Try the Oxford English Dictionary. The definition it cites is:
3. a. A person or company who reproduces or uses the work of another (as a book, recording, computer program, etc.) without authority and esp. in contravention of patent or copyright; a plagiarist. Also: a thing reproduced or used in this way.
The first quote it provides is from 1608. It also provides quotes from 1668, 1703, 1758, 1822, 1887, 1928, and 1996. I would consider a word in use for over 400 years to be "old", but that's just me.
You also need to have access to JWICS (for the TS/SCI version) or SIPRNET (The Secret version). A person having a clearance doesn't mean they have access to either of those networks, and having access to either of those networks doesn't mean you have access to everything on the networks.
The editor(s) actually lied (or are ignorant). Engadget has a link to the software so all you have to do is go to the Engadget story and click "Read" and it sends you straight to the forum where you can download the software. It seems that Either the editor(s) or the submitter didn't even both to follow the link from Engadget.
You're right, it wasn't discussed on Slashdot so if you weren't at BlackHat or DefCon I suppose it's fair that you might not have heard the discussion.
In essence, based on my understanding of the exploit and the way the 802.11 device drivers work, the shellcode exploit is actually executing in the kernel. It's executing below the point (On the OSI model) where a root v non-root account would make any difference. I'll grant that a demo of root activities would be more visual, but I believe that academically it can be said that they're neither root nor non-root. They're actually "kernel."
They discussed why your comment is completely baseless while at DefCon. This was a kernel-level (as it was driver-based) exploit so asking if they had "root" is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge of the OSI model. The driver itself is what was being exploited which is being run by the kernel. There is absolutely no root v user shell debate in this exploit.
Yes, but if you show off the current passport to hotel clerks, drunk people in a bar, or to cash a check, everyone can tell you're an American. Blocking the RFID signal will only prevent passive detection of an American's status as an American. If you physically take it out and show it to someone you don't need an RFID reader to tell their country of origin. You just need eyes.
Yeah, because American Soldiers always carry their US Passports with them on patrol in Iraq. I'm fairly certain it'd take one, and only one, RFID-based IED to go off before all soldiers were told to stop carrying whatever RFID item was triggering the bomb.
One can only hope that the Government (or some smart entrepreneur) will have the passports in a cover that blocks the RFID signal. The only way they can be read is if you take them out, which makes sense because they only need to be "read" when handed to customs officials anyway. At all other times the signal would be completely blocked.
I sent the following to my current Representative. I urge everyone in the US to write to their own representative if it's not too late:
I wish to write to you to strongly urge you to vote against H.R.4411 that is currently being debated. While gambling may be addictive, there are other forms of addiction that are far more dangerous and are permitted by the Congress. Alcohol and Tobacco can both be extremely addictive and can cause far more harm than online gambling. I cannot possibly understand the logic behind such draconian measures as H.R.4411 sets forth on online gambling while far more "dangerous" activities are accepted.
One of the great things about this country is that I am able to do things that may not be good for me. The government was never intended to be a nanny or a parent and I do not believe that the government should arbitrarily ban an activity that is perceived as harmful. If I wish to enjoy online poker then I should be allowed to enjoy it without the Congress declaring my actions to be illegal simpy because Congress feels that online poker is somehow dangerous to me. I ask that you allow me to retain personal freedom and make decisions for myself in a way that I believe the founders of this nation intended. As a constituent of yours, I wish to convey my absolute opposition to H.R.4411 and I hope that you will do the honorable thing and voice your own opposition to this bill.
You sort of need parents to actually parent in order for your plan to work. Sadly, parents (yes, a gross stereotype but bear with me) are more than happy to let the government parent for them. Lawyers and politicians are better parents anyway, according to some.
Your point is more insightful than many will give you credit for. Where exactly ARE there parents?
My wife is pregnant with our first child and I'm scared that by the time (s)he grows up, I won't even be given a say. I hope this trend doesn't continue, although I'm sceptical at best.
I'm using Firefox and it loaded just fine. The site loaded as fast as Google's site (near-instant, so I can't provide quantifiable results).
