft's marketing that fails to provide people who want information the information they desire? Or are people just too lazy and stupid to bother doing the research? Btw, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here and assuming no form of fraud.
And that's the consumer's fault, not Microsoft's.
Well, it's nice to know it's the consumer's fault. How did you reach that conclusion? Did you hand out a test? Are you someone who does support who is aware of all the publicly available information? Is your conclusion based on the anecdotal data of you (and possibly some friends)?
This happens every time Linus release a kernel that changes something. When the "Joe" public went from kernel 2.6.22 to 2.6.23 they bleated stuff didn't work. Some guy actually asked me how to downgrade from 2.6.23 to 2.6.22 (and that says something about it).
Linus writes the kernel and the MANUFACTURER of the hardware writes the drivers to interact with the kernel - it's not Linus' fault if HP or any other manufacturer can't be bothered to write drivers - because let's face it, they've known about Linux 2.6.23 for long enough, Linus has taken a while to get it out and there was a fully public beta trial. None of the mainstream hardware manufacturers have any excuse not to release compatible hardware drivers (unless they choose not to which is just tough luck to anyone with old hardware).
Incidentally, Linux 2.6.23 shipped with way more drivers than any previous release of Linux.
Right about now you're probably thinking ooh my new doesn't work and it should - well no, actually that's up to the MANUFACTURER of your device you've just purchased to develop and supply that, and if they don't well that's just hard luck really.
There are very few things in this world that are the same but are not. A PC can have so many different bits of hardware in and attached to it that nothing else really compares to it. So it can't be expected that everything works, and that anything that worked before still works - because it's never that straight forward.
And finally, Linux 2.6.23 for our machines has been pretty good in picking up hardware and peripherals.
And finally, finally - it took sometime for Linux 2.6.23 to be driver friendly and accepted by the "Joe" public, so I reckon by this time next year everything will be right with the world again - provided Sun don't break anything with Linux 2.6.24 (yes I said Sun XD !!)
PS - Yeah, I know it's lame. And no need to flame for the ME/2.6.22 conversion. It's just funny how when Vista doesn't have drivers, there's a real feeling that manufacturers are at fault. But Linux? Fuck it.:(
What really irks me, though, is that some people have the nerve to demand XP back.
I can understand being unhappy. I can understand hating it, and hell, we can even pretend for a minute that it really is garbage.
YOU STILL BOUGHT IT. When was the last time you went to the store, picked up a gallon of chocolate milk, and after drinking half of it, decided you like white milk better, so you _DEMAND_ a free gallon of white milk.
If you bought a new car and it was garbage, would you return it for your money back? How about if it was a new TV? When you buy a $5 gallon of milk, you're not exactly going to be using that milk for months/years, nor is that $5 spent much of a real investment--you'll just buy another brand next time.
If you really want to go with a milk analogy, a better analogy would be if a dairy company offered you a discount plan; you pay upfront for 40 weeks of Milk+ (TM) and you get 52 weeks worth of Milk+ (TM). Now, what if Milk+ (TM) tastes horrible? Well, beyond asking for a refund, if the dairy company offers basically the same plan but with milk (that you know is good) instead of Milk+ (TM) and you need milk/Milk+ (TM), wouldn't you consider asking first to switch over the plan*? Especially if the diary company is notorious for being a huge hassle to get a refund on their dairy discount plans?
In short, if no one ever demanded their money back when they felt they were defrauded, either there'd be a lot more legal action by governments or there would be serious economic instability as a result of people being much more hesitant on making large purchases, as there would be no recourse if it turned out the good wasn't nearly worth the asking price.
*Yes, asking for a free XP CD isn't exactly the same thing. But, then, I doubt most the consumers have a Vista CD to swap for an XP CD; rather, if the even have a CD at all, it's likely a recovery CD. So, the whole situation is a huge headache that should really go through the OEM. But, that'd mean the OEM would have to get permission from MS to swap out XP for Vista for individual consumers, possibly refunding the difference (or sink the cost themselves and buy two licenses for every machine). Of course, all of this is why the consumer group recommends avoiding Vista completely and going with XP. Vista might be better for some people, but it's easier to just go with XP (which is known to work) and avoid the possible risks.
Then you can buy the intelligence from that country (again somehow not illegal)...
Nah, it's illegal. Recall that the 4th Amendment mentions search *and* seizure. Now, I'm sure there's lawyer-types who will try to twist that to mean "oh, you only need a warrant if you want to do both" (just as there are those who twist the "cruel or unusual punishment" to allow for cruel but not unusual punish or the reverse), but it's pretty plainly clear that the FBI can't search a home without a warrant (well, not legally, anyways), regardless of if they seize anything. I don't see how one could rational argue it's okay to somehow seize things if you weren't the one who did the search.
The main point, really, is that intelligence gathering is based upon the fictional "state secret exemption"--aka national security exemption--, something that only came about in the 20th century in the US. Now, one could argue that a national security exemption is necessary. But banning alcohol wasn't necessary, and the US was able to amendment the Constitution to include that. So, it only stands to reason that either there's too many people who don't really feel such an exemption is necessary (meaning an attempt to add the amendment would fail) or enough judges have been put in place with the ideology to allow for the unconstitutional "national security exemption" theory that an attempt to modify the Constitution is functionally unnecessary and would only empower those who realize the illegality of the current system.
IE isn't a web browser. It's a quasi-web browser. The second Microsoft chose to leverage non-standard features in disregard to how it would cripple the platform-independent design of the web, IE became a quasi-web browser. Of course, one could argue that most "web browsers" fall into that category (Netscape, Firefox, Opera, etc all adding-on Java, Flash plug-ins, etc). At that point, though, one can rational argue that each quasi-web browser falls into its own category, so there's no reasonable expectation that they should all manditoraly copy each other. I mean, IE includes Active X and "Zones". Should Firefox and Opera include those too?
Of course, the proper answer might be to just, you know, stop supporting external uri handlers (ie, ones one can't fix/validate). But that's based upon the assumption that security should trump functionality.
