As a Christian, I find it humorous to see the tone people (athiests, I presume?) use when talking about this. It seems very similar to a "rapture" mentality, coming from people who claim to be 100% rational. It's like:
I hate IE as much as anyone else, but would it be feasible to do otherwise? The alternatives I see are:
Include a bunch of browsers - but which ones? And wouldn't this be called "bloat?"
Not include any browser - but wouldn't people be irritated?
Include IE or some tiny lightweight browser whose startup page is a list of browsers for your downloading - but might this confuse Grandma?
Again, I'd be happy if nobody was using IE, but it does make sense that Windows needs to make it easy for users to start accessing the internet, and including a browser seems like a reasonable choice - as long as you're not locked in.
That's why, before I take my car to be fixed, I'm sure to ask around people I know to get recommendations. These people then tell me which mechanics they trust and which they don't: in other words, they give me free advice for what you would presumably describe as "no apparent reason". And I trust them precisely because of this: because nobody is paying them to say anything, they have nothing to gain by lying.
You make a good point: I'm overgeneralizing by implying you can only trust people when they're selfish. Of course that's not true - my friends gave me good advice on finding a mechanic when I moved to this town, just because they're nice. And of course I don't think of personal relationships the same way I view businesses whose sole purpose is selfish - to make money - or workers, whose main purpose in that role is to make money.
But consider the mechanic: does he have more to gain by ripping me off, or by doing good work and getting my "free" word of mouth? I think the latter is better for him in the long run. Does the bank have more to gain by emptying my account, or by keeping my business and keeping their reputation intact? Definitely the latter.
Anyway, this discussion started from my assertion that Communism doesn't work because it removes people's selfish motivations to work harder or acquire difficult skills. Surely you don't think that people will line up to work on road paving crews, in law firms, and as secretaries, all content to receive the same salary? Selfish motivation is at least a factor in everyone's work decisions - even if we are quite generous in our personal lives. Otherwise, why work at all?
Oh yeah, it sure is great how we in the USA have such excellent representation in government. By golly, our system 'just works!'
I agree that there are lots of problems, have fear about Bush's policies, etc. But you have to admit that the U.S. at its worst (so far) is still a heck of a lot better than a totalitarian state.
P.S. - I *do* have a lot of faith in people's selfishness. And I like it when I can plainly see that their selfish motives will compel them to do something that benefits me.
When someone says "I want to give you free money for no apparent reason," I see no reason for them to be so selfless and I am suspicious. When someone says "I want to do the dirty work of fixing your car in exchange for big bucks," I understand their motives and think it's safe to trust them.
I know some wonderfully unselfish people, but when dealing with strangers, I do not assume that they're wonderfully unselfish. Do you?
So removing people's natural desire to work together or share knowledge about difficult skills is not a problem? You must have a lot of faith in people's selfishness.
Touche. But I read the parent poster's comment to mean "Communism is not inherently worse than capitalism." I disagree. While there are clearly people who will create FOSS merely for their own satisfaction, there are plenty of unpleasant/difficult jobs out there, and you either have to force people to do them, or entice them. The most straightforward way to entice them is to offer more money until the demand rises to meet the need.
If you think that lots of people will spend 4 years in college, 4 more years in medical school, and 3 years in residency to become a doctor who gets 4 a.m. emergency calls, then be happy making the same amount of money as their hamburger-flipping comrades, I do think that's naive. I wouldn't want a doctor who went into the field *only* for money, but yes, money is a factor in nearly everyone's career decisions.
It's not communism-the-economic-model that's the problem...
So removing people's monetary incentives to work harder or learn difficult skills is not a problem? You must have a lot of faith in people's unselfishness.
Your naive outlook makes you a perfect target for domination.;)
I wasn't being sarcastic.:) I'd love to see Opera have more success, too - competition is good, especially competition for Internet Explorer. I just happen to be really accustomed to FireFox and all my beloved plugins.
I do use Opera Mobile on my BlackBerry, though, and it's an awesome browser. It almost makes up for the fact that I'm still surfing the web on a device with a tiny screen.
If Opera has so many great features so far ahead of everyone else, why is its usage still somewhere around 1% on a good day? If Opera can figure that out, maybe they'd get somewhere.
Maybe they need more silly publicity stunts like this one.
It would also be a great opportunity to promote bittorent as a mass downloading medium. Too bad it doesn't seem to be in the plan.
Could they track the number of downloads if they used bittorrent? Also, if their goal is a record number of downloads for Firefox, do they want to set up an additional hurdle for people? "First, you have to download and install one of these other programs. No wait, we can explain why. Come back."
