Also, if you were a client of Sybase, 'asking' why they weren't keeping up could well not get you anywhere. Incidentally it's rather a good example of Linux not being ready for 'enterprise' apps.
Perhaps asking these people why they think Linux is "ready for 'enterprise' would be a good place to start!
IBM thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Oracle thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
HP thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
BEA thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Legato thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Veritas thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Computer Associates thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Reuters thinks Linux is ready for enterprise
Mogan Stanley thinks Linux is ready fro enterprise
J.P Morgan Chase thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Google thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
.....et al ad nausium.
Incidently Sybase thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise as well. And as recently as December 16, 2002 released this announcement:
http://www.sybase.com/detail/1,6904,1023007,00.htm l
And the argument that 3rd party vendors won't have enough time to "keep up" or "certify" their products is really a lame arguement considering the Red Hat Advanced Server/Workstation line has a minimum three year life span which gives vendors plenty of time to take care of business. Three years in our community is a long, long time.
Regardless of whether it's technically capable or not, if the vendor doesn't support it, tough!
Answered above, however I would add that this is really a mute point because if a vendor doesn't support something it's tough for the vendor. Because the vendor will fall behind their competition because they didn't "keep up". Then when their clients adopt implementations which "do" keep up who will be left scratching thier heads wondering what went wrong.
If you're trying to purchase a few dozen (much less a hundred or a thousand) desktop machines for corporate rollout, it's going to take you a few months to get the budget approved. Then you spend a month or two on the RFQ and RFPs, another month or so going through them, and another month or so finalizing the decision. Add on the order time, receiving time, and software installation/configuration time, and you're hitting 9-12 months before they're even hitting a user's desktop.
I'd say this company has issues with red tape and management infrastructure. In companies who wish to compete in tight markets the budget would already exist for the department delegated to handle tasks such as this. So the 9-12 months you used in this terrible example of what should be handled in only a few weeks (NOTE: There are exceptions but in general this is more accurate). However using your example any average department manager/adminsitrator would have already known from their research (they did do their hoework right?) that the EOL was closing and simply defer until the next release was in it's infancy to get the full life span. Or better yet actually purchase the product being offered which has a longer life span, which is Red Hat's Advanced Server line. I can extrapolate from thier press releases that the Advanced Workstation product will have the same life span as the server line. That life span is three years.
So you've got a good chance that by the time your users first turn on a RedHat desktop, the support has been dropped.
Congratulations, RedHat, you just knocked yourself out of competition for the corporate desktop. With Mandrake dead, that leaves SuSE as the only real contender for a corporate solution on the desktop.
Not if management has a clue! Read the prior paragraph.
On the server side, consider that it typically takes at least a year for third-party vendors to certify a distro as "supported" for their products. Sometimes it even matters -- Sybase 12.5 would only run on a certain patch level of RedHat 7.1 last time I tried it (Mandrake 8.1, 8.2, and SuSE 8.0 could not even prepare the storage space for the database without crashing, much less run a server.)
The key words you used Sometimes it even matters! Well, perhaps. Most of the time it don't! If I were a client of Sybase I would be asking Sybase why they are not keeping up with progress if that is indeed the case with them.
I know that most corps are going to have special contracts set up for support, but that doesn't help those of us on the development or consulting side of things who don't have the budget to pay for full AS licenses just to get a system that doesn't need to be rebuilt annually.
So I assume you are in a commercial business and don't have the resources or "know-how" to stay in business in a tough and competitive market. Surely you don't expect any software company to build their future on your terms? You either adapt and compete or you loose out and fail! Perhaps if your consulting/development business sees a market for supporting Red Hat products which have reached their EOL and chooses to continue supporting them you can create a niche market for yourself!
If I want to rebuild systems annually, I'll go back to Microsoft-based development -- there's more work supporting that junk anyhow.
It's your business. Support junk or support quality, it's all up to you!
I do buy full distros to support the vendors -- and end up spending far more on Linux distros per year than I ever did on Microsoft products as a result. I have RH 5.2, 6.2, 7.0, 7.1, Mandrake 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, SuSE 8.0 and 8.1 -- all full box sets at $75-100 each. Even when I don't install them, I buy kits just to help keep the companies I believe in afloat.
LOL! Let me get this straight. You buy software with no intention of using it only to support the company who sells it? I bet you shop like my wife does. "Well honey we didn't need this 24 pack of Sea Monkey's I bought at Wal Mart, but ole Sam Walton's kids are sure nice and need the money." Good grief...you have no business running a business. Or else you have more money than sense.
I sure don't appreciate RH trying to rip me off as payback.
Payback...for what? Because you paid for thier product? Red Hat is a business. They are not charity organization who is looking for status or trying to end world hunger. They are simply trying to keep their bottom line in the black. Just like everyone else is. I think you need to come to terms with capitalism.
Even with RH normal pricing, who in their right mind is going to pay $150 for a full current release of RH, for which you only get a few months update support, vs. buying a generic copy of the disks for $20 plus shipping and paying less than $150 for a full year of RH update support? Such nonsense would be why RH 7.1 was the last distro of theirs I bought or installed -- I don't believe in their model anymore.
I believe someone who buys software from any company and brags about buying kits just to help keep the companies they believe in afloat shouldn't be complaining now!
Perhaps the reason you "end up spending far more on Linux distros per year than I ever did on Microsoft products" is because you like spending money "just to help keep the companies I believe in afloat"
I'm sure Uncle Bill will love you for that kind of behavior. I bet they would love to have you buy a few copies of Windows XP Professional and wouldn't care if you installed them or not. However, your bankruptcy attorney will be laughing all the way to the courthouse when your consulting/development business goes belly up.
...The main reason behind this belief is simply the fact that the reason most people don't adopt secondary office suites is because of the different standards.
"Different standards".....Isn't that an oxymoron? I believe this is exactly why people adopt secondary office suites!
...What the Linux community really needs is a single office suite standard, eliminating the compatibility issues. Then we can work on competition.
NO..NO...NO...To say the "Linux community" needs a single office suite standard means a gap between platforms other than Linux will STILL have to be bridged. Most likely by adopting a secondary office suite. So the problem will still exist.
What the "ENTIRE COMPUTING COMMUNITY" needs is file format specifications that conform to a single standard. The fact that "different standards" exist creates the real problem with any office suite on any platform.
You HAVE to talk about competition NOW, because with "different standards" and secret proprietary file formats, competition simply can not exist in the office marketplace as we know it today!
Actually prior to 9-11-2001 I don't think you can find many acts of terrorism in US airports that required the use of any type of military or police intervention with automatic weapons.
If you would like to ask yourself why these other airports from other countries do need these the go right ahead.
As for the inference that NG (National Guardsmen) would fumble around with their weapon....... NOPE. Two shots... maybe. But they are trained to use thier weapon including how it's carried. They wear body armor. "Ever tried to... ", nope... but the guardsmen have! It's part of their training. I'd grade them an A for their presence, a C for the number of guardsmen being used, and the whole US airport security system a C due to their inexperience in actual civilian airport security experience.
Lastly the reason of the NG being present is as a precaution and to give the flying public the message that some kind of response to terrorism is close by.
I don't give a $hit if a guard has their hand on the handle, trigger, or their crotch. Because the element of surprise is a given for the terrorist. If you think the military could treat civilian airport security the same way it does with it's own airfields your wrong. If left up to the military youd be writing to bitch about how your rights are violated by the stormtroopers manning the airport security gates.
