There is no theoretical means of profiting off open-source software that hasn't been attempted
Prove it. (hasn't been thought of doesn't count)
I am not convinced that there have not been sucessfull companies using open-source. Which would moot this argument very fast.
Last point, our economy is going through severe distortions of credit and liquidity. Saying (or even proving) that open-source as a business model dosen't work in this environment doesn't mean much. This is NOT normal.
Nobody has ever sucessfully visited mars yet either. Does that mean no one ever will?? No.
That said, the fact that sucessfull open-source companies are rare (red hat anyone?) means that open-sourcing java is not gaurenteed to save the company. Simply put, your argument is incomplete at best.
That is for switching windows in the window manager. What I want is to switch between tabs in mozilla/firebird/firefox, using the keyboard. (not just clicking on it with the mouse.
Don't start in washington. Your quip about what they care about is accurate. Start in your county. If your state is small enough go there. My sister has been doing that, and while it has taken several years it looks like her bill will pass the state legislature, despite the medical comunities objections.
You have to start at the bottom with most things, including politics. Just not swimming.;)
The only thing that keeps the government in check is the Bill of Rights.
Ummm, if that is the case we are in trouble, cause the bill of rights hasn't squished the patriot act yet, and it doesn't seem too likely anytime soon.
Hate to sound all pessimistic and stuff, but the only thing capable of keeping the government in check, is the point of a gun. (well, lots of them anyway)
yea, yea, second amendment is in the bill of rights and all that. Where is my assault rifle? Oh wait. . .
2003 it is supposed to be over 530B. But stop comparing it to the national budget. In 2000 global military spending was under 800B (US spending that year was just under 300B). I see no justification for the US to be spending as much as everyone else combined*.
(*assuming nobody else upped their spending, we are at about 51%. bad assumption I know but it is in the ballpark)
At the time the constitution was written, we were under the articles of confederation, a hastily contrived union that got us through the revolutionary war. It had flaws, big ones. That is why a constitutional convention was held, to try and fix these flaws. (bored yet?) The part that you quoted from the constitution is from the preamble. All of the things listed in the preamble to the constitution were serious flaws in the articles of confederation. As for the common defense part, Congress, under the aarticles of confereration had no authority to raise funds for the military, beyond asking the states for money, which they could, and often did refuse or fail to do. 'Common defense' means military.
Ben Franklin was of the opinion that the declaration of independance was a far more fitting preamble. Oh, and since he was the only man who had a direct hand in both documents, his opinion should matter.
I wouldn't be surprised if people voted this way, (based on who they least hate, instead of on ideals,) because, for the most part, people in this nation have no ideals anymore.
My guess is that this essential liberty can be sumed up as 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness*' Specifically I would argue that you can define essential liberty as those liberties that are necessary to maintain all others. In this sense, the violations of the second amendment are the most serious. Look up 'arms' sometime, from both then and now. The founders intended the people** to be armed for war
.
*The founders ment this to mean something like 'using your own property to create the sort of life that you think will give you the most happiness' or something like that. They viewed this as property rights.
**In the constitution, when it says citizens, it means citizens. when it says people, it means people. The constitution is consistent on this point. The founders intended for all of the people in the nation to be armed, not just citizens.
I think what I was trying to say, and probably failing miserably, was that "government" is bandied about as though it were an entity that exists on its own or has sprung up out of nothingness.
It doesn't and it hasn't.
Yes! Very good point. The government is composed of, and controled by people, (not necessarily the same people)
The government isn't taking your liberty from you. Your fellow citizens are. They are responsible for voting your government into power.
While your fellow citizens are responsible for voting them in, they are hardly the ones responsible and certianly not the real people in charge. It just doesn't smell right for that. I am not sure who to lay the blame on, and it is probably several people/groups of people. My best guess is the large corporations, and those who own and/or control them bear the brunt of the blame. They seem to fit the same niche that the old aristocracy of europe (or most places/times in history) did. If true, this will not change until we can reform corporate law to limit their power. And no, I am not generally in favor of regulation. I suspect that certain aspects of corpopate law give them this power, and those need to be repealed.
Anyone know of a good place to start researching? Besides google of course.
"Linux isn't about offering less for cheaper, it's about doing things differently.
Yes, (thank goodness!) but, (at the risk of defending a M$ PR goon) he said that in reply to a question about pricing. What he said was that market interest in Linux is not because of pricing per say, but because they are trying to sell a package deal that is much more than what people want. In other words, they are selling a swiss army knife when what people want is a screw driver and a box cutter, and they are tired of buying the corkscrew that they do not want.
It is possible that the market in general does not care that linux does things differently. A different price point for windows, or a smaller, simpler windows would then halt the market penetration of Linux.
