If you assume that the needs of the users are being met, all open-source has *many* advantagess that closed-source doesn't (auditability, ease of maintenance, transparency, lack of vendor lock-in.)
I don't think he was saying there's anything wrong with being all open source.
His point was that the "goal" isn't using open or closed source software. The goal is to let the end users get their work done in the "best" way possible. Limiting options to open source when there's closed software that does the job better is just as silly as sticking to closed software when there is open software that does the job better. In other words, the goal isn't openness, it's getting the job done.
If you have such a problem with the way public education is run, then get involved for fucks sake.
The best way of fixing the public education system would be to move to some kind of voucher system. It's impossible to "work from the inside" to fix a system that's fundamentally broken.
As it stands right now, the government and the teacher's unions stifle any chance of real change and improvement.
Democracy isn't about using the government to force your opinions on other people.
In any case, why should (potentially) 49% of the population be forced to suffer, with nothing they can do about it, when there's a system that lets everybody make their own decisions on how to best make themselves happy?
If the rest of the people disagree with you and vote for the government you don't want, well, that's not a problem with government, is it?
Freedom is kinda pointless if it just means you have the right to be like everybody else.
If you build a house, can I force you to let me live in it on any terms I set? No, I can't. Do I get to take your car out for a spin whenever I want? No. You own those things, so you get to set the conditions under which other people take possession of them or use them.
So what makes you think you get to set the terms under which Google gives away the software they've made? They don't have to let other people use it at all if they don't want to.
Say: Wow Microsoft won against Google.
Google isn't trying to "beat" Microsoft for warm fuzzy feelings. I'm also pretty sure they're not competing to be your personal software slave.
Except, of course, if a company is 'taking away' freedoms.. then you (perhaps not you, specifically) do want the government to bully around.
What freedom are they taking away exactly? Your freedom to force them into making whatever software you want them to?
I know it's not popular, but the whole "you have a choice when it comes to companies" thing is in direct opposition to the whole "zomg Microsoft is an abusive monopoly they should be punished!" thing. Very few people would argue that, back in the day, you had a choice - that you *could* buy alternatives to the 'Wintel' platform... and some believe even now that you don't really have a choice.. and thus want to see Microsoft punished.
I think that's a straw man, but it won't work because I'm one of those people who don't think Microsoft should have been "punished". I don't see why you would want to punish other people for your own ignorance. What does that even accomplish?
So, too, do many feel that "so don't use Google" is not valid and would rather see that Google come to their senses, or a watchdog step in and make them come to their senses.
Then maybe those people should form their own watchdog and leave the rest of us alone?
Then I demand the rights to name your firstborn. I can if I state it in a EULA right?
Yeah, that's fine with me, because I'm not an idiot. I actually read the shit I'm about to agree to, so I wouldn't use your product after seeing that in the EULA. Problem solved.
No company has the right to being abusive and you can NEVER relinquish certain rights, even if you wanted to. I can't sell mysrlf into slavery and I can't give Google eternal and everlasting control over my computer, EULA or not.
<sarcasm>Yeah, the "right" to use other people's shit on any terms you want is right up there with free speech and freedom of the press. I can't believe they left that one off the Bill of Rights...</sarcasm>
I see this as a typically American point of view. If a goverment tries to do anything, it's evil, fascist, communist, stealing etc. When a company does it, it is seen as their right and if you don't like it you should stop doing business with them.
The difference is that interactions with a company are voluntary. You don't have to use Google's products. There's Yahoo, Gigablast, Clusty, and hundreds more. There's MapQuest and WorldWind and others. There's OpenOffice, Abiword, KOffice, Microsoft Office, and more. You have all of those alternatives, and you can use whichever one you want, without anybody telling you otherwise.
You don't have a choice with the government - you do what they say or they throw you in jail.
If that's an "American point of view", then you're probably right. We are supposed to be the shining example of a free country, so it only makes sense that we'd prefer freedom over government bullying.
