Good point.
Slash me if I speak out of ignorance, but as I look through the news about it on the web I find that the big thing is a ban on free Wireless provided to the public in municipal areas. I think that kind of service is a great idea, and most businesses would like it banned for obvious reasons.
One thing that is not clear to me at this time is whether or not the cities will establish their own portals or instead contracting the service through an ISP. If that's the case, I wonder what provisions are in effect to decide who gets the contract(s), and how often it is updated or reviewed.
I am a little surprised that there have not been more Debian-based distros out there. Another one that does come to mind is Linspire. http://www.linspire.com/ I have yet to try Ubuntu, but from time to time I had trouble getting Debian packages to work with Linspire while I was still trying it out.
While I like having a choice of distributions, this very lack of cross-compatibility is part of why software vendors find porting software not to be a cost effective choice.
Yes, remember to keep correspondence cordial, professional, and to the point. Letters - especially open letters such as this - ultimately serve more to entertain an audience then to persuade a corporation.
This letter brings up an interesting point, but it will most likely be diregarded by the corporation to whom it is directed.
People have been protesting for years. Protesting peacefully is a right in America. When people feel passionately about a cause, they are going to persue actively that cause - technology or no technology. Improved communications means that the organization can conducted more efficiently. The article does not say this, but I hope that people do not have the assumption that improved technology equates to more crime. Crime comes from human nature, not technology. Crime has been with us as long as humanity itself.
As to how to deal with it... there really isn't a lot anyone can do about it as the article suggests. I suppose that the best we can do is deal with crime as it arises and punish accordingly.
No apology is necessary, UP. I enjoy an engaging conversation, and I value free speech.
As for being unclear and offensive... The purpose of the title to my original post was to grab readers' attentions and to spark debate. It succeeded in that in and of itself. However, in giving it such a title I failed to express effectively what I was trying to communicate - hence the trolling rating.
My apologies to you and to all who have taken offense.
Hopelessly optimistic... perhaps. Still, even for the glimpse of our world from the perspective that thus far only a few have been able to see would be incredible. I don't have a few hundred thousand bucks sitting around to burn; maybe I never will. But, for those who do I'm sure that it will be the experience of a life time - even if they don't go to the moon or anything like that.
In Thornton Wilder's play, Our Town, there is a memorable quote: "It takes life to love life." As an example, it's one thing to read about a roller coaster ride, to see the pictures, and to hear the tales of others who have experienced it. But, to be there yourself, to take that and to feel that energy and excitment for which no words or pictures can simulate - there is nothing that comes close to knowing for yourself.
Commerical space flights might not be anything that would be anywhere nearly as affordable as commerical flights of today at least relatively speaking within my lifetime. I might end up being a very old man by the time that they do. Aside of the excite of seeing our planet from such an amazing view point, I am sure that the sheer speed of being able to get from one place to another will become yet another convenience - a luxury of future life. I just hope that there is competition so that the prices will be competitive and thus the flights will not remain an experience only for a priviledged few.
I, for one, like having a DVD-burner simply because of the amount of storage. What used to take around 20 CD's to back up now takes about 5 DVD's.
At any rate, different companies certainly have their own vested interests in various formats. Differnt format availablilities in one way could mean more choices available, and you can choose depending upon your needs and applications. A lot of us, though, would simply like the convenience of one hardware standard to suit any purpose as it arises. http://www.dvdsite.org/
I'd say go ahead and pick up a DVD burner. Speaking for myself, they've made backing up information more efficient. One thing to note, however, is that I use my DVD's for archiving data and not multimedia files.
You and the people who think the way you do disgust me
Again, case in point.
As a caucasian, I'm very ashamed of the attitude that so many people around me hold, and seem to take pride in.
I do not feel ashamed of the actions of others because my self-esteem comes from within and is not derived from the actions or beliefs of others.
I think you're having a problem with reality.
An introspectional look at yourself may suit you well.
My last post was my last discussion (as this is my last post in the thread), and I never anticipated a reponse. Perhaps you are one who cannot go away without having the last word. If that's the case, then have at it... it's yours:-)
Recent world events being what they are, I do not consider Iran's desire to adopt Linux to be much of anything about which that I would particularly care to cheer
OK I can see that, but I further clarified what I meant...
I am saying, though, is that considering world events, citing Iran as an ally to Linux would not be much of a boost (if anything, a negative) as to promoting Linux.
The key word here was promoting. Further clarification meant identifying my audience:
They are mostly business professionals... due to U.S. trade sanctions against Iran, we cannot trade with them. There is no economic interest... And, considering world events, [business professionals] perceive Iran as a nation of terrorists..."
Continuing on...
I think that more or less, the Middle East is a medieval culture with the dangerous mix of having access to 20th and 21st century technology and weapons.
A friend of mine, and a Sailor in the U.S. Navy, was born in Iran. He was adopted by a white American couple, and raised in the United States (and is an American citizen). Even though he is Iranian by birth, he was not raised there. He has no tangible memory of the place. I could never imagine his storming some place (like an embassy), taking hostages, and marching them blind-folded down a street among spectators. People from his birth country did that, but that's not him. He wasn't raised like that. It's not in him.
Even though that Iranians did not participate in the attacks of 9/11, many of the terrorists in Iraq do come from Iran (along with Syria). I call them terrorists because they reosrt to violence and intimidation, and they have no problem with killing non-Americans (Iraqis).
Iraq and Iran used to be bitter enemies of one another. Anyway, they are neighboring nations, and Iranian terrorists (among others) are using the reconstruction as a "proving ground" against the Americans. The terrorists have no regard whatsoever for the well being of the innocent civilians.
The tremendous cruelty of the culture is well documented... cruelty without the American presence... cruelty amongst themselves. Terrorists, not Americans, are blowing up Iraqi police stations. Terrorists are the ones who are the risk of committing mass murders to the Iraqi people during their elections. A lot of the murdering and unbelieveable cruelty (beheadings, for example) comes from within the Middle East, not the United States.
But, as I further clarified for you...
The Iraqi people want more for themselves than what the terrorists have in store for them...