To use your (rather accurate!) analogy, maby people just want a cheap soda, not a quality meal.
It would have been even nicer if they had said something in a less obfuscated manner.
"By design, we've always moved out service and support from the core part of our pricing because we invest in the channel quite heavily."
What 'channel' are they talking about? What exactly does he mean by 'the core part of our pricing'? I am not saying that the meanings cannot be deciffered, But it is almost as clear as mud. (not quite;-))
My guess is that if it had been much clearer, it would have sounded rather disparaging. MS PR people got the hint that that sounded bad and adjusted.
No, that jab was probably just a poor choice of an analogy. 'never attribute to malice what can reasonable be attributed to incompetence' applies here.
On the other hand, what chance is there that we will see the $0.99 version of windows? A windows lite? I think that this would destroy their market dominance, as people would come to depend on the third party apps, not the windows stuff, and then they would all realize 'Hey, these apps run on Linux, *BSD, Mac etc. I can switch now! which is cheeper?" I think M$ realizes this, and so his statements here are just so much PR hot air. The only solution for microsoft that keeps their market posotion is to lower the price. Oh, and keep eating up the third party apps ala the last story.
I can rip out any component in my linux box I want, and replace it with a compatable piece. On Windoze, you can't. M$ did this on purpose. That is the difference, and it is huge.
Think 802.11x enabled phone and unsecured hotspots. Yes, the location could eventually be traced to a location, but (hopefully) only in the event of an active criminal investigation, not something routine, like all calls logged with a location and anyone with enough $$ or cracking skills having access.
'untraceable' in this context means, 'when I call 911, is my location reported, and is it also reported when I call some other number?'
I don't think you should be permitted to gamble with your child's life.
Nice idea. Wish that it could be true. I wish that we could all live in a safe world. Unfortunately we live in this world. You gamble with your child's life when you buy a house, drive him/her somewhere, buy food, check to see if he is ill, put him to bed, take him to the zoo, etc. Basically there is little you can do with/to you child that does not affect his life, often in ways that you can't predict. This applies to others, not just your kids. Your decisions affect others. Period.
Where do you draw the line? I think history shows that we need to draw the line as close to personal liberty as possible. Even at the risk of less safty, even for others. This is actually the safer route, Who has the ability to do the most harm? Some random joe, or a government gone tyranical? Franklin said it best. 'Those who give up a essential liberty for a little safty, deserve neither safty nor liberty' And I would add, usually get what they deserve.
See my other reply for more details in this case. (my reply to anothers reply to my original post)
1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.
'I didn't know that' is the sense that I used ignorant. In that sense I am ignorant about a lot of things. Society has pinned a negitive conotation on the word that it does not deserve. The parent of my post said that people expect 911 to just work. even over a VOIP phone. To expect this, is ignorance. They are simply ignorant of what a VOIP phone is, and to some extent POTS phones too. That does not make them stupid/uneducated/unable to understand, just ignorant. (ignorant and stupid often look alike:-( ) Next, your specific questions:
How many children or elderly people are going to think back to the Terms of Service of the phone they are calling 911 on?
If the elderly were the ones who signed up for it, they probably thought about it then, (assuming that it was required that they be told about it then, which was what I proposed). If so they would have either gone with a VOIP who provided the 911 location service, or made other arraingements for 911. To do otherwise would be really stupid, and most people aren't that dumb. The children? If you have children you should make sure they know how to properly dial 911 anyway. Moot point.
How many times will people call 911 on someone else's phone?
Wrong question, try this: How many times will people call 911 on MY phone? Depends on the phone. If this is likely, I would probably make sure 911 worked right. Failure to do this could be seen as a legal liability but begs the question, 'What right do others have to use my phone?' None, but it is a damn nice service to provide. If it is not likely, then it is MY phone, and I'll do as I please, privacy here should trump the small chance that someone may, in the future, break into my den, find my private phone and then need to call 911 for some obscure reason.
Also, you made an assumption, that I would still get the phone. What if, not being able to get a non-traceable second phone, I opted instead for no second phone. It is easier to get help in an emergency with an untraceable phone (phonebook, lookup police etc) than no phone.
But there is no reason in hell people should suffer just so you can be untraceable.
So, you are saying that I should suffer a gaurenteed (if small) loss in privacy, just on the off chance that others will need something from me that they did not (and could easily have) provide(d) for themselvs? Sounds like hell to me. Life is a right, 911 isn't.
I have a bit of a libertarian bent, If you disagree with libertarians, you will probably disagree with me. I think I have history on my side though.