I did a quick search on "Natural Law" because that's one of my favorite subjects, just to compare it to the results on Google, and I found that many of the results were similar. The results were in a slightly different order, but on the whole I'd say that the results for Window's Live were just as viable as Google's results.
I think it's a shame that many religious people are so violently opposed to the book. As a Christian, I am strongly opposed to the "ideas" in the book, but I read the book and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was an excellent work of fiction and Dan Brown is an engaging author.
I also happen to own, and am in the process of reading, the book that Dan Brown allegedly ripped off. I think the arguments in that book are weak thus far, but I think that if you start banning books or attempting to censor unpopular ideas, then I believe you prevent any sort of meaningful discourse. Afterall, why should you listen to my beliefs on religion if I refuse to even acknowledge your beliefs?
Unfortunately, ideas like mine are rarely published in the popular media. However, comments like the GP are regularly published. I know many more people in my circle of friends/peers that believe like I do versus those that are crude and make ignorant outbursts.
It's not that I don't believe you, but since your post mentions checking facts I thought I'd ask if you had those facts that could be checked? Obviously your parent post had his facts distorted and you don't (by your assertion) so where are these "real" facts? I'll be honest; I'd believe something I saw on CNN/Fox News/ABC before I'd blindly believe something I saw posted on Slashdot in a comment and I'm assuming most folks are the same way.
Why not provide information they WON'T hear on the news?
IANAL, but since this is a civil action, the plaintiff can, at any time, drop their case against the defendant, which is the same thing as dismissing the case. The language might be slightly different, but it is within the plaintiff's rights to drop the case entirely without asking a judge's permission. You CAN ask a judge to dismiss a case againt YOU, but you don't have to ask the judge if you're the one bringing the case to begin with.
It's just like a district attorney or federal attorney can drop criminal charges against a person without asking the judge's permission. The only time a judge is involved is if there is a plea bargain, in which case the judge has to approve the plea bargain. So in this (limited) case, the RIAA is very much within their rights and the law. That's not to say their other tactics and actions are lawful or ethical.
I think it's just another straw in the pile. This just adds another charge against the company that they will have to defend themselves against. The other charges don't hinge on the EULA issue at all; the rootkit is still illegal. This is simply ANOTHER thing they are adding. So even if the rootkit is found to be legal, they can still be nailed with this charge.
From my law classes, my lawyer professors told me that a favorite trick of lawyers is to allege as many possible crimes/violations as possible so as to make the other side more likely to either plea bargain or settle as well as to raise the chances of successfully arguing at least ONE of the charges/torts.
Your definition of speech is somewhat all-encompassing. If I were to want to "express" myself by taking pictures of naked children (without their knowledge, perhaps) and display them on billboards throughout the country your argument would permit that. You base your argument on some sort of arbitrary freedom that you think you have as a member of this country. Nowhere in the Constitution are you granted that freedom.
In fact, the Commerce clause gives Congress the right (and the power) to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states. Your hypothetical trade of arms with Iran is commerce with a foreign nation, and the Congress has every right to regulate that commerce. You cannot argue reasonably for unrestricted and unregulated trade without also arguing that the Constitution is void, because the Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate trade. I also happen to know that you do believe that the Constitution is void, because you mentioned on your blog (http://anarcap.blogspot.com/) that you were burning your "Cato pocket Constitution" and replacing it "with a real pro-freedom guide: Champions of Freedom from the Mises Institute."
Coming from that standpoint, your posturing is contradictory because you believe the government can restrict trade during time of war, but that the government itself is based upon a void document and doesn't have any power at all. So which is it? Do you believe the government can restrict trade during war, which means they can restrict trade at any time, or do you believe the government shouldn't even exist?
"Hot Coffee" aside*, where are the innacurate ratings? I've bought tons of games and seen even more played by friends and I've never seen a game that had too low of a rating for its content. Maybe I'm just blind, but I've never seen graphic sex or gore in a "T" game. Their methodology is also flawed. They're comparing "M" games from 10 years ago to "M" games now, but they're still games that should be out of the hands of children (generally speaking). If they really wanted to do a true test, they'd compare "T" games now to "M" games 10 years ago and see if they compare. If the "T" games now are more explicit/violent/etc than "M" games 10 years ago, then at least they could say that ratings are more lax and there is a general decline in the "morality" (I use that word loosely) of the gaming industry.