If you dont want to fight, retreat. If you keep retreating you will lose a war without a single battle being fought, a cowards way to go out.
No, actually, because companies need customers to survive.
If a company is acting abusively you need to punish it via the government.
Wow, that's just scary. Wait, I get it... I'm feeding a troll, right?
Companies should not be able to modify your computer at their discretion, EULA
And they're not. People are voluntarily installing the software Google provided and agreeing to the terms they set. The article summary clearly points out that the software warns that it's going to install the updater. If a person doesn't agree to the terms, then they shouldn't use the software. It's that fucking simple. Where did you get the idea that you get to set the terms at which you get other people's stuff?
If Google has something, and you want to use it, you're gonna have to play by the rules they set for it, or not use their shit. That's just the way it works. What would you do if Google said "Well, we're just not going to release Google Earth at all."?
... yet. Pretty soon it will be mandatory, and destroying the RFID chip in your passport will invalidate the passport and earn you a full body cavity search for your trouble no doubt.
LOL! Tinfoil hat on a little tight today? You don't even even seem to know what the passport card is or you would realize why it will never be mandatory. It's a passport replacement for people who live near the border, who frequently need to travel accross the border. It allows you to get into/out of Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and a couple of Carribean countries. Making it required would just be silly. Get a clue.
And about regular passports... Do you have any evidence at all to support the "destroying the RFID chip will invalidate the passport" claim? I think you're just making shit up to scare people.
That's just not true. Maybe *you* should check the rest of the web for more info. The RFID chip only stores a database key - everything else is grabbed from the database using that key. In other words cloning somebody else's RFID is pointless because then it'll be showing the original owner's photo on the security guy's computer display. If the security guy isn't paying attention, then that's a problem with or without the RFID.
Also, the passport card isn't even required. With a regular passport you can destroy or remove the chip and use it as traditional passport. So if you're really that paranoid, skip the card, get a regular passport, destroy the chip and STFU while the rest of us enjoy the extra convenience. I really don't see why people are crying about this so much.
Even if that's the case, it shouldn't be a problem. Little or no driver support from hardware manufacturers is par for the course for every other PC operating system, and they all seem to get along okay.
The free market theory doesn't work very well when the customer's reaction to being screwed over is to go back and ask for more.
That's just FUD.
"Free market theory" is that buying and selling takes places voluntarily between two rational parties, both of whom agree to the terms of the deal. If he thinks he's getting shafted, but keeps buying the games anyway, then it's nobody's fault but his own. If he doesn't think the game is worth buying a second time, then he simply shouldn't buy it. The fact that he does buy it is not the fault of the video game companies, and it's not a problem with the free market.
That's not a very good answer, IMO. If they made a bunch of money by selling off spectrum then they should need less tax money. One way of collecting less tax money would be a tax credit for people who bought a digital TV box.
How is that obvious? I know, it's their software, they can do it however they want, and it's my fault for not reading the warnings, but you've got to admit that's completely different than any other project. Almost every other project would have called 4.0 an alpha, 4.1 a beta, 4.2 would have been a release candidate, and 4.3 would have been the official 4.0 release.
Naming releases completely different than anybody else makes it non-obvious in my book. Considering how much grief they've gotten from people complaining it's not ready, I'd guess I'm not the only one.
It's not your job or the government's job to babysit people. I'm sure you're convinced that you know better than everybody, and that if everybody would just do exactly what you want, everything would be wonderful. Hate to disappoint you, but other people's lives are really none of your business.
I disagree. For things that can cause loss of life, be a safety hazard (usually embedded stuff), or cause significant financial loss, software is held to the same standards as "regular" stuff. I'd say software even does a better job in that case, because, for example, most of the times when planes crash due to a defect, it ends up being a hardware defect.
Fact of the matter is, for typical desktop software it's just not worth the trouble of removing every single bug. If you think Vista and OS X are expensive now, it's a small fraction of what they'd cost if they had to be completely bug free. It's significantly cheaper to just save frequently than it is to make the software 100% reliable, especially since it's a good idea to save frequently anyway in case of a hardware problem like a power outage.