By far more terroristic acts have been done at non-us airports around the world and this website lists a few dating back to the late 1960's.
Q: eeer...sure boss...but since I've been putting in all this overtime why can't I use this time to use some of those banked comp days or vacation time.
A: OK Billy, you have earned it. And since Peter, Paul, and Mary are taking their vacation this month too I might as well use up my remaining sick days. I'll just leave one of the interns to answer phones and file away all these reports.
I wound't work for peanuts. I wouldn't work for donuts. I wouldn't work for Microsoft®. I wouldn't work for AOL/Time Warner. yadda yadda yadda.
I'm quite sure most people would have a problem working for someone. I think everyone has a line somewhere in their principles that they just won't cross.
The credit card paradigm is whats causing the problem, not securing the cc numbers!
No matter what you do, or how you do it, there is always the potential for loosing the information...either by theft, fire, fraud, etc.
The only sensible way to "charge" things are, IMHO, by changing the way credit cards work.
Before anyone mods this as off topic, consider aquiring the ability to accept a credit card that does one time transaction numbers and when you enter into a selling relationship with a customer who does not utilize this kind of credit card... suggest it!!!
This not only ensures your customer that you care about the security of thier transactions it also serves as an opporitunity to explain that there is always a chance, even if it's a remote one, that thier current credit card numbers can be comprimised.
I do not know the answer to your original question. I personally think using the above suggestions with the system you currently are working to secure would be an option to consider.
Even if the customer does not want, or can not get a credit card that utilizes "one time transaction numbers" the fact you take the time to explain it to them should be a little reassuring to them..I know it would for me!
Here are a few more links to info on one time cc numbers:
Linux is not hard. It just has many options. Some Windows immigrants may complain it has "too many options". It's a paradigm that needs to be redefined given that the typical Windows desktop user is not familiar with "options". For example Windows OS's do not ship with a variety of Web Browsers to use...only Internet Explorer. Out of the box you do it Bills way or your left to figure it out for yourself.
Option Anxiety is the result of having at least a half dozen different ways to accomplish a single simple task! Take the Linux ditros themselves for example. Each one has a different way of installing the OS. Each one generally has its own preferred way of managing software, either apt-get, rpms, tarballs...whatever. But by far the biggest origin of Option Anxiety is from what I call the "Big Three".....Email, Web Browseing, and Word Processing. Pine, Emacs, Mutt, Kmail, StarOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, Emacs, Mozilla, Lynx, Netscape, Konqueror, etc, etc.... a Windows user can easily be tormented by which or what to use.
I actually had a client say to me, "I just want my email, search the net, and type business letters that my clients can read on thier computers. I don't wnat to know about all that stuff."
From the article:
"People using their computers don't need to know much beyond "Push button A and action B results." They don't need to get confused with a lot of complex commands while they're just starting to figure out the way to do things in Linux that they already knew how to do in Windows. That basic level of knowledge is enough for a start - and for a good while afterwards."
I totally agree with that! What I think is more important is that Linux and Linux distros keep getting more and more "approachable" by novices while still allowing seasoned Linux users the freedom and ability to do what it already allows them to do.
First and foremost I respect and admire the work Mr. Cox does. And just as I am allowed to respect and admire his work I freely choose to disagree with his overt political opinions regarding the changelogs and the withholding of them from US citizens based on a law he is interpreting to include those changelogs.
Secondly I admit I am not an expert on the DMCA but from what I have read and studied so far his camparison of publishing changelogs -vs- circumvention devices/reverse engineering of document protection is the equivalent to comparing apples -vs- oranges.
In the Skylarov case for example,Mr. Skylarov wrote code to circumvent Adobes ebook encryption scheme.. correct? Then Adobe complained to authorities prompting an investigation and subsequently withdrew its complaint. After investigating it was determined by the FBI that he (Skylarov) violated US law by writing and distributing a "crack", code to circumvent Adobes encryption scheme so that people would not have to purchase content in Adobe ebook format. With his "crack" one could gain the content without paying for it. Whether or not you agree with proprietary formats or not, "stealing" it by way of circumvention is still petty theft in my opinion.
Back to how Cox fits in... Why would Mr. Cox fear his publishing of changelogs would be in violation? I have yet to see on Slashdot or his diary pages or from the main pages at that website a detailed explanation of exactly WHY he feels he needed to do this.
And if I am right it would take a whole lot more than simply publishing the changelogs to violate the DMCA. Correct me if I am wrong, but please show me proof (from sources that are legitamate). Would "NOT" publishing the changelogs feed into the premise that the DMCA is legitamite? Wouldn't the owner of the code have to actually submit a complaint to the authorities to be charged with a violation of the DMCA, similar to what Adobe did to Mr. Skylarov? BTW, since the linux kernel is open source and licensed under the GPL doesn't that in effect offer protection against a DMCA violation for publishing changelogs? I mean does Mr. Cox think Linus or someone else is going to complain to the FBI that he has somehow violated the DMCA by publishing changes he made to the Linux kernel? Why does he NOT worry about the changes to the kernel itself then? The kernel is obviously published all over the world includeing the US and it has his changes in it already doesn't it? That kinda seems oxymoronic in my opinion.
Lastly, the irony is that I have read some comments in this artice and on a previous Slashdot article that suggest the US laws are squashing freedom and the US government is oppressing its people, while Mr. Cox nor anyone else has mentioned anything about the UK's own RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000) from the Crown itself, which is a quite scary peice of legislation and comparable to the DMCA only it has a broader, less defined scope about it. Some links on the RIP are here: World Socialist Website , SiliconValley.com , ZDNet , The Register.
In summary, withholding changelogs sounds like just a little more "America bashing". While I typically choose not to be anti-anyone else my feelings of patriotism are quite high due to recent events in America. My personal view of a non-US citizen withholding information from US citizens/developers is counter productive in repealing the DMCA. Should he feel so strongly about the DMCA then I would invite him to become a US citizen and VOTE to repeal this ignorant law instead of bitching about it from some other place in the world that has its own share of ignorant laws and regulations. Yes, do something...anything but legitimizing the DMCA by withholding changelogs!
While I think I understand what your are trying to say, I disagree that "Techies" are "more well-rounded". My opinion is that undergraduate work is the basis for this "well-rounding" you wrote about. The distinctions you place on "techies", "fuzzies", and "liberal arts" seem to be opinions you have formed that only serve to further stratify "Scientific Elites vs Illiterates".
Following the humanities or the sciences does not exclude one from being exposed to "depth and breadth" in education. You pointed out you "had" to take certain classes. I'll bet you were not prevented from taking courses other than those required of your intended major course of study. Just as I would bet that "fuzzies" and "liberal arts" majors were not excluded from taking courses in areas outside of thier course of study.
The current system does not force anything. Only a students resolve and desire to be "well-rounded" can do that.
My three children ages 3,8,and 10 enjoy using the internet for recreation, communication, and education (my 3 year old doesn't quite get the internet although she does enjoy a Blues Clues game). I know both the advantages and disadvantages of "unfettered" internet access.
As a father I teach my children the values, morals, and virtues that I know. But I recognize also that over the years I have disagreed with some of the things I was taught as a child, and have since formed my own opinions.