The fact remains that the ESRB does a pretty good job of rating games relative to societal standards. I've not seen things in a "T" game that would warrant an "R" rating in a movie or a "TV-MA" rating on TV, so it seems that even compared to other media the ESRB is doing a pretty good job. I guess I just don't understand how this group that legitimately (I think that's the key word) justify giving the ESRB an "F". Perhaps the retailers deserve a poor grade for not carding kids, and perhaps parents deserve an "F" for not supervising their children, but surely not the ESRB.
*As far as the whole Hot Coffee debacle, I find that sort of explicit sex in a game to be crude and unnecessary (for me personally), but I still don't blame the ESRB. There's no way for the ESRB to know what is in every single game in its entirety. Unless the game studios give the ESRB every line of code and all the artwork, the ESRB can't possibly see EVERYTHING. Unlike a movie, where raters can watch the entire thing from beginning to end and quantify everything in the movie, it's impossible for the ESRB to do so. If anyone is at fault (and I'm surely not leveling blame) then it's the producers of the game.
Dell made, in the Quarter ending 29 July 2005, $1,020,000,000 in Net Profit (Source), whereas Apple made, in the Quarter ending 25 July 2005, $320,000,000 in Net Profit (Source).
So yes, Dell still made considerably more money than Apple, but it does go to show that Apple has made a remarkable turnaround and is now more profitable (by percentages, not real dollars) than Dell. Another interesting note is that Dell has had a ~20% increase in profit over 4 quarters, whereas Apple has more than tripled their net profit in 4 quarters.
If you're in the military you can choose your "state of residence" and that's the state that you actually pay taxes to, not the in the state that you work. Florida is a brilliant choice because there is no income tax. So even if you live in New York, you won't pay New York income taxes. I find it somewhat ironic that a telecommuter pays taxes in New York without actually living there whereas a Military officer would live there and not pay taxes.
Caveat: This might have changed in the past 4 years, but I know in 2001, that's how it worked. The military has been, as of late, cracking down on people who claim non-tax states as their home while having no plans of ever actually living in that state or having any ties in that state.
I would think she'd lose all claims to credibility by making statements like that. For one, she's making an ad hominem (although not against a singular person in this case) argument by arguing that the groups are wrong because they are (allegedly) supported by Microsoft. That argument falls apart, logically, because someone could offer a simple counter statement of "so, why does that make them wrong?"
I do find it interesting to note that the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science is criticizing the move and I think they offer legitimate reasons for using Microsoft products-- that is, until OpenDocument supports the same braille readers and other screen-reader programs. If the blind state workers are using MS products and the other state workers are using OpenDocument, I'd think that might cause some problems. The article didn't mention any specific fixes for that, so hopefully they thought that one through. However, based upon the fallacious logic, I'm assuming they (or at least Ms. Hamel) don't think things through all the time.
The true test of Open Source
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The responses on./ and the response from the F/OSS people will demonstrate whether Open Source is superior to Microsoft (or any closed-source company). If people just justify the results and claim that OO is still better just because it's Open Source, then in reality Open Source will lose. I think this is a time for the community to notice the problem, admit the problem, and then try to fix it. If the problem can be solved to the point where load times/memory usage is on par with Microsoft, then the Open Source community will prove that it is competent and able to produce a superior (or even equal) product that has the other advantages (freedom, lack of restrictive licenses, etc) that Open Source brings to the table.
Or... people can just whine and show the world that they're a bunch of babies who accuse people of being shills and just ignore the problem.
I, for one, hope the former occurs. I'll admit I'm not a good enough programmer (yet) to do anything about the problem now, but I hope the Open Source programmers who are capable will tackle this problem and fix it w/o making petty excuses.
It's much easier to read/respond to e-mail when you're slacking off at work and reading/. (not that I'd ever do that, boss!) but when you're on a boat studying birds on a far away island or working on important and complex physics problems it's a little more difficult to sit down and read through a letter and actually pen a response. The more interesting thing to note is that they actually did write 1,000s of letters that were probably well-written and well-formatted, unlike most modern e-mails (Or/. comments)
However, if their letters had really been like modern inboxes, they'd be getting letters like "Is your chalk too soft? Take c1al1s to harden it up!!" or "Do you want to refinance your home, the Beagle?" or "Hot Physics action here!"
