I don't see why you are ok with the newspaper ad model, but not with the online ad model. A lot of people do stuff in the hope of making money, but don't know if it will. If the ads work, then it supports more content. If the ads don't, then maybe the content stops getting produced. That's the way the economy works.
a single software project, with branches trying out new features
Also individual projects deciding to do their own thing. Did Linus really have to create Git from scratch? Did the Gnome team have to create yet another language? There's a huge amount of overlap with pre-existing and competing projects. You can argue why those projects needed to do their own thing, and so will everybody else that decides to start or support their new project.
When you become supreme dictator you can force a single solution. Until that time diversity will continue.
Microsoft is a price maker. They can charge whatever they want.
I don't think that's true any more. Hardware has gotten so cheap that the cost of Windows has become a big percentage of the price of the computer. Microsoft has been forced to lower their prices.
You are correct. However, why don't we let the person on the internet choose if they want to be anonymous or not and let the reader determine the credibility of anonymous persons on the internet?
We do. As far as I know, there is no crime for posting anonymously, at least in the United States. However, people are also free to speculate on the identity of posters. How can it be any other way in a free society? When Sony astroturfs their PSP, isn't it a good thing when they are outed? If I spread libelous information about you and your family that ended up causing you harm, wouldn't you want the option of trying to find out my identity?
They filter what they say or choose to not bring up topics that might lead to repercussions (harm and safety not being limited to physical harm).
Even those who say some pretty miserable and nasty things in general don't come to harm. Also, filtering can be a good thing. Anonymous speech is also important, I agree and never said otherwise. But so are the rights to investigate. If you desire to speak anonymously do your best to protect yourself.
Every government in the past has been broken in some respect. People tend to be myopic. Read some history and political commentaries taken from an era that you think wasn't broken. The question is are things so bad that you think you need a complete overhaul, and will things be better after the overhaul. I think in general American government works ok, though of course there's always room for improvement.
Bush was just an obvious example. There are plenty more, like the Cisco "Troll Tracker" guy, Sony astroturfing, or CEO John Mackey of Whole Foods talking about his company stock. Knowing the identity of these previously anonymous players is interesting and useful information.
That doesn't mean information shouldn't be vetted in other ways, nor does the identity of the speaker automatically disqualify what was said, but the desire to know identities will not nor should it go away.
Bush has been wrong on a whole lot of things but he really meant well.
Boy you are naive. Bush, the rich and privileged son with all the ties to the oil industry, means well, and isn't interested in power or looking out for his rich friends? He didn't use the Christian-right to get elected? Please. Obama and Bush are both politicians, they say shit to get elected, and they both have their own agendas. They "mean well" in their own way.
You are only presenting one side. Yes, any system can be gamed, and knowing someone's identity isn't a guarantee of anything. Sometimes it can even be a disadvantage if we unfairly judge what somebody says just because of who they are.
On the other hand, identities are practical knowledge that people put to use every day in making judgments. If somebody has a history of lying I will be less likely to trust them. If they have ulterior motives it is useful to know them. Even pseudo-anonymity has some benefit over absolute anonymity, like registered accounts on Slashdot, because people are concerned about their reputations, even for pseudonyms. There's a reason a lot of snide and shallow comments are posted anonymously.
As for protecting your safety, I submit that is far overblown. Lots of people use their real names online. Actual attacks are rare. Still, I see nothing wrong with somebody that wants to protect their real identity. That is their right. However, people also have the right to investigate and call into question the identity and motives of the speaker.
When you argue with someone. Are you the type which calls their character into question before or after you call their argument it's self into question?
Depends on the context. If it's Bush saying we want to invade Iraq to protect their freedoms, I'll call into question the motives of the speaker. In this particular debate I've having with you, I'm not calling into question your character.
Diversity in ideas, yes. Diversity in attempts to improve those ideas, and test implementations, yes. Diversity in implementations of the same concept?
All the projects you mentioned are large projects with lots of room for variation. Competing projects exist in a complex ecosystem that stress some features over others. I may value usability over speed. Or I may be concerned about market dominance. Or I may be concerned about interoperability with other software. Or I may care about one particular feature that another project doesn't have. Or maybe a project has too many features and is overly complex for my needs. The list goes on and on.
