That's Doctor Turing to you.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
That's Doctor Turing to you.
With this initiative, we intend to refute the statistics of certain press organizations that ensure [sic] that the use of GNU/Linux does not exceed 1% and has not advanced in recent years at the desktop. If you want to help us accomplish this goal, please participate in our statistics!
Link to Original Source
- Since none of you majored in CS, how do you know the "vice versa" part?
- CS isn't just about software development. (Admittedly, a BSCS mostly is.)
- I've seen what non-CS people call software "competency" and I think we might disagree on what that term means.
(Sorry if this sounds a little bit gruff.)
Well said! -- although a lot of people seem to be confused about what you mean. Even those who are trying to defend you seem to misunderstand you.
Let me take a stab at restating this:
Defenders of draconian copyright enforcement are always complaining about how expensive it is to develop their creative works. They've invested soooo much! (Or they cite the money they project they could make -- from an economic standpoint, it's the same thing.) They paint a picture of a huge pile of money, invested in their art. And all that money, that mountain of cash, is regarded as the justification for strict laws against those 'stealing' their MPEGs or MP3s: 'We've invested a lot, so we are entitled to a lot of protection.' What skywire is pointing out is that, per se, a massive investment doesn't entitle you to anything. Ideally the rule of law exists only for the good of society, and if it protects material investment sometimes, it does so only as a means to the end of guarding society.
- If you spend a ton of money on developing a music business, that doesn't entitle you to warp copyright law and abuse the judicial system to save your business from drowning in red ink.
- If you invest a ton of money in opening a coal mine and hiring miners, that doesn't entitle you to disregard safety laws, even if fulfilling them would bankrupt your mining company.
- Maybe you spend your money financing a militia and propping up a South American dictator so that your banana company can pay low wages and stay profitable, but you're not entitled to anything but disapprobation.
- Maybe you spend good money buying children to work your cacao plantations in Cote d'Ivoire, but if I had anything to do with it, you would forfeit your entire investment and spend the rest of your life in prison.
The 'but I paid good money' argument is spurious -- yet it is cited as justification for legal and moral outrages both large and small. In fact, the law should serve the people, not just the investors.
I think you are giving the Goog too much credit. Were they not sniffing wifi packets, like wardrivers? To their credit, they weren't caught: they turned themselves in. But what they were doing involved no TOS -- the traffic they intercepted and recorded (which might have been encrypted, for all you and I know) simply wasn't theirs, and they should not have been recording it.
Lame analogy: if I don't lock my front door when I go to the store, I'm pretty stupid but it still doesn't give a passerby the right to come in and photograph my belongings.
it's a losing battle as long as the public awareness of the importance of privacy is nonexistent.
Well, I hope you are wrong. One good thing about Facebook's recent spastic blunders is that at a few, at least, have realized that privacy is something fragile that deserves some protection. If those of us who care will beat the drum from time to time, others just might wake up. In other words, I'm not yet willing to call it a hopeless battle.
"Making everyone happy" was never on my to-do list. "Not get reamed by the corporatocracy" is on my list and remains there. As much as others might enjoy the familiarity of having complete strangers call them by name, and the convenience of having merchandise instantly charged to their accounts, *I* am selfish enough to sacrifice all those pleasures just so that I might exert a little bit of control over what others know about me.
This is a job for government regulation. We don't trust the free market with important things like ensuring food safety, protecting the environment, or verifying whether pharmaceuticals are effective. Why should we trust the free market with personal privacy?