With free software, there could be such monkey business, it would just (arguably) get discovered quicker. It would be perfectly possible to create, say, a GPLed spyware program.
you need to convince yourself that none of it is spyware. The easiest way to do that is to use nothing but free software.
Which leads neatly into the other thing I said; do you personally vet each and every piece of software which you get through APT? I can think of a few ways in which a program with a trojan horse could slip through Debian's QA procedures.
Some companies, like M$ have proved themselves less than trustworthy, but non free software all has the potential to betray and none of it has respect for the user.
I trust Microsoft. In all my years of using Microsoft software, it hasn't infringed on my privacy, fucked up any of my files or indeed done anything less than allow me (and many other people) to do exactly as I wish with my computer. For many, there simply isn't a functional equivalent, open source or not.
Saying that all non-free software has "the potential to betray" is just stupid FUD, although to be fair I should expect nothing less from you.
100 year copyrights have suppressed older content more than it has encouraged it's publication depriving us all of our parent's culture not to mention our own.
I actually agree with you on this, copyright terms are extortionate. We need a life plus nothing term for all copyright. After all, an author can only benefit from the fruits of his labour while he's actually alive.
The current set up of government franchises on radio space and anti-circumvention laws seem to have produced two large music publishing companies that are more interested in harassing the public than finding and promoting talented musicians.
Now this is the twitter we all know and love.
1) Please explain how licensing the radio spectrum, for which there are many valid reasons (mainly circulating over issues like interference) has allowed the RIAA to build itself up. I'd love to know. 2) The DMCA has nothing to do with P2P lawsuits. 3) They don't harass the public, they sue people who they have reasonable suspicion to believe are pirating their constituent artists and record companies' music. Now, you can attack the methodology (I can and will; with the prevalence of dynamic IP addresses, suing people based on their IP is silly and misguided. They'd be better off going after people on Internet forums who brag about P2Ping shit.) but they have every right to defend their copyright in a civil court using the protections given to them by the US Constitution.
By the way, twitter, I do have a reasonable amount of respect for you for not going on about the evil RIAA etc and then downloading their music off P2P. Your previous comments indicate you get Creative Commons music instead of RIAA music, which as a position of protest I respect.
It's non free software, right? Why are you surprised? The non free extortion has always been, "Do as I say or your computer will not do what you want."
What's wrong with you, twitter? I really want to know how someone who can reach such silly conclusions isn't being medicated.
You realise when you slander closed source software, you slander all closed source software. That includes, among other things:
Quake
Notepad
The Windows calculator
PC-DOS
The firmware used in most TV set top boxes
and much much more. See how silly it sounds to suggest that all closed source software is evil spyware? If you were to alternatively say that it was "Microsoft's" extortion, then you'd be no more correct, but you wouldn't be talking out of your ass so much.
Chances are that Macromedia Flash or something already has your microphone turned on.
Citation, please. I want evidence for this.
When you use non free software, you hand control of your computer to someone else.
Oh please. Are you willing to tell me that when you use "free software", you inspect each and every bit of code that your PC runs for security flaws and trojans? Because I'll bet you don't. I bet you merrily apt-get just about everything, and don't think about it for another second.
It depends which store you go to. My place, they will usually accept the product in return for a refund without the receipt if there's an obvious flaw, but clearly receipts are preferred. That said, it's probably best for all concerned to keep receipts, just on the offchance you want to exchange something.
(While I'm posting, might as well relate a little story...doing the parking barriers, guy comes up to the window in his car, I ask him for his ticket and he says, very proudly, "I threw it away!". Whaddaya want, a cookie?)
1) You go into Boots, you pick up some stuff and a chlamydia testing kit. It's inconspicuous; everyone buys things from Boots, not just people who think they've got an STD. Nobody will know other than the cashier and anyone who happens to see you prevaricating over which chlamydia testing kit to buy. You only have to go to a doctor when you KNOW you've got chlamydia. 2) You go to a clap clinic. Nobody goes to a clap clinic unless they think they've got the clap or they've actually got the clap, which both imply bad things. You have to go multiple times, once to do testing and subsequent times to get treatment.
The clap clinic is a conspicuous place to be. Boots is not. There's your difference.
Those adverts, no matter how shite, still give something the mumbo jumbo ad doesn't: REASONS. The ad this article is about doesn't say why it's bad (other than the specious "you pay") just that it is bad.
Charging for parking comes with an unspoken-yet-obvious assumption, which may not be true: that simply walking into your store and looking around, is worth money.