I think I agree with the British Computing society moreso than with Mr. Schmidt. I think coders should be held responsible, within a company, for poor code that they write, but overall the company should be held liable for bad code that it ships. If a company fails to have proper QC, then it's the company's fault, not the fault of a lone coder who might have written an insecure subroutine. Most companies don't have single coders, and rarely is there a single coder who has full (100%) knowledge of the other 10,000,000 lines of code in the product. I think proper education, as stated in TFA, is a better idea. Why not send the employee to a security class if the coder continually writes insecure code? That'd solve the responsibility issue and the education issue. Then, the company would produce more solid code and everyone wins; especially the consumer.
Granted, most people don't go out killing folks on account of the internet (with some exceptions of course), but an "addiction" to the internet can be extremely damaging nonetheless. Whilst I was in HS I saw my grades drop from straight A's to C's and D's because I was online so much I didn't do any homework or studying. So basically I had no social life (unless you count chat rooms and the like) and wasn't very productive at all. Of course, I managed to beat my own addiction by just setting limits when I actually went to college, and I graduated Salutatorian and got married. I obviously agree that Internet addiction is real, and I can realt personally to Wang Yiming in TFA. I don't really think you need a clinic though, but maybe.
Addiction that stems from the mind, and not drugs, is a real thing. I had a college professor who was addicted to running and the "high" it gave him. It got to the point of being unhealthy. Right now, I'm only mildly skeptical of the clinic, but from TFA it doesn't seem that China is "Forcing" people to go, so if a person feels they should voluntarily submit themselves to treatment then I say more power to them. Recognizing an addiction is really the first step. I'm sure, just because this is China, that people will react strongly to it, but I'd wager that at least a few/.'ers suffer similar addictions to the internet. Just my two cents.
Thank you! You basically saved me from having to write the same thing. I read the article in ~15 seconds and realized that ~99% of the posters had failed to even give the article a cursory scan. Microsoft does something to -save- people money and yet people still complain. Amazing!
Slashdot Mirror
The first quote it provides is from 1608. It also provides quotes from 1668, 1703, 1758, 1822, 1887, 1928, and 1996. I would consider a word in use for over 400 years to be "old", but that's just me.
You also need to have access to JWICS (for the TS/SCI version) or SIPRNET (The Secret version). A person having a clearance doesn't mean they have access to either of those networks, and having access to either of those networks doesn't mean you have access to everything on the networks.
You're right, it wasn't discussed on Slashdot so if you weren't at BlackHat or DefCon I suppose it's fair that you might not have heard the discussion.
In essence, based on my understanding of the exploit and the way the 802.11 device drivers work, the shellcode exploit is actually executing in the kernel. It's executing below the point (On the OSI model) where a root v non-root account would make any difference. I'll grant that a demo of root activities would be more visual, but I believe that academically it can be said that they're neither root nor non-root. They're actually "kernel."
They discussed why your comment is completely baseless while at DefCon. This was a kernel-level (as it was driver-based) exploit so asking if they had "root" is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge of the OSI model. The driver itself is what was being exploited which is being run by the kernel. There is absolutely no root v user shell debate in this exploit.
Yes, but if you show off the current passport to hotel clerks, drunk people in a bar, or to cash a check, everyone can tell you're an American. Blocking the RFID signal will only prevent passive detection of an American's status as an American. If you physically take it out and show it to someone you don't need an RFID reader to tell their country of origin. You just need eyes.
Yeah, because American Soldiers always carry their US Passports with them on patrol in Iraq. I'm fairly certain it'd take one, and only one, RFID-based IED to go off before all soldiers were told to stop carrying whatever RFID item was triggering the bomb.
One can only hope that the Government (or some smart entrepreneur) will have the passports in a cover that blocks the RFID signal. The only way they can be read is if you take them out, which makes sense because they only need to be "read" when handed to customs officials anyway. At all other times the signal would be completely blocked.