That is to say, they no longer want their culture to be dominated by iron-fisted dictators who would just as well murder mass populations of people who oppose them. The history of the Middle East in the last century or so is one in which dictatorships and other forms of totalitarian governments have ruled with fear. This bears some similarity to European medieval period. Penalties for perceived treason and other crimes were severe and unbelieveably cruel. It would horrible to imagine what Euopeans at the time could have done with modern (20th and 21st century) wepaons and technology.
But in spite of all of that, you seem bent on the idea that I am a racist. I doubt that there would be anything in the world that I could say that would convince you otherwise. But then, I don't need to because that's OK.
I find your sensitivity toward seeking out racism or "the evils of society" to
Ahhh... I see from where you are coming; I understand.
"We" as in the Linux community should be happy that others regardless of who they are (race, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) have chosen to migrate to Linux and to be a part of our community. I see your point, now, and I agree with you. Saying that the Linux community should not be proud of Iran's adoption of Linux is not what I was trying to say. My apologies for not making that abundantly clear.
What I was saying is that to a lot of people here in the U.S. whom I would like to see take a serious look at Linux will not consider Iran's adoption as being significant because of thier own views of Iran. For those people, I would use other examples of Linux adoption. Being prejudice ultimately does not make good business sense. Business leaders can cause their businesses to lose a lot of petential revenue to prejudice. I would like to think that prejudice is not a part of my nation's society - even among the educated and successful, but I'd be smoking pot to believe otherwise (humor).
Lastly, I forgot to mention this earlier (and not that you asked), but as for my ethnic background... my background is largely Melungeon. The Melungeons were/are hybrid people of various ethnic backgrounds including Arab, Native American Indian, Caucasion, African, and others. http://www.melungeon.org/?BISKIT=3947677513&CONTEX T=cat&cat=10005 I use "were" because there was an attempt of ethnic cleansing through the years of my people. Only recently has there been at least some modest awareness of them. http://www.mediamonitors.net/brentkennedy1.html Anyway, I am a bit of a melding pot, myself, of ethnic backgrounds. So, for me to be racist against Arabs would be for me to be prejudice against my own ancestry. That would be like a person who is part black hating black people. I actually laughed a little bit at the racism comment... the humor was if Curtman only knew...:-P
... you won't even come right out and admit you're a bigoted racist.... I gather you're the kind of person who believes whatever he sees on the 6 o'clock news... you are incapable of diferentiating between the attacks on 9/11, and the war in Iraq.
I must have really touched a nerve with you for you to resort to being personal. Perhaps this is personal to you. I have not resorted to personal attacks, and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.
First sort out who "they" are, and if in fact America is "their" arch-enemy at all.
Curtman, as I have stated previously, I think that we would agree more than we disagree when it comes to Linux. I know that considering your hardening judgement against me due to your misinterpretation of what I have been trying to say, you are probably not open to that all. But that's OK. Allow me a few assesments if you will...
>>Do we agree that Microsoft Windows is a very flawed product? Yes. >>Do we agree that Linux is an operating system that lacks the security vulnerabilities of Windows? Yes. >>Do we agree that racism and prejudice is wrong? Yes. >>Do we agree that the Bush administration lied about the circumstances leading up to the invasion? Yes. >>Do we agree that Saddam should have been removed from power? No. >>Do we agree that Linux is (and should be) made available for everyone? Yes.
Curtman, I find that racism among any group of people is wrong. Business leaders - not IT specialists - will make the ultimate decision as to whether or not a business migrates to Linux. Many IT specialists already know that Linux is a preferable system. But, they are not the ones to be convinced; the ones who make the business decision - the business leaders - are the ones who need to be convinced. Unfortunately, many of them do not consider that Iran's adoption of Linux would be significant in terms of whether or not they (the business leaders) should also seriously consider migrating to Linux.
A lot of this comes from years of animosity toward Iran as a country. Recall that I previously referenced the Iran Hostage Crisis during President Carter's administration. The animosity has been there long before 9/11. Their judgement of Iran has been hardened, and no matter what I say or do, I cannot change their minds. So, it is not advantageous for me (or anyone else for that matter) to try to convince them otherwise because simply this: they won't listen. I am aware of this. Is this perception of Iran right? No, Curtman, it isn't. But, I am not the one who needs to be convinced of it for I already know.
Consider Mississippi during the 1960's. Would have telling a group of white working-class men that a group of black people have started using Soapsy Suds brand detergent made any differnce to them as whether or not they consider that brand of detergent? No, the opposite in fact.
You see, considering who the audience is (American business leaders), I do not consider Iran to be much of an ally to Linux. Many business leaders don't care. Is this right... you don't have to preach to me that is not right.
I personally do not care that Iranians want to migrate - not in a negative way, anyway. In fact, adopting Linux makes perfect IT sense. But, I don't need to convince you of that. I do find the use of Microsoft Windows without paying for it to be wrong. I do not agree with Microsft's license, therefore I do not use the product.
As for where I get my news... I choose to go through a variety of sources for a variety of points of view. I find your multiple Fox News references
Another thing that I was pointing out was that I also find it ironic that since one of Iran's considerations (although maybe not primary) was that Windows is a product of their arch-enemy, the Americans, they are switching to an OS to which is also contributed largely by Americans and was modeled after UNIX which was developed here in the country of their arch-enemy. Iranians don't want to use an American OS, and Americans don't consider anything that Iran does to be of any economic significance. The discrimination seems to be working both ways.
That is discrimination... Why would you think Iran is a nation of terrorists?
You are still not getting the point. Perhaps I need to break it down to you further still...
Shortly after 9/11, I had a discussion with my wife in which we discussed that one of the things that we were afraid was going to happen was that people were going to start harassing peaceful Arabs living within our country in addition to harassing other American citizens who were of Arab decent simply because the terrorists were Arabs. Unfortunately, we were correct.
In one instance in a store near to my home, I saw a couple of men harassing an Muslim lady, and they were threatening her. I called 911 on my cell phone to notify the police, and then I went over to the situation and I told the men that if they wanted to pick on someone, then try picking on me. Now, I am not a skinny person, nor am I stacked. I am a man of medium build. But that as it may, the truth is that - save some playful wrestling - I have never been in a real fight in my whole life. I was trying to come across that I could hold my own. Underneath, I was terrified. But, I felt that their harassing this lady was absolutely wrong. As it turns it, we exchanged some words, but the police got there VERY quickly. I guess others had called.