So I leave room in the things I teach my children so that they may enjoy the rewards (and disappointments) they may reap from forming their own opinions should they disagree with what I have taught them and raised them around.
But to extrapolate the generally negative stigma associated with censorship to responsible parenting without giving consideration for a childs natural mental or emotional development and maturity is really out of context with what censorship is at the parent/child level!
But understand this, in my opinion, parenting is not a democracy. My children have rights it is true, but as their father I decided they do NOT get "unfettered" access to the internet. As my wife and I grow with our children, and their maturity level increases as they grow toward their teen years, their mother and I learn to "open up" more information available to them. This includes material they view in the traditional media as well as via the internet.
Because we communicate with our kids and set very defined boundries on internet usage and time, our kids have enjoyed their experiences with the internet.
Because I was once a kid and understand those boundries will be tested, I do monitor where they are clicking and what they are viewing. I do not infringe on their curiosities. But I do recognize at these ages they are not able or ready to handle a lot of material available on the internet. As a parent it is not only my responsibility to help teach my children is also my responsibility to guide them in learning. Sometimes censoring what they view on the internet is part of being a responsible parent.
Redneck's n' Truckers been doin this for years!
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
Duck tape is affectionatly known as hunnerd mile an hour tape in the truckin bid'ness
But hunnerd mile an hour tape don't mean nuttin ifin ya don't got no Bailin wire!!!!
First of all there is no such thing as bad press in my opinion. Second of all I think the intention is to allow modification of the source as long as credit etc is given. As for the license itself, it seems to me a lot of developers/companies want to have a licence with their own moniker stamped on it. I'll spare typing the list..you can find the list of licences at Licence list
Why not simply release it under an already existing license? Just don't release it under the Drivers License....the wait in line will discourage its release.
Do law schools adaquately inform, instruct, and/or familiarize student IP or Contract attorneys for representing OR litigating against Open Source issues. Specifically the GPL and the like?
How many attornys are familiar with the GPL? Or is the research and familiarity done AFTER a case is assumed by the attorney?
After reading this Forbes article it reminded me that, in the U.S., the vast majority of states ARE "at will" in regard to employment issues.
Now what I wonder is if the motivation for offering of money in return for withdrawing the employment offer is based on a contractual obligation to the employee or simply a "common sense" aproach at not burning bridges with resources Intel may require in the future. Or maybe a combination of both.
For example in my home state of Indiana, an at will state, an employer can terminate employment at any time for any reason. But the fine print of the law states "or without reason" (yes I am paraphrasing).
What this means is that Intel jobs in Indiana and similar states can be eliminated WITHOUT reason.I find it highly suspect that big business would dish out cash when states like this do not require it.
So I wonder if Intel is concerned that these instances of hired grads were actually signed an employment contract rather than be considered traditional employees.
While my rant does not offer answers I hope it poses more questions to Intel and businesses like them about the motivations for what I see as "buying out" a contractwhen they probably did not have to.
Has anyone asked Intel why they took this approach?
I have been researching "wireless" broadband issues for the past few weeks because I have been asked to help an ISP evaluate the practical application of using wireless technologies, including lasers, to bring broadband connectivity to residential customers.
What I find is that laser and other technologies such as spread spectrum "fixed wireless" access is very limited in it's practical application.
Focusing on the laser issue the biggest hurdle for residential application will be cost and inclement weather.
Cost..even though the article touts that it can bring this technology to the home users at far less cost than what businesses enjoy today. I doubt that this is much more than "planned optimism" to maintain and draw finacial support for thier business.
I am excited about newer technologies, (this one isn't as new as they make it out to be) but I am also aware from my research that this type of connectivity will be better suited to businesses in spacific localized areas. Actually, I think it will be better utilized in a "campus" environment. Where connectivity between buildings would be in order.
But to infer that bringing broadband to the masses via this technology is, at this point, pissing in the wind.
Maybe in dry climates where the topography is flat and little or no smog or fog exists this could be done as they describe. But then you'll still have to have the target customer within "range" of your laser.
There are a lot of articles about wireless in general, some even get into laser optics too.
I have accumulated about 50 boomarks on wireless broadband and everyone of them praise the idea (as they should) but give a clear picture that this market will be stormed by large companies and especially telcos. But with all the hoopla and interest this technology is still in it's infancy. It won't be ready for prime time by next year.
Actually subscription based upgrades are being utilized by opensource based companies. SuSE for example sells a subscription based CD for their distro. (See this link for what I mean http://www.suse.com/us/products/susesoft/suse71/ch oose.html)
Red Hat even promotes it's Red Hat Network service. What this is in effect is a subscription based service to ensure your machine(s) are current and up to date if running thier distro. (Here is the link http://www.redhat.com/products/network/)
Subscription services have been in the Linux community for some time now. If I recall correctly even Cheapbytes used to offer a subscription service to send out updated CD's of various contribs and/or distro's.
The distinction, no matter how slight, is the issue of forceing a subscriber (or potential subscriber) to use the subscription service.
I do not see this type of marketing in the future of Linux. But that is not to say some form of "subscription" services will not be available to Linux users.
I personally think any software company who only offers thier software via an "internet subscription" service would be committing fiscal suicide. They may enjoy some success with typical home desktop users for a while, but this would grow old quickly me thinks.
I also believe "internet subscription" services aimed at business intranets would fail miserably. There are too many customized setups out their for any company to automagically "upgrade" anything and not run into problems with a corporate lan. I see M$'s.NET as a way to circumvent this problem a little by selling the server side software/paradigm to businesses so that customization to fit particular needs could be realized.
The real issue here is not whether subscription based software is good or bad, but who is in control of the software being delivered.
Imagine the EULA M$ uses. It can be argued that you do not own the software but simply license it to be used. Now think about the implications of software distribution via automagic delivery and installation through the internet. With CD distributions gone the enforcement of thier EULA takes on a whole new meaning. You no longer would have the ability to sell your licensed CD of Office to Joe Blow if you wanted to because there is nothing to sell. No CD's, no manuals, no printed license, nothing!
This method of delivery would simply be internet distributed, time limited software.
And thats only the tip of the iceberg. I do not even want to get into the privacy issues this could open up, or the security implications.
I think subscription based services are OK if you want to utilize them. But it should not be required
In the US the Children's Online Privacy Act offers some protection for children from the school district, or anyone for that matter, collecting information on children age or younger. I would certainly think the selling of this information would be criminal at the very least.
However there is one huge hitch in the law. That hitch provides that the school can act as an agent of the parent in consent issues. This would seem to contradict the "spirit" of the law itself.
That being said I do believe that if enough parents strongly voiced objections to the collection and sale of information on children under 13 to third party entities, something would be done.
In case it is NOT done, simply collect documentation and enlist the aid of your local media. School officials tend to dislike media attention on subjects that may imply they are involved in child exploitation.( I view this as child exploitation, I hope you do too. )
Regardless of the age limit in the Children's Online Privacy Act, the collection and sale of information concerning minor children in schools simply should not be done IMHO.