Not to disparage Mozilla, but lately it seems like they've been a mite too concerned with press releases.
I think this is a cool idea. There are still lots of people who don't know there are other browsers in existence; when they open IE they say they're opening "the internet." Anything that makes the news and makes them aware of alternate browsers is good - especially if it's "hey this thing is really popular." For many people, that's the best argument for trying it.
Mozilla seems to have done pretty well by harnessing the power of fanatic users so far - remember the big newspaper ads? And check out the "pledge map" on the site. Think how proud you'd be to see that you're one of a very few people in your country who has pledged to download it. Kind of a mix of national pride and geek pride.
Every web developer's dream is a world where all users have more standards-compliant browsers, and IE is forced to follow suit. I say hooray for almost anything that makes that closer to reality.
That's basically it. If you're not an administrator, you can't install programs, change system files, or look at the contents of other user's directories.
But presumably you, being a smart guy, aren't going to do anything reckless if you do have those abilities. Do you run as a regular user because you know that if YOU can't do these things, neither can a virus or something?
Most people who block things block ports, not web addresses. So you block all ports except the ones you use, inbound AND outbound, and then you log all outbound traffic that gets blocked.
Most of the time, that will let you know if you've got a virus or a rootkit, though if you have too many ports open, it may not.
So the idea is that the nasty things sneak in via other doors than the ones you would normally use, and you close those, then keep a record of everything that comes in and out of the open doors? And if you had, for example, spyware, you'd see it trying to phone home with the info it has gathered?
I'm just not educated on ports and routing and such - as my handle indicates, I'm only a wanna-be nerd.:)
I run a router with everything blocked but what I need.
Does that mean "you can't visit randomwebsite.com because it's not on our white list?" How do you determine what to block?
I'm curious, because it does seem a lot more logical to say "here is what's allowed" than to say "here is a list of (we hope) everything nasty that's out there." An exclusive club doesn't try to keep a list of everyone who isn't allowed in.
I read somewhere that if I didn't run Windows as an admin, that would help a lot, which is what I do now, but to be honest I really don't understand the reasoning, other than that you have to be an admin to install programs.
The time has come for us to stop using the 'wasting bandwidth' argument against users forwarding crap. The bandwidth of our systems now comfortably handles so much data (spam, heavy attachments, etc.) that nothing individual users have time to do (without automation or looping, at least) can amount to even a drop in the bucket.
I don't know about bandwidth, but in my office, we're often asked to archive our email because we're running out of space on the Rackspace server.
Seems like that would happen a lot less often if I didn't get cute kitten pictures and "inspiring" powerpoint files forwarded to me all the time.
There have been many times where I have been on the phone to somebody like yourself, having already performed ALL of the troubleshooting tips you'll go through
I do technical support for cell phones and BlackBerrys. Although I try to get a feel for each person's competency and react accordingly, it does happen that a competent-sounding person has overlooked something obvious. Better safe than sorry, I say, if the basic troubleshooting is pretty quick to do. It's embarrassing to escalate something and find out that it was a no-brainer after all.
I do get callers who are in charge of setting up other people's devices, and when I hear from them multiple times, I start trusting that they know what they're doing.
One thing's for sure, though: I don't just talk like a robot through some script. I'm a human who likes helping humans.
Whats the difference between religions and cults? As far as I can tell they really are the same thing.
Cult = Small unpopular religion
Religion = Large Popular cult.
When I was in college, my psychology professor (I think she was an atheist herself) defined various traits of cults for us. I don't remember them all, but some of the key points were secrecy about beliefs, control over members, and a moneymaking scheme. Fanatical devotion to a leader was another - think David Koresh, Charles Manson, etc, who practically teach their followers to worship them.
At the time, there was a quasi-Christian cult on campus which (supposedly) made members confess their darkest secrets, told them where to live and with whom, forbid them to have friends outside the group so that it would become very hard to leave, etc. I can confirm only the latter two statements based on my conversation with a member of the group.
You can see this same control in Scientology: you pay big money to be "audited," i.e. give them blackmail info, and they guard their beliefs closely. Same for the Masons and other groups.
By contrast, the Baptist church I grew up in was not secretive about its beliefs, exerted no real control over me, and never batted an eye when I left - moved to another town and joined a Presbyterian church with (obviously) no ties to them. Presbyterians (PCA) define their beliefs very openly, pointing to explicit documents you can find on the web if you like.
You may think religions and cults are equally silly in their beliefs, but by my professor's definition, they are very different in how they treat their people. (I do think that there are "Christian" churches that would qualify as cults, but that isn't the rule.)