You see, my friend, I personally do not have anything against the people of the Middle East. What I am trying to say is that regardless of whether or not it is right or wrong, many (but by far not all) Americans do in fact have a problem with people from Iran. Is that discrimination? OK, I can see your point as it applies here. Considering that many (not all) people even within business do not consider anything that Iran does to be of any significance is the point. They do not see the economic interest associated with Iran and/or simply do not like people from Iran. So, for me to tell these people that Iran has adopted Linux is not saying much to them.
Let me also point out, though, that even though my wife and I were right on what we anticipated after 9/11, these morons [who held all Muslims responsible for the attacks] do not make up the majority population in America. I recall that in one community people who were not Muslims gathered around and kept watch over the mosque. They wanted to deter any acts of hate against the fellow members of their community who were Muslims.
Did Bush's administration lie about the circumstances leading up to the invasion? It certainly is looking that way! Still, Saddam needed to go considering his crimes against humanity.
Ooops... I accidentally submitted the previous post (when I meant to preview) before making all necessary changes. Please bear with the obvious spelling errors and such.
Thanks.
I believe that any attempt to discriminate against people based on their political, religious, or other beliefs as far as Linux/Opensource/Free Software goes is completely wrong, and shouldn't be tolerated.
Who is discriminating? Once again, you failed to see the point. Allow me to refresh your memory...
All I am saying is that... many business professionals [would not] stop and give Linux a serious consideration because of the perception is that Iran is a nation of terrorists.
To put it another way, consider a radio station and a radio receiver. A radio sation can be putting out some excellent music with unbelieveable clarity and quality. If a radio receiver is not tuned to that station, then the signal is not received. So, it depends on the audience, my friend. If my colleagues were pot-smoking hippies who sat around and discussed the evils of society in the convenience of a smoke-filled room after having never performed any public service whatsoever, then I suppose that I could get the message across (used for example - no accusation or implication meant). However, my friends are not hippie pot smokers. They are mostly business professionals. Mind you, IT professionals, generally speaking and depending upon the quality of their training and experience, already know the value of Linux. Trying to bring awareness about the opportunities that Linux has to offer would be along the lines of preaching to the choir as the old saying goes. The decision as to whether or not to adopt Linux, BSD, or whatever vice maintining their current OS is a decision that ultimately is decided by the needs and ambition of the business with regard to cost and risk. Anyway, being business professionals, Iran doesn't from their perspective have much to offer. That is, due to U.S. trade sanctions against Iran, we cannot trade with them. There is no economic interest. Even if there were no sanctions, Iran would most likely choose not to trade with "the Great Satan". And, considering world events, they perceive Iran as a nation of terrorists. This perception existed long before 9/11. Recall the Iran Hostage Crisis during the Carter administration. So, to tell them that Iran has adopted Linux would not be saying much to them.
Whether or not this perception is entirely or at all accurate is a matter of one's point of view. Likewise, if I were to tell some people from Syria that Iran has adopted Linux, the news may be received in a different way. Then again, it may not be received at all considering that they might not care to hear anything that an "evil American infadel" has to say.
I'm not sure where you would go to get accurate counts of the number of Iraqi people killed in this invasion...
Consider WWII. A tactic use among both the allies and the Germans was to bomb entire cities, and to bomb where people who had absolutely nothing directly to do with the military resided. Part of the tactic was psychological, in addition to striking targets like factories. America did this even in Vietnam. Vietnam left a bitter taste in the mouth of the Americans. The government lied to the American people and was sending troops to die in a war with no clear purpose or agenda for America or even a clear plan for winning the war. In fact, the U.S. was not even trying to win - the U.S. was trying to maintain a stalemate because of an idiotic, new (at the time) doctrine that winning wars spawns animosity which leads to more war (WWI >> WWII). Moreover, the war in Vietnam was more of an indirect confilict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union - using the Vietnamese.
Moving back on to my point, the U.S. could have used tremendous indiscriminate fire power and bombs against Iraq. The U.S. did not. Was the invasion perfect... no, as you are so quick to point out. Remember, an invasion is a military function, our military was trained and trained well for such a function. Agree with it or not, invasion is a possible task for the military. They di
I agree that the review was well written. As for the final score... a rating is subjective. I haven't read the book, but this review certainly makes it sound enticing enough.
Actually, Google is a business. It's Google job to make money. How they may money or how much money they make depends on the product that they offer and how the public takes to its quality. If people like what they see, then the business can be profitable. If people do not like it, then other news sites will get Google's former business.
One aspect of being profitable is to keep costs down. This includes labor costs. If a computer algorithm can perform a job adequately and for less money than a human (considering that the person will need to be paid + benefits), then from an economic point of view, it makes sense. However, Google should perhaps have a small human team. This investment would allow for the human-aspect of quality assurance - to catch stuff that even the most sophisticated of algorithms cannot catch - and thus could improve quality thereby keeping more or attracting more of an audience allowing for the opportunity to make more money. A human QA professional might be more able to catch things like when lobbyists or whoever try to take advantage of how a system operates and then (at the least) attempts to abuse and/or corrupt the system to fulfill their own agendas.
At any rate, Google did allow for an open look at their news search engine. This is good. I hope that Google will use this feedback objectively to improve their service.
*gasp!* Say it isn't so!:-P U.S. legislatures sometimes (dare I say frequently?) vote or comment on bills within the United States that they have not read, so I find it to be of no surprise that they would not take to time to read a bill for/from any other country. reference: the U.S. Patriot Act. http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12126&c=207
As for pot, I do not use the stuff; it's not my bag (pun intended). One argument, I suppose, is that pot leads to other drugs in addition to impairing judgment and abilities. My brother has been smoking pot for about 3 decades now. He has never gotten into other drugs, and has a professional degree. Perhaps it depends on circumstances. At any rate, I think that we would be better off going after the real organized crime - the big growers, the big dealers - and take them down. It's a waste of time and resources to be nickel and diming the small stuff.
The idea that people would actually keep it in their own homes is not realistic, though. Look at alcohol. You can drink it; it's legal - just stay off the roads. Does that stop people from doing it? No. Drunk drivers kill so many people each year. The hard part is that we have already learned that prohibition doesn't work, either. So, I believe that the goal is to target the source. It's a tough call.
