The fact of the matter is, all the computer models in the World and wildassed guesses mean that we know very little about how the planet, and solar system for that matter, are warming and what the ultimate side effects of that warming are.
Ding ding!! Troll!!
Computer models are not, in fact, wildassed guesses. If you know otherwise, please explain. I'm sure the world's climate modellers would love to know what you're basing that assertion on... unless it's a wild-assed guess, of course? Just a hunch.
Of course the models aren't perfect, and of course there is more to learn about the past & present climate. Yes, climate's a very complex, non-linear system, with emergent features, unexpected interactions, and the model's grids are getting finer and finer each year. Still, we know much more than you suspect, with much more certainty than you seem to think. As I keep saying, if you know better than tens of thousands of very intelligent, dedicated, hard-working scientists, with massive amounts of data, published in peer reviewed journals, I'm sure we'd all love to hear about it. If you're just spouting off on Slashdot cos you just don't like hippies, well enjoy your drought (if you're in the west of the US), your -30 degrees big freeze if you're in the NE, your thaw if you're in the arctic north, and your crumbling economy wherever your are.
Remember, if it gets warmer or cooler it is global warning. How can you argue with 100 years of decent weather data when the Earth has been here for hundreds of millions years?
You seem to be implying that we only have a tiny data set to base these models and predictions on; if that's your understanding, this may enlighten you somewhat. Or see the 'paleoclimate' section on RealClimate.org. If I misunderstood your point, apologies... cheers!
The article states that since 1790 the earth's global temperature has risen 0.8 degrees.
In almost a quarter of a millenia this is the change. Excuse me if I remain skeptical that this was caused by human activity.
Regardless of what a newspaper article says, the hard scientific evidence is that global temps have risen about 0.6 degrees C in the last century; the computer models (which DO actually produce a good fit with observations, trolls notwithstanding) are consistent with this and show rapidly accelerating response to human CO2 emissions in the next century. Here, read all about it. Now, if you know an actual reason to be sceptical of the worldwide scientific consensus, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Oh, that was just your opinion based on nothing much at all? Welcome to Slashdot;)
It sounds to me like you've swallowed various mythical memes orginally perpetuated by the iol industry and associated nutty colulmnists, radio DJs and looney congressmen. Here, a free cup of scientific rationalism based on hard data, peer-reviewed journals, flame-free discussion by people who actually know what they're talking about (as opposed to 'well I program computers, and the way it looks to me is... well, that film was science fiction, wasn't it, and I don't like hippies, and hippies worry about the environment, and they want me to stop driving my car or lose my job and go back to living in a teepee,.. so, uhh,... it's all bollocks!
If you can find reasoned objections to the Real Climate.org articles, by all means come back and discuss 'em here. Alternatively, I hear that Nature and Science (and GeoPhys. Review Letters and a zillion other journals) are always on the lookout for exciting new research breakthroughs. I know I'd love to hear 'em, so bring it on...
a Swedish scientist was warning about global warming in the early 20th century. Nobody did anything then, nothing meaningful is being done now.
Well it's not like me to preach positivity and optimism on this topic:) but... things aren't necessarily all bad.
Firstly, the Swedish scientist you refer to was the first to even posit that human CO2 could affect the climate. There was very little evidence at that time to support the hypothesis. Fortunately, an absolute mountain of data has been collected since then, especially in the fields of paleo-climate (proxy records such as tree rings, sediment and ice cores and many many others) that give us a much better of how climate changed in the past, and how atmospheric composition and other factors such as vulcanism, gas hydrates and so on played in the mix. Secondly, computerised models have exploded in power and sensitivity. Modelling the climate is a massively difficult job - as it happens, this is one area where Linux and Free software is helping to save the world, with many of the world's supercomputers using Linux to run climate models (the Earth Simulator, f'rinstance).I believe the UK's well respected Hadley Centre uses a lot of Perl, too.
Thirdly, data about what's happening now is vastly superior - starting with the Hawaiian CO2 records in the 50s, to today's miriad of satellite, atmospheric and oceanic sensors.