Now that you've settled on a particular stack it sounds like you want everybody else to fall in line and agree with this same stack. Dream on!
That's as silly as encouraging everyone to try to build a suspension bridge in their own wacky way.
This happens all the time. Individual projects have their own unique challenges, engineering firms come up with improvements, etc. What's shared is the general design.
Next thing, you'll be advocating some sort of sane system, like choosing the best of breed technology based stats like benchmarks, and uniting behind it!
As if everybody has the same needs and wants. Diversity exists for a reason.
This either means that the username and password information in your settings.php file is incorrect or we can't contact the MySQL database server. This could mean your hosting provider's database server is down.
The MySQL error was: Too many connections.
Currently, the username is cw_blogs and the database server is 10.10.10.93.
Are you sure you have the correct username and password?
Are you sure that you have typed the correct hostname?
Are you sure that the database server is running?
For more help, see the Installation and upgrading handbook. If you are unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your hosting provider.
Chrome is a proprietary binary that can't be recreated from source. That's why it is not open source. We can thank Google for open sourcing the majority of Chrome as Chromium, but it is an absolute lie to call Chrome itself open source. If Microsoft had done this, everybody would be all over them. Google does it, and everybody is blind to it. "Oh, it's just trademarks."
I really don't care if people do or don't use Chrome, or even if Chrome is open source. What I do care about are true labels. Google should stop their lying.
Also, my understanding is that Chromium is Chrome with the logo / branding stripped out for trademark reasons, similar to Netscape / Mozilla in the early days. To say that they're separate at the moment is like arguing Linux vs Gnu/Linux. One's technically righter than the other, but they still both work.
Google portraying Chrome as open source is a Big Lie. If it was truly open source, I would be able to download the source and build the exact same binary. Instead, what they do is distribute a binary that you don't get all of the source to. That means it's based on open source, but the product itself is not open source. A proprietary binary based on 99% open source code is still a proprietary binary.
And it's not just trademarks. It also includes functionality that reports back to Google. From a blog post by a Google product manager (bits bolded by me):
"Chromium is the name we have given to the open source project and the browser source code that we released and maintain at www.chromium.org. One can compile this source code to get a fully working browser. Google takes this source code, and adds on the Google name and logo, an auto-updater system called GoogleUpdate, and RLZ (described later in this post), and calls this Google Chrome. [...] RLZ: When you do a Google search from the Google Chrome address bar, an "RLZ parameter" is included in the URL. It is also sent separately on days when Google Chrome has been used or when certain significant events occur such as a successful installation of Google Chrome. RLZ contains some encoded information, such as where you downloaded Google Chrome and where you got it from. This parameter does not uniquely identify you, nor is it used to target advertising. This information is used to understand the effectiveness of different distribution mechanisms, such as downloads directly from Google vs. other distribution channels. More information is available in the Google Chrome help center. This cannot be disabled so long as your search provider is Google. If your default search provider is not Google, then searches performed using the address bar will go to your default search provider, and will not include this RLZ parameter."
Yeah yeah, Google says they don't invade your privacy, but privacy policies aren't a replacement for open source. Wouldn't you like the source code to auto-update and phone home behavior? Wouldn't you have the source code if Chrome was actually open source? It isn't. Chromium is open source. Chrome isn't.
Snow tires suck once the road is clear. Unless you live in an extremely snowy climate they're only good on average a couple of times a month. For those times I just drive slowly and carefully.
Microsoft has always been an agent oriented company.
No way. They got their start selling BASIC. Not Visual Basic, but good old fashion "line numbers and goto" BASIC. From there it was MS-DOS. DOS for cryin' out loud. Can't get any more utilitarian then that.
The last time I communicated with my bank via their website they made a particular point about not submitting ideas or suggestions. Want a helpful feature? Sorry, don't ask.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see why you are ok with the newspaper ad model, but not with the online ad model. A lot of people do stuff in the hope of making money, but don't know if it will. If the ads work, then it supports more content. If the ads don't, then maybe the content stops getting produced. That's the way the economy works.
a single software project, with branches trying out new features
Also individual projects deciding to do their own thing. Did Linus really have to create Git from scratch? Did the Gnome team have to create yet another language? There's a huge amount of overlap with pre-existing and competing projects. You can argue why those projects needed to do their own thing, and so will everybody else that decides to start or support their new project.