I have always considered the BSD a libertarian license, in that it depends on individual goodness and doesn't try to impose any restrictions. The GPL on the other hand is more of a socialistic license in that it tries to impose the "greater good of the society" condition on downstream contributors. Which license you prefer very much depends on which philosophy you prefer.
<sarcasm>BSD is so libertarian I can claim copyright over a work and sue the original author. The GPL is so socialistic it allows suing malicious authors.</sarcasm> Copyright is the real socialistic "license". Copyright works so poorly towards that end, people felt a need to write the BSD and GPL licenses instead of releasing code under the public domain. Libertarians shouldn't have a wish for government to step in and enforce rules on people that never agreed to them (no distribution, no modification, you must agree to an EULA if provided with software to use it, etc). Of course, a middle ground would be reasonable. But, that'd mean invalidating the various ways people try to step in and cripple the socialistic intent of copyright.
Um, the hard sciences *are* the very basics because they're directly verifiable.
No, they really are not. I don't know how to state it more simply than that. You have a dangerously inaccurate view of the epistemology of science and its role in our world.
Uu're right. Hard sciences includes theories, not merely the basic quantitative empirical research/data that would suffice for "directly verifiable". Clearly I need a better dictionary.
If by "verify", you mean, "we can't go back in time to witness it", yes.
By 'verify' I mean to prove the truth of it, you know, the definition of the world 'verify'. And you had better not whine that that is too strong of a standard, you are the one who first used the word.
My point was that, at some level, the only thing that's "provable" is that which is directly in front of you. Everything else follows into conhecture. To which I agree, you can't verify the hypothesis about the Moon forming from a Mars-sized object colliding with the Earth. Btw, I'm not the one who first used the world "verify". I just wanted to clarify in how your definition, which is admittedly reasonable considering the discussion, precludes validation of the things you mentioned.
BTW, the reason scientific articles are in general more accurate than say, historical articles has nothing to do with whether or not they deal with "verifiable facts", its because of the population dynamics regarding who is editing the wikipedia. People with expertise in science and engineering are much more likely to be editing it than a historian.
That's certainly possible. On the other hand, there's lots of things on Wikipedia that don't include citations of verification on anything (like the "hard sciences" article). It just happens that as much as the Wikipedia foundation is supposedly for verification, a lot of articles (I wouldn't guess the ratio of science/engineering to historic) don't include any citations. How, btw, do you know what's generally more accurate, or do you assume that "more edits" equals "more fixes" as well? Out of curiosity, do you mean more accurate as in a lower standard deviation in change, as the term accurate is general understood in science?
Perhaps you hadn't considered that that's what people view Wikipedia as?
If so, we wouldn't be having this conversation as the submitter of the article wouldn't have cited it.
I'm not sure I quite get that. Encyclopedias/Wikipedia are there to provide a very cursory reference source, as a jumping off point to find more information. But, encyclopedias are unsuitable as a citable source, so you shouldn't ever reference them because to do so would qualify them as an authority of even the smallest nature. Or are you willing to understand that/. entries that include references to Wikipedia articles provide them as a tertiarty source beside the real "meat" of the entry and should only be used as a jumping off point? Ie, why is it alright for anyone to every reference the use of an encyclopedia? It seems they shouldn't exist (or if they did, that no one should tell anyone about them because they're unworthy of being referenced as any type of authority).
And if you're upset because Wikipedia told you something and it's not backed by verifiable sources, you have reason to be upset. But, you seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia doesn't strive to provide verification for things. When it fails, it is a horrible source. That doesn't mean it's always a horrible source.
You are still missing the point. The problem isn't that the wikipedia is unreliable or doesn't always have citations, its that it is a tertiary source, which as you should have learned in the fifth grade makes i
No, beliefs in the hard sciences are not ruled by verifiable fact, at least not when you get beyond the very basics.
Um, the hard sciences *are* the very basics because they're directly verifiable.
One cannot verify that all matter is made of tiny vibrating strings,...
Which is why string theory isn't science.
... or that the moon was formed from the collision of Earth with a smaller planet,...
If by "verify", you mean, "we can't go back in time to witness it", yes.
... or that human activity is the primary cause of global warming.
And if by "verify", you mean, "simplify global climate into a simple, testable experiment", yes. You can merely verify most (if not all) of the factors that make up the theory.
All scientists can do is develop more hypotheses, test them, and use those results to support, fine tune, or occasionally throw out their theories.
Reasonably true.
So the belief that persistent opinions are accurate ones is actually very dangerous to science.
That's hardly the case. The problem is when hypotheses or conjectures are taken as accurate (instead of merely well-informed guesses) or when theories, after being disproven, are still viewed as accurate (even innaccurate ones (general relativity) can be useful when one recognizes and works around those innacuracies). Or, put another way, the very dangerous to science is when people think science always has an answer, instead of taking a more nuanced view of the situation (which is often, "I don't know").
But anyways, you miss the main problem with the wikipedia. It is not that it is often inaccurate or that it pushes the idea that popularity means accuracy.
Correction. It pushes the idea that eventually enough people will see problems and issue changes to correct those problems. The point of accuracy is supposed to come not from popularity but through proper citation (which itself is based squarely on verifiability, to the point that verifiability is more important than accuracy).
Those are disturbing consequences of it, but not the main problem. The biggest problem is that it is a tertiary source. This means that like an encyclopedia article, it makes for a very bad citation. The purpose of tertiary sources is to serve as an easy way to look things up and get a quick overview, they do not replace real research.
Perhaps you hadn't considered that that's what people view Wikipedia as? Consider that, instead of linking to a source directly, one can instead alter Wikipedia to include that source (assuming, of course, that the source is appropriate (ie, that it serves better than existing sources)) and link to the article so that you not only receive the source but also *other* sources as well. Of course, it might be wise to include Wikipedia *and* an appropriate source.
In fact it is insulting to give a link to the wikipedia to explain whatever it is you are talking about (like the submitter of this story did) because the implication is that the readers are too stupid to do a wikipedia search.
