Slashdot Mirror

My concern is that the government will, without our input (except from fulltime pundits), enact just such legislation "for the good of society".

If we don't move first on this subject by creating an organization with by-laws that [1] suit our purposes and [2] blunt proposals from other players, then we will be someday (soon) forced to play by a rulebook written for us, not by us.

Btw: I don't think losing a license because of a corporation would be very likely. For example, I don't think I have ever heard of a lawyer losing his license that way.

In fact, I think that developers would be at an advantage if they had a professional society behind them which could defend them against a corporation.

To me, it's really a matter of chosing the lesser of two evils. The first evil (doing nothing) will result in shackles being put on us by others. The second evil also involves shackles but we would hold the keys.

Also, don't forget the difference in society between licensed trades (e.g., electricians and plumbers) and licensed professions (e.g., doctors and lawyers). If we do nothing we will be a licensed trade but if we act on our own we can be a licensed profession.

I think that many of these issues should be handled by making the practice of software a licensed profession like law or medicine.

Right now, the only real players in this arena are the government and corporations who together have a largely shared agenda. There needs to be a third player with an agenda that is sufficently different so as to make a difference. Also, that third player needs to be sufficiently powerful so as to be a peer to others.

If in order to practice software commercially you had to be licensed; and if to be licensed you had to uphold a code of ethics; and if you could be "disbarred" for violating that code of ethics; and if that code of ethics contained statements about privacy such as "no user tracking without the user's explicit knowledge and consent"; then something about these issues could be accomplished.

Since I am here on this subject anyway, I would also point out that such a code of ethics could include clauses about not writing code with the purpose of breaking a competitor's product; not releasing programs without disclosing known bugs; and so on.

As things stand now, if a developer is told to do something questionable there is little recourse for the developer except to do it or quit. If, however the developer could say "that violates my professional code of ethics and if you insist then the Software Practioners' Professional Society will have something to say about it" then much could be accomplished.

There will be those whose blood pressure will sky rocket at the mention of licensing developers but to me it is foolish to ignore the inevitable in the hope that it will go away. Even plumbers and electricians are licensed and pretty much all the harm they can do is damage a single building. The distributed nature of software makes the potential for damage much greater.

Consider the total economic damage of a 747 crashing due to a mechanical failure. For this there is always a major international investigation that lasts years and heads do roll.

Now consider the total economic damage of a system which allows the propogation of something like ILOVEYOU. Where is the investigation? What rules and regulations are being imposed to prevent a recurrence?

This state of affairs will not be allowed to continue much longer. The field of software has been the "Wild West" for about as long as the real "Wild West" existed. Civilization (no matter what one thinks of it) is coming.

If licensing is inevitable, then we should take action ourselves now because we have a choice between being a trade and being a profession. If we don't make that choice for ourselves, it will be made for us and we probably won't like the results.

So, yes I think that software could prevent many violations of privacy. However, that software would have to become ubiquitous and transparent. No one currently with the power to accomplish that has any interest in making it so. It is up to us.

The key word here is public. The software that you develop for private use is not the topic of discussion here. The topic is the development of software with which the public comes in contact.

The same way that you can practice law (or even surgery) on your own behalf, you will be able write software on your own behalf. However, as soon as you write software for someone else, then you will be regulated. You can cook in your kitchen any way you like but all restaurants are subject to the health inspector.

Yes, perhaps some companies will choose non-professional developers the same way some companies let non-lawyers make legal decisions. The consequences will be similar. When the company finds itself in court (and anyone actually in business will find themselves in court someday), it will be at a disadvantage because it will not be able to prove that it took all reasonable steps to avoid negligence.

Your final point is a strawman. It is illogical to ignore something you don't like (i.e., probable legislation) and hope it goes away.

Yes, I am serious.

Consider driving. We require a driver's license before we let someone on the road. It is not sufficient to be self-taught, you have to prove a level of proficiency. Even after you get a car driver's license you are not allowed to operate an 18 wheeler until you obtain an additional license.

Public safety is at stake here and whether we like it or not, licensing will happen. My grandparents remember a time when driver's licenses were not required but today no one would consider repealing the requirement.