I bet somewhere in the Annals of Documented Carnage (TM) you'd find an example of a laptop being subjected to something in that vein. It simply has to have happened.:-P
Oh sure - I can just imagine.
"I put it in the oven to dry it out."
"Dry it out?" "After I dropped it in the pool."
[Forehead smack]
More likely they paid Christianity lip service when it was politically convenient - just like American politicians. But what did their actions say?
...over 180 million people have been killed by their own secular humanist governments in the 20th Century....Joseph Stalin closed down over 48 000 churches, and attempted the liquidation of the entire Christian Church.
Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch."
I have a very poor knowledge of history, so I don't presume to have authority on this question, but it seems to me that dictatorships always oppose religion. They do not wish any citizen to have any higher allegiance than their allegiance to the state. If you want to see oppressive group mentalities, look to these people's governments sooner than to religion.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. YOU don't need a browser to get Firefox. :)
As a Christian, I find it humorous to see the tone people (athiests, I presume?) use when talking about this. It seems very similar to a "rapture" mentality, coming from people who claim to be 100% rational. It's like:
I hate IE as much as anyone else, but would it be feasible to do otherwise? The alternatives I see are:
Again, I'd be happy if nobody was using IE, but it does make sense that Windows needs to make it easy for users to start accessing the internet, and including a browser seems like a reasonable choice - as long as you're not locked in.
You make a good point: I'm overgeneralizing by implying you can only trust people when they're selfish. Of course that's not true - my friends gave me good advice on finding a mechanic when I moved to this town, just because they're nice. And of course I don't think of personal relationships the same way I view businesses whose sole purpose is selfish - to make money - or workers, whose main purpose in that role is to make money.
But consider the mechanic: does he have more to gain by ripping me off, or by doing good work and getting my "free" word of mouth? I think the latter is better for him in the long run. Does the bank have more to gain by emptying my account, or by keeping my business and keeping their reputation intact? Definitely the latter.
Anyway, this discussion started from my assertion that Communism doesn't work because it removes people's selfish motivations to work harder or acquire difficult skills. Surely you don't think that people will line up to work on road paving crews, in law firms, and as secretaries, all content to receive the same salary? Selfish motivation is at least a factor in everyone's work decisions - even if we are quite generous in our personal lives. Otherwise, why work at all?
I agree that there are lots of problems, have fear about Bush's policies, etc. But you have to admit that the U.S. at its worst (so far) is still a heck of a lot better than a totalitarian state.
P.S. - I *do* have a lot of faith in people's selfishness. And I like it when I can plainly see that their selfish motives will compel them to do something that benefits me.
When someone says "I want to give you free money for no apparent reason," I see no reason for them to be so selfless and I am suspicious. When someone says "I want to do the dirty work of fixing your car in exchange for big bucks," I understand their motives and think it's safe to trust them.
I know some wonderfully unselfish people, but when dealing with strangers, I do not assume that they're wonderfully unselfish. Do you?
Touche. But I read the parent poster's comment to mean "Communism is not inherently worse than capitalism." I disagree. While there are clearly people who will create FOSS merely for their own satisfaction, there are plenty of unpleasant/difficult jobs out there, and you either have to force people to do them, or entice them. The most straightforward way to entice them is to offer more money until the demand rises to meet the need.
If you think that lots of people will spend 4 years in college, 4 more years in medical school, and 3 years in residency to become a doctor who gets 4 a.m. emergency calls, then be happy making the same amount of money as their hamburger-flipping comrades, I do think that's naive. I wouldn't want a doctor who went into the field *only* for money, but yes, money is a factor in nearly everyone's career decisions.
So removing people's monetary incentives to work harder or learn difficult skills is not a problem? You must have a lot of faith in people's unselfishness.
Your naive outlook makes you a perfect target for domination. ;)
Looks like they're also the target of a vicious Slashdotting. ;)
I wasn't being sarcastic. :) I'd love to see Opera have more success, too - competition is good, especially competition for Internet Explorer. I just happen to be really accustomed to FireFox and all my beloved plugins.
I do use Opera Mobile on my BlackBerry, though, and it's an awesome browser. It almost makes up for the fact that I'm still surfing the web on a device with a tiny screen.
Maybe they need more silly publicity stunts like this one.
Could they track the number of downloads if they used bittorrent? Also, if their goal is a record number of downloads for Firefox, do they want to set up an additional hurdle for people? "First, you have to download and install one of these other programs. No wait, we can explain why. Come back."
I think this is a cool idea. There are still lots of people who don't know there are other browsers in existence; when they open IE they say they're opening "the internet." Anything that makes the news and makes them aware of alternate browsers is good - especially if it's "hey this thing is really popular." For many people, that's the best argument for trying it.