I somewhat agree. But, one of the main points of/. (and the web, in general) is to provide an easy means of linking things. Of course, one could aruge that such easy linking is something more suited for a web browser extension. Or, one could go to google news as a stream of news articles to filter through to find your own sources and avoid/. completely. In fact, googling something can be trivially easy at times, to the point that one could argue that citing anything is to mock one's audience. Clearly that's not true. So, while Wikipedia might not be the best source (directly), t
Benefits and other things need to be documented or you're opening yourself up to being screwed.
While I agree in theory, the problem is the execution. What needs to happen is a set of things.*
Document the terms of your employment.
Document breech of those employment terms.
Document efforts to resolve the problem within the company, ASAP.
Quit the job when resolutions fail.
Go to small claims court to recoup losses.
Go to the police and file a report of fraud.
Pray that enough people report fraud claims that the company is punished.
The general problem then is, even if enough people report fraud claims, the police and DA aren't generally interested in "arresting" companies. They'd rather work with the company to resolve the problem, something many companies tend think can be done through token gestures--given how many fraud charges have to be filed, to prove that it's a systemic problem, systemic change is necessary. In comparison, the police and DA are a lot less forgiving when it comes to individuals in the same circumstance. Of course, token gestures by a company will eventually lead to further fraud charges and eventually the company will be punished in some manner. But companies have a much greater ability to cause damage than individuals before receiving significant punishment**.
And to those who think that all these suggestions are unnecessary overkill or that there is some exaggeration to the leeway given to companies, consider if instead of a company, the person who hired you and defrauded you was your neighbor.
*Obviously this is merely a set of ideas. To speed up the process, a more thorough and well-known approach is necessary.
**I'd guess this stems from the idea that an individual can be evil but a company, who interest is making a [possibly unfair] profit***, can't be. Of course, this ignores the concept that making excess money is greed and evil.
***And obviously this glosses over commercial production of obscene works, cocaine suppliers, etc. Ie, without an obvious intent to do something which is overreachingly illegal, the obvious intent to something that is directly illegal isn't held to as high or quick of a punishment. Such is ironic, given that fraud is about making a [likely unfair] profit, the specific aim of many companies.
... but females for the most part take "jokes" like that personally. Just one of the things that makes IT an unfriendly enviroment for females.
In the wider culture, a female is looked down upon more for dressing slobbily than males. In geek culture, dressing snappily is seen as a sign of trying to fit into wider culture, specifically as an attempt to escape the stigma of geekdom. Considering that geek culture is well known for being the target of bullying by others, having managed to make it into adult life without changing "against"* geekdom, for one to suddenly switch away from geekdom is seen as something of a betrayal. Is it chilidish? Sure. But, then, so is it childish to be concerned about fashion at all.
*This is an oversimplification. Obviously, mature geeks will understand that most people don't give a fuck about them, one way or the other. A small minority are their friends and families. And, a small minority are anti-geek bullies. But, the non-mature geek will see all non-geeks as either bullies or bully facilitators (by not working to stop bullies, possibly to maintain the geek subclass as a subclass). This is very much a persecution complex. But, then, that seems to be a common thing, even for those in the supposed majority. (And I'm not saying it's right or anything; that's why I said it's a property of non-mature geeks.) In any case, the non-mature geeks might very well be ribbing you because of unconscious feelings of resentment. And the mature geeks might very well be ribbing you because your dress implies you're immature enough to give a fuck about your appearence**. None of this is to say it's right; it's just an attempt to try to explain the situation.
**Yes, some level of "appropriate" appearence is necessary because businesses are interested in making money and there's still lots of immature people out there which one needs as a source of money to continue operating. In that scope, dressing up might just be a business decision like any other, so the act itself need not be a sign of immaturity. But, then, trying to appear cool involves acting like you don't care about the thing most important to you (for most adults, their reliable source of income). So, deriding ones that are being uncool can be "cool".
Or, in short, you're right that IT is hostile against women. But, then, can you think of a group that will willingly accept members regardless of dress***? I think such is simply a fact of most human societies. So, you have to choose which groups you want to be least hostile to you. Or, you need to have enough of a relationship with some groups that they'll accept you in un-group dress.
***Personal relationships can eventually overcome group dresscode, most of the time. But that's something that can potentially take months or years to achieve.
They are not technical hobbyists as the Geek understands it. The Windows OS is simply another platform like the PS3 - The basics of Windows is all they need to know and all they want to know.
Linux OS is simply another platform like the PS3. Gamers buy Windows machines because PC games are different enough from console games that it is necessary for a gamer to buy some type of PC to play games in that realm. Because Windows is the most ubiquitous OS for PCs, more games are made for that platform. Further, this has held true long enough that more games of the past exist for Windows than any other PC OS (with the exception of DOS, perhaps). And Windows' OS dominance doesn't seem to be waning significantly, so games should continue to be made for that platform.
Further, the reason PC games are so different from console games is because the PC platform is different. Specifically, it involves more flexibility, which results in a need for more technical hobbying to keep the platform working. Even more so, gamers are so interested in playing games in the PC arena that they're willing to learn any "basic" information necessary to keep their PC platform operational. If Windows were to lose market dominance and Solaris became the norm, gamers would eventually learn whatever arachic steps necessary to make games work, just as they did when DOS "died".
So, you're right. Gamers game. But gamers find water in the desert; they don't make their own oasis.
Note that the invented word "Tivoization" is an abuse of trademark. Mr. Stallman is suffering from his adoption of that abuse, because people like their Tivos and, without thinking or investigating, they assume that the GPL3 license would take their Tivos away.
And if it does take their Tivos away, I say good. People tend to ignore the negative effects of copyright, one of those being that some "jerk" can come along and enforce his legitimate claims of copyright to stop distribution of something. In Tivo's case, Tivo went against the intention of the GPL2 sparking a backlash that helped form the GPL3. This leaves Tivo to maintain their software themselves (either through continued maintaining of GPL2 software, adoption of BSD or other "freer" software, or going with proprietary/original software) or to abide by the GPL3.
If they choose the first option, the delays that will probably be incurred could cause Tivo's market share to falter and Tivo to "die". Even if it doesn't, their move away from the GPL3 means that Tivo loses out on the benefits of GPL3 software.