I would not object to regulation requiring that. but requiring everyone to support it (especially since the telcos may be able to delay/make it too $$$ for the VOIP people, just to kill competition) is a first-class way to mess things up and make it cost more. Chances are VOIP is different enough that they could impliment 911 location service in a better (at least for themselvs) way than the telcos can/will.
So, just because some people are too lazy/stupid/ignorant to bother to find out, the government must make it impossible for me to get an untraceable phone?
A far better solution would be for anyone wanting to set up VOIP-POTS service that was untraceable(no 911 location service) be required to tell it's customers that fact. This would be far less intrusive regulation, and people would (should?) no longer rely on it in emergencies because they were told about it in advance.
Slashdot Mirror
Prove it. (hasn't been thought of doesn't count)
I am not convinced that there have not been sucessfull companies using open-source. Which would moot this argument very fast.
Last point, our economy is going through severe distortions of credit and liquidity. Saying (or even proving) that open-source as a business model dosen't work in this environment doesn't mean much. This is NOT normal.
That said, the fact that sucessfull open-source companies are rare (red hat anyone?) means that open-sourcing java is not gaurenteed to save the company. Simply put, your argument is incomplete at best.
Sorry, I am a bit picky about proper logic.
No "Providing for the common defense" is only in the preamble. the phrase "provide for the common Defence" is in the body
That is for switching windows in the window manager. What I want is to switch between tabs in mozilla/firebird/firefox, using the keyboard. (not just clicking on it with the mouse.
What (or where) is the keyboard shortcut for switching tabs? I even have the tab extensions and this is one thing that I really want to have.
You have to start at the bottom with most things, including politics. Just not swimming. ;)
Ummm, if that is the case we are in trouble, cause the bill of rights hasn't squished the patriot act yet, and it doesn't seem too likely anytime soon.
Hate to sound all pessimistic and stuff, but the only thing capable of keeping the government in check, is the point of a gun. (well, lots of them anyway)
yea, yea, second amendment is in the bill of rights and all that. Where is my assault rifle? Oh wait. . .
(*assuming nobody else upped their spending, we are at about 51%. bad assumption I know but it is in the ballpark)
At the time the constitution was written, we were under the articles of confederation, a hastily contrived union that got us through the revolutionary war. It had flaws, big ones. That is why a constitutional convention was held, to try and fix these flaws. (bored yet?) The part that you quoted from the constitution is from the preamble. All of the things listed in the preamble to the constitution were serious flaws in the articles of confederation. As for the common defense part, Congress, under the aarticles of confereration had no authority to raise funds for the military, beyond asking the states for money, which they could, and often did refuse or fail to do. 'Common defense' means military.
Ben Franklin was of the opinion that the declaration of independance was a far more fitting preamble. Oh, and since he was the only man who had a direct hand in both documents, his opinion should matter.
I wouldn't be surprised if people voted this way, (based on who they least hate, instead of on ideals,) because, for the most part, people in this nation have no ideals anymore.
.
*The founders ment this to mean something like 'using your own property to create the sort of life that you think will give you the most happiness' or something like that. They viewed this as property rights.
**In the constitution, when it says citizens, it means citizens. when it says people, it means people. The constitution is consistent on this point. The founders intended for all of the people in the nation to be armed, not just citizens.
It doesn't and it hasn't.
Yes! Very good point. The government is composed of, and controled by people, (not necessarily the same people)
The government isn't taking your liberty from you. Your fellow citizens are. They are responsible for voting your government into power.
While your fellow citizens are responsible for voting them in, they are hardly the ones responsible and certianly not the real people in charge. It just doesn't smell right for that. I am not sure who to lay the blame on, and it is probably several people/groups of people. My best guess is the large corporations, and those who own and/or control them bear the brunt of the blame. They seem to fit the same niche that the old aristocracy of europe (or most places/times in history) did. If true, this will not change until we can reform corporate law to limit their power. And no, I am not generally in favor of regulation. I suspect that certain aspects of corpopate law give them this power, and those need to be repealed.
Anyone know of a good place to start researching? Besides google of course.
Grrr... I meant a MS windows lite ....
Yes, (thank goodness!) but, (at the risk of defending a M$ PR goon) he said that in reply to a question about pricing. What he said was that market interest in Linux is not because of pricing per say, but because they are trying to sell a package deal that is much more than what people want. In other words, they are selling a swiss army knife when what people want is a screw driver and a box cutter, and they are tired of buying the corkscrew that they do not want.
It is possible that the market in general does not care that linux does things differently. A different price point for windows, or a smaller, simpler windows would then halt the market penetration of Linux.
To use your (rather accurate!) analogy, maby people just want a cheap soda, not a quality meal.
"By design, we've always moved out service and support from the core part of our pricing because we invest in the channel quite heavily."