Finally, despite the US government's wilful disdain for the science (tho' Bush now finally accepts the basic thesis - they just don't want to join Kyoto for stupid domestic political reasons), the majority of the rest of the world aren't that stupid and ARE actually taking action. Kyoto has now been ratified. As the scientific evidence gets stronger, more action will be taken in the next few decades. Neither China nor India want to see their nascent industrial/social revolutions destroyed by climatic catastrophes or massively increased cost of pollution, and everyone outside the US can see the straightforward economic bonuses from investing in energy conservation, renewables, adn even (in some cases) even nuclear power. (If China wants to do that, well that's their lookout. Good luck to them.) I know the plural of 'anecdote' isn't 'data' but a couple of personal anecdotes: here in the UK, completely without publicity as far as I'm aware, traffic lights have been replaced with LED clusters, and solar and wind(!) powered signs are sprouting around my curent location in the West Country. That's right, I'm talknig electrically lit road signs with small solar arrays on top, and I've seen at least one larger signs with a small, perhaps 1.5m diameter, wind turbine on the top. "Mao tse Tung said... 'The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step'" (as well as 'change must come through the barrel of a gun"... oops, wrong meeting!;)
Finally, personal activities can help. Replace your lightbulbs with energy efficient ones. Switch to LCD displays as your CRTs wear out. Use energy efficient transport where available; use your dollars (pounds, Euros, yen, roubles...) to invest and notonly will you be helping the planet - you'll be saving money,too. Think about it.
And if you're still feeling as depressed as you sound, perhaps see your doctor...
Sadly, the BBC's once excellent Horizon series seems to have shilled out to misrepresenting real science in the interests of sensationalism and keeping Soho's post-production CGI and compositing shops in work; the jury on Real Climate is still out (see the two detailed articles there) but it seems likely that (a) the supposed amazing new research is in fact not terribly new and is already taken account of in the computer models; and (possibly) (b) that Dr Peter Cox, a highly respected climatologist, was deliberately misrepresented. I am a firm adherent to the scientific orthodoxy on anthropogenic climate forcing (broadly: it's happening, fast, and bad consequences are likely to follow) but, as with the IPCC reports, it behoves those of us trying to educate the rest of the population to be cautious and conservative (small 'c') in predictions. The IPCC's middle trend line will cause disasterous enough consequnces as is, without needing to invent any more of it (as Marvin would say.) If the real-world climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing turns out to be greater that assumed, or other unpredicted non-linear effects show up (which is quite likely) it will become obvious fairly rapidly. Arguably the last decade's run of record high temperatures, dramatic off-expected trendline warming in the arctic, apparent signs of increased loss of Greenland ice, western European heatwaves, and the various other datapoint 'straws in the wind' are now starting to add up to that evidence - that we're at, nearing, or just past a tipping point - but the oil, SUV and US military-industrial industries will jump all over any perceived weakness or exaggeration in the scientific case for urgent, immediate action. There's no need to give them any more ammo.
Sadly I haven't the time to read this story at 1 or 2 to read this week's climate change trolls. Could I therefore just request that anyone about to opst about Michael Crichton, the 'new ice age we were warned about in the 1970s', farting cows, fluctuations in the sun's output, or anything else that attempts to deny the basic scientific consensus on climate change that they please go and read the relevant RealClimate.org articlesfirston their current misapprehension first, then include a reasoned explanation of how the scientists have all got it wrong. (Explanations based on the assumption of a world-wide scientific conspiracy will be moderated down to -1... I hope.)
Except that we have enough time, before the death of the Sun, to travel the interstellar distances to any of a million? or billions? of stars that have planets we could support human life with...
Right, you get going on the magic physics-busting FTL drives, meanwhile the rest of the planet can start mining the trillions of tons of metals needed to build a spaceship big enough to sustain a population of 6 and a half billion. See you in orbit! Trekkies should be banned from voting MIO. Twerp.
Curses, an opportunity to debunk this myth / troll once and for all missed - I must check slashdot front page more often! Once a day is not enough!!
