>If I write a piece of software and it gets 100 paying users and zero pirates, I'm no better off than if I get 100 paying users and 1000 pirates. Count the paying users, not the pirates.
If you write a piece of software and you get 100 paying customers and 1000 warez kiddies, you have 1000 future customers when they need to buy something for work.
>The student isn't the target market for that piece of software.
Actually, yes, yes he is.
You learn it while in school and then you buy it professionally when you're working in the industry, or you get your employer to buy it.
Why the fuck do you think that Autocad has the market share that it has? It's certainly not superior to the other CAD packages out there. It's that everybody and his brother pirates the hell out of it when he is 14 and uses it through University and that's the only CAD package he knows.
It's the same with 3DSMax in your example.
The value of piracy is not lost on the publishers at all. If piracy was a real problem, they would use DRM from Hell (like what was used for Microsoft's "Plays for Sure" servers) and stop it forever.
It's not going to happen. Piracy is too important to the software publishing incumbents.
I'd like to see Ballmer's previous threats to crank WGA and OGA to 11.
I'd love to see DRM schemes that turn computers with illegitimate copies of software into smoking heaps.
It'll never happen, though. Copyright infringement is too important to the industry incumbents to actually stop it. File sharing locks out alternatives, both commercial and free. Why pay for an alternative when you can crack the market leader for free? If the world suddenly discovered there was software besides Windows, Microsoft Office, Autocad, and Photoshop, there would be more competition.
Ending piracy would end much of the market distortion that favors the incumbents at the expense of the rest.
I'm not. It's a dick move to take someone's content and steal it like this.
And just because you click on an agreement doesn't mean that all parts of the agreement are valid. There are things called unconscionable terms, which are/never/ valid.
I would also say that all bullshit clauses that say "this agreement can and will change at any time" are demonstrably unconscionable and any changes made without explicit agreement by both parties are contracts of adhesion, at best.
>what the internet does to the functioning of anonymous is indeed new, but its a twist, not a fundamental recompositioing of human sociology.
It really is fundamental. Anonymity does something to human behavior that nothing else does. When we are not anonymous, we are self-censoring. When we are truly anonymous, we aren't. It's the "Greater Internet Fuckwad" theory in a nutshell. People tend to say/do what's on their minds. We've never had such access to anonymity coupled with the free access to communication in all of human history. We were always part of the tribe, the town, the city, the county. And if you fucked up, you were ostracized at best or stoned at worst. This is new/different. People can make new associations on the Internet without any of the responsibility that goes with them. Fuck up? Just create another "identity." In the case of Anonymous, you don't even need to create another identity - you just ignore whatever you've said in the past as if it never happened, because that was a "different" Anonymous.
Sherry Turkel has had a lot to say about all of this over the past 20 years.
You are dismissing all of this with a hand-wave saying it doesn't matter.
This makes you look like you are a stuffed shirt - an aristocrat looking down his nose at the peasants, that your arguments in a vacuum (as opposed to Sherry Turkel's research) are somehow based on reality.
I suggest that you go read "Life on the Screen" by Sherry Turkel. It's a little bit dated, but the same basic themes still apply. Then I suggest that you take that concept that all organizations are hierarchical and chuck it in the trashcan of history.
Kind of, yes, because if all you know of Anonymous is what you've read about in various online publications, then I have to repeat an analogous line from Frank Zappa:
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture"
All that you've written assumes that Anonymous is hierarchical. It's a load of bollocks and couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
>now if you took away what motivated anonymous: passed a set of laws and enforced them in regards to internet freedoms to the satisfaction of most people identifying with anonymous, then anonymous would dissolve and cease to exist. neutralize the motivation, neutralize the movement. a movement exists to satisfy a grievance. once the grievance is satisfied, the movement becomes history
But that doesn't happen in real life. You thought I was an idealistic dreamer. It appears that you are the dreamer, because governments and corporations simply don't give in like that. Too many vested interests wanting to screw the little guy.