Link to the Children's Online Privacy Act Press Release:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/9910/childfinal.htm
Link to the full text of the rule ( note the first link is a PDF at 270K ):
At IUPUI we have several methods of distance learning at our disposal. But honestly I believe the tools are not utilized by academic staff appropriatly. For example IUPUI has an application called "Oncourse" that they use in a lot of classes to exchange email and schedules for lectures and exams as well as posting assignments and weather information. It also has the ability to administer examinations. But the shortfall of it is it is only used in conjunction with traditional classroom teaching. It's really just used as teacher aid. You can check into Oncourse at http://oncourse.iupui.edu/
I took a History class that the Professor elected to have the university staff (audio) record his lectures. I later discovered they are using a RealPlayer server to offer the lectures to enrolled students. It is available at http://www.imds.iupui.edu/lecture/ but it doesn't offer much information until you logon.
It does the audio lectures via a RealPlayer stream to the student wherever he/she is. BUT, I am unaware of any classes using it for "Distance Education". It is primarily used to supplement the traditional "class attending" student who may have missed a lecture or wishes to review the lecture from home or a campus computer.
I see a real possibility of using an "Oncourse" type application combined with audio/video streaming as a distance education solution. But IMHO real distance education cannot replace attending a classroom until "interactive realtime" communication is possible with the instructor and the student. Take a look at the distance programs out there now. From what I have seen so far it is all reading done at your pace with excercises to email in to the instructor when completed. This would be fine and dandy if learning were so simple. But what if you have a question? Then it is phone calls (consider time zones or professor schedules), emails (consider when it gets read and when an answer is forthcoming), etc,etc.
I dont want to belabor the point but I see this as one of the major problems with distance education. Another problem is a matter of quality in the education you recieve. I wouldn't want my Dentist to get his education over the internet or from snail mail reading assignments. I wouldn't want my speech classes done strictly in front of a video camera...public speaking is more than a good video production.
Until two way realtime communication is more practical and affordable and until academia accepts the non-traditional method of learning, distance education with the technology we have now will only fill a niche in higher education.
Granted "freedom of speech is not an absolute concept" IS an argument for debate! However, to compare it to a debate worthy of only high-school debate clubs is simply a sad argument itself.
If what you say is true I would ask you to reflect back upon any one of numerous cases invloving freedom of speech. Then ask yourself how did the final decision in the case affect you? It's not important to pick a specific case, what is important is the impact of any of those cases on the American way of life and it's liberties protected under our constitution. No I maintain the argument of freedom of speech is worthy of debate in the highest court of the land NOT just for high shool academia.
As for "dissent in the ranks" I must point out the obvious here. A soldier must follow orders. I believe this to be true in any army regardless of political views or period of time in it's history. However, the right to question authority is based upon ones individual right to free speech and free expression. Defying authority and questioning it are two very seperate things. And after the bill of rights were ratified a soldier could and I suspect did question authorities of superiors.
And some serving officials did support the King during colonial times. They were permitted to do so given their appointments by the English monarchy. As soon as the Colonial government took power away from London I suspect those political positions were filled by persons whom held similar ideals as the implementors of democracy. BUT, they still had the freedom to believe whatever they choose to believe. Not everyone in the late 1700's supported breaking with English rule.
Although I don't have a specific example from the "colonial armies of the 18th centry" I can point you to the whole era of the Vietnam conflict. Both civilians and soldiers alike had opinions as to the reason and legitamacy of the Vietnam conflict. Soldiers did take an oath to protect from all enimies foreign and domestic. Questioning that authority is/was allowed. Disobeying was/is not allowed under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice ( which is different that Civilian laws, but still incorporates Constitutional rights and liberties )
Your comeback that "This is a high-school debating society argument, which is pretty weak even in a high-school debating society. Of course flatpack is free to publish his opinion; it's not remotely objectionable. So what?" is what really makes the point for me. Weather or not it is questionable is the issue. Had laws not been passed protecting free speech regardless of it's objectionability flatpack could very well have been censored or worse yet persecuted for his ideas and beliefs.
This is the genius of the 1st amendment.
As for evidence to the contrary I would point you to the bill of rights itself. I don't have readily available the case number but the landmark trial in Dayton, Tennessee involving the teaching of creationism by a local teacher and the School boards not wanting creationism taught involves several constitutional issues such as Separation of Church and State, Freedom of Religion and yes the 1st amendment Freedom of Speech!
Murder has nothing to do with the rights to free speech. To attempt to cast this as an "obvious example" as you put it, is simply insulting and detracts from the credibility of your argument.
So in conclusion I can say Freedom of Speech IS an absolute right guaranteed to citizens of the United States in the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Without this most important amendment the Constitution itself could not stand the test of time in our ever changing society. There is a reason this amendment was the very FIRST amendment.
I will conceed that what constitutes free speech is the ambiguity here. But Freedom of Speech itself IS absolute!
As an Indianapolis parent of three children I agree age limits are a good thing. However as a citizen and law student I believe governmental intrusions into parental issues should be held to extremely limited and well defined circumstances where a childs safety is at risk and parental guidance is non-exhistant. Parents should determine whats appropriate for their children!
On another note our fair city-county has a curfew law that was just deemed unconstitutional. That sounds promising right? Well the government watered it down just enough to pass constitutional review. So what you end up having is social and parental policies determined by folks who may or may not have a clue what rearing a child is all about.
What this city ( as may others ) need is NOT government intrusion into parental issues but suport to parents in the form of fair and appropriate taxation, choice in which school your children can attend, and an end to miles and miles of money eating red tape in big government. Modernized infrastructure to the city/county to spur economic growth, not patchwork construction that only guarantees county highway workers some sort of job security.
If your government really wants to make things better they should implement term limits, campaign finance reform and clean up thier own political house before passing laws that infringe or impugn my authority to rear my children as I see fit.
And before some clown who doesn't have any kids pipes up I have a statement to make. As part of my work study ( yes I am a 34 yr old student ) I tutor reading to "at risk" 6th graders at a local middle school on the west side of Indianapolis. On my first day I witnessed one of two vice-principals threaten a 6th grade student with "being placed in hand cuffs and sent to the principals office" for being in the hall way about 2 minutes after the bell rang for class. Too bad this boys parents do not know how their kids are being treated in the 6th grade.
Now, who would you want to trust to protect your kids from violence? Parents or government?
**off soapbox on topic**
**on soapbox to flatpack**
As for Flatpacks comments that "freedom of speech is not an absolute concept" I commend you for your own opinion. However, I remind you that you have the ability to publish your opinion for the very concept you claim is not absolute. And furthermore our founding fathers and mothers DID realize freedom of speech IS an absolute concept. The wisdom of this amendment is perhaps the most significant of all. And I really don't see it being changed or abated anytime soon.
Flatpack also stated that "These kinds of laws, whilst perhaps not being strictly Constituional, are very necessary." and is sadley mistaken. By your own words you proclaim that unconstitutional laws are necessary! THIS IS SIMPLY UNTRUE AND DANGEROUS. Again I would like to point out to Flatpack that because of laws that are Constitutional he can post this without the fear of being tracked down and imprisoned!
Slashdot Mirror
Also, if you were a client of Sybase, 'asking' why they weren't keeping up could well not get you anywhere. Incidentally it's rather a good example of Linux not being ready for 'enterprise' apps.
.....et al ad nausium.
m l
Perhaps asking these people why they think Linux is "ready for 'enterprise' would be a good place to start!