We can be reactive and wait for a qualification-free self-taught programmer to write some code that kills someone and then have pointless regulations forced on us by legislators without a clue, or we can be proactive and regulate ourselves in a rational fashion.

If we wait, then we will have demonstrated the same level of forethought as children and we will be treated as such. If we do it ourselves, we can turn our jobs into a recognized profession. The choice is up to us and time is running out.

Btw: the rationale for why we are exempt is not actually because we are "professionals" (which, traditionally, has implied licensing).

The rationale is in the U.S. Code, Title 29 (Labor), Chapter 8 (Fair Labor Standards), Section 213 (Exemptions).

If you enjoy paranoia, you could say it looks like a collusion between Washington lawyers and Silicon Valley executives to keep IT salaries from approaching those of Washington lawyers or Silicon Valley executives! Of course, just because you are paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! :-)

I don't know much about it but there is a "Programmer's Guild" that has started. Their URL is http://www.colosseumbuilders.com/american.htm.

There is no reason why people in IT should not have the same pay and societal status as doctors and lawyers. To accomplish that objective, I would propose that in order to legally practice software development a person:

• Should have graduated from an accredited program with a B.S. in [something appropriate to be determined]
• Should pass a state regulatory exam
• Should have to maintain an audit trail of their work so that personal accountability can be maintained

Yes, these are onerous artificial barriers to entry but so are the barriers that the AMA and ABA put up for their members. It is the barrier to entry that gives doctors and lawyers what they have.

To garner the support of people already in the field, there should be a grandfather clause. FOO years of documented experience will get you in. BAR years of documented experience and a degree in BAZ will also get you in.

There would be a genuine benefit to society by doing this as well. By requiring licensed professionals, the releasing of untested and buggy programs would be greatly reduced as the law would now be on our side instead of the side of the PHB.

The same way that the crash of an airplane or the collapse of a structure now causes a public outcry and an investigation into why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again, there would be an investigation of things like ILOVEYOU which would lead to systems that are actually engineered (and can legally make that claim) rather than glued together with spit and bailing wire.

The precedents for this are well established. In almost any other field that affects public safety there are regulations. Sometimes there is no immediate personal benefit to the worker (e.g., a busboy who has to comply with the health inspector's directives) and sometimes there is a lot of benefit to the worker (e.g., the lawyer who has to be a member of the bar to practice).

It is up to us here today to decide whether the inevitable regulations will be imposed by us or on us and whether or not we will benefit from those regulations by becoming autonomous professionals or regulated peons.

Your first point #3 is completely right. I know a small ISV who wrote a terminal emulator package for use as an add-on to a banking software package. The end user banks were/are unaware that the terminal emulator is a third party add-on.

As Y2K came around, he was asked to provide a letter of warranty for the supplier of the banking software saying that there were no Y2K bugs in the terminal emulator.

Even though he had tested the emulator and believed that there were no bugs, he had to lose the continued sales because the risk of being brought into a lawsuit by being associated with the main software (which he knows contains bugs) far outweighed any profits he might make.

As a result, the banking software developer had to throw away a terminal emulator that had three years of field testing (i.e., everyone knew it worked) and start from scratch writing a new package (complete with new bugs).

I have no idea if it is a "good" web server but I thought people might be interested to know that there is a Lisp-based web server project at MIT.

Some people here have asked [1] why someone with a bachelor's would attend and [2] what's with the 6x12 work estimate.

As far as [1] is concerned, I would guess that this program is mainly aimed at people with degrees in something other than CompEng/Sci who need the technical skills from the ground up. A person who already has most of the technical skills can just attend the three week bootcamp or do the home study course.

As far as [2] is concerned, the 72 hours/week includes homework so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me, considering that it is supposed to be an MIT-level curriculum.

No, you understand me. I am not in favor of taxing online transactions. I was joking though about getting Congress to act to "level" an already pretty level playing field.