When you become supreme dictator you can force a single solution. Until that time diversity will continue.
Microsoft is a price maker. They can charge whatever they want.
I don't think that's true any more. Hardware has gotten so cheap that the cost of Windows has become a big percentage of the price of the computer. Microsoft has been forced to lower their prices.
Yes, I agree.
You are correct. However, why don't we let the person on the internet choose if they want to be anonymous or not and let the reader determine the credibility of anonymous persons on the internet?
We do. As far as I know, there is no crime for posting anonymously, at least in the United States. However, people are also free to speculate on the identity of posters. How can it be any other way in a free society? When Sony astroturfs their PSP, isn't it a good thing when they are outed? If I spread libelous information about you and your family that ended up causing you harm, wouldn't you want the option of trying to find out my identity?
They filter what they say or choose to not bring up topics that might lead to repercussions (harm and safety not being limited to physical harm).
Even those who say some pretty miserable and nasty things in general don't come to harm. Also, filtering can be a good thing. Anonymous speech is also important, I agree and never said otherwise. But so are the rights to investigate. If you desire to speak anonymously do your best to protect yourself.
Every government in the past has been broken in some respect. People tend to be myopic. Read some history and political commentaries taken from an era that you think wasn't broken. The question is are things so bad that you think you need a complete overhaul, and will things be better after the overhaul. I think in general American government works ok, though of course there's always room for improvement.
Bush was just an obvious example. There are plenty more, like the Cisco "Troll Tracker" guy, Sony astroturfing, or CEO John Mackey of Whole Foods talking about his company stock. Knowing the identity of these previously anonymous players is interesting and useful information.
That doesn't mean information shouldn't be vetted in other ways, nor does the identity of the speaker automatically disqualify what was said, but the desire to know identities will not nor should it go away.
Bush has been wrong on a whole lot of things but he really meant well.
Boy you are naive. Bush, the rich and privileged son with all the ties to the oil industry, means well, and isn't interested in power or looking out for his rich friends? He didn't use the Christian-right to get elected? Please. Obama and Bush are both politicians, they say shit to get elected, and they both have their own agendas. They "mean well" in their own way.
You are only presenting one side. Yes, any system can be gamed, and knowing someone's identity isn't a guarantee of anything. Sometimes it can even be a disadvantage if we unfairly judge what somebody says just because of who they are.
On the other hand, identities are practical knowledge that people put to use every day in making judgments. If somebody has a history of lying I will be less likely to trust them. If they have ulterior motives it is useful to know them. Even pseudo-anonymity has some benefit over absolute anonymity, like registered accounts on Slashdot, because people are concerned about their reputations, even for pseudonyms. There's a reason a lot of snide and shallow comments are posted anonymously.
As for protecting your safety, I submit that is far overblown. Lots of people use their real names online. Actual attacks are rare. Still, I see nothing wrong with somebody that wants to protect their real identity. That is their right. However, people also have the right to investigate and call into question the identity and motives of the speaker.
When you argue with someone. Are you the type which calls their character into question before or after you call their argument it's self into question?
Depends on the context. If it's Bush saying we want to invade Iraq to protect their freedoms, I'll call into question the motives of the speaker. In this particular debate I've having with you, I'm not calling into question your character.
Internet anonymity is here to stay
And so is the desire to remove anonymity. Both are acceptable.
Those were halcyon days, back when Groklaw was in eveyr technorati's bookmarks, and all nerd-rage found a unifying enemy in SCO.
Not being familiar with the word "halcyon", I looked it up and got: "1. Calm and peaceful; tranquil. 2. Prosperous; golden: halcyon years."
I don't think that has quite the intended meaning for a time of war.
Diversity in ideas, yes. Diversity in attempts to improve those ideas, and test implementations, yes. Diversity in implementations of the same concept?
All the projects you mentioned are large projects with lots of room for variation. Competing projects exist in a complex ecosystem that stress some features over others. I may value usability over speed. Or I may be concerned about market dominance. Or I may be concerned about interoperability with other software. Or I may care about one particular feature that another project doesn't have. Or maybe a project has too many features and is overly complex for my needs. The list goes on and on.