I sent the following to my current Representative. I urge everyone in the US to write to their own representative if it's not too late:
I wish to write to you to strongly urge you to vote against H.R.4411 that is currently being debated. While gambling may be addictive, there are other forms of addiction that are far more dangerous and are permitted by the Congress. Alcohol and Tobacco can both be extremely addictive and can cause far more harm than online gambling. I cannot possibly understand the logic behind such draconian measures as H.R.4411 sets forth on online gambling while far more "dangerous" activities are accepted.
One of the great things about this country is that I am able to do things that may not be good for me. The government was never intended to be a nanny or a parent and I do not believe that the government should arbitrarily ban an activity that is perceived as harmful. If I wish to enjoy online poker then I should be allowed to enjoy it without the Congress declaring my actions to be illegal simpy because Congress feels that online poker is somehow dangerous to me. I ask that you allow me to retain personal freedom and make decisions for myself in a way that I believe the founders of this nation intended. As a constituent of yours, I wish to convey my absolute opposition to H.R.4411 and I hope that you will do the honorable thing and voice your own opposition to this bill.
You sort of need parents to actually parent in order for your plan to work. Sadly, parents (yes, a gross stereotype but bear with me) are more than happy to let the government parent for them. Lawyers and politicians are better parents anyway, according to some.
Your point is more insightful than many will give you credit for. Where exactly ARE there parents?
My wife is pregnant with our first child and I'm scared that by the time (s)he grows up, I won't even be given a say. I hope this trend doesn't continue, although I'm sceptical at best.
I'm using Firefox and it loaded just fine. The site loaded as fast as Google's site (near-instant, so I can't provide quantifiable results).
I did a quick search on "Natural Law" because that's one of my favorite subjects, just to compare it to the results on Google, and I found that many of the results were similar. The results were in a slightly different order, but on the whole I'd say that the results for Window's Live were just as viable as Google's results.
I think it's a shame that many religious people are so violently opposed to the book. As a Christian, I am strongly opposed to the "ideas" in the book, but I read the book and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was an excellent work of fiction and Dan Brown is an engaging author.
I also happen to own, and am in the process of reading, the book that Dan Brown allegedly ripped off. I think the arguments in that book are weak thus far, but I think that if you start banning books or attempting to censor unpopular ideas, then I believe you prevent any sort of meaningful discourse. Afterall, why should you listen to my beliefs on religion if I refuse to even acknowledge your beliefs?
Unfortunately, ideas like mine are rarely published in the popular media. However, comments like the GP are regularly published. I know many more people in my circle of friends/peers that believe like I do versus those that are crude and make ignorant outbursts.
It's not that I don't believe you, but since your post mentions checking facts I thought I'd ask if you had those facts that could be checked? Obviously your parent post had his facts distorted and you don't (by your assertion) so where are these "real" facts? I'll be honest; I'd believe something I saw on CNN/Fox News/ABC before I'd blindly believe something I saw posted on Slashdot in a comment and I'm assuming most folks are the same way.
Why not provide information they WON'T hear on the news?
Actually, he's not. He's saying that because they found out that the grandmother is dead, they're dismissing the case.
IANAL, but since this is a civil action, the plaintiff can, at any time, drop their case against the defendant, which is the same thing as dismissing the case. The language might be slightly different, but it is within the plaintiff's rights to drop the case entirely without asking a judge's permission. You CAN ask a judge to dismiss a case againt YOU, but you don't have to ask the judge if you're the one bringing the case to begin with.
It's just like a district attorney or federal attorney can drop criminal charges against a person without asking the judge's permission. The only time a judge is involved is if there is a plea bargain, in which case the judge has to approve the plea bargain. So in this (limited) case, the RIAA is very much within their rights and the law. That's not to say their other tactics and actions are lawful or ethical.
I think it's just another straw in the pile. This just adds another charge against the company that they will have to defend themselves against. The other charges don't hinge on the EULA issue at all; the rootkit is still illegal. This is simply ANOTHER thing they are adding. So even if the rootkit is found to be legal, they can still be nailed with this charge.