>imagine that some islamic militants started calling themselves anonymous. would you agree that that was still anonymous? of course it isn't the same anonymous, islamic fundamentalism, ANY religious fundamentalism, is no friend of internet freedoms. but according to you, it would be the same anonymous, because according to you, anyone can claim the mantle
Actually, yes, it works out exactly that way and it would still be Anonymous. This is where you fail to wrap your brain around the concept of Anon. This is because Anonymous lacks a permanent hierarchical structure. Anonymous does not have a set range of ideals. Internet freedom is part of what many Anons take to heart, but there's nothing stopping Islamic Fundamentalism from being adopted either except for individual Anon cultural backgrounds.
You are analyzing Anonymous without ever experiencing it. Argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity is all you've had to offer in this thread.
You are misunderstanding what I meant and believe that I am somehow a dreamy idealist.
I used to be one about 30 years ago. Not anymore. I read "The Disposessed" in high school and liked the "structured anarchy" in LeGuin's book, but it was clear even at that age that both planets in the book were gedankenexperiments and nothing more. I was also a Marx fan too. Then I grew up.
Anonymous is not hierarchical. There is no formal admissions process to Anonymous. You either join or you do not. You can lead a group or you can be a follower. You can join for 5 minutes and 10 minutes later, start shouting that "this is stupid and not fun, guys" or you can start your own "faction" with your own idea. Leaders and followers can be interchangeable in the space of 15 minutes. You can watch it happen by lurking in/b/ and in irc. This is how it actually works. It's not some sort of fantasy of how Anon operates.
The way Anon operates is unique to the age. The reason why we never saw this before is because communication used to be more difficult. Old Baader-Meinhoff or IRA shenanigans with cell structure and cloak-and-dagger message passing in the dead of night are passe'. Post something anonymously on a popular message board on a website and the world can read it without the message pointing directly at the originator. Entire discussions can be held with everyone being named "Anonymous" out in public. Enormous amounts of people can be organized in the space of an hour. That's what makes Anon effective (for various values of effective). 15 years ago, Anon would have been impossible to pull off, partly for technical reasons and partly for cultural reasons.
To kill Anonymous, you'd have to kill the *idea* of the flash-mob first, which is what Anonymous grew out of. You also have to kill anonymity on the net. The powers that be are working on the latter, but I think a technical "solution" anonymity is impossible without shutting down the internet and the phone system entirely. "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" - John Gilmore. Not only is that true of the 'Net, it's also true of people in general. It's the "don't effin' tell me what to do" reaction, which is in full force in Syria and Libya right now as an example. People are willing to risk death for "FUCKYOUIWON'TDOWHATYOUTELLME" to quote RATM.
Oh fucking please. Anonymous was a cohesive group that is now in "civil war"?
Anonymous is/b/ on 4chan and a bunch of other chans. There is no "leadership" - there is more or less "consensus" for varying values of "consensus" when it comes to a protest or a network attack. Anonymous is about as cohesive as a fist full of jelly.
>Ryan
Ryan is extremely angry because a small group of Anonymous rescued all the old data from Encyclopedia Dramatica by getting it from archive.org before Ryan could get it deleted and then put up their own mirror of the old ED wiki. That's what this is about. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Here's the rebuilt ED wiki, hosted in Switzerland:
With something like this, people are motivated to look. It shouldn't be too difficult, unless the code is deliberately obfuscated. At that point, you just reject the application for being poorly written and say "try again, asshole."
Inb4 the software becomes "required" for government contracts.
>they could easily slip something nasty into any open source package.
Repeat after me:
NOT EVERYONE IS KEN THOMPSON.
Also
While it's not a panacea, Open Source is still better than closed especially when it comes to stuff like this. With Open Source, you're able to look. With closed, you've got nothing.
It's not unknown. It's errors. DNA does not copy exactly every time. And sex is merely a way of being able to get more variation in DNA. More variation = more chances to survive (up to a point).
And if you want to get down to the actual reason why DNA copies are not always true, it's because of physics. Physics and probability. Nothing more and nothing less. We've been testing the probability part of the physics for nearly 100 years.
And since your argument fails on its premise - that we don't know where the randomness comes from, all that shit you typed was for naught. The attempt to pull science down to "we just don't know" failed. Indeed, your entire argument is "Argument from incredulity" which isn't an argument at all, but simply a lack of imagination on your part.