Knowledge is something you know. Telling you to not retain knowledge would be if she told you forget the information you learned. Getting rid of people's class notes would be telling them not to retain information.
That said... WTF? Telling students to destroy their class notes is almost so stupid I'm not sure I even believe this is true. Not only is it just ridiculous, it's actually completely backwards of almost every professor I'd ever had. I honestly can't imagine a professor telling students to destroy their notes.
Department of red herrings again. Price of zero, *nuisance of zero* with someone else doing evey whit of the support and no flukey problems. Then let them do everything they used to do, but it goes snappier. That's the question.
Are you serious? Just because it's not being paid for directly doesn't change the fact that it's being paid for. Raising taxes to pay for it just takes the choice out of it. It's still being paid for.
The survey is carefully worded to "say free" but *imply* not-free like some deal that has a hidden catch.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, "implying non-free". Actually, I'm not sure even where the 2/3 quoted in the summary comes from. But, in the survey linked to in the article, to the question, "What is the MAIN reason you don't use the internet or email?", 33% of non-users selected "Not interested in getting online". That seems pretty straightforward to me. In the section "Summary of reasons dial-up and non-internet users cite for not having broadband at home", it says 51% said it wasn't relevant to them. Again, that seems pretty straightforward. I'm not seeing the secret double-speak you're talking about.
Your argument falls kinda flat, since I seriously doubt the marketers keep track(or even know) of how many people actually stop using a service because of advertising frustrations. It would go AGAINST them if they were to actually make that information available to prospective advertisers.
Your argument doesn't even make sense. If you're blocking the ads, they can't be bothering you, because you don't even see them, so why do you even care?
As for revenue, the advertisers are obviously making money, or they'd stop doing it. You think they just get a kick out of annoying people (or in your case being completely ignored)? Some idiot marketting drone is saying "Damn, I'm losing money, but annoying the shit out of everybody is worth it! Haha!"?
And, yeah, when I can no longer turn off the ads here on/., I'll stop coming here. Then, you might say, slashdot will fall and crumble without the advertising revenue. So be it. Find a business model that works.
No, I don't think they will. I also block the ads here, but if I couldn't for some reason, I would subscribe before I stopped coming here. Not everybody is a cheap bastard.
Absolutely, having these charges will hopefully reduce the amount of spurious fishing trips. Let's face it, if it didn't cost them, we all know how that would end.
That's pretty naive. You don't think the government people actually care about saving money, do you? They'll just raise taxes and say it's for fighting child porn. There isn't a politician in the world willing to say "No, I'd rather save money than fight child abuse." He might as well just resign right then and there.
Besides that, the salaries of the police officers doing the "fishing trips" is a lot more expensive than the cost of the information from the ISPs.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - the two firms most responsible for the "crisis" (they were the ones buying shit mortgages and loans from everybody) - are practically owned and run by the government. That's what the "Federal" in "Federal National Mortgage Association" and "Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation" means. You don't get more regulated than that.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think he was saying there's anything wrong with being all open source.
His point was that the "goal" isn't using open or closed source software. The goal is to let the end users get their work done in the "best" way possible. Limiting options to open source when there's closed software that does the job better is just as silly as sticking to closed software when there is open software that does the job better. In other words, the goal isn't openness, it's getting the job done.
Perl is unnecessary:
date -d@1234567890
The best way of fixing the public education system would be to move to some kind of voucher system. It's impossible to "work from the inside" to fix a system that's fundamentally broken.
As it stands right now, the government and the teacher's unions stifle any chance of real change and improvement.
What other possible interpretation is there for the statement "If the rest of the people disagree with you and vote for the government you don't want, well, that's not a problem with government, is it?"
Democracy isn't about using the government to force your opinions on other people.