I think that more or less, the Middle East is a medieval culture with the dangerous mix of having access to 20th and 21st century technology and weapons. I am sure that my saying "medieval" may be a controversial point in and of itself, but I say that given the Middle East people's willingness to inflict such incredible cruelty even to their own people like beheading, cutting of limbs, and so on. They are willing to mass murder all for the sake of religious principle.
You could argue that the U.S. has done some terrible things. That would be true. The difference is that we recognize our mistakes and learn from them. We will never use nuclear weapons as a first strike. We no longer use, manufacture, or store chemical and biological weapons. From the days of WWI, WWII, Korea, and even as recently as Vietnam, the militarily no longer targets civilians deliberately. Consider the invasion. Whether you agree with the justification or not, the military did a nice job of disciplined strikes. There were some accidents, but that happens. By and large, they did a fantastic good job at striking only targets of interest, leaving buildings even net door virtually undamaged.
I believe that one of the largest tragedies of 9/11 aside of the loss of life from so many victims was the assault on our civil liberties from our own government that soon followed. Part of my issue with the Patriot Act is that it broadened law enforcement agencies without a clear set of boundaries or checks and balances. For example, the so-called war on drugs is claiming some victories with the smuggling of pot into the U.S. from Canada thanks to provisions of the Patriot Act. Identity theft bloodhounds are looking to benefit from information the U.S. gathers from passenger flight data. You see, law enforcement officials long for sweeping powers. This is their ticket. If they have someone that they think is really, really bad, then all they need to do is create an abstract link to terrorism, and then they have all the power that they need.
Is any of this related to Linux? No, not in any direct way. Except, as I mentioned earlier is that the community of Linux is made up of people from all over the world: all types of religions (including those people who prefer the absence of), all types of cultures, and so on. We don't waste our time fighting amongst ourselves for the most part. Instead, we celebrate and share something that we have in common: Linux. Unfortunately, I think that it
I just don't think that Iranians or anyone else is going to abandon a technology just because a few Americans worked on it
"... pragmatic considerations - not least because of the irony that Iran's information technology (IT) backbone is based on software from its arch-enemy, the United States." The fact that they do not want an OS because it is American is clear. Granted, it is not the only reason, and they do in fact some very practical reasons for the switch. But, to assume that animosity toward the U.S. has nothing to do with it is also foolish.
I also highly doubt that has anything to do with the motivation.
It was only a guess, anyway. However, I still think that such a move of covert tracking software included with the frequent Windows updates would be possible. The main point of that came later when I said that I was sure that the idea had at least crossed their minds. I agree that Windows security record speaks volumes for the OS ever so much more than any of Microsoft's rhetoric.
Iran isn't the ones telling the government of [Canada] how it should be conducting its business.
According to link that you provided, America has a problem Canada's lax laws regarding pot, and Canada has a problem with drugs coming in from the U.S. It seems that the issue works both ways, and our two countries seem to be working together. That's no big surprise; Canada and the U.S. work very well together as neighbors. I could see how a pot-smoker would find this objectionable. But, that's not really your point, I know...
Stealing is wrong no matter how you look at it. If you don't agree with the license, then don't use the product. It's that simple. Iranian officials have stated that they don't feel the least but guilty about stealing. I think this speaks volumes their culture.
I would expect a "... but the U.S./Americans [insert something bad the U.S. did here]." I won't waste my time with that sort of back and forth discussion, nor am I under the impression that you will, either. All I am saying is that considering world events, Iran's adoption of Linux is not something that would have many business professionals stop and give Linux a serious consideration because of the perception is that Iran is a nation of terrorists. Whether they are or not is a matter of perspective.
So, I suppose that it is all relative. You and I share a very similar interest in Linux even though we do not share the same views in politics. But, that's OK. One of the beauties of the Linux community is that our community transcends such things. If only the rest of the world could catch on....
Actually, some might be able to argue that the LSB is in a way a monoculture. The LSB is good since it gives software vendors a common base rather than having to develop a package for different distributions. But, would the LSB also be an invitation to would-be virus writers? As Linux grows in popularity, we can expect to see more virus attempts. Of note, another reader said the McAfee has an antivirus for Linux. It is called McAfee LinuxShield. http://www.networkassociates.com/us/products/mcafe e/antivirus/fileserver/linuxshield.htm
Another question is that as more and more users migrate from Windows, we they also be migrating the bad Internet practices that many of them have? On the whole, I believe that Linux users today tend to be more Internet savvy than users of Windows in that they are familiar with and regularly implement good Internet practices such as using a user account for every day purposes such as surfing the web and reading email vice using a root account or one with root access. That being said, if Windows users also migrate their bad habits, then Linux can be more vulnerable in that respect than it currently is. As we spread the word about Linux, then we should also be willing to teach them vice saying things like "RTFM".
Linux by its UNIX-like nature, even if it were monoculture, is not nearly as susceptible to virus attacks as Windows. This is one of Linux's most valuable features.
The so-called convenience of having a standard OS with which most people are familiar coupled with concerns over the amount of money it would cost to convert to another OS are things to consider about migrating to a new system.
Unfortunately, Linux, BSD, and other alternatives still scare some upper management. If the cost of migrating + training is still a determining factor, then they should also weigh the risks of maintaining their current OS. That is, the cost of down time, man-hours to correct problems and get systems online as well as meet the needs of the public, and the cost of compromising controlled information such as privacy data.
How much damage will it take to consider a new system? How much money does a company or organization need to lose before the cost of migrating seems to be a viable option? How many compromises in security will it take? Microsoft's security exploits, among a host of other things, are well documented in daily news.
But, hey... Microsoft says that they deliver a better and more secure product. The news speaks louder than rhetoric. I recommend that open source community partners in that state contact their representation in a professional manner to help bring awareness that there are other options available.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Slash me if I speak out of ignorance, but as I look through the news about it on the web I find that the big thing is a ban on free Wireless provided to the public in municipal areas. I think that kind of service is a great idea, and most businesses would like it banned for obvious reasons. One thing that is not clear to me at this time is whether or not the cities will establish their own portals or instead contracting the service through an ISP. If that's the case, I wonder what provisions are in effect to decide who gets the contract(s), and how often it is updated or reviewed.
