Android Developer
Must have BS in computer science or related field or equivalent experience.
Minimum 5 years developing applications to run on Google's Android.
Java certification a plus!
You figure out how to make a wheel, I see yours and copy it. I find out that you can eat tomatoes without dying, I pass the word on to you.
If I were giving those examples I would've made myself the guy smart enough to invent the wheel and let the other guy be the one dumb enough to try eating a fruit from the same family as nightshade.:)
Arguing that evolution is feasible does not in any way threaten creationism. The feasibility of evolution vs. how life came to be are not at all opposed.
Keeping with your example of a rock; if I see one on the ground you could drop another rock and say that it is feasible that that the first rock fell to the spot in which I found it, but if I held the belief that the rock was placed on the ground then your demonstration would not prove me wrong.
Now to say that my rock did fall to the ground would be opposed to my belief.
So as a creationist that doesn't believe that evolution is crazy I do feel that this is tangential to the question of the origin of life.
You didn't directly respond to anything that I said but you seem to be dismissing my one-language-fits-all stance. I'm simply arguing that Java has merits that make programming complex projects in it more realistic than programming the same in something like C++.
If I were to say that C++ is simpler to program in than MIPS assembly language then few would disagree, and likewise few would object if I claimed that a programmer is more effective with MIPS assembly language than with machine code.
Other languages convey the same benefits of Java: JavaScript and Python are two examples. I just also prefer statically typed languages for the same reason that I prefer languages that don't let me change what memory a pointer is referencing.
Java is a good language to use for an organization standard. It eliminates several classes of errors (wild pointers, buffer overflows, and memory leaks) and may have less of a learning curve as a result. Today's enterprise code is far too large to avoid problems like these cropping up somewhere. For this reason I think that Java should be used for everything that doesn't require either a scripting language or direct control over hardware.
I am not a lawyer. Don't rely on this in court based on my say-so.
Interesting, but I think that it is a purchase.
You are purchasing the license, not the software itself. In most cases I'd say you're also purchasing the media that the software is on, but then there are those occasional EULAs that stipulate that the original material must be destroyed if the license is violated (if I'm recalling that correctly).
Also, I would say that you'd have a hard time referring to anything as "renting" if you pay a one time fee for indefinite use of it.
The phrasing of "licensed not sold" does leave some room for debate about what exactly the licensor intends, though.
I'm not a person who says that one can read only the KJV. I'm more of a fan of the NASB because I want as literal a translation as I can get. That said, it's my understanding that the KJV is a very literal translation. While there are certain problems with it, its vocabulary does a better job of accommodating the meanings of the original languages than does that of today's versions, which often sacrifice nuances in meaning in favor of being understandable to your average Joe. Also, the "thee"s and "thou"s as opposed to "you"s and "your"s add the ability to distinguish between singular and plural you, as did ancient Hebrew.
Christians didn't "seize power" in Rome. Constantine had a vision of a cross with a banner under it saying something like "by this you will conquer". He made a gold cross, took it into battle, and conquered Rome. Thereafter he declared a belief in Jesus and changed the state religion. It was one of the worst things that has happened to Christianity since faith in Jesus is supposed to mean suffering in this world, not triumph in it. Many of the decisions he made changed the Church for the worse (Christians were impoverished pacifists before Constantine).
I'd rather spend twice as much on last year's hardware than buy a computer from Wal-Mart. I'm not big on the whole slavery thing. Do I know that these are made by workers in sweatshops? No, but I am convinced that abused labor in the U.S. and abroad is how Wal-Mart consistently undercuts its competitors. I wouldn't even buy something made legitimately from a store that was willing to abuse so many people to make money.
Jesus says "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other You cannot serve God and wealth." (Matthew 6:24) (NASB).
I know which one Wal-Mart serves, and I'm not willing to take part in their evil dealing to save myself a few hundred dollars.