Mozilla seems to have done pretty well by harnessing the power of fanatic users so far - remember the big newspaper ads? And check out the "pledge map" on the site. Think how proud you'd be to see that you're one of a very few people in your country who has pledged to download it. Kind of a mix of national pride and geek pride.
Every web developer's dream is a world where all users have more standards-compliant browsers, and IE is forced to follow suit. I say hooray for almost anything that makes that closer to reality.It sounds like a country that Dilbert and friends might found, as a rival to Elbonia.
But presumably you, being a smart guy, aren't going to do anything reckless if you do have those abilities. Do you run as a regular user because you know that if YOU can't do these things, neither can a virus or something?
So the idea is that the nasty things sneak in via other doors than the ones you would normally use, and you close those, then keep a record of everything that comes in and out of the open doors? And if you had, for example, spyware, you'd see it trying to phone home with the info it has gathered?
I'm just not educated on ports and routing and such - as my handle indicates, I'm only a wanna-be nerd. :)
I get it, you hate Windows. Given that I'm going to use it, though, you're not helping me understand what to do and what not to do, and why.
Does that mean "you can't visit randomwebsite.com because it's not on our white list?" How do you determine what to block?
I'm curious, because it does seem a lot more logical to say "here is what's allowed" than to say "here is a list of (we hope) everything nasty that's out there." An exclusive club doesn't try to keep a list of everyone who isn't allowed in.
I read somewhere that if I didn't run Windows as an admin, that would help a lot, which is what I do now, but to be honest I really don't understand the reasoning, other than that you have to be an admin to install programs.
I don't know about bandwidth, but in my office, we're often asked to archive our email because we're running out of space on the Rackspace server.
Seems like that would happen a lot less often if I didn't get cute kitten pictures and "inspiring" powerpoint files forwarded to me all the time.
I do technical support for cell phones and BlackBerrys. Although I try to get a feel for each person's competency and react accordingly, it does happen that a competent-sounding person has overlooked something obvious. Better safe than sorry, I say, if the basic troubleshooting is pretty quick to do. It's embarrassing to escalate something and find out that it was a no-brainer after all.
I do get callers who are in charge of setting up other people's devices, and when I hear from them multiple times, I start trusting that they know what they're doing.
One thing's for sure, though: I don't just talk like a robot through some script. I'm a human who likes helping humans.
When I was in college, my psychology professor (I think she was an atheist herself) defined various traits of cults for us. I don't remember them all, but some of the key points were secrecy about beliefs, control over members, and a moneymaking scheme. Fanatical devotion to a leader was another - think David Koresh, Charles Manson, etc, who practically teach their followers to worship them.
At the time, there was a quasi-Christian cult on campus which (supposedly) made members confess their darkest secrets, told them where to live and with whom, forbid them to have friends outside the group so that it would become very hard to leave, etc. I can confirm only the latter two statements based on my conversation with a member of the group.
You can see this same control in Scientology: you pay big money to be "audited," i.e. give them blackmail info, and they guard their beliefs closely. Same for the Masons and other groups.
By contrast, the Baptist church I grew up in was not secretive about its beliefs, exerted no real control over me, and never batted an eye when I left - moved to another town and joined a Presbyterian church with (obviously) no ties to them. Presbyterians (PCA) define their beliefs very openly, pointing to explicit documents you can find on the web if you like.
You may think religions and cults are equally silly in their beliefs, but by my professor's definition, they are very different in how they treat their people. (I do think that there are "Christian" churches that would qualify as cults, but that isn't the rule.)
Oh sure - I can just imagine.
"I put it in the oven to dry it out."
"Dry it out?"
"After I dropped it in the pool."
[Forehead smack]
I'll concede that I don't know how OFTEN it happens that way, but it does happen. Hasn't there been a lot of news out of Texas about this lately?
Just found this on Google News, for example: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdtkEy-_-VDCktXIbtlDTH-UD2gQD90L0UTO0
I was actually thinking of a Mormon group, but this is another example...
Maybe in theory, but in practice, polygamy often means that one man dominates a group of adolescent girls.
More likely they paid Christianity lip service when it was politically convenient - just like American politicians. But what did their actions say?
Whatever Stalin claimed, he oppressed and killed Christians.
Hitler's "Christianity" is highly debatable.
I have a very poor knowledge of history, so I don't presume to have authority on this question, but it seems to me that dictatorships always oppose religion. They do not wish any citizen to have any higher allegiance than their allegiance to the state. If you want to see oppressive group mentalities, look to these people's governments sooner than to religion.