Free parking is given out on the proviso that people will either spend money in-store or pay £1 to park there. Even if you don't buy anything, you're still taking up a parking space which could be used by someone who actually does want to buy something. It's not as if we charge EVERYONE (you get 2 hours free with a receipt, so basically you could buy a 22p pack of gum and get out of the car park for 72p less.) It makes sense for us to charge people £1 rather than use the altogether more objectionable pay and display system, whereby if you overstay your time in the car park your wheels get clamped (and they charge about £50 to unclamp it).
That said, if you don't like it, feel free to park somewhere else, just expect to pay a bit more for the privilege.
That's a fair point. However, closed source software doesn't really compromise your security any more than running open source software which you have not thoroughly vetted beforehand; after all, how many people simply apt-get something and never check what's in the source?
Nononono. Not in the slightest. All I'm saying is that people born around 1990/1980 will have grown up around computers and are more likely to have an acute, if not particularly nuanced understanding of technology (e.g. they will understand terms like "bandwidth" and "megabit"), whereas a large proportion of elderly people won't have that same understanding.
I'm not suggesting AT ALL that the elderly cannot understand technology, or that they are the only ones who don't understand technology. It's just more likely for younger people to understand the Internet (even in a facile sense) than elderly people.
And which is why, when I worked retail / CS, I made sure to convey to these people that Policy X that they are upset about is mandated by the office, and that I don't particularly think it's good or fair either.
In a lot of cases, that merely reinforces their prejudice that you're just too weak/undertrained to do otherwise.
I know this having worked parking barriers for a time. Simple job: take a ticket with time of entry stamped on it from them; if they've been over 2 hours or haven't bought anything instore, charge them a small sum (£1). The rules are clearly outlined not just at the car park entrance, but also right on the front of the store. You wouldn't believe the number of people who got shitty when I told them they had to pay £1 (it was, amusingly, always the ones in the big expensive cars as well...the ones for whom £1 would be a trifling inconvenience at worst).
My point is that a lot of customers take the credo that the customer is always right a little too far, and see anything which makes them feel less nice (e.g. being charged for parking) as a gross offence against their person, no matter who mandates it.
Thing is, I work at a supermarket (doing so to get money to do a distance learning course) and I have to deal with smug assholes like that on a day to day basis. They think, at the same time, that
a) if you earn more money than someone that gives you the ultimate right to be a complete dick towards them b) it's their fault that their job involves enforcing a rule, no matter how silly and no matter who imposed it
Young people have it the worst off. People have the impression of them that they're merely one part of a huge machine, and that they're too undertrained to be anything more. Even the article makes mention of the cashier being a "young man"...it's not his fucking fault! If he didn't listen to his managers, he could easily have been fired.
Placing that important work on a system that has non free software is not a good idea and might be worse than you think. Quality is usually less than free equivalents, so your performance will degrade in proportion to the amount of non free software you use.
What the fuck are you talking about? So, if I install Flash on Linux, that installation of Linux is automatically corrupted and shitty?
Let's not even go into the fact that "quality" is a subjective thing. Basically, you're just spouting a load of FUD.
More important problems are in the EULA. Microsoft, to name an extreme example, gives itself the right to inspect your files for "copyright violation" and delete them at will with no further obligation to you.
Citations, please. I want a nice, concrete link to a copy of the XP SP2 EULA, which says that Microsoft gives itself the right to look for copyright violations (quote marks indicate a direct quote, twitter! Remember that from English class?). Not links to news articles on other websites, I want something on Microsoft's web server if possible.
Others may not be as bad, but you never can tell with non free software. Non free software, regardless of it's function, is dangerous. Non free software is written to do the bidding of it's owners.
Yes, because when I click "rip CD" on iTunes, it instead buys the album from the Music Store and downloads it, which I'm sure Apple would prefer.
Twitter, STOP SPEWING INACCURATE FUD. You're hurting the F/OSS movement more than anything.
I'm afraid, after another hurricane like Katrina, it'll be likely the elevator will be stalled again. Funds will have to be reallocated When The Levee Breaks.
It's certainly an explanation as to where all that dating spam comes from. Or for that matter the "enlargement" spam...being a short guy himself, he must sure feel bad for all the other guys with short...guys.:P
Slashdot Mirror
If someone buys a Mac, even if not to use OSX, Apple wins.
If Microsoft sells their OS for use on Macs, Microsoft wins.
Nobody's beating anybody. Microsoft gets revenue from software, Apple gets revenue from hardware. Where's the problem?
Best troll ever.