I read the license agreement for Java 6u1. I noticed it referenced a file called THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.txt. So I read that. All 176 KB of it. Some of those licenses referenced yet more licenses, not all of which were included in the third party license file (and those that were included were included by coincidence, it seems). I've hunted down most of those but at least one may not exist in any place that I could find it anymore. A couple interesting notes from this experience:
1) The file is not formatted to be human readable. It seems that Sun doesn't care about it as anything more than a legal necessity.
2) Preceding each program in that file is the statement "The following software may be included in this product: [Some Software's Name] Use of any of this software is governed by the terms of the license below:" Sun says these things may be included. They don't seem to put enough effort into maintaining it to even be able to say that certain programs are not included.
3) I am not a lawyer, but from my understanding, as I was reading it, I recalled realizing that Sun fails to abide by the letter of some of those EULAs. For example, it is not obvious where I can obtain source code for any of the programs that the distributor is required to make it available for. I believe that there are other problems as well.
4) As I noted above I searched the internet for licenses referenced by the third party license agreements. In omitting those fourth party license agreements Sun, it seems to me, has effectively stolen certain software.
5) (The point that makes this post a relevant response to Parent) There are three W3C licenses that I've found in this process. They all require affirmation that the user has read, understood and will comply with their licenses prior to even obtaining the licensed material. As far as EULAs for free software go, this one certainly requires that it is read. At least one of these licenses is GNU GPL compatible, too, so it is, in fact, a free software license.
So as a Java coder who believes that, before God, he should obey the restrictions that the owners of software put on their property I find these things, especially point number five (since I used Java before I read those licenses) to be troubling.
There doesn't seem to be any way for a third party (the maker of the software) to insinuate itself into the transaction.
I suppose that if Dell were not part of the transaction then Sheehan should be suing the retailer for selling him a defective product. Potentially then the retailer would be able to sue Dell. Of course that assumes that Dell and the retailer don't have some agreement governing such things.
...Would be to refuse. I just quit my job because my employer's practices were illegal, and even though I don't believe I would've been doing anything illegal in participating I chose not to because I didn't want to disrespect the law, because I didn't want to help him break the law, and because I didn't want to be a hypocrite for telling him not to do something while I was glad for the opportunity since it gave me a job.
I suggest reading Romans chapter 13 in the Bible. It talks about the necessity of obeying the governing authorities.
"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27) (NASB)
If you're a Christian then cleave to that. Jesus' blood washes away those stains, but do what's good in the first place.
I am not necessarily opposed to reforming copyright law. My point is simply that while it is illegal to pirate music it should not be done. You're certainly correct that copyright law should be fine-tuned to benefit society, but right now it is what it is. People seem to say that because the law is bad they should be able to pirate music and hopefully someday the law will be changed. I don't think that that is a right way to look at it. My statements that pirating music is immoral are based on the law granting ownership of copyrighted material to the copyright owners, thus making it stealing to pirate music, and on it being moral to follow the law and immoral to break it (when the law itself is not inherently immoral).
Please don't take this post as being unloving on my part. I know I disagree strongly with the opinions of many people here.
The prevalent attitude amongst this community of users seems to be that stealing music is morally acceptable because "downloading music doesn't hurt sales", "the RIAA is a bunch of jerks", "I bought the song so nobody should be allowed to tell me what I'm allowed to do with it", and/or "I can't get it anywhere else". None of these reasons justify stealing.