Now that you've settled on a particular stack it sounds like you want everybody else to fall in line and agree with this same stack. Dream on!
That's as silly as encouraging everyone to try to build a suspension bridge in their own wacky way.
This happens all the time. Individual projects have their own unique challenges, engineering firms come up with improvements, etc. What's shared is the general design.
Next thing, you'll be advocating some sort of sane system, like choosing the best of breed technology based stats like benchmarks, and uniting behind it!
As if everybody has the same needs and wants. Diversity exists for a reason.
If the encryption isn't government-farm proof then it's kind of worthless as encryption.
This either means that the username and password information in your settings.php file is incorrect or we can't contact the MySQL database server. This could mean your hosting provider's database server is down.
The MySQL error was: Too many connections.
Currently, the username is cw_blogs and the database server is 10.10.10.93.
For more help, see the Installation and upgrading handbook. If you are unsure what these terms mean you should probably contact your hosting provider.
Please, spell out "people". You're not text messaging.
Chrome is a proprietary binary that can't be recreated from source. That's why it is not open source. We can thank Google for open sourcing the majority of Chrome as Chromium, but it is an absolute lie to call Chrome itself open source. If Microsoft had done this, everybody would be all over them. Google does it, and everybody is blind to it. "Oh, it's just trademarks."
I really don't care if people do or don't use Chrome, or even if Chrome is open source. What I do care about are true labels. Google should stop their lying.
Chrome isn't even open source, Chromium is.
Also, my understanding is that Chromium is Chrome with the logo / branding stripped out for trademark reasons, similar to Netscape / Mozilla in the early days. To say that they're separate at the moment is like arguing Linux vs Gnu/Linux. One's technically righter than the other, but they still both work.
Google portraying Chrome as open source is a Big Lie. If it was truly open source, I would be able to download the source and build the exact same binary. Instead, what they do is distribute a binary that you don't get all of the source to. That means it's based on open source, but the product itself is not open source. A proprietary binary based on 99% open source code is still a proprietary binary.
And it's not just trademarks. It also includes functionality that reports back to Google. From a blog post by a Google product manager (bits bolded by me):
"Chromium is the name we have given to the open source project and the browser source code that we released and maintain at www.chromium.org. One can compile this source code to get a fully working browser. Google takes this source code, and adds on the Google name and logo, an auto-updater system called GoogleUpdate, and RLZ (described later in this post), and calls this Google Chrome. [...] RLZ: When you do a Google search from the Google Chrome address bar, an "RLZ parameter" is included in the URL. It is also sent separately on days when Google Chrome has been used or when certain significant events occur such as a successful installation of Google Chrome. RLZ contains some encoded information, such as where you downloaded Google Chrome and where you got it from. This parameter does not uniquely identify you, nor is it used to target advertising. This information is used to understand the effectiveness of different distribution mechanisms, such as downloads directly from Google vs. other distribution channels. More information is available in the Google Chrome help center. This cannot be disabled so long as your search provider is Google. If your default search provider is not Google, then searches performed using the address bar will go to your default search provider, and will not include this RLZ parameter."
Yeah yeah, Google says they don't invade your privacy, but privacy policies aren't a replacement for open source. Wouldn't you like the source code to auto-update and phone home behavior? Wouldn't you have the source code if Chrome was actually open source? It isn't. Chromium is open source. Chrome isn't.
I can't believe you made that Voltron reference.
I'm curious what you think about your siblings' iFart comment.
Gruesome!
GET SNOW TIRES.
Snow tires suck once the road is clear. Unless you live in an extremely snowy climate they're only good on average a couple of times a month. For those times I just drive slowly and carefully.
Microsoft has always been an agent oriented company.
No way. They got their start selling BASIC. Not Visual Basic, but good old fashion "line numbers and goto" BASIC. From there it was MS-DOS. DOS for cryin' out loud. Can't get any more utilitarian then that.
Canonical is for-profit.
The last time I communicated with my bank via their website they made a particular point about not submitting ideas or suggestions. Want a helpful feature? Sorry, don't ask.