There are really a couple of related points here (to me). The first was "Do online/mailorder stores operate at an unfair advantage to B&M retail?". Having done a bit of both, my conclusion is no. They each face different but relatively equal obstacles. No playing field is perfectly flat and anyone who doesn't like their current position (online/mailorder or B&M) should change strategies.

I think that Wal-Mart et alia have seen a way that a Mom'n'Pop might someday be a competitor and the retail giants are preparing to squash that tiny probability by lobbying Congress to collect taxes that will hardly affect the giants but will cripple the little guys. Of course, since they are basically waving money right under the noses of politicians, this may not be too tough of a sell.

The other point has to do with whether or not online (and by obvious extension, mailorder) merchants should now be subjected to sales tax when they have not been before. To me, unless there is some specific need for increasing the revenues collected through taxes, then one cannot even begin to justify increased tax collections.

Considering that the government (at all levels) currently has more than enough revenue, then I don't see any justification for new or additional taxes of any sort.

To me, the entire point of taxes is to pay for communal needs that cannot be conveniently paid for by individuals one at a time (such as national defense and emergency services). Once those bills are being paid, then it is wrong (unethical bordering on criminal) for the government to seek additional revenue.

Note to people at Slashdot: could this window please get a little bigger? It is far too small!

First my "humor" tags are missing from your quotation from my posting where I facetiously asked when Congress was going to level this playing field.

First point, you are totally overlooking the additional costs an online business faces. High overhead in Oracle (or equivalent) databases, 24x7 servers, programmers and 24x7 technical support not at minimum wage. A real building to house the servers. None of that is cheap.

Compare the cost of Wal-Mart having the customer come in to pick up their purchase ($0) vs. having to ship each purchase to the buyer. The cost of paying for delivery from the manufacturer or distributor to the point of sale is the same in each case. Can you say "additional expense"?

Ahem, you cannot pay the taxes with a program on a CDROM. All you can do is calculate them. And guess what? Traditional mail order hasn't done this in the past unless the sale was to someone where they have a presence. Ever notice the fine print that says things like Residents of state X must pay sales tax? That is because people elsewhere are not paying the sales tax. You are supposed to declare and pay any sales tax on such purchases on your state income tax form but nearly nobody does.

The point is that if a mail order merchant or an online merchant makes one $10 sale to a particular remote (low volume) tax jurisdiction and then has to calculate the tax, cut a check, mail the check to proper authority (paying postage on the way), and retain records there is zero profit left. This is a fact of business, there are not the margins to support these expenses.

Let's also get into returns and credit card fraud. Online/mailorder merchants pay much higher fees to process credit cards because they never have the card physically. There is more actual fraud which drives up costs on the other side. When a customer wants to return an item there is the additional complication of tracking a return and making certain it actually arrives intact before generating the refund. Compare this to looking in the box, dropping it on the floor behind the counter and returning the cash.

In closing, anyone who thinks that being an online merchant is the fast track to millions and that online merchants are operating at some sort of advantage to B&M merchants has never done retail on either side. I think they should give it a try and collect those millions they seem to think are hanging from the low branches. I'll listen a lot closer when they've succeeded.

Online businesses already operate under several disadvantages such as [1] shipping costs;[2] a lack of consumer confidence in doing business online vs. a local store where they can deal with a store manager if needed; and [3] credit card processing fees (you can't pay cash online and bad checks fees make them too expensive to consider, even though you can process them completely online). <humor>What is Congress going to do to level that playing field?</humor>

The purchasing power of companies like Wal-Mart enables them to buy their inventory at prices that are much lower than small local businesses (including those who are pure online businesses). In my own business efforts I have been quoted wholesale prices that are higher than Wal-Mart's retail prices!

There is another major problem with sales taxes for online transactions: delivering those taxes to the appropriate jurisdiction. There are over 7,000 tax jurisdictions in the U.S. alone. How is a small business that only made one or two sales into a particular tax jurisdiction supposed to [1] calculate those taxes accurately with current tax table information; [2] cut and deliver a check to the appropriate authority; [3] fill out their income tax form listing the 7,000 different sets of sales taxes the paid during the year; [4] maintain several years of tax records; [5] make a profit?