Does piracy hurt sales? Maybe it hurts them a lot, maybe a little, or maybe it helps them, none of those things give you the right to decide that you can take for free the copyrighted material of someone else. If piracy helps music sales then the RIAA still has the right to stick with an unprofitable business model. It's not for you or I to usurp someone else's rights saying that it's for their own good. From what I read on Slashdot the RIAA seems to target innocent people who already have significant burdens in life or don't know much about computers and networks so that the RIAA can change or clarify laws by courtroom verdicts. That's wrong and Yahweh sees it. For those that think that it's okay to steal from the RIAA because they're evil; that eye-for-an-eye approach to justice is also wrong. If you bought the song online from someone who had the right to sell it then you bought it under the condition that you were not allowed to reproduce and redistribute it. I'm trying to think of how to put this bluntly enough to make it obvious without sounding insulting... You are being provided with a song that you aren't entitled to own at all. You can't take advantage of an offer that you're not entitled to and then cry out "oppression" because it's not everything you desire. Maybe you actually can't get a song in any legal way. Well, it's the property of someone else. If they choose not to sell it then that's their prerogative. People seem to think that they have more rights than they actually do. I think it was last year in France that there were protests over proposed legislation to make it easier to fire an employee. From the perspective of most Americans it is absurd to think of a company being obligated to retain any employee, especially an unprofitable one. Should a company not be allowed to terminate an employee that they feel is doing an unacceptable job, or to let some people go to save the whole company from bankruptcy (note that I'm not saying it's right to let someone end up on the street if it can be avoided)? Likewise this attitude of entitlement to music or the right to do with a digitized song whatever one wants is unfounded.
You need to follow your conscience on this. One is justified toward God according to his faith. You obviously do not have faith in this matter (and rightly so, I say). The apostle Paul gets at this when he speaks by the Holy Spirit, and teaches the Corinthian Christians concerning eating food sacrificed to idols, which some thought was wrong and others didn't:
"However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled." (1 Corinthians 8:7)
But some things are clear cut moral issues. For instance, one can't commit adultery, regardless of what their beliefs about it toward God are. I would say that your situation sounds like one of those instances. Don't be part of men or women selling their bodies to anyone with an internet connection.
Regarding the money, serve God faithfully, giving up whatever you need to, and be faithful to him for your daily bread. Better to be poor on earth and store up treasures in heaven. And sometimes God may expect us to live in abject poverty for the sake of our convictions, but "For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him." 2 Chronicles 16:9 (NKJV)
James speaks with zeal toward those Christians who are too attached to the world. "Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." James 4:4 (NKJV)
'O Corinthians! We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open.
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
" I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people."
Therefore
" Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you."
" I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the LORD Almighty."'
2 Corinthians 6:11-18 (NKJV)
It seems hard, and the enemy may try to make you ashamed for standing up for morals in a world where money is more important, but have this encouragement:
"Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it." 1 Corinthians 10:12-13 (NKJV)
dudcolony @ yahoo dot com
If you're concerned about morality, I've heard it said that Google makes most of its money from advertising that appears with pornography searches. I don't say that Microsoft is perfect -I'm sure they're far from it- but do with the unfounded information what you will. In any case, I'm sure Google makes a lot of money off of pornography. And that in addition to censoring their content in China, but again, I don't know too much about Microsoft aside from their anti-competitive business practices.
IANAM (I am not a mathematician) but I once attended a lecture where the speaker was an expert on Kurt Gödel. He claimed that Gödel's incompleteness theorem can be applied to prove that one cannot make perfect antivirus software. Either it will be too strong (imagine labeling everything a virus) or it will not be strong enough. If, therefore, Microsoft can't prove that their security is perfect then one might argue that competitors should be allowed their crack at it.
I say security in a reasonable OS can't be perfect because they could obviously make it secure by removing internet support and so on, but that wouldn't be reasonable.
It is my understanding that Microsoft feels allowing competitors to override their security system would pose a security risk itself. If that's the case then there are merits to both points of view to debate, but at the end of the day I believe that this would just strengthen Microsoft's monopoly.
It's ironic that many Slashdot readers probably agree with George Orwell's 1984 that restrictions placed on language can potentially limit ideas, but at the same time many of the same readers seem to feel (based on scanning a few posts) that preventing viewing violent pornography will have no impact on sexual abuse. That media puts thoughts into people's minds that would probably not be there otherwise, and would probably be less extreme if violent pornography was not so prolific.