Your argument is typical of creationst screeds. It tries to paint scientific arguments as "we just don't know either" when in fact that's not true. Science has done a pretty good job of explaining how the universe operates and we've created some nifty technology based on those rules, which in itself is a test of those rules.
Creationist arguments are not testable. They are not science. Evolution is testable. In fact, we run experiments on evolution all the time with antibiotics. Such experimentation by society nearly killed me with MRSA.
Keep religion out of the classroom unless you want to teach it as a cultural studies course. But then you have to teach other cultures to put things in perspective, and I don't think that the christian taliban behind this bullshit are quite prepared to have the Quran, Mahabharata, Tibetan book of the dead, the writings of Zoroaster, et alia to young minds. They might find their kids might learn something.
Science isn't an ism. It's not a faith. Faith is unquestioned. Science is all about questions.
You want to teach religion in the schools? Fine, let's teach *all* the origin stories. From the Bible to the Mahabharata to the Quran to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All on equal footing, because we can't show any favoritism. Make it an elective.
But keep it out of the science classroom. Because it's not science.
What ordinary user knows about the Chrome task manager?
Remember that I'm trying to look at it from a "joe user" perspective, not an expert's perspective. Granted I said "kill -9" there but that was to illustrate the point that an ordinary user has no way to really back out once the script has started to operate, and that starts as soon as the person navigates to the page.
I've seen it. It detects Chrome and puts up a fake Chrome screen.
The problem is that the dialog is modal and steals focus from Chrome. You can't simply close the tab. So you click, it does its "scan" and gives a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose dialog and you click that and you wind up downloading a windows executable, and that's when Chrome finally steps in and says "hey, this is an executable file, do you really want this?" and that's the only place you can say no-thanks.
The only other solution is to force-kill (kill -9) the entire Chrome window at the start.
Chrome should allow you to close a tab and anything else attached to it, at any time. The current situation is unacceptable from a user's POV.
I did this in Linux, but having wine installed means that this could be a vector for malware in Linux, too, with a little more work.
inb4 "but no malware writer cares about linux" and "hurr, wineserver is a user process, so it makes no sense to have autorun malware as a user" (as if anyone ever checks his.bashrc or.profile). The only thing I see as a barrier to this foolishness is the relative intelligence of your average Linux guy (me) versus the typical Windows user in deciding not to run something thrust at the browser for download from a bad website.
>A quick buck and an increase in stock value means EVERYTHING to a non-engineer CEO who is only going to be there for 5 years
The thing is that the day after she left, the market cap of HP bounced up 3Billion. Yes, with a B. This means that the market thought that Carly was worth a *negative* 3 billion dollars.
Then she had the audacity to go crying on 60 Minutes about how the culture at HP was demeaning towards her.
You are so full of shit. Let me show you how full of shit you really are.
Here is what you are so butthurt about. This is how to get Gnome 2.3 back.
1.) At Ubuntu 11.04 login screen, choose login to âoeubuntu classicâ. 2.) Right click on âoemain menuâ, âoeglobal menuâ at top left screen and uncheck âoelock to panelâ, then select to âoeremove from panelâ 3.) Right click on top panel, choose âoeadd to panelâ and then add âoemenu barâ. Now youâ(TM)re in Ubuntu 11.04 with classic gnome desktop!
And when Debian finally does away with Gnome 2.3 and everything is moved over to Gnome3, what, exactly, are you going to do? Keep complaining? Because whether you like it or not, Gnome 2 is disappearing across all distributions that use Gnome. Gnome 3 is already in PPAs for both Ubuntu and Debian, so the death of 2.3 is coming damn soon.
He's a lunatic. As are a vast majority of them are. All you have to do is go over to the Free Republic echo chamber to get more than enough evidence that the Tea Party is composed of idiots.
And I am on the left, and I think that corporate welfare is a fucking crime. No favorite corporations. They all should stand on their own or fail on their own. The thing is, the Right confuses welfare for the rich and corporate welfare with "investing" in the "free" market.