Anyway for a beautiful, comprehensive, authoritative debunking of this myth, read this excellent article by respected climate scientists with refs to articles in actual proper real peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to Newsweek.)
This has been a Climate TrollBuster service.
YAAT(BYHL).HAND.
The Crichton book gets a comprehensive and authoritative trashing over at RealClimate.org, and here, too. Good reading (Real Climate, that is, not the Crichton garbage!)
No, foo.txt is not art - the criteria is in the file contents.
I agree that it's up to teh individual author (or these days, corporation) to decide what weight to put on each factor when deciding whether to Free, Open or notFree their own software. I think history shows that the generally correct answer to such conundrums tends to take a long time (relative to internet time, anyway) to emerge; it's the aggregate of many many such decisions over several decades, and the aggregate results of those decisions. Although FSW dates from 1984, or the 70s if you include the BSD, it's only really crossed onto business radar in the last five years or so. Corporations have a natural resistance to change, especially such a dramatic change in business model which could potentially destroy the company. So it'll take time.
To me it's simply that FSW has been nicer to work with, and easier to get help with. I see it surviving on technical merits rather than moral merits.
Ah, the 'open source' argument rather than the 'FSF' argument. That was what got me looking into Linux Perl & Apache in the first place - they were so clearly superior to the proprietary equivalents, even when I wasn't paying for the things myself. But as I get older I'm becoming less reasonable and more of a zealot... (isn't it supposed to be the other way round?:)
Ultimately I guess even the full-blown FSF argument is a utilitarian argument - we should be free to share 'our stuff' with friends, neighbours, co-workers etc, ultimately, because it makes us 'feel bad' not to be able to do so. (This isn't explicitly stated in the FSF docs as far as I'm aware, but seems logical.) RMS feels sufficiently better for his sense of moral superiority to make up for the lost pleasure of, say, using Photoshop or playing Unreal.
The trouble with the 'best tool for the job' approach is that sometimes the proprietary tool is the most technically superior. GIMP vs. Photoshop is the canonical example I think. RMS' arguments about why it's important for users etc to understand the 'Freedom' issue makes sense to me (I forget the filename, it's easy to find on fsf.org.)
There's no reason that I can think of why you couldn't make your onsulting work free - from the client's PoV that would be better. If you GPL what you sell them they get the source
IIRC, Iceland has one of the world's highest rates of chronic alcoholism.
Hmmm, cheap mass transit, interesting geology and climate, isolated from the outside world but with good bandwidth, and plenty of drinking budies... sounds like an ideal place to live! And best of all, Bjork's not there any more:)
jesus christ, why doesn't anyone ever take a few moments out to learn what it really does before forming an opinion on it.
Hmm... 691306... you're new here, aren't you. Welcome to slashdot, where the ability to (insert preferred menial technical activity) makes you an instant expert on every topic under the sun, from business practices, the law, IC engineering, and... (the favourite hangout for the ill-informed trolls) climate change and modelling!
To be fair, the ratio of idiot posts saying "Duh, don't these so-called 'scientists' realise the sun is getting hotter?" (or whatever) seems to be decreasing of late.
If you read the article (and I'd love to find the actual paper, but I don't think it's up oni any prepreint servers yet - the Meeting where they're presenting isn't for some time) they used some proxy measurements and well-understood modelling techniques to extend their dataset, both spatially and time-wise.
I can type a book into ViM just like my code. I can then make it
available on my website, bittorrent, P2p, etc. You can download it,
share it, etc. The only significant difference between it and code is
that it probably won't compile and run...
How is this not like software?
(a) because software is ultimately mathematics (algorithms), whereas
literature is art;
(b) you were talking about *publication* costs - not about the content
alone.
You are implying that their expectation (to be paid) is relevant to
whether they SHOULD be paid.
Actually, I was implying they won't work unless they get paid. Subtle
difference. Many people need money for shelter and food.
Oh, well that wasn't what you said. If they all quit their jobs
tomorrow of course they won't get paid. But people clearly can make a
good living from FSW so the point is moot.