Slashdot Mirror
Android Developer Must have BS in computer science or related field or equivalent experience. Minimum 5 years developing applications to run on Google's Android. Java certification a plus!
You figure out how to make a wheel, I see yours and copy it. I find out that you can eat tomatoes without dying, I pass the word on to you.
If I were giving those examples I would've made myself the guy smart enough to invent the wheel and let the other guy be the one dumb enough to try eating a fruit from the same family as nightshade. :)
Arguing that evolution is feasible does not in any way threaten creationism. The feasibility of evolution vs. how life came to be are not at all opposed.
Keeping with your example of a rock; if I see one on the ground you could drop another rock and say that it is feasible that that the first rock fell to the spot in which I found it, but if I held the belief that the rock was placed on the ground then your demonstration would not prove me wrong.
Now to say that my rock did fall to the ground would be opposed to my belief.
So as a creationist that doesn't believe that evolution is crazy I do feel that this is tangential to the question of the origin of life.
Obligatory comment body. I finished what I had to say in the subject.
You didn't directly respond to anything that I said but you seem to be dismissing my one-language-fits-all stance. I'm simply arguing that Java has merits that make programming complex projects in it more realistic than programming the same in something like C++.
If I were to say that C++ is simpler to program in than MIPS assembly language then few would disagree, and likewise few would object if I claimed that a programmer is more effective with MIPS assembly language than with machine code.
Other languages convey the same benefits of Java: JavaScript and Python are two examples. I just also prefer statically typed languages for the same reason that I prefer languages that don't let me change what memory a pointer is referencing.
Java is a good language to use for an organization standard. It eliminates several classes of errors (wild pointers, buffer overflows, and memory leaks) and may have less of a learning curve as a result. Today's enterprise code is far too large to avoid problems like these cropping up somewhere. For this reason I think that Java should be used for everything that doesn't require either a scripting language or direct control over hardware.
I am not a lawyer. Don't rely on this in court based on my say-so.
Interesting, but I think that it is a purchase.
You are purchasing the license, not the software itself. In most cases I'd say you're also purchasing the media that the software is on, but then there are those occasional EULAs that stipulate that the original material must be destroyed if the license is violated (if I'm recalling that correctly).
Also, I would say that you'd have a hard time referring to anything as "renting" if you pay a one time fee for indefinite use of it.
The phrasing of "licensed not sold" does leave some room for debate about what exactly the licensor intends, though.
I'm not a person who says that one can read only the KJV. I'm more of a fan of the NASB because I want as literal a translation as I can get. That said, it's my understanding that the KJV is a very literal translation. While there are certain problems with it, its vocabulary does a better job of accommodating the meanings of the original languages than does that of today's versions, which often sacrifice nuances in meaning in favor of being understandable to your average Joe. Also, the "thee"s and "thou"s as opposed to "you"s and "your"s add the ability to distinguish between singular and plural you, as did ancient Hebrew.
Christians didn't "seize power" in Rome. Constantine had a vision of a cross with a banner under it saying something like "by this you will conquer". He made a gold cross, took it into battle, and conquered Rome. Thereafter he declared a belief in Jesus and changed the state religion. It was one of the worst things that has happened to Christianity since faith in Jesus is supposed to mean suffering in this world, not triumph in it. Many of the decisions he made changed the Church for the worse (Christians were impoverished pacifists before Constantine).
I'd rather spend twice as much on last year's hardware than buy a computer from Wal-Mart. I'm not big on the whole slavery thing. Do I know that these are made by workers in sweatshops? No, but I am convinced that abused labor in the U.S. and abroad is how Wal-Mart consistently undercuts its competitors. I wouldn't even buy something made legitimately from a store that was willing to abuse so many people to make money.
Jesus says "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other You cannot serve God and wealth." (Matthew 6:24) (NASB).
I know which one Wal-Mart serves, and I'm not willing to take part in their evil dealing to save myself a few hundred dollars.