Nobody with a brain has ever claimed that OSX is impervious. And nobody with a brain has ever claimed that OSX is impervious to PEBCAK.
What *has* been claimed is that the automatic propagation of evil over OSX (and BSD and Linux and *every other sane OS out there*) is terribly inefficient, because unless you pack the evil in a container, permissions (including the permission to execute) are stripped as soon as you send your file. And then you have to either unpack it or you have to manually assign the execute bit through right clicking and using the dialog or using chmod. And only then can you run the file.
Compare and contrast this to the Windows world where the execute bit is tied to 3 letters in the file name and Windows will duly execute the file as soon as it's double-clicked. Malware in this system goes from machine to machine because Windows assumes that a file is permitted to execute if it whispers the correct shibboleth of "exe, com, scr" or what have you.
While OSX's advantage of using the Unix model of tossing permissions does not cover warez, the equivalent of purple gorillas on OSX or braindead users, even the small amounts of protection that OSX gives goes a long way in preventing network effects on the spread of malware.
Slashdot Mirror
>If I write a piece of software and it gets 100 paying users and zero pirates, I'm no better off than if I get 100 paying users and 1000 pirates. Count the paying users, not the pirates.
If you write a piece of software and you get 100 paying customers and 1000 warez kiddies, you have 1000 future customers when they need to buy something for work.
--
BMO
>The student isn't the target market for that piece of software.
Actually, yes, yes he is.
You learn it while in school and then you buy it professionally when you're working in the industry, or you get your employer to buy it.
Why the fuck do you think that Autocad has the market share that it has? It's certainly not superior to the other CAD packages out there. It's that everybody and his brother pirates the hell out of it when he is 14 and uses it through University and that's the only CAD package he knows.
It's the same with 3DSMax in your example.
The value of piracy is not lost on the publishers at all. If piracy was a real problem, they would use DRM from Hell (like what was used for Microsoft's "Plays for Sure" servers) and stop it forever.
It's not going to happen. Piracy is too important to the software publishing incumbents.
--
BMO
I'd like to see Ballmer's previous threats to crank WGA and OGA to 11.
I'd love to see DRM schemes that turn computers with illegitimate copies of software into smoking heaps.
It'll never happen, though. Copyright infringement is too important to the industry incumbents to actually stop it. File sharing locks out alternatives, both commercial and free. Why pay for an alternative when you can crack the market leader for free? If the world suddenly discovered there was software besides Windows, Microsoft Office, Autocad, and Photoshop, there would be more competition.
Ending piracy would end much of the market distortion that favors the incumbents at the expense of the rest.
Do it, guys, if you have any balls.
--
BMO
Shutting down the business is not the same thing.
A few weeks warning should be given so people can pull their content off like the shutdown of Geocities.
There's a difference between stealing and going broke/shutting down.
If you can't see it, then I don't know what to tell you.
--
BMO
>I'm torn on this.
I'm not. It's a dick move to take someone's content and steal it like this.
And just because you click on an agreement doesn't mean that all parts of the agreement are valid. There are things called unconscionable terms, which are /never/ valid.
I would also say that all bullshit clauses that say "this agreement can and will change at any time" are demonstrably unconscionable and any changes made without explicit agreement by both parties are contracts of adhesion, at best.
--
BMO
>that's a shame, and your eventual downfall if you do not correct this character weakness
You've done nothing but talk down to me and other people in this thread.
Fuck you and fuck off. This is why we can't have nice things.
Say hello to your new status.
Prick.
--
BMO
>what the internet does to the functioning of anonymous is indeed new, but its a twist, not a fundamental recompositioing of human sociology.
It really is fundamental. Anonymity does something to human behavior that nothing else does. When we are not anonymous, we are self-censoring. When we are truly anonymous, we aren't. It's the "Greater Internet Fuckwad" theory in a nutshell. People tend to say/do what's on their minds. We've never had such access to anonymity coupled with the free access to communication in all of human history. We were always part of the tribe, the town, the city, the county. And if you fucked up, you were ostracized at best or stoned at worst. This is new/different. People can make new associations on the Internet without any of the responsibility that goes with them. Fuck up? Just create another "identity." In the case of Anonymous, you don't even need to create another identity - you just ignore whatever you've said in the past as if it never happened, because that was a "different" Anonymous.