And if they choose the second option, then Tivo chooses to be a more "responsible" member of the GPL community. Do you think IBM would have ever worked toward helping Linux if the GPL2 wasn't as "viral" as it is? Companies can be very adverserial, especially when they see it is in their own best interest. So, the best thing to do sometimes is to force them to choose a side: to either help the GPL community or to bugger off. After all, part of being a member of the community is the social presence that one has. It's not merely the work that's already been done, but the future work that will likely be done. Ie, the commitment can be just as important as what's already been done.
Copyright 2007, as are all my comments, and everyone else's also. I don't want someone using what I have said here without my permission.)
Sorry to break it to you, but there's this thing called fair use. So, yea, I'm going to critique part of what you said without your permission.
PS: Yea, I'm still against copyright. If you want copyright, you have to live with all the consequences.
My guess is "fair use exception" revenue generation is largely a result of websites using other people's content to generate ad revenue.
That's probably true. "Fair use exception" rarely allows for commercial content, as to do otherwise would crush an original author's ability to make any profit for an original idea. The exception tends to lie in reviews and criticisms. And in that field, review sites, online newspapers, and online magazines rather fit the bill.
Without fair use exceptions, 80% of the Internet "content" would disappear.
Now, this I somewhat disagree with. I don't believe 80% of Internet "content" is commercial in nature. Most comes in the form of personal webpages, blogs, and all sorts of other personal content. Look at how many posts that exist on/. that don't rely upon fair use exceptions. Now, if you wanted to talk about *quantity* of content that flows through the internet, I'd still disagree. It seems ~50% of internet traffic is piracy (bittorent/p2p). I don't think the lack of fair use exceptions would decrease that.
When our economy gets past websites and Internet "companies" relying on a business model of profiting from the aggregation of other people's original efforts, I'm betting revenue generated from "fair use exceptions" will drop accordingly.
It's funny you say that, since a majority of commercial copyright ventures outside the internet are done through corporations/companies that buy their original content from other people. Having said that, if it is the case that fair use exceptions allow for others to gain revenue, then it's a tautology that removing fair use exceptions will remove that revenue (since the classification will no longer exist). Of course, that just means more revenue from piracy.
An economy can only sustain itself so long from re-packaging other people's work before it runs out of gas. Rewarding original creation is what is needed more.
Tell that to Disney. Seriously, though, not all economies are based upon copyrights (or patents). In fact, such economies may very well be inately doomed to failure. But, yea, since the US's economy *is* based highly upon copyright, it does need more original works to avoid "[running] out of gas". Or, you know, we could try to change the US's economy to rely less upon copyright, given how fragile copyright is.
Slashdot Mirror
A few things. One, a full audit shouldn't taken "hunrdeds or even thousands of man hours". Nor should a full audit really be necessary (if nothing else, by using a known clean backup). Two, if the kids had stolen and altered the gradebook, wouldn't that entail a "full audit" of all gradebooks they could have had acccess to? And if the kids had broken into the school to alter the gradebook, wouldn't that entail a "full audit" of the entire school (they could have planted bombs, biological agents, etc)? As was pointed out, computers are feared more, so more effort/thought is put into "worst case scenario" and combating it.
I might not know what would be the entirely appropriate punishment, but pointing out bullshit fear in one instance and ignoring all the real danger that could come from people truly interested in doing harm doesn't really sell me on the idea that you're giving a fair assessment.
Ie, you're stating a conjecture. Oh, and while there might not be a "better" deterrent than a life sentence, that doesn't mean a much shorter sentence wouldn't have equivalent deterrent effect.
Well, talk about a loaded assumption. I would guess (very much a guess) that most murderers have a moral aversion to killing their peers. Hell, I have a moral aversion to lying. It doesn't mean I never lie. The fact is, it is the moral aversion that is the very strong deterrent in most instances in commiting crimes. It's this reason that people are so inclined to want law and morality to overlap--personally I'm more inclined for law to be mainly a subset of morality and needed protocol.
Having said all that, I'd guess most people who are willing to overcome their own moral aversion aren't going to care a lot about the law. Besides that, most people (me included) can't reasonably grasp the time scale difference between 50 years, 25 years, or possibly even 15 years. Ie, I'd be just as deterred by the 25 years as the 50 years, as both seem like crippling death sentences. This hints, of course, that some people are able to make a distinction. But I question the mental faculties of a person who would commit a murder because they think "oh, but I'll be out in 25 years, so it's worth it"; such either indicates that crime pays or the person is irrational. The only way to remove the former is to have all crimes with a life sentence; while the latter, an irrational person who commits crimes, is a danger to society and they too should have a life sentence. A life sentence for all crimes is irrational. So, trying to use the logic of deterrence to define sentencing seems irrational.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? It sounds like more conjecturing.
Oh, really? Care to point me to the ISO specification that clarifies that there are 8 bits in a byte?
About 3 to 5 years after they announce it's to be released "reall soon".
5 years, 10 years, or never.
I think MS is, perhaps, the worst possible company you want to draw examples from on IT done right. This isn't because MS is specifically bad technologically. It's because they have a killer marketing department (ie, their marketing department is full of idiots who promise the impossible (because it'll boost sales) without any real knowledge of what is possible, probable, or really understanding what is being worked on*). Or was that your point?
*If Microsoft sold adult products, someone in marketing would overhear someone in the development department talking about some software sucking and would soon announce "Microsoft Blowjob.NET".
A few things. Comcast can't exactly detect encrypted traffic. They can detect protocols and formats that are known to use encryption; but, perhaps that's what you meant. But imagine if VPN' takes some data, encrypts it, then stegos it within *other* protocols. Now, Comcast can continue to claim they block bittorrent. But, VPN' + bittorrent can get through fine.
Comcast is acting to censor/block because the cost/benefit analysis shows it in their advantage. Yet by blocking content, they've shown they have the capacity to block other content, even if that means hiring many employees to create an acceptable cache of the internet. "It's not cost effective" isn't a defense against a crime. If it were, stores would ignore carding smokers and drinkers and obtaining a liquor license without fear of prosecution.