Ok, so you accept that it's perfectly possible to make a living
through FSW. Good!
It's possible to make money teaching penguins to tap-dance. So what?
That doesn't mean it will be successful.
We're talking about software, not tap-dancing. You accept that it's
possible to make a living thru' FSW (we've already established that.)
If they're not successful (at making a living) then they AREN'T making
a living, are they.
Now - given that FSW is less bad than non-FSW (as the users have more
rights), it follows that if one CAN do something that is less bad than
an alternative, one is morally compelled to act that way - or shrug
one's shoulders and say 'well, I could be doing less harm in the world
than I am doing, but (I just don't care | don't believe it is
important enough | other reasons for producing nonFSW)."
This is an *odd* philosophy that rather implies "perfect scenarios."
Not at all, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is a pretty
well-established concept in both formal and folk philosophy (how most
people seek to live their lives.)
You're assuming that making money on FSW is just as *easy* and
profitable as with closed source. Otherwise you're asking the person
to go out of their way, and possibly bankrupt themselves and
employees, for the "greater good."
Once again, that's only a difference of degree. Thought experiment: if
you as a non-FSW developer, or a company selling nonFSW, were
guaranteed the same income or profitability - in other words all
things being equal - FSW would be preferred to nonFSW. It's the
(assumed) marginal loss of income or profitability (or numbers
employed,... there are lots of ways to quantify 'success' of course)
that dictates that nonFSW is preferred. Very well then, what if
profits (or your salary) was 1% less? Would your answer to the latter
question be any different if your income was 10 times greater than it
is now? See, the point is, (to misquote Churchill) we've already
decided what kind of developer you are; now we're just haggling about
the price;)
I diagree that one has such a duty. If one can do good with no risk to
themself or income then I would agree that they have the duty to do
good. But to ask the person to risk their own livelihood for others is
asking too much. This may be where we disagree.
Yes I think we're getting to the nub. Of course many questions
arise... such as: how do you quantify risk? How do you quantify things
such as 'peace of mind' (or 'smug hippy bastard quotient' if you
prefer)? Apart from anything else many things are unknowable. For
example I started the gradual process of moving away from non-FSW
eight or nine years ago; I had no idea at that time that I'd be able
to make my living fiddling around with Apache and Perl after four
years, whilst still using Outlook, Word and so on for mail, publishing
my CV and so on; or that in 2005 I'd be able to make a living doing
security stuff using Windows solely for pen-test practice labs.
Umn. No. It doesn't. I'm well familiar with the difference. Would you care to explain why you think I confuse the two?
Sure. Your original comment asked 'Would you ask an author to give away his books for free?' , clearly in the 'free beer' sense.
argues by analogy (books != software);
Which is not by itself wrong...
Not sure what you mean. Software is unlike books in at least one significant respect (cost of production) and therefore the analogy is false.
uses the fact that people expect something to happen to justify it above alternatives;
No it doesn't, perhaps you misunderstood me.
Your original comment says "...developers... think of their code.. as an end result of their labors. Labors they expect to be paid for."
You are implying that their expectation (to be paid) is relevant to whether they SHOULD be paid. If that was not what you meant, why mention the expectation?
...seems to make all the classic troll/misapprehensions about not being able to make a living with Free software.
No, I don't. But you seem to be making the classic assumption that one *must* give away code for Free/free/gratis/libre.
Ok, so you accept that it's perfectly possible to make a living through FSW. Good! Now - given that FSW is less bad than non-FSW (as the users have more rights), it follows that if one CAN do something that is less bad than an alternative, one is morally compelled to act that way - or shrug one's shoulders and say 'well, I could be doing less harm in the world than I am doing, but (I just don't care | don't believe it is important enough | other reasons for producing nonFSW)."
At the risk of confirming some unfortunate stereotypes, I am in fact vegetarian. I take your point that people have differing definitions of morality, and in fact I really am genuinely interested in asking the question "where do people disgree with the FSF/RMS view of FSW?".