From my law classes, my lawyer professors told me that a favorite trick of lawyers is to allege as many possible crimes/violations as possible so as to make the other side more likely to either plea bargain or settle as well as to raise the chances of successfully arguing at least ONE of the charges/torts.
(Disclaimer: IANAL, just had some law classes)
Your definition of speech is somewhat all-encompassing. If I were to want to "express" myself by taking pictures of naked children (without their knowledge, perhaps) and display them on billboards throughout the country your argument would permit that. You base your argument on some sort of arbitrary freedom that you think you have as a member of this country. Nowhere in the Constitution are you granted that freedom.
In fact, the Commerce clause gives Congress the right (and the power) to regulate commerce with foreign nations and between states. Your hypothetical trade of arms with Iran is commerce with a foreign nation, and the Congress has every right to regulate that commerce. You cannot argue reasonably for unrestricted and unregulated trade without also arguing that the Constitution is void, because the Constitution clearly gives Congress the right to regulate trade. I also happen to know that you do believe that the Constitution is void, because you mentioned on your blog (http://anarcap.blogspot.com/) that you were burning your "Cato pocket Constitution" and replacing it "with a real pro-freedom guide: Champions of Freedom from the Mises Institute."
Coming from that standpoint, your posturing is contradictory because you believe the government can restrict trade during time of war, but that the government itself is based upon a void document and doesn't have any power at all. So which is it? Do you believe the government can restrict trade during war, which means they can restrict trade at any time, or do you believe the government shouldn't even exist?
*"this" being the United States.
"Hot Coffee" aside*, where are the innacurate ratings? I've bought tons of games and seen even more played by friends and I've never seen a game that had too low of a rating for its content. Maybe I'm just blind, but I've never seen graphic sex or gore in a "T" game. Their methodology is also flawed. They're comparing "M" games from 10 years ago to "M" games now, but they're still games that should be out of the hands of children (generally speaking). If they really wanted to do a true test, they'd compare "T" games now to "M" games 10 years ago and see if they compare. If the "T" games now are more explicit/violent/etc than "M" games 10 years ago, then at least they could say that ratings are more lax and there is a general decline in the "morality" (I use that word loosely) of the gaming industry.
The fact remains that the ESRB does a pretty good job of rating games relative to societal standards. I've not seen things in a "T" game that would warrant an "R" rating in a movie or a "TV-MA" rating on TV, so it seems that even compared to other media the ESRB is doing a pretty good job. I guess I just don't understand how this group that legitimately (I think that's the key word) justify giving the ESRB an "F". Perhaps the retailers deserve a poor grade for not carding kids, and perhaps parents deserve an "F" for not supervising their children, but surely not the ESRB.
*As far as the whole Hot Coffee debacle, I find that sort of explicit sex in a game to be crude and unnecessary (for me personally), but I still don't blame the ESRB. There's no way for the ESRB to know what is in every single game in its entirety. Unless the game studios give the ESRB every line of code and all the artwork, the ESRB can't possibly see EVERYTHING. Unlike a movie, where raters can watch the entire thing from beginning to end and quantify everything in the movie, it's impossible for the ESRB to do so. If anyone is at fault (and I'm surely not leveling blame) then it's the producers of the game.
Dell made, in the Quarter ending 29 July 2005, $1,020,000,000 in Net Profit (Source), whereas Apple made, in the Quarter ending 25 July 2005, $320,000,000 in Net Profit (Source).
So yes, Dell still made considerably more money than Apple, but it does go to show that Apple has made a remarkable turnaround and is now more profitable (by percentages, not real dollars) than Dell. Another interesting note is that Dell has had a ~20% increase in profit over 4 quarters, whereas Apple has more than tripled their net profit in 4 quarters.
If you're in the military you can choose your "state of residence" and that's the state that you actually pay taxes to, not the in the state that you work. Florida is a brilliant choice because there is no income tax. So even if you live in New York, you won't pay New York income taxes. I find it somewhat ironic that a telecommuter pays taxes in New York without actually living there whereas a Military officer would live there and not pay taxes.
Caveat: This might have changed in the past 4 years, but I know in 2001, that's how it worked. The military has been, as of late, cracking down on people who claim non-tax states as their home while having no plans of ever actually living in that state or having any ties in that state.