Yes. Sooner or later fellow Americans will get fed up with this kind of nonsense.
Imagine the day when celebrities try to patent hair styles. Geez... Unless we have more rulings like this, it's coming.
I am a little surprised that there have not been more Debian-based distros out there. Another one that does come to mind is Linspire. http://www.linspire.com/ I have yet to try Ubuntu, but from time to time I had trouble getting Debian packages to work with Linspire while I was still trying it out.
While I like having a choice of distributions, this very lack of cross-compatibility is part of why software vendors find porting software not to be a cost effective choice.
Yup, and a few more nights of piling up Mt. Dew cans all night while I play with yet another new toy :-)
Yes, remember to keep correspondence cordial, professional, and to the point. Letters - especially open letters such as this - ultimately serve more to entertain an audience then to persuade a corporation.
This letter brings up an interesting point, but it will most likely be diregarded by the corporation to whom it is directed.
People have been protesting for years. Protesting peacefully is a right in America. When people feel passionately about a cause, they are going to persue actively that cause - technology or no technology. Improved communications means that the organization can conducted more efficiently. The article does not say this, but I hope that people do not have the assumption that improved technology equates to more crime. Crime comes from human nature, not technology. Crime has been with us as long as humanity itself.
As to how to deal with it... there really isn't a lot anyone can do about it as the article suggests. I suppose that the best we can do is deal with crime as it arises and punish accordingly.
Dammit, Jim! I'm a romantic - not a galactic engineer! :-P
John
Greetings, UP.
No apology is necessary, UP. I enjoy an engaging conversation, and I value free speech.
As for being unclear and offensive... The purpose of the title to my original post was to grab readers' attentions and to spark debate. It succeeded in that in and of itself. However, in giving it such a title I failed to express effectively what I was trying to communicate - hence the trolling rating.
My apologies to you and to all who have taken offense.
Hopelessly optimistic... perhaps. Still, even for the glimpse of our world from the perspective that thus far only a few have been able to see would be incredible. I don't have a few hundred thousand bucks sitting around to burn; maybe I never will. But, for those who do I'm sure that it will be the experience of a life time - even if they don't go to the moon or anything like that.
In Thornton Wilder's play, Our Town, there is a memorable quote: "It takes life to love life." As an example, it's one thing to read about a roller coaster ride, to see the pictures, and to hear the tales of others who have experienced it. But, to be there yourself, to take that and to feel that energy and excitment for which no words or pictures can simulate - there is nothing that comes close to knowing for yourself.
Commerical space flights might not be anything that would be anywhere nearly as affordable as commerical flights of today at least relatively speaking within my lifetime. I might end up being a very old man by the time that they do. Aside of the excite of seeing our planet from such an amazing view point, I am sure that the sheer speed of being able to get from one place to another will become yet another convenience - a luxury of future life. I just hope that there is competition so that the prices will be competitive and thus the flights will not remain an experience only for a priviledged few.
Hey, thanks for the info!
I, for one, like having a DVD-burner simply because of the amount of storage. What used to take around 20 CD's to back up now takes about 5 DVD's.
At any rate, different companies certainly have their own vested interests in various formats. Differnt format availablilities in one way could mean more choices available, and you can choose depending upon your needs and applications. A lot of us, though, would simply like the convenience of one hardware standard to suit any purpose as it arises. http://www.dvdsite.org/
I'd say go ahead and pick up a DVD burner. Speaking for myself, they've made backing up information more efficient. One thing to note, however, is that I use my DVD's for archiving data and not multimedia files.
You and the people who think the way you do disgust me
... it's yours :-)
Again, case in point.
As a caucasian, I'm very ashamed of the attitude that so many people around me hold, and seem to take pride in.
I do not feel ashamed of the actions of others because my self-esteem comes from within and is not derived from the actions or beliefs of others.
I think you're having a problem with reality.
An introspectional look at yourself may suit you well.
My last post was my last discussion (as this is my last post in the thread), and I never anticipated a reponse. Perhaps you are one who cannot go away without having the last word. If that's the case, then have at it
Take Care.
Recent world events being what they are, I do not consider Iran's desire to adopt Linux to be much of anything about which that I would particularly care to cheer
... due to U.S. trade sanctions against Iran, we cannot trade with them. There is no economic interest ... And, considering world events, [business professionals] perceive Iran as a nation of terrorists ..."
... cruelty amongst themselves. Terrorists, not Americans, are blowing up Iraqi police stations. Terrorists are the ones who are the risk of committing mass murders to the Iraqi people during their elections. A lot of the murdering and unbelieveable cruelty (beheadings, for example) comes from within the Middle East, not the United States.
OK I can see that, but I further clarified what I meant...
I am saying, though, is that considering world events, citing Iran as an ally to Linux would not be much of a boost (if anything, a negative) as to promoting Linux.
The key word here was promoting. Further clarification meant identifying my audience:
They are mostly business professionals
Continuing on...
I think that more or less, the Middle East is a medieval culture with the dangerous mix of having access to 20th and 21st century technology and weapons.
A friend of mine, and a Sailor in the U.S. Navy, was born in Iran. He was adopted by a white American couple, and raised in the United States (and is an American citizen). Even though he is Iranian by birth, he was not raised there. He has no tangible memory of the place. I could never imagine his storming some place (like an embassy), taking hostages, and marching them blind-folded down a street among spectators. People from his birth country did that, but that's not him. He wasn't raised like that. It's not in him.
Even though that Iranians did not participate in the attacks of 9/11, many of the terrorists in Iraq do come from Iran (along with Syria). I call them terrorists because they reosrt to violence and intimidation, and they have no problem with killing non-Americans (Iraqis).
But for further calification, be sure to check out http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/en try/terrorist and http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/en try/terrorism
Iraq and Iran used to be bitter enemies of one another. Anyway, they are neighboring nations, and Iranian terrorists (among others) are using the reconstruction as a "proving ground" against the Americans. The terrorists have no regard whatsoever for the well being of the innocent civilians.
The tremendous cruelty of the culture is well documented... cruelty without the American presence
But, as I further clarified for you...
The Iraqi people want more for themselves than what the terrorists have in store for them...