ISPs aren't common carriers. Even if they were, the act of interfering with the content carried in any way shows a willingness to be held responsible for that which makes it through. Forgetting the whole "child pornography" angle, if the RIAA/MPAA/whoever sues one of Comcast's customers for copyright infringement over bittorrent carried content, the fact that Comcast only decides to slow/stop traffic after they "use too much" isn't going to be any defense against contributory copyright infringement. As you pointed out, they can easily distinguish and block bittorrent.
You know, that sounds like a great idea. In fact, you know what I want? An internet service that censors child pornography, bestiality, and any other information that could get me into legal trouble as well as blocks spam. I mean, the fact that Comcast *isn't* ofering to block child porn *right now* sure seems to indicate that Comcast is a willful accessory to commercial child porn production*!
Besides that, what if Comcast did promise "we'll block p2p". Well, use a VPN tunnel. They promise to block those too? Create VPN', a proprietary version of VPN that only you and another user know about. They try to only claim to block certain ports? Well, we'll make sure to spam the use of so many they'll have to block all the useful ones to really mean anything. And any time they fail? Time to sue them for false advertising and fraud.
So, yea, I welcome the free market on trying to do the impossible. Next up, Comcast can start throwing water balloons at customers' cars in their parking-lots in a step to sell year-round comfort control.
*Before you try to fault my logic, it follows simply. Comcast has shown an ability to block content. Hence, it is within the power of Comcast to block child porn. Hence, their chosing not to is because either (a) it's not cost effective, (b) no one really wants it, or (c) that they can lure in pedophile customers. Both (a) and (c) are totally commercial interests on why they wouldn't block child porn, which would clearly show they value their commercial interests more than they care if they aid criminal behavior. I think that shows them to be a willful accessory, so long as one person is ever charged with accessing child porn through their network (something that's pretty definite to happen eventually, regardless). As for (b), I already stated I wanted to block child porn, so (b) isn't true.
That's because they weren't sold; they were pirated.
(Hey, if copyright infringement can be called theft, then legitimate sales can be called piracy (I mean, after all, them selling me that tape recorder and those cassette tapes means lost [potential] sales for all those bands at the clubs.).)
Um...they'd buy the specification so that there'd be free software to surplant closed software. Once the free software is written, the underlying formats/protocols would be open. I'm not sure how any of this could be taken to be "encourage[s] use of closed source software", except in the way *any* software written can be somehow used in conjunction with existing software, closed or open.
I'd just like to add my two cents to this. Personally, I've yet to find a computer system where I've not been frustrated and wasted my time. The very act of using the computer tends to be a waste of time. And while overtime or odd jobs might provide the money to buy software, it's unlikely in many cases that the time to make the money is less than the sum time spent in known frustration. This is precisely the same logic that tends people to not switch way from Windows/OS X/Linux/et al.
General computers are frustating. Such is primarily unavoidable. The only frustration reduction that can be easily avoided is the one created by exchanging one set of known frustrations (that one can subconsciously minimize) to a new set of apparent frustrations. In short, if one really wants to stop wasting one's precious time with computers, one shouldn't use a computer; one should get an appliance.
I'm in "fly-over country". And I'm not stupid enough to believe we're at war.
Yea, that's great. And next up, once parents recognize that the police using tasers on toddlers isn't a form of torture but is merely part of an education program, perhaps they'll have more cooperation in defining the limits of that education. You, after all, have to drink the kool-aid to get any say in the cult.
Really? It worked pretty well with the "War on Terror". Terror is a distortion of reality to cause unreasonable paranoia, resulting in unreasonable actions. Instead of working to ease that paranoia by showing how it *was* a distortion, wars were started that only further fueled that paranoia.
Who is "the enemy"? To our government, the enemy is, in part, whoever our army kills. Even when the government sends our army into another soverign nation, it is those civilians and soliders who defend their home who are "the enemy". So, I say the argument of who is more dangerous is a non-sequitor. Our government is a danger to whoever they chose to be a danger to. Our government creates most of our enemies (quantitatively; qualitative is another debate).
I'm serious about "the war". I'm serious that I want to see Bush impeached, most of Congress censored for their "authorization" to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, for the countless troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to be recalled immediately, and for all funding in "war efforts" to stop. There's only one way to end a war when you create your own enemy: find the will to stop fighting.
You know, at first I was going to disagree with you. But, then, I ended up reading about a ruling made in 1798 on the interpretation of ex-post facto. It's made pretty clear that you're right. I can only interpret this to mean that it was assumed that at the point that the government would begin to legalize all its and its cohorts' criminal acts after the fact that the republic was lost, leaving the only option being one of an overthrow of the sitting government. After all, with a power-hungry government, being able to legally legalize your illegal actions after the fact makes it trivial to perform *any* action with the knowledge that you can fix the results in the future; such logically makes whoever has the most power above the law.
Again, you're taking my argument out of context. I never claimed to know what was promised, require you to know what was promised (although I'd expect you to know for your own sake given how you now own Vista), or tried to specifically claim that the people in question were defrauded (although my example might lead claim that some people were defrauded). By all means, yes, there should be proof of fault if demands are made with expectation of resolution. But, the argument at hand was more generic, specifically to address the points you raised/tried to raise.
Granted. They haven't specifically drawn out the logic, which one can fault them for. Instead, it's assumed that those at Microsoft have the mental power and will of mind to come to the conclusion the evidence offers.
Vista is not yet good as XP replacement, says Dutchs Consumers Union That's a previous entry. And in it, it sounds like they gathered proof.
I think that's a vapid example. Two better ones are (a) buying a new machine with Vista were the sound card isn't supported or (b) upgrading an XP machine where the sound card works to Vista where the sound card doesn't work. Now, the former is in many ways more an OEM problem. However, MS issuing Vista compatability certification before Vista was even released has pushed people into category (b). And category (b) people have a lot more reasonable expectation that hardware will work.
Btw, before CP/M, most hardware came from the OS vendor, to the point that it was reasonable to expect all drivers to come with the OS. Most Apple hardware, AFAIK, has necessary drivers with the OS. The issue, I guess, comes down less to whether all configurations are supported and more on whether any common or many uncommon configurations are not supported. Of course, hardware for Windows tends to be lots of uncommon configurations; but, given that's well known, it'd seem important to inform consumers if you knew you were scrapping support for a lot of drivers/hardware.