To those who say that sales taxes online are inevitable and should happen, I just have to ask Why?. Taxes are paid only to provide pubic services. If public services are being provided then there is no need to collect additional tax revenues in any way.

I don't think it does. It seems to me that the word "speech" means whatever form an idea takes when it is outside of someone's head. There can be many forms depending on the media and intended audience involved.

Consider for example, when I want to ask for a waitress for a slice of cherry pie. I first have the idea and then I express it via a modulated air medium in accordance with the English language protocol. The waitress then acts as bridge by transferring the thought from the air media to the paper media of her order pad. I don't know or care if she is using the English protocol, Gregg shorthand, or what (so long as it is a protocol she has in common with the cook!).

Anyway, to cut to the chase, ultimately the idea I had of getting a piece of pie is acted upon. By the time it is acted on my original voice instructions may have been transformed into electrical impulses impinging on the brain of that guy with the artificial eye so he can "see" my order which now happens to be represented as a sequence of photographs of a man sending semaphore.

I am trying to be ridiculous in my example to show that it is the transmission of thought (or perhaps a better word is "will") that needs protection, not what is commonly thought of as "speech". This results in the protection of things like art and protest acts (their example was draft card burning).

You might like to check out http://www.snipix.freeserve.co.uk/hercules.htm where you can get "Hercules". To quote from the site:

Hercules is a System/370 and ESA/390 emulator which can IPL and execute S/370 and ESA/390 instructions. It can also emulate CKD and FBA DASD, printer, card reader, tape, and local non-SNA 3270 devices.

True, it is an emulator and not a native OS but it is interesting.

Ooops! Mea culpa! You are quite right, that was NeWS, not Display PostScript. I got the following information from the http://www.postscript.org/FAQs/ language/node73.html

What is NeWS? NeWS (R.I.P.) was Sun Microsystems PostScript-based window system for the Sun Workstation. NeWS was a project within Sun (started around 1985) to create a window system to supplant SunView (a very successful kernel-based window system). NeWS was a client-server model window system (like X) but among many of NeWS novel features was the use of PostScript as the language to describe the appearance of objects on the screen. NeWS had many features in common with Display PostScript, but NeWS predates Adobe Display PostScript and was neither connected with Adobe Display PostScript nor endorsed by Adobe. NeWS was not an Adobe product, nor was it a Sun/Adobe joint venture. As of October 1992, Sun management signed a deal with Adobe to adopt Display PostScript for the Sun. In 1993, Sun finally dropped NeWS altogether. The Sun window system is supposed to start shipping a Display PostScript environment in late 1993.

Sun also used Display PostScript (even earlier than NeXT) as mentioned on this page (last sentence in the fifth paragraph).
-- OpenSourcerers

My point was not that they were my direct employees in a tax collection or regulatory sense. My point to them was that I was the one who had engaged their services. They had contractual obligations to me.

From "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition": Employ - To engage the services of.

Since they were university professors with a comprehension of the subtleties of the English language, they understood me perfectly well. No one humored anyone.

Notice it is perfectly good usage to say "Fred employed a hammer to drive the nail". In that sentence Fred is the employer and the hammer is the employee.

Your final sentence was childish (and consistent with the tone with the rest of your post) and added nothing to the discussion.

Absolutely! As someone who spent time as a professional student, I had to explain (on more that one occasion) that the faculty and staff were my employees and that I was their employer (note the direction of the cash flow as evidence). After explaining their position in life to them, they were invariably much more respectful.

The only reason universities get away with the things they do is because they are (typically) dealing with younger people who have not yet learned that they can assert themselves. (Life is much better once you can successfully pull off the "grumpy old man" routine!)

Anyway, for some substantiating evidence, look at the "continuing ed" programs (typically restricted to those over 25 - i.e., those who won't put up with stupidity) and note the differences in rules and requirements.

Also, consider the situation of students who attend part time and also work for industry. Where does that leave the university's claim to your work done on your equipment on your time?

IANAL:
In all cases of contracts which contain clauses I don't want to accept, I strike out the clause (or modify it as needed), initial and date the alterations in the margin, sign the contract, and return the contract for the signature of the other party (which happens after my modifications, therefore they have had an opportunity to read what they are signing).