That is to say, they no longer want their culture to be dominated by iron-fisted dictators who would just as well murder mass populations of people who oppose them. The history of the Middle East in the last century or so is one in which dictatorships and other forms of totalitarian governments have ruled with fear. This bears some similarity to European medieval period. Penalties for perceived treason and other crimes were severe and unbelieveably cruel. It would horrible to imagine what Euopeans at the time could have done with modern (20th and 21st century) wepaons and technology.
But in spite of all of that, you seem bent on the idea that I am a racist. I doubt that there would be anything in the world that I could say that would convince you otherwise. But then, I don't need to because that's OK.
I find your sensitivity toward seeking out racism or "the evils of society" to
...we shouldn't be proud of Africa using Linux...
... my background is largely Melungeon. The Melungeons were/are hybrid people of various ethnic backgrounds including Arab, Native American Indian, Caucasion, African, and others. http://www.melungeon.org/?BISKIT=3947677513&CONTEX T=cat&cat=10005 I use "were" because there was an attempt of ethnic cleansing through the years of my people. Only recently has there been at least some modest awareness of them. http://www.mediamonitors.net/brentkennedy1.html Anyway, I am a bit of a melding pot, myself, of ethnic backgrounds. So, for me to be racist against Arabs would be for me to be prejudice against my own ancestry. That would be like a person who is part black hating black people. I actually laughed a little bit at the racism comment... the humor was if Curtman only knew... :-P
Ahhh... I see from where you are coming; I understand.
"We" as in the Linux community should be happy that others regardless of who they are (race, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) have chosen to migrate to Linux and to be a part of our community. I see your point, now, and I agree with you. Saying that the Linux community should not be proud of Iran's adoption of Linux is not what I was trying to say. My apologies for not making that abundantly clear.
What I was saying is that to a lot of people here in the U.S. whom I would like to see take a serious look at Linux will not consider Iran's adoption as being significant because of thier own views of Iran. For those people, I would use other examples of Linux adoption. Being prejudice ultimately does not make good business sense. Business leaders can cause their businesses to lose a lot of petential revenue to prejudice. I would like to think that prejudice is not a part of my nation's society - even among the educated and successful, but I'd be smoking pot to believe otherwise (humor).
Lastly, I forgot to mention this earlier (and not that you asked), but as for my ethnic background
... you won't even come right out and admit you're a bigoted racist. ... I gather you're the kind of person who believes whatever he sees on the 6 o'clock news ... you are incapable of diferentiating between the attacks on 9/11, and the war in Iraq.
I must have really touched a nerve with you for you to resort to being personal. Perhaps this is personal to you. I have not resorted to personal attacks, and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.
First sort out who "they" are, and if in fact America is "their" arch-enemy at all.
I was refering to the original article. Here is a link for convenience: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=1 15&art_id=qw109567728080B265
Curtman, as I have stated previously, I think that we would agree more than we disagree when it comes to Linux . I know that considering your hardening judgement against me due to your misinterpretation of what I have been trying to say, you are probably not open to that all. But that's OK. Allow me a few assesments if you will...
>>Do we agree that Microsoft Windows is a very flawed product? Yes.
>>Do we agree that Linux is an operating system that lacks the security vulnerabilities of Windows? Yes.
>>Do we agree that racism and prejudice is wrong? Yes.
>>Do we agree that the Bush administration lied about the circumstances leading up to the invasion? Yes.
>>Do we agree that Saddam should have been removed from power? No.
>>Do we agree that Linux is (and should be) made available for everyone? Yes.
Curtman, I find that racism among any group of people is wrong. Business leaders - not IT specialists - will make the ultimate decision as to whether or not a business migrates to Linux. Many IT specialists already know that Linux is a preferable system. But, they are not the ones to be convinced; the ones who make the business decision - the business leaders - are the ones who need to be convinced. Unfortunately, many of them do not consider that Iran's adoption of Linux would be significant in terms of whether or not they (the business leaders) should also seriously consider migrating to Linux.
A lot of this comes from years of animosity toward Iran as a country. Recall that I previously referenced the Iran Hostage Crisis during President Carter's administration. The animosity has been there long before 9/11. Their judgement of Iran has been hardened, and no matter what I say or do, I cannot change their minds. So, it is not advantageous for me (or anyone else for that matter) to try to convince them otherwise because simply this: they won't listen. I am aware of this. Is this perception of Iran right? No, Curtman, it isn't. But, I am not the one who needs to be convinced of it for I already know.
Consider Mississippi during the 1960's. Would have telling a group of white working-class men that a group of black people have started using Soapsy Suds brand detergent made any differnce to them as whether or not they consider that brand of detergent? No, the opposite in fact.
You see, considering who the audience is (American business leaders), I do not consider Iran to be much of an ally to Linux. Many business leaders don't care. Is this right... you don't have to preach to me that is not right.
I personally do not care that Iranians want to migrate - not in a negative way, anyway. In fact, adopting Linux makes perfect IT sense. But, I don't need to convince you of that. I do find the use of Microsoft Windows without paying for it to be wrong. I do not agree with Microsft's license, therefore I do not use the product.
As for where I get my news... I choose to go through a variety of sources for a variety of points of view. I find your multiple Fox News references
Another thing that I was pointing out was that I also find it ironic that since one of Iran's considerations (although maybe not primary) was that Windows is a product of their arch-enemy, the Americans, they are switching to an OS to which is also contributed largely by Americans and was modeled after UNIX which was developed here in the country of their arch-enemy. Iranians don't want to use an American OS, and Americans don't consider anything that Iran does to be of any economic significance. The discrimination seems to be working both ways.
That is discrimination... Why would you think Iran is a nation of terrorists?
You are still not getting the point. Perhaps I need to break it down to you further still...
Shortly after 9/11, I had a discussion with my wife in which we discussed that one of the things that we were afraid was going to happen was that people were going to start harassing peaceful Arabs living within our country in addition to harassing other American citizens who were of Arab decent simply because the terrorists were Arabs. Unfortunately, we were correct.