*shrug*
The GGP created a context. I argued within that context, under the assumption Vista was garbage (ie, it failed to live up to its description/reasonable expectations given its description) and was sold to some people. That would be fraud. Those people would be defrauded. People in that circumstance could feel defrauded. And there'd be a sound basis to demand redress for harm because for no one to do so would lead to significant economic harm (among other things). Is that clear?
I'm not entirely sure what was promised for Vista (beyond, of course, the newsworthy feature removals that occurred prior to release), so I can't argue on this point.
I can't really argue with that. But, the issue at hand is how well Vista works in comparison to XP, not in comparison to beta versions of itself. I will admit, however, that I don't recall hearing Microsoft specifically state that Vista would have any XP backwards compatability, so perhaps any assumption that Vista can run any Win32/Win64 application is entirely invalid.
Given that the official Vista feature list is 60MB+ big and seems to only work in Vista, I can't readily take Microsoft's word to quote. But, if you wish to include every product description:
"Delivers all of the entertainment features available in Windows Vista Home Premium; includes everything you need to enjoy the latest in digital photography, music, movies, analog TV, or even HDTV" -- Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
Now, given people are having trouble with their sound cards, requiring the d/l of sound card drivers (if they exist), I'd say it doesn't include everything needed to enjoy music.
If that's the case for you, that's great. But that doesn't make it true for everyone.
Why do you believe this is the case? Are the product descriptions not descriptive enough? Is it reasonable impossible to properly describe all things properly in English? Is there a gap in Microsoft's marketing that fails to provide people who want information the information they desire? Or are people just too lazy and stupid to bother doing the research? Btw, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here and assuming no form of fraud.
Well, it's nice to know it's the consumer's fault. How did you reach that conclusion? Did you hand out a test? Are you someone who does support who is aware of all the publicly available information? Is your conclusion based on the anecdotal data of you (and possibly some friends)?
This happens every time Linus release a kernel that changes something. When the "Joe" public went from kernel 2.6.22 to 2.6.23 they bleated stuff didn't work. Some guy actually asked me how to downgrade from 2.6.23 to 2.6.22 (and that says something about it).
:(
Linus writes the kernel and the MANUFACTURER of the hardware writes the drivers to interact with the kernel - it's not Linus' fault if HP or any other manufacturer can't be bothered to write drivers - because let's face it, they've known about Linux 2.6.23 for long enough, Linus has taken a while to get it out and there was a fully public beta trial. None of the mainstream hardware manufacturers have any excuse not to release compatible hardware drivers (unless they choose not to which is just tough luck to anyone with old hardware).
Incidentally, Linux 2.6.23 shipped with way more drivers than any previous release of Linux.
Right about now you're probably thinking ooh my new doesn't work and it should - well no, actually that's up to the MANUFACTURER of your device you've just purchased to develop and supply that, and if they don't well that's just hard luck really.
There are very few things in this world that are the same but are not. A PC can have so many different bits of hardware in and attached to it that nothing else really compares to it. So it can't be expected that everything works, and that anything that worked before still works - because it's never that straight forward.
And finally, Linux 2.6.23 for our machines has been pretty good in picking up hardware and peripherals.
And finally, finally - it took sometime for Linux 2.6.23 to be driver friendly and accepted by the "Joe" public, so I reckon by this time next year everything will be right with the world again - provided Sun don't break anything with Linux 2.6.24 (yes I said Sun XD !!)
PS - Yeah, I know it's lame. And no need to flame for the ME/2.6.22 conversion. It's just funny how when Vista doesn't have drivers, there's a real feeling that manufacturers are at fault. But Linux? Fuck it.
If you bought a new car and it was garbage, would you return it for your money back? How about if it was a new TV? When you buy a $5 gallon of milk, you're not exactly going to be using that milk for months/years, nor is that $5 spent much of a real investment--you'll just buy another brand next time.
If you really want to go with a milk analogy, a better analogy would be if a dairy company offered you a discount plan; you pay upfront for 40 weeks of Milk+ (TM) and you get 52 weeks worth of Milk+ (TM). Now, what if Milk+ (TM) tastes horrible? Well, beyond asking for a refund, if the dairy company offers basically the same plan but with milk (that you know is good) instead of Milk+ (TM) and you need milk/Milk+ (TM), wouldn't you consider asking first to switch over the plan*? Especially if the diary company is notorious for being a huge hassle to get a refund on their dairy discount plans?
In short, if no one ever demanded their money back when they felt they were defrauded, either there'd be a lot more legal action by governments or there would be serious economic instability as a result of people being much more hesitant on making large purchases, as there would be no recourse if it turned out the good wasn't nearly worth the asking price.
*Yes, asking for a free XP CD isn't exactly the same thing. But, then, I doubt most the consumers have a Vista CD to swap for an XP CD; rather, if the even have a CD at all, it's likely a recovery CD. So, the whole situation is a huge headache that should really go through the OEM. But, that'd mean the OEM would have to get permission from MS to swap out XP for Vista for individual consumers, possibly refunding the difference (or sink the cost themselves and buy two licenses for every machine). Of course, all of this is why the consumer group recommends avoiding Vista completely and going with XP. Vista might be better for some people, but it's easier to just go with XP (which is known to work) and avoid the possible risks.
Nah, it's illegal. Recall that the 4th Amendment mentions search *and* seizure. Now, I'm sure there's lawyer-types who will try to twist that to mean "oh, you only need a warrant if you want to do both" (just as there are those who twist the "cruel or unusual punishment" to allow for cruel but not unusual punish or the reverse), but it's pretty plainly clear that the FBI can't search a home without a warrant (well, not legally, anyways), regardless of if they seize anything. I don't see how one could rational argue it's okay to somehow seize things if you weren't the one who did the search.
