That'd be cool, except that slogans are annoying. Especially bad slogans. They just sound hokey. From Where do you want to go today? to the Burger King or McDonald's or whatever I like it my way things... if anything, they make me want to laugh. A trustworthy brand is pretty cool, helpful, and nice to be able to rely on; slogans are something I've never figured out the point of.:)
I like the AC's comment below - "to real Linux users"... hehe. Disagree, obviously, but it was funny...
You're right; I don't have much statistical support for the turning off. Most people I have talked to simply say Linux is too hard to use, too different, didn't work well, didn't play youtube videos, doesn't support their printer/iPod/whatever. Functional issues.
The attitude part? Well, I have to say, most people seem to have a "he's a fanatic" response to Stallman... in my admittedly anecdotal experience.
How about this argument: many people find that sort of attitude a turn-off in other aspects of life. Example? Politics. If you are a... conservative, we'll pick on them [since I am one:)], and you push for a pure ideal of conservatism and then also say that if you don't support pure, ideal conservatism, you aren't a real conservative? That's a turn-off to people who may be a bit more of a "moderate" conservative, or perhaps libertarian, etc. It's a divisive attitude. Unless we're talking about real moral issues, it seems most people aren't extreme in their ideals... and there are those who *are* extreme, as well, but who realize that most other people are not and it would be better to try to get some of what they think is better (say, free software ideals?) and slowly work towards it than insult those who think differently about it.
We have a funny relationship status on/. Friend of Friend and...Foe of Friend? Friend of Freak? something like that... hehe.
Only if you are into the FSF type movement. Most people interpret "free software" as without-charge; i.e., what we would call freeware (as opposed to shareware).
The average person is not too concerned about having absolute "freedom" with their software, and aren't too concerned about Canonical's deals with Banshee, etc. Look at how popular MS became and how popular Apple is apparently becoming. That wasn't based on freedom of software, software sources, etc.
I'm totally cool with pushing for free-as-in-freedom ideals. But I don't think pushing for a complete/ideal/"pure" free-as-in-freedom software while trying to push users to go with Linux, generically, is going to work.
I personally use Linux. I don't care too much about Canonical's behavior; why? Because I didn't pay them any money. If I didn't pay anything, it's hard to claim I'm supporting them, in my view. Now, if I was purchasing something from them, I may care a bit more; but ultimately, since nobody and no company is perfect, it ends up being a lesser-of-evils choice. Amazon vs. Canonical? Apple vs. Microsoft? etc.
But the attitude of "you're not a "real" Linux user if you don't only use completely free-as-in-freedom software" simply portrays the "elite"/"real" Linux users as... snarky elitists, I guess. I would advocate both; I personally think free/libre software is good, but I also realize that non-free can be good, can be a viable model, and can be done ethically. And you know what? If it helps out someone and makes their job easier, makes their hobbies easier, they find it easy to use, whatever, it's up to them if they want to buy it. I'm not going to say "ha! well you're not a REAL [insert something] user because you don't care about my arbitrary ideals!"
That attitude drives most people away. Movements don't tend to get anywhere if the movement is offensive, not in ideal, but in the way ideals are presented; a no-compromise either-you-are-100%-for-my-ideal-or-you're-not-even-a-friend attitude? Not sure that helps.
This is coming from an openoffice Google Microsoft Ubuntu SuSE Sabayon almost-Android Rhythmbox Amarok iTunes Chrome Firefox user. Currently typing on an Ubuntu 10.10 laptop, though. I say that not to show off my credentials, but to explain where I am coming from: I care less about the ideal than I do the software quality and usability, I guess... but there is some balance; e.g., I do like MS Office somewhat better than openoffice but I'm not willing to pay for it:)
I think they are saying that they'll take Banshee out of their apt channels or something like that... basically using that as leverage to get Banshee to do what they want?
Your comment about "real" Linux users is basically the attitude that turns off a lot of people from even listening to reasonable arguments about free (libre) software.
It listed Verizon and AT&T (+ one other) at my location. Neither of them actually service my house. They provide service in the zip code, but not my part of it.
It didn't list the one wireless company that does (it's a local company though, so that's somewhat forgiveable).
I did see that referenced and thought that sounded a bit more of a complete rewrite, which would make more sense... at least at trying to make a coherent alternate version. Have you read it?
If it's simply an "other-biased" version of history, then ok.