IBM thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Oracle thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
HP thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
BEA thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Legato thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Veritas thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Computer Associates thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Reuters thinks Linux is ready for enterprise
Mogan Stanley thinks Linux is ready fro enterprise
J.P Morgan Chase thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Google thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise
Incidently Sybase thinks Linux is ready for the enterprise as well. And as recently as December 16, 2002 released this announcement:
http://www.sybase.com/detail/1,6904,1023007,00.ht
And the argument that 3rd party vendors won't have enough time to "keep up" or "certify" their products is really a lame arguement considering the Red Hat Advanced Server/Workstation line has a minimum three year life span which gives vendors plenty of time to take care of business. Three years in our community is a long, long time.
Regardless of whether it's technically capable or not, if the vendor doesn't support it, tough!
Answered above, however I would add that this is really a mute point because if a vendor doesn't support something it's tough for the vendor. Because the vendor will fall behind their competition because they didn't "keep up". Then when their clients adopt implementations which "do" keep up who will be left scratching thier heads wondering what went wrong.
Zoom
If you're trying to purchase a few dozen (much less a hundred or a thousand) desktop machines for corporate rollout, it's going to take you a few months to get the budget approved. Then you spend a month or two on the RFQ and RFPs, another month or so going through them, and another month or so finalizing the decision. Add on the order time, receiving time, and software installation/configuration time, and you're hitting 9-12 months before they're even hitting a user's desktop.
I'd say this company has issues with red tape and management infrastructure. In companies who wish to compete in tight markets the budget would already exist for the department delegated to handle tasks such as this. So the 9-12 months you used in this terrible example of what should be handled in only a few weeks (NOTE: There are exceptions but in general this is more accurate). However using your example any average department manager/adminsitrator would have already known from their research (they did do their hoework right?) that the EOL was closing and simply defer until the next release was in it's infancy to get the full life span. Or better yet actually purchase the product being offered which has a longer life span, which is Red Hat's Advanced Server line. I can extrapolate from thier press releases that the Advanced Workstation product will have the same life span as the server line. That life span is three years.
So you've got a good chance that by the time your users first turn on a RedHat desktop, the support has been dropped.
Congratulations, RedHat, you just knocked yourself out of competition for the corporate desktop. With Mandrake dead, that leaves SuSE as the only real contender for a corporate solution on the desktop.
Not if management has a clue! Read the prior paragraph.
On the server side, consider that it typically takes at least a year for third-party vendors to certify a distro as "supported" for their products. Sometimes it even matters -- Sybase 12.5 would only run on a certain patch level of RedHat 7.1 last time I tried it (Mandrake 8.1, 8.2, and SuSE 8.0 could not even prepare the storage space for the database without crashing, much less run a server.)
The key words you used Sometimes it even matters! Well, perhaps. Most of the time it don't! If I were a client of Sybase I would be asking Sybase why they are not keeping up with progress if that is indeed the case with them.
I know that most corps are going to have special contracts set up for support, but that doesn't help those of us on the development or consulting side of things who don't have the budget to pay for full AS licenses just to get a system that doesn't need to be rebuilt annually.
So I assume you are in a commercial business and don't have the resources or "know-how" to stay in business in a tough and competitive market. Surely you don't expect any software company to build their future on your terms? You either adapt and compete or you loose out and fail! Perhaps if your consulting/development business sees a market for supporting Red Hat products which have reached their EOL and chooses to continue supporting them you can create a niche market for yourself!
If I want to rebuild systems annually, I'll go back to Microsoft-based development -- there's more work supporting that junk anyhow.
It's your business. Support junk or support quality, it's all up to you!
I do buy full distros to support the vendors -- and end up spending far more on Linux distros per year than I ever did on Microsoft products as a result. I have RH 5.2, 6.2, 7.0, 7.1, Mandrake 7.2, 8.0, 8.1, SuSE 8.0 and 8.1 -- all full box sets at $75-100 each. Even when I don't install them, I buy kits just to help keep the companies I believe in afloat.
LOL! Let me get this straight. You buy software with no intention of using it only to support the company who sells it? I bet you shop like my wife does. "Well honey we didn't need this 24 pack of Sea Monkey's I bought at Wal Mart, but ole Sam Walton's kids are sure nice and need the money."
Good grief...you have no business running a business. Or else you have more money than sense.
I sure don't appreciate RH trying to rip me off as payback.
Payback...for what? Because you paid for thier product? Red Hat is a business. They are not charity organization who is looking for status or trying to end world hunger. They are simply trying to keep their bottom line in the black. Just like everyone else is. I think you need to come to terms with capitalism.
Even with RH normal pricing, who in their right mind is going to pay $150 for a full current release of RH, for which you only get a few months update support, vs. buying a generic copy of the disks for $20 plus shipping and paying less than $150 for a full year of RH update support? Such nonsense would be why RH 7.1 was the last distro of theirs I bought or installed -- I don't believe in their model anymore.
I believe someone who buys software from any company and brags about buying kits just to help keep the companies they believe in afloat shouldn't be complaining now!
Perhaps the reason you "end up spending far more on Linux distros per year than I ever did on Microsoft products" is because you like spending money "just to help keep the companies I believe in afloat"
I'm sure Uncle Bill will love you for that kind of behavior. I bet they would love to have you buy a few copies of Windows XP Professional and wouldn't care if you installed them or not. However, your bankruptcy attorney will be laughing all the way to the courthouse when your consulting/development business goes belly up.
Your "model" doesn't make sense.
Zoom
...The main reason behind this belief is simply the fact that the reason most people don't adopt secondary office suites is because of the different standards.
...What the Linux community really needs is a single office suite standard, eliminating the compatibility issues. Then we can work on competition.
"Different standards".....Isn't that an oxymoron? I believe this is exactly why people adopt secondary office suites!
NO..NO...NO...To say the "Linux community" needs a single office suite standard means a gap between platforms other than Linux will STILL have to be bridged. Most likely by adopting a secondary office suite. So the problem will still exist.
What the "ENTIRE COMPUTING COMMUNITY" needs is file format specifications that conform to a single standard. The fact that "different standards" exist creates the real problem with any office suite on any platform.
You HAVE to talk about competition NOW, because with "different standards" and secret proprietary file formats, competition simply can not exist in the office marketplace as we know it today!
Zoom
Actually prior to 9-11-2001 I don't think you can find many acts of terrorism in US airports that required the use of any type of military or police intervention with automatic weapons.
....... NOPE. Two shots ... maybe. But they are trained to use thier weapon including how it's carried. They wear body armor. "Ever tried to ... ", nope... but the guardsmen have! It's part of their training. I'd grade them an A for their presence, a C for the number of guardsmen being used, and the whole US airport security system a C due to their inexperience in actual civilian airport security experience.
If you would like to ask yourself why these other airports from other countries do need these the go right ahead.
As for the inference that NG (National Guardsmen) would fumble around with their weapon
Lastly the reason of the NG being present is as a precaution and to give the flying public the message that some kind of response to terrorism is close by.
I don't give a $hit if a guard has their hand on the handle, trigger, or their crotch. Because the element of surprise is a given for the terrorist. If you think the military could treat civilian airport security the same way it does with it's own airfields your wrong. If left up to the military youd be writing to bitch about how your rights are violated by the stormtroopers manning the airport security gates.
By far more terroristic acts have been done at non-us airports around the world and this website lists a few dating back to the late 1960's.
Q: eeer...sure boss...but since I've been putting in all this overtime why can't I use this time to use some of those banked comp days or vacation time.
A: OK Billy, you have earned it. And since Peter, Paul, and Mary are taking their vacation this month too I might as well use up my remaining sick days. I'll just leave one of the interns to answer phones and file away all these reports.