I would think she'd lose all claims to credibility by making statements like that. For one, she's making an ad hominem (although not against a singular person in this case) argument by arguing that the groups are wrong because they are (allegedly) supported by Microsoft. That argument falls apart, logically, because someone could offer a simple counter statement of "so, why does that make them wrong?"
I do find it interesting to note that the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science is criticizing the move and I think they offer legitimate reasons for using Microsoft products-- that is, until OpenDocument supports the same braille readers and other screen-reader programs. If the blind state workers are using MS products and the other state workers are using OpenDocument, I'd think that might cause some problems. The article didn't mention any specific fixes for that, so hopefully they thought that one through. However, based upon the fallacious logic, I'm assuming they (or at least Ms. Hamel) don't think things through all the time.
The responses on ./ and the response from the F/OSS people will demonstrate whether Open Source is superior to Microsoft (or any closed-source company). If people just justify the results and claim that OO is still better just because it's Open Source, then in reality Open Source will lose. I think this is a time for the community to notice the problem, admit the problem, and then try to fix it. If the problem can be solved to the point where load times/memory usage is on par with Microsoft, then the Open Source community will prove that it is competent and able to produce a superior (or even equal) product that has the other advantages (freedom, lack of restrictive licenses, etc) that Open Source brings to the table.
Or... people can just whine and show the world that they're a bunch of babies who accuse people of being shills and just ignore the problem.
I, for one, hope the former occurs. I'll admit I'm not a good enough programmer (yet) to do anything about the problem now, but I hope the Open Source programmers who are capable will tackle this problem and fix it w/o making petty excuses.
It's much easier to read/respond to e-mail when you're slacking off at work and reading /. (not that I'd ever do that, boss!) but when you're on a boat studying birds on a far away island or working on important and complex physics problems it's a little more difficult to sit down and read through a letter and actually pen a response. The more interesting thing to note is that they actually did write 1,000s of letters that were probably well-written and well-formatted, unlike most modern e-mails (Or /. comments)
However, if their letters had really been like modern inboxes, they'd be getting letters like "Is your chalk too soft? Take c1al1s to harden it up!!" or "Do you want to refinance your home, the Beagle?" or "Hot Physics action here!"
I think I agree with the British Computing society moreso than with Mr. Schmidt. I think coders should be held responsible, within a company, for poor code that they write, but overall the company should be held liable for bad code that it ships. If a company fails to have proper QC, then it's the company's fault, not the fault of a lone coder who might have written an insecure subroutine. Most companies don't have single coders, and rarely is there a single coder who has full (100%) knowledge of the other 10,000,000 lines of code in the product. I think proper education, as stated in TFA, is a better idea. Why not send the employee to a security class if the coder continually writes insecure code? That'd solve the responsibility issue and the education issue. Then, the company would produce more solid code and everyone wins; especially the consumer.
Granted, most people don't go out killing folks on account of the internet (with some exceptions of course), but an "addiction" to the internet can be extremely damaging nonetheless. Whilst I was in HS I saw my grades drop from straight A's to C's and D's because I was online so much I didn't do any homework or studying. So basically I had no social life (unless you count chat rooms and the like) and wasn't very productive at all. Of course, I managed to beat my own addiction by just setting limits when I actually went to college, and I graduated Salutatorian and got married. I obviously agree that Internet addiction is real, and I can realt personally to Wang Yiming in TFA. I don't really think you need a clinic though, but maybe.
/.'ers suffer similar addictions to the internet. Just my two cents.
Addiction that stems from the mind, and not drugs, is a real thing. I had a college professor who was addicted to running and the "high" it gave him. It got to the point of being unhealthy. Right now, I'm only mildly skeptical of the clinic, but from TFA it doesn't seem that China is "Forcing" people to go, so if a person feels they should voluntarily submit themselves to treatment then I say more power to them. Recognizing an addiction is really the first step. I'm sure, just because this is China, that people will react strongly to it, but I'd wager that at least a few
Thank you! You basically saved me from having to write the same thing. I read the article in ~15 seconds and realized that ~99% of the posters had failed to even give the article a cursory scan. Microsoft does something to -save- people money and yet people still complain. Amazing!