With free software, there could be such monkey business, it would just (arguably) get discovered quicker. It would be perfectly possible to create, say, a GPLed spyware program.
you need to convince yourself that none of it is spyware. The easiest way to do that is to use nothing but free software.
Which leads neatly into the other thing I said; do you personally vet each and every piece of software which you get through APT? I can think of a few ways in which a program with a trojan horse could slip through Debian's QA procedures.
Some companies, like M$ have proved themselves less than trustworthy, but non free software all has the potential to betray and none of it has respect for the user.
I trust Microsoft. In all my years of using Microsoft software, it hasn't infringed on my privacy, fucked up any of my files or indeed done anything less than allow me (and many other people) to do exactly as I wish with my computer. For many, there simply isn't a functional equivalent, open source or not.
Saying that all non-free software has "the potential to betray" is just stupid FUD, although to be fair I should expect nothing less from you.
That's assuming this tactic doesn't blow up in their faces.
100 year copyrights have suppressed older content more than it has encouraged it's publication depriving us all of our parent's culture not to mention our own.
I actually agree with you on this, copyright terms are extortionate. We need a life plus nothing term for all copyright. After all, an author can only benefit from the fruits of his labour while he's actually alive.
The current set up of government franchises on radio space and anti-circumvention laws seem to have produced two large music publishing companies that are more interested in harassing the public than finding and promoting talented musicians.
Now this is the twitter we all know and love.
1) Please explain how licensing the radio spectrum, for which there are many valid reasons (mainly circulating over issues like interference) has allowed the RIAA to build itself up. I'd love to know.
2) The DMCA has nothing to do with P2P lawsuits.
3) They don't harass the public, they sue people who they have reasonable suspicion to believe are pirating their constituent artists and record companies' music. Now, you can attack the methodology (I can and will; with the prevalence of dynamic IP addresses, suing people based on their IP is silly and misguided. They'd be better off going after people on Internet forums who brag about P2Ping shit.) but they have every right to defend their copyright in a civil court using the protections given to them by the US Constitution.
By the way, twitter, I do have a reasonable amount of respect for you for not going on about the evil RIAA etc and then downloading their music off P2P. Your previous comments indicate you get Creative Commons music instead of RIAA music, which as a position of protest I respect.
What's wrong with you, twitter? I really want to know how someone who can reach such silly conclusions isn't being medicated.
You realise when you slander closed source software, you slander all closed source software. That includes, among other things:
and much much more. See how silly it sounds to suggest that all closed source software is evil spyware? If you were to alternatively say that it was "Microsoft's" extortion, then you'd be no more correct, but you wouldn't be talking out of your ass so much.
Chances are that Macromedia Flash or something already has your microphone turned on.
Citation, please. I want evidence for this.
When you use non free software, you hand control of your computer to someone else.
Oh please. Are you willing to tell me that when you use "free software", you inspect each and every bit of code that your PC runs for security flaws and trojans? Because I'll bet you don't. I bet you merrily apt-get just about everything, and don't think about it for another second.
It depends which store you go to. My place, they will usually accept the product in return for a refund without the receipt if there's an obvious flaw, but clearly receipts are preferred. That said, it's probably best for all concerned to keep receipts, just on the offchance you want to exchange something.
(While I'm posting, might as well relate a little story...doing the parking barriers, guy comes up to the window in his car, I ask him for his ticket and he says, very proudly, "I threw it away!". Whaddaya want, a cookie?)
Two scenarious.
1) You go into Boots, you pick up some stuff and a chlamydia testing kit. It's inconspicuous; everyone buys things from Boots, not just people who think they've got an STD. Nobody will know other than the cashier and anyone who happens to see you prevaricating over which chlamydia testing kit to buy. You only have to go to a doctor when you KNOW you've got chlamydia.
2) You go to a clap clinic. Nobody goes to a clap clinic unless they think they've got the clap or they've actually got the clap, which both imply bad things. You have to go multiple times, once to do testing and subsequent times to get treatment.
The clap clinic is a conspicuous place to be. Boots is not. There's your difference.
Those adverts, no matter how shite, still give something the mumbo jumbo ad doesn't: REASONS. The ad this article is about doesn't say why it's bad (other than the specious "you pay") just that it is bad.
Free parking is given out on the proviso that people will either spend money in-store or pay £1 to park there. Even if you don't buy anything, you're still taking up a parking space which could be used by someone who actually does want to buy something. It's not as if we charge EVERYONE (you get 2 hours free with a receipt, so basically you could buy a 22p pack of gum and get out of the car park for 72p less.) It makes sense for us to charge people £1 rather than use the altogether more objectionable pay and display system, whereby if you overstay your time in the car park your wheels get clamped (and they charge about £50 to unclamp it).
