If we have a safe, effective way to eliminate even some forms of birth defects and other severe genetic problems via genetic manipulation during pregnancy, why wouldn't we want to employ it? A clear definition would have to be laid out as to what ailments fall under this description and controls put in place to ensure safety and protect against misuse. It's a tough issue to wrestle with... do you end the suffering caused by such ailments or do you yield to your conscience that says we shouldn't be playing around with such things?
Manipulating physical features such as hair, eye color, noses, etc. should be strictly banned. Although, honestly, I am certain that eventually parents will do this whether it's legal or not. Once the technology is here, perfection-crazed parents will inevetibly pay high $$$ to unscrupulous doctors to perform such genetic manipulations. Perhaps some way of detecting genetically manipulated children could be developed to try and limit this.
Either way, I don't think there's any way to stop the momentum now. Many new and different things are on the horizon... What will life be like in a hundred years? And will we all be around to see it?
Doesn't MSFT have more important things to do (like try to avoid being broken up into Baby Bills in a few months) than try to harass/.?
This is a very interesting situation. If/. is responsible for the information posted in an unmoderated forum, then I'm sure this could be turned around on MSFT. How much copyrighted material do you think flows through their Hotmail and MSN servers? They could really have this thing crash down on them. Wouldn't then they be responsible for information passed along in their Instant Messenger? Or chat rooms on MSN? What about Netmeeting? Even all of MSFT's money couldn't pay out all those potential lawsuits. They'd not only have to shut those services down but wouldn't it force other providers of those services to shut down as well?
This is a very interesting situation and I'm a bit anxious to see what happens from here. Either way, this will be a pivotal point between the "freedom" of the Internet and corporate Greed.
By the way, I agree that MSFT should no longer be allowed to use the term "Kerberos" but should instead change it to something else (along with all the other changes they've made to it).
If Metallica has no use for new ways of music distribution then I have no use for Metillica. Sorry Lars.
I understand that they feel as though they are getting ripped off - but there are far better ways to deal with the situation than to simply out and out attack your fans like that.
Surely they must understand how expensive CD's are, especially to the younger listeners.
Did sales of their albums go up or down last year? I'm just curious.
Either way. They can be closed-minded about Napster and MP3's and so on. And they can also be left behind while everyone else moves forward.
I have deleted any Metallica MP3's I had, thrown away the CD's I had and will no longer support them in any fashion. I'm through.
You may want to go with a Nokia handset (6100 series - not the 8800 series) as I understand they have better data throughput than the Ericsson handsets.
I think that's it's an important step for Red Hat to maintain a solid certification program if they're serious about competing with Microsoft in the marketplace. That's the only way that they can get the visibility to these companies who are implementing Red Hat Linux inside their organizations. Microsoft has used their MCSE certification program as an effective tool at providing inside support for their products and for pushing new products into organizations from the bottom up if you get what I mean. Red Hat stands to gain plenty from implementing a similar program. It gives their technicians credibility in an environment where management likely has no clue what skills to look for in their support people. Having certification also benefits the technicians by providing them with salary incentives by many employers.
The person that wrote this article quite obviously wasn't completely aware of all the facts. True, Microsoft "Certification" only costs $2000... but that's only for a general MCP certification. Not worth much in today's market depending on what product you are certified in. This certification also isn't really a good match to Red Hat's RHCE program. It's more of an apples to oranges comparison. Microsoft's MCSE certification is a much better comparison. This, however, requires 6 classes @ $2000/each - bringing the total to $12,000. Suddenly Red Hat's meager $5000 doesn't look so bad - with or without the trip to N.C. The author does bring up some good points about having engineers on your doorstep and pushing eval software and so on. But considering pretty much everything Red Hat makes is also available for free, I don't the eval argument has much weight. Having engineers on your doorstep is a questionable comment. I work in a large, enterprise Microsoft environment (57,000 users worldwide). I have yet to actually "see" any Microsoft engineers in relation to my job. I have spoken with them on the phone for support but that's about it. If the author is referring to MCSE's (Microsoft Certified System Engineers) that's another story. There are like millions of these guys nowadays... some are quite knowledgable, some are slightly better than having a $60.00 book at your disposal (if Red Hat is smart, they will examine and learn from this situation). I think that this argument is countered by the very existance of the RHCE program. This is exactly the kind of presence (well, not exactly but you know what I mean) that I think Red Hat is targeting with their certification.
I don't fully understand how it is the Linux community in particular seems to attract so many of these people that have so much anger. I guess maybe it's the technology industry as a whole that attracts them. One thing is for sure, Linux would move forward even faster if it werent't for all the flames sent everytime someone even hints at something they don't like.
Unfortunately I can't think of anything to do about it. Those people are part of the Linux community and I guess it's a package deal, take it or leave it.
Maybe we can start some open-source anger counceling?
I think I can see where you're coming from but I don't necessarily agree with your perspective.
True, there are still problems with this world. There probably always will be. People will still die unnecessarily, natural resources will still be squandered, and so on. But I think that Jon Katz has brought up several very relevant points in his post. Points that shouldn't be overlooked.