Sherry Turkel has had a lot to say about all of this over the past 20 years.
You are dismissing all of this with a hand-wave saying it doesn't matter.
This makes you look like you are a stuffed shirt - an aristocrat looking down his nose at the peasants, that your arguments in a vacuum (as opposed to Sherry Turkel's research) are somehow based on reality.
I suggest that you go read "Life on the Screen" by Sherry Turkel. It's a little bit dated, but the same basic themes still apply. Then I suggest that you take that concept that all organizations are hierarchical and chuck it in the trashcan of history.
--
BMO
>What, is anonymous like having sex or something?
Kind of, yes, because if all you know of Anonymous is what you've read about in various online publications, then I have to repeat an analogous line from Frank Zappa:
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture"
All that you've written assumes that Anonymous is hierarchical. It's a load of bollocks and couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
--
BMO
>now if you took away what motivated anonymous: passed a set of laws and enforced them in regards to internet freedoms to the satisfaction of most people identifying with anonymous, then anonymous would dissolve and cease to exist. neutralize the motivation, neutralize the movement. a movement exists to satisfy a grievance. once the grievance is satisfied, the movement becomes history
But that doesn't happen in real life. You thought I was an idealistic dreamer. It appears that you are the dreamer, because governments and corporations simply don't give in like that. Too many vested interests wanting to screw the little guy.
>imagine that some islamic militants started calling themselves anonymous. would you agree that that was still anonymous? of course it isn't the same anonymous, islamic fundamentalism, ANY religious fundamentalism, is no friend of internet freedoms. but according to you, it would be the same anonymous, because according to you, anyone can claim the mantle
Actually, yes, it works out exactly that way and it would still be Anonymous. This is where you fail to wrap your brain around the concept of Anon. This is because Anonymous lacks a permanent hierarchical structure. Anonymous does not have a set range of ideals. Internet freedom is part of what many Anons take to heart, but there's nothing stopping Islamic Fundamentalism from being adopted either except for individual Anon cultural backgrounds.
You are analyzing Anonymous without ever experiencing it. Argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity is all you've had to offer in this thread.
--
BMO
I wish I could greentext you, but I'll just use the greater than sign to imply greentexting.
>he thinks that by going to /b/ for 10 minutes he can get a handle on what Anonymous is.
laughing.girls.mpeg.flv.zoo
Implying implications, etc.,
--
BMO
You are misunderstanding what I meant and believe that I am somehow a dreamy idealist.
I used to be one about 30 years ago. Not anymore. I read "The Disposessed" in high school and liked the "structured anarchy" in LeGuin's book, but it was clear even at that age that both planets in the book were gedankenexperiments and nothing more. I was also a Marx fan too. Then I grew up.
Anonymous is not hierarchical. There is no formal admissions process to Anonymous. You either join or you do not. You can lead a group or you can be a follower. You can join for 5 minutes and 10 minutes later, start shouting that "this is stupid and not fun, guys" or you can start your own "faction" with your own idea. Leaders and followers can be interchangeable in the space of 15 minutes. You can watch it happen by lurking in /b/ and in irc. This is how it actually works. It's not some sort of fantasy of how Anon operates.
The way Anon operates is unique to the age. The reason why we never saw this before is because communication used to be more difficult. Old Baader-Meinhoff or IRA shenanigans with cell structure and cloak-and-dagger message passing in the dead of night are passe'. Post something anonymously on a popular message board on a website and the world can read it without the message pointing directly at the originator. Entire discussions can be held with everyone being named "Anonymous" out in public. Enormous amounts of people can be organized in the space of an hour. That's what makes Anon effective (for various values of effective). 15 years ago, Anon would have been impossible to pull off, partly for technical reasons and partly for cultural reasons.