That said, if you don't like it, feel free to park somewhere else, just expect to pay a bit more for the privilege.
That's a fair point. However, closed source software doesn't really compromise your security any more than running open source software which you have not thoroughly vetted beforehand; after all, how many people simply apt-get something and never check what's in the source?
I have many bridges. Don't want them any more, so they're up for sale.
Tried eBay, they don't allow the selling of bridges. I tried selling an underpass once too, that didn't go well either. So I'm trying Slashdot.
Be careful, you may end up with ads for Russian guys with vibrating cocks.
Not that she'd have a problem with that probably...
No idea, but there's a pretty big bridge there that can be yours for a low low price. :)
Nononono. Not in the slightest. All I'm saying is that people born around 1990/1980 will have grown up around computers and are more likely to have an acute, if not particularly nuanced understanding of technology (e.g. they will understand terms like "bandwidth" and "megabit"), whereas a large proportion of elderly people won't have that same understanding.
I'm not suggesting AT ALL that the elderly cannot understand technology, or that they are the only ones who don't understand technology. It's just more likely for younger people to understand the Internet (even in a facile sense) than elderly people.
In a lot of cases, that merely reinforces their prejudice that you're just too weak/undertrained to do otherwise.
I know this having worked parking barriers for a time. Simple job: take a ticket with time of entry stamped on it from them; if they've been over 2 hours or haven't bought anything instore, charge them a small sum (£1). The rules are clearly outlined not just at the car park entrance, but also right on the front of the store. You wouldn't believe the number of people who got shitty when I told them they had to pay £1 (it was, amusingly, always the ones in the big expensive cars as well...the ones for whom £1 would be a trifling inconvenience at worst).
My point is that a lot of customers take the credo that the customer is always right a little too far, and see anything which makes them feel less nice (e.g. being charged for parking) as a gross offence against their person, no matter who mandates it.
Thing is, I work at a supermarket (doing so to get money to do a distance learning course) and I have to deal with smug assholes like that on a day to day basis. They think, at the same time, that
a) if you earn more money than someone that gives you the ultimate right to be a complete dick towards them
b) it's their fault that their job involves enforcing a rule, no matter how silly and no matter who imposed it
Young people have it the worst off. People have the impression of them that they're merely one part of a huge machine, and that they're too undertrained to be anything more. Even the article makes mention of the cashier being a "young man"...it's not his fucking fault! If he didn't listen to his managers, he could easily have been fired.
Whoops, sorry; the button says "Import CD", not "rip CD". Might as well adhere to my own rules on quotations :D
Yes thank you, there's more where that came from.
I know, sadly, that you're not joking.
Placing that important work on a system that has non free software is not a good idea and might be worse than you think. Quality is usually less than free equivalents, so your performance will degrade in proportion to the amount of non free software you use.
What the fuck are you talking about? So, if I install Flash on Linux, that installation of Linux is automatically corrupted and shitty?
Let's not even go into the fact that "quality" is a subjective thing. Basically, you're just spouting a load of FUD.
More important problems are in the EULA. Microsoft, to name an extreme example, gives itself the right to inspect your files for "copyright violation" and delete them at will with no further obligation to you.
Citations, please. I want a nice, concrete link to a copy of the XP SP2 EULA, which says that Microsoft gives itself the right to look for copyright violations (quote marks indicate a direct quote, twitter! Remember that from English class?). Not links to news articles on other websites, I want something on Microsoft's web server if possible.
Others may not be as bad, but you never can tell with non free software. Non free software, regardless of it's function, is dangerous. Non free software is written to do the bidding of it's owners.
Yes, because when I click "rip CD" on iTunes, it instead buys the album from the Music Store and downloads it, which I'm sure Apple would prefer.
Twitter, STOP SPEWING INACCURATE FUD. You're hurting the F/OSS movement more than anything.
Congratulations: you're an asshole!
I'm afraid, after another hurricane like Katrina, it'll be likely the elevator will be stalled again. Funds will have to be reallocated When The Levee Breaks.
*rimshot*
Your dad may be skilled, and I'm sure he is. However, for every skilled elderly person there'll be many more with no clue how the Internet works.
It's certainly an explanation as to where all that dating spam comes from. Or for that matter the "enlargement" spam...being a short guy himself, he must sure feel bad for all the other guys with short...guys. :P
You make a lack of porn involving the elderly sound like a bad thing.