Subject line says it all.
Get off his ass folks.
I wound't work for peanuts. I wouldn't work for donuts. I wouldn't work for Microsoft®. I wouldn't work for AOL/Time Warner. yadda yadda yadda.
I'm quite sure most people would have a problem working for someone. I think everyone has a line somewhere in their principles that they just won't cross.
Will work for food -- sorry couldn't resist.
...that we will get Red Hat CD's in the mail with those handy little black CD cases????
The credit card paradigm is whats causing the problem, not securing the cc numbers!
... suggest it!!!
No matter what you do, or how you do it, there is always the potential for loosing the information...either by theft, fire, fraud, etc.
The only sensible way to "charge" things are, IMHO, by changing the way credit cards work.
Before anyone mods this as off topic, consider aquiring the ability to accept a credit card that does one time transaction numbers and when you enter into a selling relationship with a customer who does not utilize this kind of credit card
This not only ensures your customer that you care about the security of thier transactions it also serves as an opporitunity to explain that there is always a chance, even if it's a remote one, that thier current credit card numbers can be comprimised.
I do not know the answer to your original question. I personally think using the above suggestions with the system you currently are working to secure would be an option to consider.
Even if the customer does not want, or can not get a credit card that utilizes "one time transaction numbers" the fact you take the time to explain it to them should be a little reassuring to them..I know it would for me!
Here are a few more links to info on one time cc numbers:
American Express offers disposable credit card numbers for online shopping
Frequently asked questions about American Express Private Payments System
The O-Card
Linux is not hard. It just has many options. Some Windows immigrants may complain it has "too many options". It's a paradigm that needs to be redefined given that the typical Windows desktop user is not familiar with "options". For example Windows OS's do not ship with a variety of Web Browsers to use...only Internet Explorer. Out of the box you do it Bills way or your left to figure it out for yourself.
...whatever. But by far the biggest origin of Option Anxiety is from what I call the "Big Three".....Email, Web Browseing, and Word Processing. Pine, Emacs, Mutt, Kmail, StarOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, Emacs, Mozilla, Lynx, Netscape, Konqueror, etc, etc .... a Windows user can easily be tormented by which or what to use.
Option Anxiety is the result of having at least a half dozen different ways to accomplish a single simple task! Take the Linux ditros themselves for example. Each one has a different way of installing the OS. Each one generally has its own preferred way of managing software, either apt-get, rpms, tarballs
I actually had a client say to me, "I just want my email, search the net, and type business letters that my clients can read on thier computers. I don't wnat to know about all that stuff."
From the article:
"People using their computers don't need to know much beyond "Push button A and action B results." They don't need to get confused with a lot of complex commands while they're just starting to figure out the way to do things in Linux that they already knew how to do in Windows. That basic level of knowledge is enough for a start - and for a good while afterwards."
I totally agree with that! What I think is more important is that Linux and Linux distros keep getting more and more "approachable" by novices while still allowing seasoned Linux users the freedom and ability to do what it already allows them to do.
First and foremost I respect and admire the work Mr. Cox does. And just as I am allowed to respect and admire his work I freely choose to disagree with his overt political opinions regarding the changelogs and the withholding of them from US citizens based on a law he is interpreting to include those changelogs.
Secondly I admit I am not an expert on the DMCA but from what I have read and studied so far his camparison of publishing changelogs -vs- circumvention devices/reverse engineering of document protection is the equivalent to comparing apples -vs- oranges.
In the Skylarov case for example,Mr. Skylarov wrote code to circumvent Adobes ebook encryption scheme.. correct? Then Adobe complained to authorities prompting an investigation and subsequently withdrew its complaint. After investigating it was determined by the FBI that he (Skylarov) violated US law by writing and distributing a "crack", code to circumvent Adobes encryption scheme so that people would not have to purchase content in Adobe ebook format. With his "crack" one could gain the content without paying for it. Whether or not you agree with proprietary formats or not, "stealing" it by way of circumvention is still petty theft in my opinion.
Back to how Cox fits in... Why would Mr. Cox fear his publishing of changelogs would be in violation? I have yet to see on Slashdot or his diary pages or from the main pages at that website a detailed explanation of exactly WHY he feels he needed to do this.
And if I am right it would take a whole lot more than simply publishing the changelogs to violate the DMCA. Correct me if I am wrong, but please show me proof (from sources that are legitamate). Would "NOT" publishing the changelogs feed into the premise that the DMCA is legitamite? Wouldn't the owner of the code have to actually submit a complaint to the authorities to be charged with a violation of the DMCA, similar to what Adobe did to Mr. Skylarov? BTW, since the linux kernel is open source and licensed under the GPL doesn't that in effect offer protection against a DMCA violation for publishing changelogs? I mean does Mr. Cox think Linus or someone else is going to complain to the FBI that he has somehow violated the DMCA by publishing changes he made to the Linux kernel? Why does he NOT worry about the changes to the kernel itself then? The kernel is obviously published all over the world includeing the US and it has his changes in it already doesn't it? That kinda seems oxymoronic in my opinion.
Lastly, the irony is that I have read some comments in this artice and on a previous Slashdot article that suggest the US laws are squashing freedom and the US government is oppressing its people, while Mr. Cox nor anyone else has mentioned anything about the UK's own RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000) from the Crown itself, which is a quite scary peice of legislation and comparable to the DMCA only it has a broader, less defined scope about it. Some links on the RIP are here: World Socialist Website , SiliconValley.com , ZDNet , The Register.
In summary, withholding changelogs sounds like just a little more "America bashing". While I typically choose not to be anti-anyone else my feelings of patriotism are quite high due to recent events in America. My personal view of a non-US citizen withholding information from US citizens/developers is counter productive in repealing the DMCA. Should he feel so strongly about the DMCA then I would invite him to become a US citizen and VOTE to repeal this ignorant law instead of bitching about it from some other place in the world that has its own share of ignorant laws and regulations. Yes, do something...anything but legitimizing the DMCA by withholding changelogs!
Zoom
While I think I understand what your are trying to say, I disagree that "Techies" are "more well-rounded". My opinion is that undergraduate work is the basis for this "well-rounding" you wrote about. The distinctions you place on "techies", "fuzzies", and "liberal arts" seem to be opinions you have formed that only serve to further stratify "Scientific Elites vs Illiterates".
Following the humanities or the sciences does not exclude one from being exposed to "depth and breadth" in education. You pointed out you "had" to take certain classes. I'll bet you were not prevented from taking courses other than those required of your intended major course of study. Just as I would bet that "fuzzies" and "liberal arts" majors were not excluded from taking courses in areas outside of thier course of study.
The current system does not force anything. Only a students resolve and desire to be "well-rounded" can do that.
Cheers,
Scott
Now that I have your attention let me explain.
My three children ages 3,8,and 10 enjoy using the internet for recreation, communication, and education (my 3 year old doesn't quite get the internet although she does enjoy a Blues Clues game). I know both the advantages and disadvantages of "unfettered" internet access.
As a father I teach my children the values, morals, and virtues that I know. But I recognize also that over the years I have disagreed with some of the things I was taught as a child, and have since formed my own opinions.
So I leave room in the things I teach my children so that they may enjoy the rewards (and disappointments) they may reap from forming their own opinions should they disagree with what I have taught them and raised them around.