But LotR takes place after other historical events. This isn't just Sauron; many years (and two distinct "ages" I believe?) came before LotR; so this isn't just claiming LotR is a lie, but that the entire history of Middle Earth is a lie. It has to be, otherwise you can't claim that Sauron isn't really the "bad" guy. It's forcing a different viewpoint into a story that cannot contain that viewpoint. If you rewrote the entire history of Middle Earth... as well as Valinor and Eru and everything. The "history" of Sauron lies in Morgoth, the Valar, and eventually Eru/Ilúvatar (we'll see if the accent goes through:-o). To rewrite the history of Sauron in the manner that I understand it is (again, I have not read it... going based on the summary/other people's comments), you would also have to rewrite the entire history of Arda, pretty much.
And you would also have to somehow attempt to show that Eru is evil, as well as all the Valar except Melkor/Morgoth.
This would be like trying to not simply to show that Hitler was good and the rest of the world was bad; it would mean somehow trying to functionally rewrite the entire history of the world to show that a long succession of "Hitler" characters (vs. the rest of the world) were ALL good, and everyone else was bad.
My point: I can see the draw of the "what if history weren't written like that?" viewpoint. However, in order to "rewrite" LotR history from a different victor's viewpoint, said victor's viewpoint would also have to be applied to the entire history of Sauron, which goes back to Melkor, and back to the creation of Arda... otherwise, it will simply be a large inconsistency.
I suppose you could have some sort of metatheme where Sauron is all about inconsistency or something.
I have not read it. Based on the summary, it doesn't sound like LotR from the "other side"... it sounds more like LotR from the perspective of the Mordor Propoganda Department.
One easy example: basically, Mordor's forces were made up of all "evil" character type things; corrupted men (greed) known as the Nazgul, living corrupted men (also greed, they were mercenaries), orcs (corrupted)...
And they were fighting against *the rest* of the world, pretty much.
Furthermore, this completely fails to reconcile with the "historical" accounts of Morgoth and his servant Sauron. Unless I am to understand that somehow Morgoth was right all along and everyone else was crazy?
It'd be interesting to have a book from the Mordor perspective, but I don't think forcing a mixup of what is good or bad helps anything.
Most people really only like free speech that does not offend them. They tend to claim some sort of right to not be offended or something like that, too.
If you squish trojans, viruses, and worms all together, then Windows is clearly more vulnerable than, say, OSX or Linux, which don't get viruses.
(if you didn't catch it... people tend to lump all Windows attacks together: plugins, social, and executables-that-you-download-and-run-yourself, and then compare it to "real" viruses on Linux; downloading an rpm or deb and installing it yourself "doesn't count")
I don't know if the OP is stating that, he may have valid arguments for why Windows is still more insecure due to design and not due to user stupidity or prevalence of attacks.
But those services can be used by more than just people who are using phones. In fact, the person using the phone may even be calling for someone else. It makes no sense to put a tax on phone service, wired or wireless, for the purpose of funding a service that serves more than those who have phones.
I would think a service that basically is supposed to serve everyone ought to be a tax levied on everyone...
Personally, I'd rather people with issues do their beating, raping and killing in video games rather than in real life.
You're assuming playing a violent video game helps them not do it in real life, and using that to show why it's better to do it in a video game...
I could offer a logical argument that people play games that they like, so if they like violent games, then that is showing "something" about themselves. One could 'logically' then argue that "taking it out" in video games prevents them from "having" to take it out in real life, but has that been proved in any way? I'm not sure that it has. Perhaps it makes them more comfortable with it? That hasn't been proved, either.
This seems to be one of those highly politicized and opinionated question that nobody can really talk about freely because people already have decided that either (1) it's good because it keeps you from carrying out violence in real life or (2) it makes you more used to violence and makes you more liable to do highly violent things in real life.
This. Spending an extra $60 or $100/mo or whatever it would be just so I can check my e-mail 30 minutes earlier (I'm most often near a computer all day anyway!) is simply not economically wise for me. Obviously, other people can afford it just fine, so I'm not saying they're doing anything wrong.
But I actually don't even have much of a desire for one. A tablet of some sort would be way more useful than a smart phone.
It didn't say it simply bought the product and rebranded it. They used the information to improve their own. That would be more like buying a Ford, looking at it, and incorporating good ideas into your own.
Slashdot Mirror
Erg. I did not mean to mod troll. Posting. Sigh.
It was hosted on Google Sites.
;)
That'd be cool, except that slogans are annoying. Especially bad slogans. They just sound hokey. From Where do you want to go today? to the Burger King or McDonald's or whatever I like it my way things ... if anything, they make me want to laugh. A trustworthy brand is pretty cool, helpful, and nice to be able to rely on; slogans are something I've never figured out the point of. :)
I like the AC's comment below - "to real Linux users" ... hehe. Disagree, obviously, but it was funny...