What 'channel' are they talking about? What exactly does he mean by 'the core part of our pricing'? I am not saying that the meanings cannot be deciffered, But it is almost as clear as mud. (not quite ;-))
My guess is that if it had been much clearer, it would have sounded rather disparaging. MS PR people got the hint that that sounded bad and adjusted.
On the other hand, what chance is there that we will see the $0.99 version of windows? A windows lite? I think that this would destroy their market dominance, as people would come to depend on the third party apps, not the windows stuff, and then they would all realize 'Hey, these apps run on Linux, *BSD, Mac etc. I can switch now! which is cheeper?" I think M$ realizes this, and so his statements here are just so much PR hot air. The only solution for microsoft that keeps their market posotion is to lower the price. Oh, and keep eating up the third party apps ala the last story.
I can rip out any component in my linux box I want, and replace it with a compatable piece. On Windoze, you can't. M$ did this on purpose. That is the difference, and it is huge.
what about mobile phones? or when you go on vacation? I like the user specified part.
'untraceable' in this context means, 'when I call 911, is my location reported, and is it also reported when I call some other number?'
But if we try the regulation way, will we ever find the technical way?
Nice idea. Wish that it could be true. I wish that we could all live in a safe world. Unfortunately we live in this world. You gamble with your child's life when you buy a house, drive him/her somewhere, buy food, check to see if he is ill, put him to bed, take him to the zoo, etc. Basically there is little you can do with/to you child that does not affect his life, often in ways that you can't predict. This applies to others, not just your kids. Your decisions affect others. Period.
Where do you draw the line? I think history shows that we need to draw the line as close to personal liberty as possible. Even at the risk of less safty, even for others. This is actually the safer route, Who has the ability to do the most harm? Some random joe, or a government gone tyranical? Franklin said it best. 'Those who give up a essential liberty for a little safty, deserve neither safty nor liberty' And I would add, usually get what they deserve.
See my other reply for more details in this case. (my reply to anothers reply to my original post)
'I didn't know that' is the sense that I used ignorant. In that sense I am ignorant about a lot of things. Society has pinned a negitive conotation on the word that it does not deserve. The parent of my post said that people expect 911 to just work. even over a VOIP phone. To expect this, is ignorance. They are simply ignorant of what a VOIP phone is, and to some extent POTS phones too. That does not make them stupid/uneducated/unable to understand, just ignorant. (ignorant and stupid often look alike:-( ) Next, your specific questions:
How many children or elderly people are going to think back to the Terms of Service of the phone they are calling 911 on?
If the elderly were the ones who signed up for it, they probably thought about it then, (assuming that it was required that they be told about it then, which was what I proposed). If so they would have either gone with a VOIP who provided the 911 location service, or made other arraingements for 911. To do otherwise would be really stupid, and most people aren't that dumb. The children? If you have children you should make sure they know how to properly dial 911 anyway. Moot point.
How many times will people call 911 on someone else's phone?
Wrong question, try this: How many times will people call 911 on MY phone? Depends on the phone. If this is likely, I would probably make sure 911 worked right. Failure to do this could be seen as a legal liability but begs the question, 'What right do others have to use my phone?' None, but it is a damn nice service to provide. If it is not likely, then it is MY phone, and I'll do as I please, privacy here should trump the small chance that someone may, in the future, break into my den, find my private phone and then need to call 911 for some obscure reason.
Also, you made an assumption, that I would still get the phone. What if, not being able to get a non-traceable second phone, I opted instead for no second phone. It is easier to get help in an emergency with an untraceable phone (phonebook, lookup police etc) than no phone.
But there is no reason in hell people should suffer just so you can be untraceable.
So, you are saying that I should suffer a gaurenteed (if small) loss in privacy, just on the off chance that others will need something from me that they did not (and could easily have) provide(d) for themselvs? Sounds like hell to me. Life is a right, 911 isn't.
I have a bit of a libertarian bent, If you disagree with libertarians, you will probably disagree with me. I think I have history on my side though.
Your phone could also be any PC. mandating GPS in there wouldn't work.
I would not object to regulation requiring that. but requiring everyone to support it (especially since the telcos may be able to delay/make it too $$$ for the VOIP people, just to kill competition) is a first-class way to mess things up and make it cost more. Chances are VOIP is different enough that they could impliment 911 location service in a better (at least for themselvs) way than the telcos can/will.
So, just because some people are too lazy/stupid/ignorant to bother to find out, the government must make it impossible for me to get an untraceable phone?
A far better solution would be for anyone wanting to set up VOIP-POTS service that was untraceable(no 911 location service) be required to tell it's customers that fact. This would be far less intrusive regulation, and people would (should?) no longer rely on it in emergencies because they were told about it in advance.