But to extrapolate the generally negative stigma associated with censorship to responsible parenting without giving consideration for a childs natural mental or emotional development and maturity is really out of context with what censorship is at the parent/child level!
But understand this, in my opinion, parenting is not a democracy. My children have rights it is true, but as their father I decided they do NOT get "unfettered" access to the internet. As my wife and I grow with our children, and their maturity level increases as they grow toward their teen years, their mother and I learn to "open up" more information available to them. This includes material they view in the traditional media as well as via the internet.
Because we communicate with our kids and set very defined boundries on internet usage and time, our kids have enjoyed their experiences with the internet.
Because I was once a kid and understand those boundries will be tested, I do monitor where they are clicking and what they are viewing. I do not infringe on their curiosities. But I do recognize at these ages they are not able or ready to handle a lot of material available on the internet. As a parent it is not only my responsibility to help teach my children is also my responsibility to guide them in learning. Sometimes censoring what they view on the internet is part of being a responsible parent.
Duck tape is affectionatly known as hunnerd mile an hour tape in the truckin bid'ness
But hunnerd mile an hour tape don't mean nuttin ifin ya don't got no Bailin wire!!!!
10/4
First of all there is no such thing as bad press in my opinion. Second of all I think the intention is to allow modification of the source as long as credit etc is given. As for the license itself, it seems to me a lot of developers/companies want to have a licence with their own moniker stamped on it.
I'll spare typing the list..you can find the list of licences at Licence list
Why not simply release it under an already existing license?
Just don't release it under the Drivers License....the wait in line will discourage its release.
Isn't a worm......bait?
Who is going to bite?
Imagine your system hanging from a line, while the fisherman takes a snapshot of it for his trophy case
As with most chartered fishing trips what will the cost be?
My question is this:
Do law schools adaquately inform, instruct, and/or familiarize student IP or Contract attorneys for representing OR litigating against Open Source issues. Specifically the GPL and the like?
How many attornys are familiar with the GPL? Or is the research and familiarity done AFTER a case is assumed by the attorney?
After reading this Forbes article it reminded me that, in the U.S., the vast majority of states ARE "at will" in regard to employment issues.
Now what I wonder is if the motivation for offering of money in return for withdrawing the employment offer is based on a contractual obligation to the employee or simply a "common sense" aproach at not burning bridges with resources Intel may require in the future. Or maybe a combination of both.
For example in my home state of Indiana, an at will state, an employer can terminate employment at any time for any reason. But the fine print of the law states "or without reason" (yes I am paraphrasing).
What this means is that Intel jobs in Indiana and similar states can be eliminated WITHOUT reason.I find it highly suspect that big business would dish out cash when states like this do not require it.
So I wonder if Intel is concerned that these instances of hired grads were actually signed an employment contract rather than be considered traditional employees.
While my rant does not offer answers I hope it poses more questions to Intel and businesses like them about the motivations for what I see as "buying out" a contractwhen they probably did not have to.
Has anyone asked Intel why they took this approach?
I have been researching "wireless" broadband issues for the past few weeks because I have been asked to help an ISP evaluate the practical application of using wireless technologies, including lasers, to bring broadband connectivity to residential customers.
What I find is that laser and other technologies such as spread spectrum "fixed wireless" access is very limited in it's practical application.
Focusing on the laser issue the biggest hurdle for residential application will be cost and inclement weather.
Cost..even though the article touts that it can bring this technology to the home users at far less cost than what businesses enjoy today. I doubt that this is much more than "planned optimism" to maintain and draw finacial support for thier business.
I am excited about newer technologies, (this one isn't as new as they make it out to be) but I am also aware from my research that this type of connectivity will be better suited to businesses in spacific localized areas. Actually, I think it will be better utilized in a "campus" environment. Where connectivity between buildings would be in order.
But to infer that bringing broadband to the masses via this technology is, at this point, pissing in the wind.
Maybe in dry climates where the topography is flat and little or no smog or fog exists this could be done as they describe. But then you'll still have to have the target customer within "range" of your laser.
There are a lot of articles about wireless in general, some even get into laser optics too.
A few places to start looking are:
http://www.wireless-communication.org/
http://lw.pennnet.com/home.cfm
http://www.broadband-guide.com/
I have accumulated about 50 boomarks on wireless broadband and everyone of them praise the idea (as they should) but give a clear picture that this market will be stormed by large companies and especially telcos. But with all the hoopla and interest this technology is still in it's infancy. It won't be ready for prime time by next year.
Cheers,
Actually subscription based upgrades are being utilized by opensource based companies. SuSE for example sells a subscription based CD for their distro. (See this link for what I mean http://www.suse.com/us/products/susesoft/suse71/ch oose.html)
.NET as a way to circumvent this problem a little by selling the server side software/paradigm to businesses so that customization to fit particular needs could be realized.
Red Hat even promotes it's Red Hat Network service. What this is in effect is a subscription based service to ensure your machine(s) are current and up to date if running thier distro. (Here is the link http://www.redhat.com/products/network/)
Subscription services have been in the Linux community for some time now. If I recall correctly even Cheapbytes used to offer a subscription service to send out updated CD's of various contribs and/or distro's.
The distinction, no matter how slight, is the issue of forceing a subscriber (or potential subscriber) to use the subscription service.
I do not see this type of marketing in the future of Linux. But that is not to say some form of "subscription" services will not be available to Linux users.
I personally think any software company who only offers thier software via an "internet subscription" service would be committing fiscal suicide. They may enjoy some success with typical home desktop users for a while, but this would grow old quickly me thinks.
I also believe "internet subscription" services aimed at business intranets would fail miserably. There are too many customized setups out their for any company to automagically "upgrade" anything and not run into problems with a corporate lan. I see M$'s
The real issue here is not whether subscription based software is good or bad, but who is in control of the software being delivered.
Imagine the EULA M$ uses. It can be argued that you do not own the software but simply license it to be used. Now think about the implications of software distribution via automagic delivery and installation through the internet. With CD distributions gone the enforcement of thier EULA takes on a whole new meaning. You no longer would have the ability to sell your licensed CD of Office to Joe Blow if you wanted to because there is nothing to sell. No CD's, no manuals, no printed license, nothing!
This method of delivery would simply be internet distributed, time limited software.
And thats only the tip of the iceberg. I do not even want to get into the privacy issues this could open up, or the security implications.
I think subscription based services are OK if you want to utilize them. But it should not be required
In the US the Children's Online Privacy Act offers some protection for children from the school district, or anyone for that matter, collecting information on children age or younger. I would certainly think the selling of this information would be criminal at the very least.
p a. htm
However there is one huge hitch in the law. That hitch provides that the school can act as an agent of the parent in consent issues. This would seem to contradict the "spirit" of the law itself.
That being said I do believe that if enough parents strongly voiced objections to the collection and sale of information on children under 13 to third party entities, something would be done.
In case it is NOT done, simply collect documentation and enlist the aid of your local media. School officials tend to dislike media attention on subjects that may imply they are involved in child exploitation.( I view this as child exploitation, I hope you do too. )
Regardless of the age limit in the Children's Online Privacy Act, the collection and sale of information concerning minor children in schools simply should not be done IMHO.