In any case, why should (potentially) 49% of the population be forced to suffer, with nothing they can do about it, when there's a system that lets everybody make their own decisions on how to best make themselves happy?
Freedom is kinda pointless if it just means you have the right to be like everybody else.
If you build a house, can I force you to let me live in it on any terms I set? No, I can't. Do I get to take your car out for a spin whenever I want? No. You own those things, so you get to set the conditions under which other people take possession of them or use them.
So what makes you think you get to set the terms under which Google gives away the software they've made? They don't have to let other people use it at all if they don't want to.
Google isn't trying to "beat" Microsoft for warm fuzzy feelings. I'm also pretty sure they're not competing to be your personal software slave.
What freedom are they taking away exactly? Your freedom to force them into making whatever software you want them to?
I think that's a straw man, but it won't work because I'm one of those people who don't think Microsoft should have been "punished". I don't see why you would want to punish other people for your own ignorance. What does that even accomplish?
Then maybe those people should form their own watchdog and leave the rest of us alone?
True or not, that's irrelevant. Google won't last very long selling advertising that nobody looks at.
Yeah, that's fine with me, because I'm not an idiot. I actually read the shit I'm about to agree to, so I wouldn't use your product after seeing that in the EULA. Problem solved.
<sarcasm>Yeah, the "right" to use other people's shit on any terms you want is right up there with free speech and freedom of the press. I can't believe they left that one off the Bill of Rights...</sarcasm>
The difference is that interactions with a company are voluntary. You don't have to use Google's products. There's Yahoo, Gigablast, Clusty, and hundreds more. There's MapQuest and WorldWind and others. There's OpenOffice, Abiword, KOffice, Microsoft Office, and more. You have all of those alternatives, and you can use whichever one you want, without anybody telling you otherwise.
You don't have a choice with the government - you do what they say or they throw you in jail.
If that's an "American point of view", then you're probably right. We are supposed to be the shining example of a free country, so it only makes sense that we'd prefer freedom over government bullying.
No, actually, because companies need customers to survive.
Wow, that's just scary. Wait, I get it... I'm feeding a troll, right?
And they're not. People are voluntarily installing the software Google provided and agreeing to the terms they set. The article summary clearly points out that the software warns that it's going to install the updater. If a person doesn't agree to the terms, then they shouldn't use the software. It's that fucking simple. Where did you get the idea that you get to set the terms at which you get other people's stuff?
If Google has something, and you want to use it, you're gonna have to play by the rules they set for it, or not use their shit. That's just the way it works. What would you do if Google said "Well, we're just not going to release Google Earth at all."?
LOL! Tinfoil hat on a little tight today? You don't even even seem to know what the passport card is or you would realize why it will never be mandatory. It's a passport replacement for people who live near the border, who frequently need to travel accross the border. It allows you to get into/out of Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and a couple of Carribean countries. Making it required would just be silly. Get a clue.
And about regular passports... Do you have any evidence at all to support the "destroying the RFID chip will invalidate the passport" claim? I think you're just making shit up to scare people.
That's just not true. Maybe *you* should check the rest of the web for more info. The RFID chip only stores a database key - everything else is grabbed from the database using that key. In other words cloning somebody else's RFID is pointless because then it'll be showing the original owner's photo on the security guy's computer display. If the security guy isn't paying attention, then that's a problem with or without the RFID.
Also, the passport card isn't even required. With a regular passport you can destroy or remove the chip and use it as traditional passport. So if you're really that paranoid, skip the card, get a regular passport, destroy the chip and STFU while the rest of us enjoy the extra convenience. I really don't see why people are crying about this so much.
Even if that's the case, it shouldn't be a problem. Little or no driver support from hardware manufacturers is par for the course for every other PC operating system, and they all seem to get along okay.
That's just FUD.
"Free market theory" is that buying and selling takes places voluntarily between two rational parties, both of whom agree to the terms of the deal. If he thinks he's getting shafted, but keeps buying the games anyway, then it's nobody's fault but his own. If he doesn't think the game is worth buying a second time, then he simply shouldn't buy it. The fact that he does buy it is not the fault of the video game companies, and it's not a problem with the free market.