You're right; I don't have much statistical support for the turning off. Most people I have talked to simply say Linux is too hard to use, too different, didn't work well, didn't play youtube videos, doesn't support their printer/iPod/whatever. Functional issues.
The attitude part? Well, I have to say, most people seem to have a "he's a fanatic" response to Stallman... in my admittedly anecdotal experience.
How about this argument: many people find that sort of attitude a turn-off in other aspects of life. Example? Politics. If you are a... conservative, we'll pick on them [since I am one :)], and you push for a pure ideal of conservatism and then also say that if you don't support pure, ideal conservatism, you aren't a real conservative? That's a turn-off to people who may be a bit more of a "moderate" conservative, or perhaps libertarian, etc. It's a divisive attitude. Unless we're talking about real moral issues, it seems most people aren't extreme in their ideals... and there are those who *are* extreme, as well, but who realize that most other people are not and it would be better to try to get some of what they think is better (say, free software ideals?) and slowly work towards it than insult those who think differently about it.
We have a funny relationship status on /. Friend of Friend and ...Foe of Friend? Friend of Freak? something like that... hehe.
Only if you are into the FSF type movement. Most people interpret "free software" as without-charge; i.e., what we would call freeware (as opposed to shareware).
The average person is not too concerned about having absolute "freedom" with their software, and aren't too concerned about Canonical's deals with Banshee, etc. Look at how popular MS became and how popular Apple is apparently becoming. That wasn't based on freedom of software, software sources, etc.
I'm totally cool with pushing for free-as-in-freedom ideals. But I don't think pushing for a complete/ideal/"pure" free-as-in-freedom software while trying to push users to go with Linux, generically, is going to work.
I personally use Linux. I don't care too much about Canonical's behavior; why? Because I didn't pay them any money. If I didn't pay anything, it's hard to claim I'm supporting them, in my view. Now, if I was purchasing something from them, I may care a bit more; but ultimately, since nobody and no company is perfect, it ends up being a lesser-of-evils choice. Amazon vs. Canonical? Apple vs. Microsoft? etc.
But the attitude of "you're not a "real" Linux user if you don't only use completely free-as-in-freedom software" simply portrays the "elite"/"real" Linux users as ... snarky elitists, I guess. I would advocate both; I personally think free/libre software is good, but I also realize that non-free can be good, can be a viable model, and can be done ethically. And you know what? If it helps out someone and makes their job easier, makes their hobbies easier, they find it easy to use, whatever, it's up to them if they want to buy it. I'm not going to say "ha! well you're not a REAL [insert something] user because you don't care about my arbitrary ideals!"
That attitude drives most people away. Movements don't tend to get anywhere if the movement is offensive, not in ideal, but in the way ideals are presented; a no-compromise either-you-are-100%-for-my-ideal-or-you're-not-even-a-friend attitude? Not sure that helps.
This is coming from an openoffice Google Microsoft Ubuntu SuSE Sabayon almost-Android Rhythmbox Amarok iTunes Chrome Firefox user. Currently typing on an Ubuntu 10.10 laptop, though. I say that not to show off my credentials, but to explain where I am coming from: I care less about the ideal than I do the software quality and usability, I guess... but there is some balance; e.g., I do like MS Office somewhat better than openoffice but I'm not willing to pay for it :)
I think they are saying that they'll take Banshee out of their apt channels or something like that... basically using that as leverage to get Banshee to do what they want?
Remember, it is free as in libre, not gratis.
According to whom?
Your comment about "real" Linux users is basically the attitude that turns off a lot of people from even listening to reasonable arguments about free (libre) software.
It listed Verizon and AT&T (+ one other) at my location. Neither of them actually service my house. They provide service in the zip code, but not my part of it.
It didn't list the one wireless company that does (it's a local company though, so that's somewhat forgiveable).
Is this talking about the TSA in the US? Or is there a TSA in the AU?
That wouldn't solve interpreted languages, though, would it? Unless the interpreter itself complains...
I believe it states that Pharaoh first hardens his own heart. After about the 5th plague, it talks about God hardening his heart.
Please examine what exactly is the area impacted.
Real and concrete statistical information that attempts to give a plausible and reasonably clear big picture is boring.
I see the double-space thing too ... but it goes away if you open the parent comment.
I did see that referenced and thought that sounded a bit more of a complete rewrite, which would make more sense... at least at trying to make a coherent alternate version. Have you read it?
If it's simply an "other-biased" version of history, then ok.