Link to the Children's Online Privacy Act Press Release:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1999/9910/childfinal.htm
Link to the full text of the rule ( note the first link is a PDF at 270K ):
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/9910/64fr59888.pdf
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1999/9910/64fr59888.htm
Link on how to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/cop
And a link to the FTC Privacy Initiatives Page. This page has even more links to other pertinant information:
http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/index.html
Hope this helps a little!
At IUPUI we have several methods of distance learning at our disposal. But honestly I believe the tools are not utilized by academic staff appropriatly. For example IUPUI has an application called "Oncourse" that they use in a lot of classes to exchange email and schedules for lectures and exams as well as posting assignments and weather information. It also has the ability to administer examinations. But the shortfall of it is it is only used in conjunction with traditional classroom teaching. It's really just used as teacher aid. You can check into Oncourse at http://oncourse.iupui.edu/
I took a History class that the Professor elected to have the university staff (audio) record his lectures. I later discovered they are using a RealPlayer server to offer the lectures to enrolled students. It is available at http://www.imds.iupui.edu/lecture/ but it doesn't offer much information until you logon.
It does the audio lectures via a RealPlayer stream to the student wherever he/she is. BUT, I am unaware of any classes using it for "Distance Education". It is primarily used to supplement the traditional "class attending" student who may have missed a lecture or wishes to review the lecture from home or a campus computer.
I see a real possibility of using an "Oncourse" type application combined with audio/video streaming as a distance education solution. But IMHO real distance education cannot replace attending a classroom until "interactive realtime" communication is possible with the instructor and the student. Take a look at the distance programs out there now. From what I have seen so far it is all reading done at your pace with excercises to email in to the instructor when completed. This would be fine and dandy if learning were so simple. But what if you have a question? Then it is phone calls (consider time zones or professor schedules), emails (consider when it gets read and when an answer is forthcoming), etc,etc.
I dont want to belabor the point but I see this as one of the major problems with distance education. Another problem is a matter of quality in the education you recieve. I wouldn't want my Dentist to get his education over the internet or from snail mail reading assignments. I wouldn't want my speech classes done strictly in front of a video camera...public speaking is more than a good video production.
Until two way realtime communication is more practical and affordable and until academia accepts the non-traditional method of learning, distance education with the technology we have now will only fill a niche in higher education.
Granted "freedom of speech is not an absolute concept" IS an argument for debate! However, to compare it to a debate worthy of only high-school debate clubs is simply a sad argument itself.
If what you say is true I would ask you to reflect back upon any one of numerous cases invloving freedom of speech. Then ask yourself how did the final decision in the case affect you? It's not important to pick a specific case, what is important is the impact of any of those cases on the American way of life and it's liberties protected under our constitution. No I maintain the argument of freedom of speech is worthy of debate in the highest court of the land NOT just for high shool academia.
As for "dissent in the ranks" I must point out the obvious here. A soldier must follow orders. I believe this to be true in any army regardless of political views or period of time in it's history. However, the right to question authority is based upon ones individual right to free speech and free expression. Defying authority and questioning it are two very seperate things. And after the bill of rights were ratified a soldier could and I suspect did question authorities of superiors.
And some serving officials did support the King during colonial times. They were permitted to do so given their appointments by the English monarchy. As soon as the Colonial government took power away from London I suspect those political positions were filled by persons whom held similar ideals as the implementors of democracy. BUT, they still had the freedom to believe whatever they choose to believe. Not everyone in the late 1700's supported breaking with English rule.
Although I don't have a specific example from the "colonial armies of the 18th centry" I can point you to the whole era of the Vietnam conflict. Both civilians and soldiers alike had opinions as to the reason and legitamacy of the Vietnam conflict. Soldiers did take an oath to protect from all enimies foreign and domestic. Questioning that authority is/was allowed. Disobeying was/is not allowed under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice ( which is different that Civilian laws, but still incorporates Constitutional rights and liberties )
Your comeback that "This is a high-school debating society argument, which is pretty weak even in a high-school debating society. Of course flatpack is free to publish his opinion; it's not remotely objectionable. So what?" is what really makes the point for me. Weather or not it is questionable is the issue. Had laws not been passed protecting free speech regardless of it's objectionability flatpack could very well have been censored or worse yet persecuted for his ideas and beliefs.
This is the genius of the 1st amendment.
As for evidence to the contrary I would point you to the bill of rights itself. I don't have readily available the case number but the landmark trial in Dayton, Tennessee involving the teaching of creationism by a local teacher and the School boards not wanting creationism taught involves several constitutional issues such as Separation of Church and State, Freedom of Religion and yes the 1st amendment Freedom of Speech!
Murder has nothing to do with the rights to free speech. To attempt to cast this as an "obvious example" as you put it, is simply insulting and detracts from the credibility of your argument.
So in conclusion I can say Freedom of Speech IS an absolute right guaranteed to citizens of the United States in the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Without this most important amendment the Constitution itself could not stand the test of time in our ever changing society. There is a reason this amendment was the very FIRST amendment.
I will conceed that what constitutes free speech is the ambiguity here. But Freedom of Speech itself IS absolute!
**on soapbox on topic**
As an Indianapolis parent of three children I agree age limits are a good thing. However as a citizen and law student I believe governmental intrusions into parental issues should be held to extremely limited and well defined circumstances where a childs safety is at risk and parental guidance is non-exhistant. Parents should determine whats appropriate for their children!
On another note our fair city-county has a curfew law that was just deemed unconstitutional. That sounds promising right? Well the government watered it down just enough to pass constitutional review. So what you end up having is social and parental policies determined by folks who may or may not have a clue what rearing a child is all about.
What this city ( as may others ) need is NOT government intrusion into parental issues but suport to parents in the form of fair and appropriate taxation, choice in which school your children can attend, and an end to miles and miles of money eating red tape in big government. Modernized infrastructure to the city/county to spur economic growth, not patchwork construction that only guarantees county highway workers some sort of job security.
If your government really wants to make things better they should implement term limits, campaign finance reform and clean up thier own political house before passing laws that infringe or impugn my authority to rear my children as I see fit.
And before some clown who doesn't have any kids pipes up I have a statement to make. As part of my work study ( yes I am a 34 yr old student ) I tutor reading to "at risk" 6th graders at a local middle school on the west side of Indianapolis. On my first day I witnessed one of two vice-principals threaten a 6th grade student with "being placed in hand cuffs and sent to the principals office" for being in the hall way about 2 minutes after the bell rang for class. Too bad this boys parents do not know how their kids are being treated in the 6th grade.
Now, who would you want to trust to protect your kids from violence? Parents or government?
**off soapbox on topic**
**on soapbox to flatpack**
As for Flatpacks comments that "freedom of speech is not an absolute concept" I commend you for your own opinion. However, I remind you that you have the ability to publish your opinion for the very concept you claim is not absolute. And furthermore our founding fathers and mothers DID realize freedom of speech IS an absolute concept. The wisdom of this amendment is perhaps the most significant of all. And I really don't see it being changed or abated anytime soon.
Flatpack also stated that "These kinds of laws, whilst perhaps not being strictly Constituional, are very necessary." and is sadley mistaken. By your own words you proclaim that unconstitutional laws are necessary! THIS IS SIMPLY UNTRUE AND DANGEROUS. Again I would like to point out to Flatpack that because of laws that are Constitutional he can post this without the fear of being tracked down and imprisoned!
** off soapbox to flatpack **
I-I-I-I want the knife ---- Eddie Murphy ( Golden Child )