In one instance in a store near to my home, I saw a couple of men harassing an Muslim lady, and they were threatening her. I called 911 on my cell phone to notify the police, and then I went over to the situation and I told the men that if they wanted to pick on someone, then try picking on me. Now, I am not a skinny person, nor am I stacked. I am a man of medium build. But that as it may, the truth is that - save some playful wrestling - I have never been in a real fight in my whole life. I was trying to come across that I could hold my own. Underneath, I was terrified. But, I felt that their harassing this lady was absolutely wrong. As it turns it, we exchanged some words, but the police got there VERY quickly. I guess others had called.
You see, my friend, I personally do not have anything against the people of the Middle East. What I am trying to say is that regardless of whether or not it is right or wrong, many (but by far not all) Americans do in fact have a problem with people from Iran. Is that discrimination? OK, I can see your point as it applies here. Considering that many (not all) people even within business do not consider anything that Iran does to be of any significance is the point. They do not see the economic interest associated with Iran and/or simply do not like people from Iran. So, for me to tell these people that Iran has adopted Linux is not saying much to them.
Let me also point out, though, that even though my wife and I were right on what we anticipated after 9/11, these morons [who held all Muslims responsible for the attacks] do not make up the majority population in America. I recall that in one community people who were not Muslims gathered around and kept watch over the mosque. They wanted to deter any acts of hate against the fellow members of their community who were Muslims.
Did Bush's administration lie about the circumstances leading up to the invasion? It certainly is looking that way! Still, Saddam needed to go considering his crimes against humanity.
Ooops ... I accidentally submitted the previous post (when I meant to preview) before making all necessary changes. Please bear with the obvious spelling errors and such.
Thanks.
I believe that any attempt to discriminate against people based on their political, religious, or other beliefs as far as Linux/Opensource/Free Software goes is completely wrong, and shouldn't be tolerated.
Who is discriminating? Once again, you failed to see the point. Allow me to refresh your memory...
All I am saying is that... many business professionals [would not] stop and give Linux a serious consideration because of the perception is that Iran is a nation of terrorists.
To put it another way, consider a radio station and a radio receiver. A radio sation can be putting out some excellent music with unbelieveable clarity and quality. If a radio receiver is not tuned to that station, then the signal is not received. So, it depends on the audience, my friend. If my colleagues were pot-smoking hippies who sat around and discussed the evils of society in the convenience of a smoke-filled room after having never performed any public service whatsoever, then I suppose that I could get the message across (used for example - no accusation or implication meant). However, my friends are not hippie pot smokers. They are mostly business professionals. Mind you, IT professionals, generally speaking and depending upon the quality of their training and experience, already know the value of Linux. Trying to bring awareness about the opportunities that Linux has to offer would be along the lines of preaching to the choir as the old saying goes. The decision as to whether or not to adopt Linux, BSD, or whatever vice maintining their current OS is a decision that ultimately is decided by the needs and ambition of the business with regard to cost and risk. Anyway, being business professionals, Iran doesn't from their perspective have much to offer. That is, due to U.S. trade sanctions against Iran, we cannot trade with them. There is no economic interest. Even if there were no sanctions, Iran would most likely choose not to trade with "the Great Satan". And, considering world events, they perceive Iran as a nation of terrorists. This perception existed long before 9/11. Recall the Iran Hostage Crisis during the Carter administration. So, to tell them that Iran has adopted Linux would not be saying much to them.
Whether or not this perception is entirely or at all accurate is a matter of one's point of view. Likewise, if I were to tell some people from Syria that Iran has adopted Linux, the news may be received in a different way. Then again, it may not be received at all considering that they might not care to hear anything that an "evil American infadel" has to say.
I'm not sure where you would go to get accurate counts of the number of Iraqi people killed in this invasion...
Consider WWII. A tactic use among both the allies and the Germans was to bomb entire cities, and to bomb where people who had absolutely nothing directly to do with the military resided. Part of the tactic was psychological, in addition to striking targets like factories. America did this even in Vietnam. Vietnam left a bitter taste in the mouth of the Americans. The government lied to the American people and was sending troops to die in a war with no clear purpose or agenda for America or even a clear plan for winning the war. In fact, the U.S. was not even trying to win - the U.S. was trying to maintain a stalemate because of an idiotic, new (at the time) doctrine that winning wars spawns animosity which leads to more war (WWI >> WWII). Moreover, the war in Vietnam was more of an indirect confilict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union - using the Vietnamese.
Moving back on to my point, the U.S. could have used tremendous indiscriminate fire power and bombs against Iraq. The U.S. did not. Was the invasion perfect... no, as you are so quick to point out. Remember, an invasion is a military function, our military was trained and trained well for such a function. Agree with it or not, invasion is a possible task for the military. They di
I agree that the review was well written. As for the final score... a rating is subjective. I haven't read the book, but this review certainly makes it sound enticing enough.
Actually, Google is a business. It's Google job to make money. How they may money or how much money they make depends on the product that they offer and how the public takes to its quality. If people like what they see, then the business can be profitable. If people do not like it, then other news sites will get Google's former business.
One aspect of being profitable is to keep costs down. This includes labor costs. If a computer algorithm can perform a job adequately and for less money than a human (considering that the person will need to be paid + benefits), then from an economic point of view, it makes sense. However, Google should perhaps have a small human team. This investment would allow for the human-aspect of quality assurance - to catch stuff that even the most sophisticated of algorithms cannot catch - and thus could improve quality thereby keeping more or attracting more of an audience allowing for the opportunity to make more money. A human QA professional might be more able to catch things like when lobbyists or whoever try to take advantage of how a system operates and then (at the least) attempts to abuse and/or corrupt the system to fulfill their own agendas.
At any rate, Google did allow for an open look at their news search engine. This is good. I hope that Google will use this feedback objectively to improve their service.
It almost seems they didn't even read the thing.
:-P
*gasp!* Say it isn't so!
U.S. legislatures sometimes (dare I say frequently?) vote or comment on bills within the United States that they have not read, so I find it to be of no surprise that they would not take to time to read a bill for/from any other country. reference: the U.S. Patriot Act. http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12126&c=207
As for pot, I do not use the stuff; it's not my bag (pun intended). One argument, I suppose, is that pot leads to other drugs in addition to impairing judgment and abilities. My brother has been smoking pot for about 3 decades now. He has never gotten into other drugs, and has a professional degree. Perhaps it depends on circumstances. At any rate, I think that we would be better off going after the real organized crime - the big growers, the big dealers - and take them down. It's a waste of time and resources to be nickel and diming the small stuff.