To kill Anonymous, you'd have to kill the *idea* of the flash-mob first, which is what Anonymous grew out of. You also have to kill anonymity on the net. The powers that be are working on the latter, but I think a technical "solution" anonymity is impossible without shutting down the internet and the phone system entirely. "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" - John Gilmore. Not only is that true of the 'Net, it's also true of people in general. It's the "don't effin' tell me what to do" reaction, which is in full force in Syria and Libya right now as an example. People are willing to risk death for "FUCKYOUIWON'TDOWHATYOUTELLME" to quote RATM.
--
BMO
Oh fucking please. Anonymous was a cohesive group that is now in "civil war"?
Anonymous is /b/ on 4chan and a bunch of other chans. There is no "leadership" - there is more or less "consensus" for varying values of "consensus" when it comes to a protest or a network attack. Anonymous is about as cohesive as a fist full of jelly.
>Ryan
Ryan is extremely angry because a small group of Anonymous rescued all the old data from Encyclopedia Dramatica by getting it from archive.org before Ryan could get it deleted and then put up their own mirror of the old ED wiki. That's what this is about. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Here's the rebuilt ED wiki, hosted in Switzerland:
http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Main_Page
That Ryan is raging buttmad over what "Teh Internets" has done "to him" is delicious irony.
--
BMO
With something like this, people are motivated to look. It shouldn't be too difficult, unless the code is deliberately obfuscated. At that point, you just reject the application for being poorly written and say "try again, asshole."
Inb4 the software becomes "required" for government contracts.
--
BMO
>they could easily slip something nasty into any open source package.
Repeat after me:
NOT EVERYONE IS KEN THOMPSON.
Also
While it's not a panacea, Open Source is still better than closed especially when it comes to stuff like this. With Open Source, you're able to look. With closed, you've got nothing.
--
BMO
>UNKNOWN REASON,
It's not unknown. It's errors. DNA does not copy exactly every time. And sex is merely a way of being able to get more variation in DNA. More variation = more chances to survive (up to a point).
And if you want to get down to the actual reason why DNA copies are not always true, it's because of physics. Physics and probability. Nothing more and nothing less. We've been testing the probability part of the physics for nearly 100 years.
And since your argument fails on its premise - that we don't know where the randomness comes from, all that shit you typed was for naught. The attempt to pull science down to "we just don't know" failed. Indeed, your entire argument is "Argument from incredulity" which isn't an argument at all, but simply a lack of imagination on your part.
Your argument is typical of creationst screeds. It tries to paint scientific arguments as "we just don't know either" when in fact that's not true. Science has done a pretty good job of explaining how the universe operates and we've created some nifty technology based on those rules, which in itself is a test of those rules.
Creationist arguments are not testable. They are not science. Evolution is testable. In fact, we run experiments on evolution all the time with antibiotics. Such experimentation by society nearly killed me with MRSA.
Keep religion out of the classroom unless you want to teach it as a cultural studies course. But then you have to teach other cultures to put things in perspective, and I don't think that the christian taliban behind this bullshit are quite prepared to have the Quran, Mahabharata, Tibetan book of the dead, the writings of Zoroaster, et alia to young minds. They might find their kids might learn something.
--
BMO
Protip:
Science isn't an ism. It's not a faith. Faith is unquestioned. Science is all about questions.
You want to teach religion in the schools? Fine, let's teach *all* the origin stories. From the Bible to the Mahabharata to the Quran to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All on equal footing, because we can't show any favoritism. Make it an elective.
But keep it out of the science classroom. Because it's not science.
--
BMO
What ordinary user knows about the Chrome task manager?
Remember that I'm trying to look at it from a "joe user" perspective, not an expert's perspective. Granted I said "kill -9" there but that was to illustrate the point that an ordinary user has no way to really back out once the script has started to operate, and that starts as soon as the person navigates to the page.
--
BMO.
I've seen it. It detects Chrome and puts up a fake Chrome screen.
The problem is that the dialog is modal and steals focus from Chrome. You can't simply close the tab. So you click, it does its "scan" and gives a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose dialog and you click that and you wind up downloading a windows executable, and that's when Chrome finally steps in and says "hey, this is an executable file, do you really want this?" and that's the only place you can say no-thanks.
The only other solution is to force-kill (kill -9) the entire Chrome window at the start.
Chrome should allow you to close a tab and anything else attached to it, at any time. The current situation is unacceptable from a user's POV.