I read the license agreement for Java 6u1. I noticed it referenced a file called THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.txt. So I read that. All 176 KB of it. Some of those licenses referenced yet more licenses, not all of which were included in the third party license file (and those that were included were included by coincidence, it seems). I've hunted down most of those but at least one may not exist in any place that I could find it anymore. A couple interesting notes from this experience:
1) The file is not formatted to be human readable. It seems that Sun doesn't care about it as anything more than a legal necessity.
2) Preceding each program in that file is the statement "The following software may be included in this product: [Some Software's Name] Use of any of this software is governed by the terms of the license below:" Sun says these things may be included. They don't seem to put enough effort into maintaining it to even be able to say that certain programs are not included.
3) I am not a lawyer, but from my understanding, as I was reading it, I recalled realizing that Sun fails to abide by the letter of some of those EULAs. For example, it is not obvious where I can obtain source code for any of the programs that the distributor is required to make it available for. I believe that there are other problems as well.
4) As I noted above I searched the internet for licenses referenced by the third party license agreements. In omitting those fourth party license agreements Sun, it seems to me, has effectively stolen certain software.
5) (The point that makes this post a relevant response to Parent) There are three W3C licenses that I've found in this process. They all require affirmation that the user has read, understood and will comply with their licenses prior to even obtaining the licensed material. As far as EULAs for free software go, this one certainly requires that it is read. At least one of these licenses is GNU GPL compatible, too, so it is, in fact, a free software license.
So as a Java coder who believes that, before God, he should obey the restrictions that the owners of software put on their property I find these things, especially point number five (since I used Java before I read those licenses) to be troubling.
There doesn't seem to be any way for a third party (the maker of the software) to insinuate itself into the transaction.
I suppose that if Dell were not part of the transaction then Sheehan should be suing the retailer for selling him a defective product. Potentially then the retailer would be able to sue Dell. Of course that assumes that Dell and the retailer don't have some agreement governing such things.
...Would be to refuse. I just quit my job because my employer's practices were illegal, and even though I don't believe I would've been doing anything illegal in participating I chose not to because I didn't want to disrespect the law, because I didn't want to help him break the law, and because I didn't want to be a hypocrite for telling him not to do something while I was glad for the opportunity since it gave me a job.
I suggest reading Romans chapter 13 in the Bible. It talks about the necessity of obeying the governing authorities.
"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." (James 1:27) (NASB) If you're a Christian then cleave to that. Jesus' blood washes away those stains, but do what's good in the first place.
I am not necessarily opposed to reforming copyright law. My point is simply that while it is illegal to pirate music it should not be done. You're certainly correct that copyright law should be fine-tuned to benefit society, but right now it is what it is. People seem to say that because the law is bad they should be able to pirate music and hopefully someday the law will be changed. I don't think that that is a right way to look at it. My statements that pirating music is immoral are based on the law granting ownership of copyrighted material to the copyright owners, thus making it stealing to pirate music, and on it being moral to follow the law and immoral to break it (when the law itself is not inherently immoral).
Please don't take this post as being unloving on my part. I know I disagree strongly with the opinions of many people here.
The prevalent attitude amongst this community of users seems to be that stealing music is morally acceptable because "downloading music doesn't hurt sales", "the RIAA is a bunch of jerks", "I bought the song so nobody should be allowed to tell me what I'm allowed to do with it", and/or "I can't get it anywhere else". None of these reasons justify stealing.