The idea that people would actually keep it in their own homes is not realistic, though. Look at alcohol. You can drink it; it's legal - just stay off the roads. Does that stop people from doing it? No. Drunk drivers kill so many people each year. The hard part is that we have already learned that prohibition doesn't work, either. So, I believe that the goal is to target the source. It's a tough call.
I think that more or less, the Middle East is a medieval culture with the dangerous mix of having access to 20th and 21st century technology and weapons. I am sure that my saying "medieval" may be a controversial point in and of itself, but I say that given the Middle East people's willingness to inflict such incredible cruelty even to their own people like beheading, cutting of limbs, and so on. They are willing to mass murder all for the sake of religious principle.
You could argue that the U.S. has done some terrible things. That would be true. The difference is that we recognize our mistakes and learn from them. We will never use nuclear weapons as a first strike. We no longer use, manufacture, or store chemical and biological weapons. From the days of WWI, WWII, Korea, and even as recently as Vietnam, the militarily no longer targets civilians deliberately. Consider the invasion. Whether you agree with the justification or not, the military did a nice job of disciplined strikes. There were some accidents, but that happens. By and large, they did a fantastic good job at striking only targets of interest, leaving buildings even net door virtually undamaged.
I believe that one of the largest tragedies of 9/11 aside of the loss of life from so many victims was the assault on our civil liberties from our own government that soon followed. Part of my issue with the Patriot Act is that it broadened law enforcement agencies without a clear set of boundaries or checks and balances. For example, the so-called war on drugs is claiming some victories with the smuggling of pot into the U.S. from Canada thanks to provisions of the Patriot Act. Identity theft bloodhounds are looking to benefit from information the U.S. gathers from passenger flight data. You see, law enforcement officials long for sweeping powers. This is their ticket. If they have someone that they think is really, really bad, then all they need to do is create an abstract link to terrorism, and then they have all the power that they need.
Is any of this related to Linux? No, not in any direct way. Except, as I mentioned earlier is that the community of Linux is made up of people from all over the world: all types of religions (including those people who prefer the absence of), all types of cultures, and so on. We don't waste our time fighting amongst ourselves for the most part. Instead, we celebrate and share something that we have in common: Linux. Unfortunately, I think that it
Touché on all points, my friend, however...
:-)
I just don't think that Iranians or anyone else is going to abandon a technology just because a few Americans worked on it
"... pragmatic considerations - not least because of the irony that Iran's information technology (IT) backbone is based on software from its arch-enemy, the United States." The fact that they do not want an OS because it is American is clear. Granted, it is not the only reason, and they do in fact some very practical reasons for the switch. But, to assume that animosity toward the U.S. has nothing to do with it is also foolish.
I also highly doubt that has anything to do with the motivation.
It was only a guess, anyway. However, I still think that such a move of covert tracking software included with the frequent Windows updates would be possible. The main point of that came later when I said that I was sure that the idea had at least crossed their minds. I agree that Windows security record speaks volumes for the OS ever so much more than any of Microsoft's rhetoric.
Iran isn't the ones telling the government of [Canada] how it should be conducting its business.
According to link that you provided, America has a problem Canada's lax laws regarding pot, and Canada has a problem with drugs coming in from the U.S. It seems that the issue works both ways, and our two countries seem to be working together. That's no big surprise; Canada and the U.S. work very well together as neighbors. I could see how a pot-smoker would find this objectionable. But, that's not really your point, I know...
Stealing is wrong no matter how you look at it. If you don't agree with the license, then don't use the product. It's that simple. Iranian officials have stated that they don't feel the least but guilty about stealing. I think this speaks volumes their culture.
I would expect a "... but the U.S./Americans [insert something bad the U.S. did here]." I won't waste my time with that sort of back and forth discussion, nor am I under the impression that you will, either. All I am saying is that considering world events, Iran's adoption of Linux is not something that would have many business professionals stop and give Linux a serious consideration because of the perception is that Iran is a nation of terrorists. Whether they are or not is a matter of perspective.
So, I suppose that it is all relative. You and I share a very similar interest in Linux even though we do not share the same views in politics. But, that's OK. One of the beauties of the Linux community is that our community transcends such things. If only the rest of the world could catch on....
Someday, maybe. But here's hoping
Actually, some might be able to argue that the LSB is in a way a monoculture. The LSB is good since it gives software vendors a common base rather than having to develop a package for different distributions. But, would the LSB also be an invitation to would-be virus writers? As Linux grows in popularity, we can expect to see more virus attempts. Of note, another reader said the McAfee has an antivirus for Linux. It is called McAfee LinuxShield. http://www.networkassociates.com/us/products/mcafe e/antivirus/fileserver/linuxshield.htm
Another question is that as more and more users migrate from Windows, we they also be migrating the bad Internet practices that many of them have? On the whole, I believe that Linux users today tend to be more Internet savvy than users of Windows in that they are familiar with and regularly implement good Internet practices such as using a user account for every day purposes such as surfing the web and reading email vice using a root account or one with root access. That being said, if Windows users also migrate their bad habits, then Linux can be more vulnerable in that respect than it currently is. As we spread the word about Linux, then we should also be willing to teach them vice saying things like "RTFM".
Linux by its UNIX-like nature, even if it were monoculture, is not nearly as susceptible to virus attacks as Windows. This is one of Linux's most valuable features.
The so-called convenience of having a standard OS with which most people are familiar coupled with concerns over the amount of money it would cost to convert to another OS are things to consider about migrating to a new system.
Unfortunately, Linux, BSD, and other alternatives still scare some upper management. If the cost of migrating + training is still a determining factor, then they should also weigh the risks of maintaining their current OS. That is, the cost of down time, man-hours to correct problems and get systems online as well as meet the needs of the public, and the cost of compromising controlled information such as privacy data.
How much damage will it take to consider a new system? How much money does a company or organization need to lose before the cost of migrating seems to be a viable option? How many compromises in security will it take? Microsoft's security exploits, among a host of other things, are well documented in daily news.
But, hey... Microsoft says that they deliver a better and more secure product. The news speaks louder than rhetoric. I recommend that open source community partners in that state contact their representation in a professional manner to help bring awareness that there are other options available.