Should we wait until this whole corporate problem grows to the point that it's every bit as big as our natural resource problem? Or should we do something about it now when at least we still have several options in front of us. I would much rather tackle this issue now and then move on to other, perhaps larger, issues than to wait until corporations have removed many of the freedoms that I enjoy now and have become even more entrenched behind laws, lawyers, and politicians and try to fight them then.
I see it like the frog that is sitting in luke warm water but is boiled to death after the water is gradually warmed to the boiling point. All the while the frog is able to jump to safety but never realizes there is a danger because of how gradually the water temperature changes. The water is luke warm, and I say we jump now! These types of issues aren't going to go away. It's only going to get worse as time goes on.
Slashdot is exactly the place for things like this to get started. Who else is going to do it? We have a lot of resources represented here and a great sense of community, so why not?
This is a very interesting issue. In my opinion, Corel is violating the GPL by not making the source available for their beta of their new Linux distribution. My question is, what to do about it?
I think a lot of times the answer would be: "Flame them till they submit and release the source code." But I don't think that's really the best answer.
I have a lot of respect for what Corel has done and is doing for the Linux community. (no, I don't work for Corel:) I would hate to see them abandon their Linux efforts due to some hotheads going off over an issue that could probably be solved without lobbing any cerebral nukes. Not that anyone in the Linux community would ever do that:)
I can see why Corel may want to keep this beta "closed." This may or may not be their reasoning, I don't know. But instead of having a public beta and having the source code out there for several months (with bugs) prior to the final release, they can knock the public's socks off with an awesome public release when their beta program is over. That way, it's not the same old code everyone's seen for months, only without bugs (hypothetically speaking of course). Granted this is more of a commercial approach than the Linux community is used to but I think Corel is very serious about making a big impact and trying to pry market share away from Microsoft. That's certainly respectable but is this an approach that is acceptable to the OSS community?
I think that we as a community should try to work with Corel to find a solution that will help them to be profitable while maintaining our important Open Source values. I mean, shouldn't we be trying to work with them as much as possible anyway? We want to take over the world, right? We want to attract more companies like Corel to the "Light Side" right?
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the sanctity of the GPL and it's relevence to Open Source Software is far too important for us to allow a company like Corel to encroach on.
Just my opinion, but I think we are capable of a solution that maintains the crucial aspects of Open Source Software and the GPL but allows companies like Corel to market successful products and be profitable.
Slashdot Mirror
If we have a safe, effective way to eliminate even some forms of birth defects and other severe genetic problems via genetic manipulation during pregnancy, why wouldn't we want to employ it? A clear definition would have to be laid out as to what ailments fall under this description and controls put in place to ensure safety and protect against misuse. It's a tough issue to wrestle with... do you end the suffering caused by such ailments or do you yield to your conscience that says we shouldn't be playing around with such things?
Manipulating physical features such as hair, eye color, noses, etc. should be strictly banned. Although, honestly, I am certain that eventually parents will do this whether it's legal or not. Once the technology is here, perfection-crazed parents will inevetibly pay high $$$ to unscrupulous doctors to perform such genetic manipulations. Perhaps some way of detecting genetically manipulated children could be developed to try and limit this.
Either way, I don't think there's any way to stop the momentum now. Many new and different things are on the horizon... What will life be like in a hundred years? And will we all be around to see it?
Doesn't MSFT have more important things to do (like try to avoid being broken up into Baby Bills in a few months) than try to harass /.?
/. is responsible for the information posted in an unmoderated forum, then I'm sure this could be turned around on MSFT. How much copyrighted material do you think flows through their Hotmail and MSN servers? They could really have this thing crash down on them. Wouldn't then they be responsible for information passed along in their Instant Messenger? Or chat rooms on MSN? What about Netmeeting? Even all of MSFT's money couldn't pay out all those potential lawsuits. They'd not only have to shut those services down but wouldn't it force other providers of those services to shut down as well?
This is a very interesting situation. If
This is a very interesting situation and I'm a bit anxious to see what happens from here. Either way, this will be a pivotal point between the "freedom" of the Internet and corporate Greed.
By the way, I agree that MSFT should no longer be allowed to use the term "Kerberos" but should instead change it to something else (along with all the other changes they've made to it).
If Metallica has no use for new ways of music distribution then I have no use for Metillica. Sorry Lars.
I understand that they feel as though they are getting ripped off - but there are far better ways to deal with the situation than to simply out and out attack your fans like that.
Surely they must understand how expensive CD's are, especially to the younger listeners.
Did sales of their albums go up or down last year? I'm just curious.
Either way. They can be closed-minded about Napster and MP3's and so on. And they can also be left behind while everyone else moves forward.
I have deleted any Metallica MP3's I had, thrown away the CD's I had and will no longer support them in any fashion. I'm through.
Good luck boys.
You may want to go with a Nokia handset (6100 series - not the 8800 series) as I understand they have better data throughput than the Ericsson handsets.
Just a thought.
I understand Monkeys-Bananas, Bear-Honey, but what's with Pigs and Acorns?