Does piracy hurt sales? Maybe it hurts them a lot, maybe a little, or maybe it helps them, none of those things give you the right to decide that you can take for free the copyrighted material of someone else. If piracy helps music sales then the RIAA still has the right to stick with an unprofitable business model. It's not for you or I to usurp someone else's rights saying that it's for their own good. From what I read on Slashdot the RIAA seems to target innocent people who already have significant burdens in life or don't know much about computers and networks so that the RIAA can change or clarify laws by courtroom verdicts. That's wrong and Yahweh sees it. For those that think that it's okay to steal from the RIAA because they're evil; that eye-for-an-eye approach to justice is also wrong. If you bought the song online from someone who had the right to sell it then you bought it under the condition that you were not allowed to reproduce and redistribute it. I'm trying to think of how to put this bluntly enough to make it obvious without sounding insulting... You are being provided with a song that you aren't entitled to own at all. You can't take advantage of an offer that you're not entitled to and then cry out "oppression" because it's not everything you desire. Maybe you actually can't get a song in any legal way. Well, it's the property of someone else. If they choose not to sell it then that's their prerogative. People seem to think that they have more rights than they actually do. I think it was last year in France that there were protests over proposed legislation to make it easier to fire an employee. From the perspective of most Americans it is absurd to think of a company being obligated to retain any employee, especially an unprofitable one. Should a company not be allowed to terminate an employee that they feel is doing an unacceptable job, or to let some people go to save the whole company from bankruptcy (note that I'm not saying it's right to let someone end up on the street if it can be avoided)? Likewise this attitude of entitlement to music or the right to do with a digitized song whatever one wants is unfounded.
You need to follow your conscience on this. One is justified toward God according to his faith. You obviously do not have faith in this matter (and rightly so, I say). The apostle Paul gets at this when he speaks by the Holy Spirit, and teaches the Corinthian Christians concerning eating food sacrificed to idols, which some thought was wrong and others didn't: "However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled." (1 Corinthians 8:7) But some things are clear cut moral issues. For instance, one can't commit adultery, regardless of what their beliefs about it toward God are. I would say that your situation sounds like one of those instances. Don't be part of men or women selling their bodies to anyone with an internet connection. Regarding the money, serve God faithfully, giving up whatever you need to, and be faithful to him for your daily bread. Better to be poor on earth and store up treasures in heaven. And sometimes God may expect us to live in abject poverty for the sake of our convictions, but "For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him." 2 Chronicles 16:9 (NKJV) James speaks with zeal toward those Christians who are too attached to the world. "Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." James 4:4 (NKJV) 'O Corinthians! We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open. Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: " I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." Therefore " Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you." " I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty."' 2 Corinthians 6:11-18 (NKJV) It seems hard, and the enemy may try to make you ashamed for standing up for morals in a world where money is more important, but have this encouragement: "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it." 1 Corinthians 10:12-13 (NKJV) dudcolony @ yahoo dot com
I think that you're just unlucky. I find that they work consistently.
I believe Microsoft has an optional hardware upgrade available for download on Windows Update.
If you're concerned about morality, I've heard it said that Google makes most of its money from advertising that appears with pornography searches. I don't say that Microsoft is perfect -I'm sure they're far from it- but do with the unfounded information what you will. In any case, I'm sure Google makes a lot of money off of pornography. And that in addition to censoring their content in China, but again, I don't know too much about Microsoft aside from their anti-competitive business practices.
IANAM (I am not a mathematician) but I once attended a lecture where the speaker was an expert on Kurt Gödel. He claimed that Gödel's incompleteness theorem can be applied to prove that one cannot make perfect antivirus software. Either it will be too strong (imagine labeling everything a virus) or it will not be strong enough. If, therefore, Microsoft can't prove that their security is perfect then one might argue that competitors should be allowed their crack at it. I say security in a reasonable OS can't be perfect because they could obviously make it secure by removing internet support and so on, but that wouldn't be reasonable. It is my understanding that Microsoft feels allowing competitors to override their security system would pose a security risk itself. If that's the case then there are merits to both points of view to debate, but at the end of the day I believe that this would just strengthen Microsoft's monopoly.
It's ironic that many Slashdot readers probably agree with George Orwell's 1984 that restrictions placed on language can potentially limit ideas, but at the same time many of the same readers seem to feel (based on scanning a few posts) that preventing viewing violent pornography will have no impact on sexual abuse. That media puts thoughts into people's minds that would probably not be there otherwise, and would probably be less extreme if violent pornography was not so prolific.