I did this in Linux, but having wine installed means that this could be a vector for malware in Linux, too, with a little more work.
inb4 "but no malware writer cares about linux" and "hurr, wineserver is a user process, so it makes no sense to have autorun malware as a user" (as if anyone ever checks his .bashrc or .profile). The only thing I see as a barrier to this foolishness is the relative intelligence of your average Linux guy (me) versus the typical Windows user in deciding not to run something thrust at the browser for download from a bad website.
--
BMO
Let's eat, Grandpa!
Let's eat Grandpa!
Grammar saves lives.
--
BMO
>A quick buck and an increase in stock value means EVERYTHING to a non-engineer CEO who is only going to be there for 5 years
The thing is that the day after she left, the market cap of HP bounced up 3Billion. Yes, with a B. This means that the market thought that Carly was worth a *negative* 3 billion dollars.
Then she had the audacity to go crying on 60 Minutes about how the culture at HP was demeaning towards her.
--
BMO
>no longer going to be there in future versions
Oh really.
>Patch and compile it
Compile what, exactly?
You are so full of shit. Let me show you how full of shit you really are.
Here is what you are so butthurt about. This is how to get Gnome 2.3 back.
1.) At Ubuntu 11.04 login screen, choose login to âoeubuntu classicâ.
2.) Right click on âoemain menuâ, âoeglobal menuâ at top left screen and uncheck âoelock to panelâ, then select to âoeremove from panelâ
3.) Right click on top panel, choose âoeadd to panelâ and then add âoemenu barâ.
Now youâ(TM)re in Ubuntu 11.04 with classic gnome desktop!
http://ubuntuguide.net/ubuntu-11-04-natty-login-to-classic-gnome-2-desktop
It takes less than a minute if you're slow.
This is a *non issue*
And when Debian finally does away with Gnome 2.3 and everything is moved over to Gnome3, what, exactly, are you going to do? Keep complaining? Because whether you like it or not, Gnome 2 is disappearing across all distributions that use Gnome. Gnome 3 is already in PPAs for both Ubuntu and Debian, so the death of 2.3 is coming damn soon.
--
BMO
Seriously, Linux is about choice. Don't like the desktop? Install one of the other dozen or so window managers and desktops.
It's not like it's any more difficult than herpan, derpan, pointan, clickan in Synaptic.
I keep seeing shit like this and I swear it must be Softies trying to spread FUD. Stop it. It's about as controversial as Debian "forcing" Gnome 3.
Fucktards.
--
BMO
Protip: We have a self tea partier in the thread.
He's a lunatic. As are a vast majority of them are. All you have to do is go over to the Free Republic echo chamber to get more than enough evidence that the Tea Party is composed of idiots.
And I am on the left, and I think that corporate welfare is a fucking crime. No favorite corporations. They all should stand on their own or fail on their own. The thing is, the Right confuses welfare for the rich and corporate welfare with "investing" in the "free" market.
--
BMO
So how's that Windows system goin' for ya?
How does your schadenfreude make your own Windows system more secure?
Oh, wait... you're out from under your bridge.
--
BMO
Nobody with a brain has ever claimed that OSX is impervious. And nobody with a brain has ever claimed that OSX is impervious to PEBCAK.
What *has* been claimed is that the automatic propagation of evil over OSX (and BSD and Linux and *every other sane OS out there*) is terribly inefficient, because unless you pack the evil in a container, permissions (including the permission to execute) are stripped as soon as you send your file. And then you have to either unpack it or you have to manually assign the execute bit through right clicking and using the dialog or using chmod. And only then can you run the file.
Compare and contrast this to the Windows world where the execute bit is tied to 3 letters in the file name and Windows will duly execute the file as soon as it's double-clicked. Malware in this system goes from machine to machine because Windows assumes that a file is permitted to execute if it whispers the correct shibboleth of "exe, com, scr" or what have you.
While OSX's advantage of using the Unix model of tossing permissions does not cover warez, the equivalent of purple gorillas on OSX or braindead users, even the small amounts of protection that OSX gives goes a long way in preventing network effects on the spread of malware.
--
BMO