But LotR takes place after other historical events. This isn't just Sauron; many years (and two distinct "ages" I believe?) came before LotR; so this isn't just claiming LotR is a lie, but that the entire history of Middle Earth is a lie. It has to be, otherwise you can't claim that Sauron isn't really the "bad" guy. It's forcing a different viewpoint into a story that cannot contain that viewpoint. If you rewrote the entire history of Middle Earth ... as well as Valinor and Eru and everything. The "history" of Sauron lies in Morgoth, the Valar, and eventually Eru/Ilúvatar (we'll see if the accent goes through :-o). To rewrite the history of Sauron in the manner that I understand it is (again, I have not read it... going based on the summary/other people's comments), you would also have to rewrite the entire history of Arda, pretty much.
And you would also have to somehow attempt to show that Eru is evil, as well as all the Valar except Melkor/Morgoth.
This would be like trying to not simply to show that Hitler was good and the rest of the world was bad; it would mean somehow trying to functionally rewrite the entire history of the world to show that a long succession of "Hitler" characters (vs. the rest of the world) were ALL good, and everyone else was bad.
My point: I can see the draw of the "what if history weren't written like that?" viewpoint. However, in order to "rewrite" LotR history from a different victor's viewpoint, said victor's viewpoint would also have to be applied to the entire history of Sauron, which goes back to Melkor, and back to the creation of Arda... otherwise, it will simply be a large inconsistency.
I suppose you could have some sort of metatheme where Sauron is all about inconsistency or something.
I have not read it. Based on the summary, it doesn't sound like LotR from the "other side" ... it sounds more like LotR from the perspective of the Mordor Propoganda Department.
One easy example: basically, Mordor's forces were made up of all "evil" character type things; corrupted men (greed) known as the Nazgul, living corrupted men (also greed, they were mercenaries), orcs (corrupted)...
And they were fighting against *the rest* of the world, pretty much.
Furthermore, this completely fails to reconcile with the "historical" accounts of Morgoth and his servant Sauron. Unless I am to understand that somehow Morgoth was right all along and everyone else was crazy?
It'd be interesting to have a book from the Mordor perspective, but I don't think forcing a mixup of what is good or bad helps anything.
Most people really only like free speech that does not offend them. They tend to claim some sort of right to not be offended or something like that, too.
I don't necessarily disagree with your ultimate point. However, governments very much do have valid things to hide at times.
If you squish trojans, viruses, and worms all together, then Windows is clearly more vulnerable than, say, OSX or Linux, which don't get viruses.
(if you didn't catch it ... people tend to lump all Windows attacks together: plugins, social, and executables-that-you-download-and-run-yourself, and then compare it to "real" viruses on Linux; downloading an rpm or deb and installing it yourself "doesn't count")
I don't know if the OP is stating that, he may have valid arguments for why Windows is still more insecure due to design and not due to user stupidity or prevalence of attacks.
I agree, they are not "unrelated."
But those services can be used by more than just people who are using phones. In fact, the person using the phone may even be calling for someone else. It makes no sense to put a tax on phone service, wired or wireless, for the purpose of funding a service that serves more than those who have phones.
I would think a service that basically is supposed to serve everyone ought to be a tax levied on everyone...
But I suppose that makes too much sense :)
Personally, I'd rather people with issues do their beating, raping and killing in video games rather than in real life.
You're assuming playing a violent video game helps them not do it in real life, and using that to show why it's better to do it in a video game...
I could offer a logical argument that people play games that they like, so if they like violent games, then that is showing "something" about themselves. One could 'logically' then argue that "taking it out" in video games prevents them from "having" to take it out in real life, but has that been proved in any way? I'm not sure that it has. Perhaps it makes them more comfortable with it? That hasn't been proved, either.
This seems to be one of those highly politicized and opinionated question that nobody can really talk about freely because people already have decided that either (1) it's good because it keeps you from carrying out violence in real life or (2) it makes you more used to violence and makes you more liable to do highly violent things in real life.
I have 4 dumb phones in the family for $100/mo.
This. Spending an extra $60 or $100 /mo or whatever it would be just so I can check my e-mail 30 minutes earlier (I'm most often near a computer all day anyway!) is simply not economically wise for me. Obviously, other people can afford it just fine, so I'm not saying they're doing anything wrong.
But I actually don't even have much of a desire for one. A tablet of some sort would be way more useful than a smart phone.
Every three years, the Librarian of Congress and the Copyright Office entertain proposed exemptions to the DMCA, passed in 1998.
In the midst of slashdot posts that refer to these theories as pretty much completely accepted... regarding matter at the aforementioned Big Bang:
You should tell the University of Michigan
And Berkeley, I guess
It apparently highly depends. Some sites (again, education ones) appear to say there was no matter, just anti-matter. Some say matter.
It didn't say it simply bought the product and rebranded it. They used the information to improve their own. That would be more like buying a Ford, looking at it, and incorporating good ideas into your own.