I think that's it's an important step for Red Hat to maintain a solid certification program if they're serious about competing with Microsoft in the marketplace. That's the only way that they can get the visibility to these companies who are implementing Red Hat Linux inside their organizations. Microsoft has used their MCSE certification program as an effective tool at providing inside support for their products and for pushing new products into organizations from the bottom up if you get what I mean. Red Hat stands to gain plenty from implementing a similar program. It gives their technicians credibility in an environment where management likely has no clue what skills to look for in their support people. Having certification also benefits the technicians by providing them with salary incentives by many employers.
The person that wrote this article quite obviously wasn't completely aware of all the facts. True, Microsoft "Certification" only costs $2000... but that's only for a general MCP certification. Not worth much in today's market depending on what product you are certified in. This certification also isn't really a good match to Red Hat's RHCE program. It's more of an apples to oranges comparison. Microsoft's MCSE certification is a much better comparison. This, however, requires 6 classes @ $2000/each - bringing the total to $12,000. Suddenly Red Hat's meager $5000 doesn't look so bad - with or without the trip to N.C. The author does bring up some good points about having engineers on your doorstep and pushing eval software and so on. But considering pretty much everything Red Hat makes is also available for free, I don't the eval argument has much weight. Having engineers on your doorstep is a questionable comment. I work in a large, enterprise Microsoft environment (57,000 users worldwide). I have yet to actually "see" any Microsoft engineers in relation to my job. I have spoken with them on the phone for support but that's about it. If the author is referring to MCSE's (Microsoft Certified System Engineers) that's another story. There are like millions of these guys nowadays... some are quite knowledgable, some are slightly better than having a $60.00 book at your disposal (if Red Hat is smart, they will examine and learn from this situation). I think that this argument is countered by the very existance of the RHCE program. This is exactly the kind of presence (well, not exactly but you know what I mean) that I think Red Hat is targeting with their certification.
I don't fully understand how it is the Linux community in particular seems to attract so many of these people that have so much anger. I guess maybe it's the technology industry as a whole that attracts them. One thing is for sure, Linux would move forward even faster if it werent't for all the flames sent everytime someone even hints at something they don't like.
Unfortunately I can't think of anything to do about it. Those people are part of the Linux community and I guess it's a package deal, take it or leave it.
Maybe we can start some open-source anger counceling?
Dude, what planet are you from? How is it possible to not like Star Wars?
Excellent post!
I think I can see where you're coming from but I don't necessarily agree with your perspective.
True, there are still problems with this world. There probably always will be. People will still die unnecessarily, natural resources will still be squandered, and so on. But I think that Jon Katz has brought up several very relevant points in his post. Points that shouldn't be overlooked.
Should we wait until this whole corporate problem grows to the point that it's every bit as big as our natural resource problem? Or should we do something about it now when at least we still have several options in front of us. I would much rather tackle this issue now and then move on to other, perhaps larger, issues than to wait until corporations have removed many of the freedoms that I enjoy now and have become even more entrenched behind laws, lawyers, and politicians and try to fight them then.
I see it like the frog that is sitting in luke warm water but is boiled to death after the water is gradually warmed to the boiling point. All the while the frog is able to jump to safety but never realizes there is a danger because of how gradually the water temperature changes. The water is luke warm, and I say we jump now! These types of issues aren't going to go away. It's only going to get worse as time goes on.
Slashdot is exactly the place for things like this to get started. Who else is going to do it? We have a lot of resources represented here and a great sense of community, so why not?
Just my $.02
-Travis
This is a very interesting issue. In my opinion, Corel is violating the GPL by not making the source available for their beta of their new Linux distribution. My question is, what to do about it?
:) I would hate to see them abandon their Linux efforts due to some hotheads going off over an issue that could probably be solved without lobbing any cerebral nukes. Not that anyone in the Linux community would ever do that :)
I think a lot of times the answer would be: "Flame them till they submit and release the source code." But I don't think that's really the best answer.
I have a lot of respect for what Corel has done and is doing for the Linux community. (no, I don't work for Corel
I can see why Corel may want to keep this beta "closed." This may or may not be their reasoning, I don't know. But instead of having a public beta and having the source code out there for several months (with bugs) prior to the final release, they can knock the public's socks off with an awesome public release when their beta program is over. That way, it's not the same old code everyone's seen for months, only without bugs (hypothetically speaking of course). Granted this is more of a commercial approach than the Linux community is used to but I think Corel is very serious about making a big impact and trying to pry market share away from Microsoft. That's certainly respectable but is this an approach that is acceptable to the OSS community?
I think that we as a community should try to work with Corel to find a solution that will help them to be profitable while maintaining our important Open Source values. I mean, shouldn't we be trying to work with them as much as possible anyway? We want to take over the world, right? We want to attract more companies like Corel to the "Light Side" right?
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the sanctity of the GPL and it's relevence to Open Source Software is far too important for us to allow a company like Corel to encroach on.
Just my opinion, but I think we are capable of a solution that maintains the crucial aspects of Open Source Software and the GPL but allows companies like Corel to market successful products and be profitable.