This, coupled with vision to understand what your software 1) needs to do today (and what it doesn't), 2) will need to be capable of doing tomorrow, and 3) how to code so that 1 doesn't get in the way of as many hypothetical 2's as reasonably possible. No more god damn ground-up rewrites.

I share your frustration with this topic. The Linux community runs itself in circles with endless discussions, each comment detailing a specific body of code that needs fixed before Linux can become its best. But the problem is endemic.

I feel we could be ten times further along than where we are now. The current state of Linux and related software is impressive, all made possible by the community driven approach. The unfortunate reality is that competing software ecosystems are equally impressive, and made possible in the almost exact opposite way. Closed corporations, run by a hierarchies of people, each individual coder with a boss, who has a boss, who has a boss to please. At the top of that chain is a vision, which I'm convinced is the most important factor in making something meaningful happen. Apple under Steve Jobs is the best example of this, that man was nothing if not someone who made his vision happen for better or worse (in Apple's case, for better, not that it works out that way for all companies).

I'm getting too long winded with this, but I can't help but feeling that the community behind the software we use can do this more intelligently. The sweet spot between the two approaches is with well structured and defined visions for dozens of functional aspects of what makes a great Linux OS, laid out in a way that motivates people to implement their own code, on their own time, with the belief that they are adding their own unique perspective to further a shared goal. The point of all the above IS NOT that we need one vision, one Linux distro, one way of doing things. I don't want Gnome and KDE to agree on all their differences. I want all the behind the scenes concepts behind how Gnome and KDE function within themselves and with regard to other aspects of OS agreed upon; in essence, standards. Outside of that there is infinite room for individual customization and add-ons, but always a solid base to fallback on and for corporations to be able to rely on.

I find this to be a really strange example of the point you're making. Every wireless keyboard/mouse I have used has been instantly plug and play, because the receiver handles the wireless part and just presents an HID device just like a wired mouse or keyboard would. Linux has them operational literally the second I plug the receiver in, which is actually more impressive than Windows because it always takes 10-100 seconds while it sets up the device in the case of USB.

This doesn't change the truth to your point, I can think of many more obscure examples where I'd have to react the same as your friend did with regard to Linux. But I would have been confident for any random keyboard/mouse. Maybe he's had experience with different hardware than I have.

Not Wifi dildos...

You mean Google Apps? That's already a pay service. And for the free versions of those services, they certainly profit in the long run from keeping people using them.

I agree that this is a problematic part of an imperfect system, but I have to point out that this argument directly contradicts the other main complaint of slashdot moderation: that unpopular posts will get down-modded because moderators think it's incorrect (goes against their viewpoint). Either we are supposed to moderate based on factual correctness, or we aren't. Something could be informative while being incorrect, couldn't it? Now there obviously is a big difference between a comment that is factual vs. a matter of opinion, but there is a large grey area in between where these mistakes are going to happen, so we need to choose one behavior and stick with it.

If a comment is well written and convincing (how convincing something is has the most to do with how well it's moderated, I believe), but could be considered wrong, then I think it's alright in the end if it's modded-up. Hopefully, there will be a quality reply that sets the record straight and everybody reading can follow the thought process rather than just getting one answer.

Well, yeah, but I think the GP's point is that while some of those things have been in mainstream use for years, the use case for DRM is what made it important enough to be implemented.

There's no law that says I can't ASK Qwest for your information, but neither Qwest nor the feds would consider that "a lawful request." They would be held accountable if they were caught giving it to me.

But, indeed, Qwest still seems to be covering their asses with that statement as it pertains to the government. But the "lawful" aspect is referring to whether or not the person lawfully has a right to the information. This is the grey area - does it require a warrant or is that kind of info not considered to be in the same realm of private? That question has to be answered by a court at this point, and that's only if the right people get it pushed that far.

I agree. Yet again I say that the same argument can be made (effectively!) about so many other things. I'm not saying that there isn't a difference between what this robot did and what a 'heroic' person has done... you're right that there is. And I'm not saying that the robot should be considered heroic. I'm just pointing out how heroism is entirely subjective to human sentimentality and how that applies to inanimate objects is not fundamentally different than how it applies to anything else more mainstream. People want to be inspired, and in every case they create that inspiration out of normal life events.

You could say the same about a lot of other "special" things or events in this world, given an appropriate perspective on it. It's all just human sentimentality.

In fact, the law is that it is still breaking and entering even if there is no lock. The point is that the door was closed for a reason and you knew what you were doing by "forcing" it open and entering. It is fairly analogous to this case where the blogger did not need any sort of secret 'key' to falsely use the system, but there's no question that it was intentional (in fact he admits it later and gives enough damning details for Microsoft to prove it's true).

On the other hand, we tend to notice that he did not seemingly intend to take anything. We have sympathy because we appreciate the merits of it as a mental exercise and for pointing out a security loophole. But we aren't Microsoft (or any of the thousands of third parties!) who actually depend on this system for legal and financial reasons.

It all boils down to intentions. It doesn't say in the blog post, but it doesn't look like the author made any attempts to inform Microsoft of the fraudulent transactions before he posted the info publicly, and we know that it's been almost a year since he first did it. He'd have a lot more ground to stand on had he at least done that.

While I appreciate the simplicity and potential effectiveness of your solution, I can't say I blame the suits for not jumping aboard. They wanted a solution rather than a band-aid.

They have to think about what the cost will be the next time the same loophole is used, by different people (maybe more anonymous ones).