The main point, really, is that intelligence gathering is based upon the fictional "state secret exemption"--aka national security exemption--, something that only came about in the 20th century in the US. Now, one could argue that a national security exemption is necessary. But banning alcohol wasn't necessary, and the US was able to amendment the Constitution to include that. So, it only stands to reason that either there's too many people who don't really feel such an exemption is necessary (meaning an attempt to add the amendment would fail) or enough judges have been put in place with the ideology to allow for the unconstitutional "national security exemption" theory that an attempt to modify the Constitution is functionally unnecessary and would only empower those who realize the illegality of the current system.
PS - Sorry for that short rant.
IE isn't a web browser. It's a quasi-web browser. The second Microsoft chose to leverage non-standard features in disregard to how it would cripple the platform-independent design of the web, IE became a quasi-web browser. Of course, one could argue that most "web browsers" fall into that category (Netscape, Firefox, Opera, etc all adding-on Java, Flash plug-ins, etc). At that point, though, one can rational argue that each quasi-web browser falls into its own category, so there's no reasonable expectation that they should all manditoraly copy each other. I mean, IE includes Active X and "Zones". Should Firefox and Opera include those too?
Of course, the proper answer might be to just, you know, stop supporting external uri handlers (ie, ones one can't fix/validate). But that's based upon the assumption that security should trump functionality.
<sarcasm>BSD is so libertarian I can claim copyright over a work and sue the original author. The GPL is so socialistic it allows suing malicious authors.</sarcasm> Copyright is the real socialistic "license". Copyright works so poorly towards that end, people felt a need to write the BSD and GPL licenses instead of releasing code under the public domain. Libertarians shouldn't have a wish for government to step in and enforce rules on people that never agreed to them (no distribution, no modification, you must agree to an EULA if provided with software to use it, etc). Of course, a middle ground would be reasonable. But, that'd mean invalidating the various ways people try to step in and cripple the socialistic intent of copyright.
Uu're right. Hard sciences includes theories, not merely the basic quantitative empirical research/data that would suffice for "directly verifiable". Clearly I need a better dictionary.
My point was that, at some level, the only thing that's "provable" is that which is directly in front of you. Everything else follows into conhecture. To which I agree, you can't verify the hypothesis about the Moon forming from a Mars-sized object colliding with the Earth. Btw, I'm not the one who first used the world "verify". I just wanted to clarify in how your definition, which is admittedly reasonable considering the discussion, precludes validation of the things you mentioned.
That's certainly possible. On the other hand, there's lots of things on Wikipedia that don't include citations of verification on anything (like the "hard sciences" article). It just happens that as much as the Wikipedia foundation is supposedly for verification, a lot of articles (I wouldn't guess the ratio of science/engineering to historic) don't include any citations. How, btw, do you know what's generally more accurate, or do you assume that "more edits" equals "more fixes" as well? Out of curiosity, do you mean more accurate as in a lower standard deviation in change, as the term accurate is general understood in science?
I'm not sure I quite get that. Encyclopedias/Wikipedia are there to provide a very cursory reference source, as a jumping off point to find more information. But, encyclopedias are unsuitable as a citable source, so you shouldn't ever reference them because to do so would qualify them as an authority of even the smallest nature. Or are you willing to understand that /. entries that include references to Wikipedia articles provide them as a tertiarty source beside the real "meat" of the entry and should only be used as a jumping off point? Ie, why is it alright for anyone to every reference the use of an encyclopedia? It seems they shouldn't exist (or if they did, that no one should tell anyone about them because they're unworthy of being referenced as any type of authority).
Um, the hard sciences *are* the very basics because they're directly verifiable.
Which is why string theory isn't science.
If by "verify", you mean, "we can't go back in time to witness it", yes.
And if by "verify", you mean, "simplify global climate into a simple, testable experiment", yes. You can merely verify most (if not all) of the factors that make up the theory.
Reasonably true.
That's hardly the case. The problem is when hypotheses or conjectures are taken as accurate (instead of merely well-informed guesses) or when theories, after being disproven, are still viewed as accurate (even innaccurate ones (general relativity) can be useful when one recognizes and works around those innacuracies). Or, put another way, the very dangerous to science is when people think science always has an answer, instead of taking a more nuanced view of the situation (which is often, "I don't know").
Correction. It pushes the idea that eventually enough people will see problems and issue changes to correct those problems. The point of accuracy is supposed to come not from popularity but through proper citation (which itself is based squarely on verifiability, to the point that verifiability is more important than accuracy).
Perhaps you hadn't considered that that's what people view Wikipedia as? Consider that, instead of linking to a source directly, one can instead alter Wikipedia to include that source (assuming, of course, that the source is appropriate (ie, that it serves better than existing sources)) and link to the article so that you not only receive the source but also *other* sources as well. Of course, it might be wise to include Wikipedia *and* an appropriate source.
I somewhat agree. But, one of the main points of /. (and the web, in general) is to provide an easy means of linking things. Of course, one could aruge that such easy linking is something more suited for a web browser extension. Or, one could go to google news as a stream of news articles to filter through to find your own sources and avoid /. completely. In fact, googling something can be trivially easy at times, to the point that one could argue that citing anything is to mock one's audience. Clearly that's not true. So, while Wikipedia might not be the best source (directly), t
While I agree in theory, the problem is the execution. What needs to happen is a set of things.*
The general problem then is, even if enough people report fraud claims, the police and DA aren't generally interested in "arresting" companies. They'd rather work with the company to resolve the problem, something many companies tend think can be done through token gestures--given how many fraud charges have to be filed, to prove that it's a systemic problem, systemic change is necessary. In comparison, the police and DA are a lot less forgiving when it comes to individuals in the same circumstance. Of course, token gestures by a company will eventually lead to further fraud charges and eventually the company will be punished in some manner. But companies have a much greater ability to cause damage than individuals before receiving significant punishment**.
And to those who think that all these suggestions are unnecessary overkill or that there is some exaggeration to the leeway given to companies, consider if instead of a company, the person who hired you and defrauded you was your neighbor.
*Obviously this is merely a set of ideas. To speed up the process, a more thorough and well-known approach is necessary.
**I'd guess this stems from the idea that an individual can be evil but a company, who interest is making a [possibly unfair] profit***, can't be. Of course, this ignores the concept that making excess money is greed and evil.