That's not a very good answer, IMO. If they made a bunch of money by selling off spectrum then they should need less tax money. One way of collecting less tax money would be a tax credit for people who bought a digital TV box.
How is that obvious? I know, it's their software, they can do it however they want, and it's my fault for not reading the warnings, but you've got to admit that's completely different than any other project. Almost every other project would have called 4.0 an alpha, 4.1 a beta, 4.2 would have been a release candidate, and 4.3 would have been the official 4.0 release.
Naming releases completely different than anybody else makes it non-obvious in my book. Considering how much grief they've gotten from people complaining it's not ready, I'd guess I'm not the only one.
It's not your job or the government's job to babysit people. I'm sure you're convinced that you know better than everybody, and that if everybody would just do exactly what you want, everything would be wonderful. Hate to disappoint you, but other people's lives are really none of your business.
I disagree. For things that can cause loss of life, be a safety hazard (usually embedded stuff), or cause significant financial loss, software is held to the same standards as "regular" stuff. I'd say software even does a better job in that case, because, for example, most of the times when planes crash due to a defect, it ends up being a hardware defect.
Fact of the matter is, for typical desktop software it's just not worth the trouble of removing every single bug. If you think Vista and OS X are expensive now, it's a small fraction of what they'd cost if they had to be completely bug free. It's significantly cheaper to just save frequently than it is to make the software 100% reliable, especially since it's a good idea to save frequently anyway in case of a hardware problem like a power outage.
Knowledge is something you know. Telling you to not retain knowledge would be if she told you forget the information you learned. Getting rid of people's class notes would be telling them not to retain information.
That said... WTF? Telling students to destroy their class notes is almost so stupid I'm not sure I even believe this is true. Not only is it just ridiculous, it's actually completely backwards of almost every professor I'd ever had. I honestly can't imagine a professor telling students to destroy their notes.
Are you serious? Just because it's not being paid for directly doesn't change the fact that it's being paid for. Raising taxes to pay for it just takes the choice out of it. It's still being paid for.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, "implying non-free". Actually, I'm not sure even where the 2/3 quoted in the summary comes from. But, in the survey linked to in the article, to the question, "What is the MAIN reason you don't use the internet or email?", 33% of non-users selected "Not interested in getting online". That seems pretty straightforward to me. In the section "Summary of reasons dial-up and non-internet users cite for not having broadband at home", it says 51% said it wasn't relevant to them. Again, that seems pretty straightforward. I'm not seeing the secret double-speak you're talking about.
Your argument doesn't even make sense. If you're blocking the ads, they can't be bothering you, because you don't even see them, so why do you even care?
As for revenue, the advertisers are obviously making money, or they'd stop doing it. You think they just get a kick out of annoying people (or in your case being completely ignored)? Some idiot marketting drone is saying "Damn, I'm losing money, but annoying the shit out of everybody is worth it! Haha!"?
No, I don't think they will. I also block the ads here, but if I couldn't for some reason, I would subscribe before I stopped coming here. Not everybody is a cheap bastard.
And you're demonstrating "New Century Ignorance". Is it really so hard to understand that other people may not want the same things as you?
That's pretty naive. You don't think the government people actually care about saving money, do you? They'll just raise taxes and say it's for fighting child porn. There isn't a politician in the world willing to say "No, I'd rather save money than fight child abuse." He might as well just resign right then and there.
Besides that, the salaries of the police officers doing the "fishing trips" is a lot more expensive than the cost of the information from the ISPs.
How is that a troll?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - the two firms most responsible for the "crisis" (they were the ones buying shit mortgages and loans from everybody) - are practically owned and run by the government. That's what the "Federal" in "Federal National Mortgage Association" and "Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation" means. You don't get more regulated than that.
But nice FUD.