I have been informed by people who are lawyers that this is quite acceptable and legally binding (upon signature of the other party) as it is a counter-offer (IANAL). I have never had anyone reject my modifications (although sometimes I have had to explain why I made them).

Instances where I have made successful counter offers include [1] standard employment contracts from HR departments and [2] lease agreements.

Remember: they are people just like you and everything is negotiable if you try.

While Windows may make package management appear easy, that is an illusion just like the rest of Windows.

The amazingly poor package management systems available to Windows users are what inevitably lead to what is so common it has a name: DLL Hell.

It is actually easier in the long run to install a program from source than to install a bunch of random executables and libraries and hope they aren't incompatible with what any number of users have previously installed.

After all, which is really easier:

1. navigate to download directory
2. run setup.exe
3. crash the next day
4. crash the next day
5. uninstall the application
6. crash same day
7. crash again later that day
8. reinstall OS

1. cd /usr/ports/databases/postgresql
2. make
3. make install
4. get on with life?

Why do I have an opinion on this? Because for the last five years my "day job" has been release engineer for a package with nearly 20,000 files and over 3 million lines of code. People really shouldn't even use "package management" and "Windows" in the same sentence!

There seems to be a pattern developing here. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and it passed the House with an unknown number of votes because it was a "voice vote" where no record is kept of who voted how.

It seems the law is pretty clear that, given DMCA, DeCSS is illegal (remember law != justice).

It seems difficult to unlikely that we will succeed in getting the DMCA revoked.

People will not boycott DVDs if there is no alternative.

We need a format that competes with DVD that is open and technically at least as capable. We then need to encourage independent content providers to support the open format.

We also need to educate consumers to prefer the open format.

The DMCA passed the Senate unanimously in May 1998 (see here) so you can blame every senator in office at that time.

It passed the House by a "voice vote" which means no record was made of how individuals voted (so just blame them all).

It was signed into law by "President" Clinton in September 1998 (see here).

All of this was done to "prepare" America for conformance with WIPO and WTO.

Things are getting scary when Pat Buchanon starts making sense!

People here should also know of the Digital Future Coalition.

Isn't the DVD CCA's ultimate objective to limit the number of DVD player manufacturers? Isn't the small number of distinct manufacturer's codes available in their scheme proof of the small number of participating manufacturers anticipated? How much is the license (the docs are "$500 per copy per title")? Is it priced to keep out "the little guys"? Isn't it illegal for corporations to collaborate to close a market to competition? Can't the algorithms be pried out of the DVD CCA into the public domain as a result?

Throughout history the world has been variously run by royals, nobles, thugs, politicians, and CEOs (yes, there is a lot of overlap between those groups).

If you want to make a difference, become a member of one of those groups (yes, your particular choices are limited) and then act. Otherwise, get used to the fact that your life will be largely irrelevant in the context of History.

If you choose to make a difference, resign yourself to the fact that you will have to completely change your mode of living. You will have to become obsessed with gaining power and control. You will probably become that which you despise.

The counter argument I am certain someone will make about revolutionaries is wrong because while revolutions shake things up for a while (perhaps even a couple of hundred years) human nature remains unchanged and so we return to the same situation again and again.

As an aside, I have to say the reference to "Libertarians having gotten what they asked for" indicates an incomplete understanding of Libertarianism (no offense intended).

It seems to me that by prohibiting the functionality of deCSS, the DVD CCA is tying together two different products (DVDs and DVD players) much like when IBM said "you can't connect third party devices to your IBM computer" or when printer/copier manufacturers said that you had to use their toner/paper or lose any warranty.

After all, the DVD CCA et alia are a consortium conspiring to keep people out of their DVD manufacturers club by creating an artificial barrier to entry (access to the decryption algorithm). The barrier is artificial because it really only affects playback devices, not copying. Therefore they are effectively engaging in fixing the price of DVD players by limiting competition, which is a crime.

Could the defense be effective on this sort of idea? See here for more ideas on these lines.