***And obviously this glosses over commercial production of obscene works, cocaine suppliers, etc. Ie, without an obvious intent to do something which is overreachingly illegal, the obvious intent to something that is directly illegal isn't held to as high or quick of a punishment. Such is ironic, given that fraud is about making a [likely unfair] profit, the specific aim of many companies.
In the wider culture, a female is looked down upon more for dressing slobbily than males. In geek culture, dressing snappily is seen as a sign of trying to fit into wider culture, specifically as an attempt to escape the stigma of geekdom. Considering that geek culture is well known for being the target of bullying by others, having managed to make it into adult life without changing "against"* geekdom, for one to suddenly switch away from geekdom is seen as something of a betrayal. Is it chilidish? Sure. But, then, so is it childish to be concerned about fashion at all.
*This is an oversimplification. Obviously, mature geeks will understand that most people don't give a fuck about them, one way or the other. A small minority are their friends and families. And, a small minority are anti-geek bullies. But, the non-mature geek will see all non-geeks as either bullies or bully facilitators (by not working to stop bullies, possibly to maintain the geek subclass as a subclass). This is very much a persecution complex. But, then, that seems to be a common thing, even for those in the supposed majority. (And I'm not saying it's right or anything; that's why I said it's a property of non-mature geeks.) In any case, the non-mature geeks might very well be ribbing you because of unconscious feelings of resentment. And the mature geeks might very well be ribbing you because your dress implies you're immature enough to give a fuck about your appearence**. None of this is to say it's right; it's just an attempt to try to explain the situation.
**Yes, some level of "appropriate" appearence is necessary because businesses are interested in making money and there's still lots of immature people out there which one needs as a source of money to continue operating. In that scope, dressing up might just be a business decision like any other, so the act itself need not be a sign of immaturity. But, then, trying to appear cool involves acting like you don't care about the thing most important to you (for most adults, their reliable source of income). So, deriding ones that are being uncool can be "cool".
Or, in short, you're right that IT is hostile against women. But, then, can you think of a group that will willingly accept members regardless of dress***? I think such is simply a fact of most human societies. So, you have to choose which groups you want to be least hostile to you. Or, you need to have enough of a relationship with some groups that they'll accept you in un-group dress.
***Personal relationships can eventually overcome group dresscode, most of the time. But that's something that can potentially take months or years to achieve.
PS - Sorry for all the tangents.
Linux OS is simply another platform like the PS3. Gamers buy Windows machines because PC games are different enough from console games that it is necessary for a gamer to buy some type of PC to play games in that realm. Because Windows is the most ubiquitous OS for PCs, more games are made for that platform. Further, this has held true long enough that more games of the past exist for Windows than any other PC OS (with the exception of DOS, perhaps). And Windows' OS dominance doesn't seem to be waning significantly, so games should continue to be made for that platform.
Further, the reason PC games are so different from console games is because the PC platform is different. Specifically, it involves more flexibility, which results in a need for more technical hobbying to keep the platform working. Even more so, gamers are so interested in playing games in the PC arena that they're willing to learn any "basic" information necessary to keep their PC platform operational. If Windows were to lose market dominance and Solaris became the norm, gamers would eventually learn whatever arachic steps necessary to make games work, just as they did when DOS "died".
So, you're right. Gamers game. But gamers find water in the desert; they don't make their own oasis.
And if it does take their Tivos away, I say good. People tend to ignore the negative effects of copyright, one of those being that some "jerk" can come along and enforce his legitimate claims of copyright to stop distribution of something. In Tivo's case, Tivo went against the intention of the GPL2 sparking a backlash that helped form the GPL3. This leaves Tivo to maintain their software themselves (either through continued maintaining of GPL2 software, adoption of BSD or other "freer" software, or going with proprietary/original software) or to abide by the GPL3.
If they choose the first option, the delays that will probably be incurred could cause Tivo's market share to falter and Tivo to "die". Even if it doesn't, their move away from the GPL3 means that Tivo loses out on the benefits of GPL3 software.
And if they choose the second option, then Tivo chooses to be a more "responsible" member of the GPL community. Do you think IBM would have ever worked toward helping Linux if the GPL2 wasn't as "viral" as it is? Companies can be very adverserial, especially when they see it is in their own best interest. So, the best thing to do sometimes is to force them to choose a side: to either help the GPL community or to bugger off. After all, part of being a member of the community is the social presence that one has. It's not merely the work that's already been done, but the future work that will likely be done. Ie, the commitment can be just as important as what's already been done.
Sorry to break it to you, but there's this thing called fair use. So, yea, I'm going to critique part of what you said without your permission.
PS: Yea, I'm still against copyright. If you want copyright, you have to live with all the consequences.
That's probably true. "Fair use exception" rarely allows for commercial content, as to do otherwise would crush an original author's ability to make any profit for an original idea. The exception tends to lie in reviews and criticisms. And in that field, review sites, online newspapers, and online magazines rather fit the bill.
Now, this I somewhat disagree with. I don't believe 80% of Internet "content" is commercial in nature. Most comes in the form of personal webpages, blogs, and all sorts of other personal content. Look at how many posts that exist on /. that don't rely upon fair use exceptions. Now, if you wanted to talk about *quantity* of content that flows through the internet, I'd still disagree. It seems ~50% of internet traffic is piracy (bittorent/p2p). I don't think the lack of fair use exceptions would decrease that.
It's funny you say that, since a majority of commercial copyright ventures outside the internet are done through corporations/companies that buy their original content from other people. Having said that, if it is the case that fair use exceptions allow for others to gain revenue, then it's a tautology that removing fair use exceptions will remove that revenue (since the classification will no longer exist). Of course, that just means more revenue from piracy.
Tell that to Disney. Seriously, though, not all economies are based upon copyrights (or patents). In fact, such economies may very well be inately doomed to failure. But, yea, since the US's economy *is* based highly upon copyright, it does need more original works to avoid "[running] out of gas". Or, you know, we could try to change the US's economy to rely less upon copyright, given how fragile copyright is.