(And yes, I do drink alcohol and in the past... smoked a LOT of weed. But I did just cut my hair short for the first time in 5 years so I guess my name's off the great Freak Rollcall of Honour...
Yes, because the point is not that I question your right to distribute yuor software however you wish, but that I question why you do so, given the RMS / FSF ethical arguments for FSW. I don't believe it's because all non-FSW devs are evil, or stupid, or utterly venal; I think it's most likely because they don't agree with the FSF argument, and I'm trying to work out where and why that is. That was the point, I'm afraid, perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly.
You are missing the point. Of course I'm not advocating every non-FSW developer quits a job writing non-FSW the very second they finish reading this comment, then go home to wife & children saying "well kids, looks like you can forget about college - we're all going to work at McDonalds 'cos Daddy's new hippy friend with the big beard says so".
It is perfectly possible to move from earning a living writing 100% non-Free SW to one 100% the other way without going hungry in the meantime. And of course many, many people DO support their families with FSW in one form or another, whether core development, customisation, admin, support, consultancy, distribution, blah blah blah. So the ethical question 'why write non FSW' isn't answered by "that's what I'm doing now" let alone "it's the only way I can make a living". The second is virtually never true, the first ignores the possibility that one can change what one is doing gradually over time...
Before I answer your question, let me offer you a question: every second, several children dies from starvation. You're now reading Slashdot. Why aren't you out donating money to the Red Cross instead?
You don't have to answer that for me, because I know the answer. You simply don't care enough. Evolution hasn't equipped you with the ability to care for people you can't see or hear, but that are only numbers in a newspaper, if even that. So you don't care.
I was going to jump in after the first paragraph, but then I thought I'd quote your insults in full. You, who know nothing of me but what I said in my comment, not only claim to know that I'm not 'out donating to the Red Cross', but adduce this to a genetic predisposition towards not caring. I wonder whether you have a genetic predisposition towards being an arsehole? My guess is that it has more to do with your development environment, but anyway...
You've raised a real question in amongst the abuse though, which is: how does one decide whether the moral logic of Free software compells me to use it in preference to non-Free software, when there are many thousands of people suffering far worse things than lack of Free software? A: It's a false dichotomy. I do, as a matter of fact, contribute in various ways to various charitable orgs that have nothing to do with computers per se. But I am not a doctor, or a development worker,.. I am a computer-person for want of a better term. I try my best not to do things that appear to harm others, that's all. No doubt there is more I could do for others, but I don't see use of FreeSW as either inconsistent with doing anything else to help others, or as any kind of personal sacrifice. All I've done is to gradually move away from helping a system that harms me (as a user) and others (encouraging non-Free SW companies by giving them money or supporting / developing with their SW.)
As for the moral question, should we work on FSW, the answer is probably "no" for most people as well. The reason being that while a world wholly deprived of proprietary SW might be a better one than the one we currently live in (though I and many others doubt that. It's possible, but difficult to estimate), there are so many much, much more worthy causes to fight for before it comes to that, eliminating world poverty being one.
Again, it's not one-or-the-other; and anyway, FSW has the happy side-effect of being more utility to the world's poor.
Go outside every once in a while, will you? If you think the existence of NF SW is the worst evil in the world today, you're in for bit of a surprise. Then you'll be the one with trouble sleeping.
Of course NFSW isn't the worst evil in the world today. Do you think humanity as a species should make a collective list of Evil Stuff to elliminate, and then work down it one item at a time? 'Right, that's world poverty elliminated! Now to tackle the brutal trench warfare that's swept the planet!" If I see a big beetle on the footpath, I avoid stamping on it and instead will generally pick it up or prod it off into the undergrowth. How can I live with myself, not stamping on beetles, when there are children starving in the third world?!
Slashdot Mirror
Computer models are not, in fact, wildassed guesses. If you know otherwise, please explain. I'm sure the world's climate modellers would love to know what you're basing that assertion on... unless it's a wild-assed guess, of course? Just a hunch.
Of course the models aren't perfect, and of course there is more to learn about the past & present climate. Yes, climate's a very complex, non-linear system, with emergent features, unexpected interactions, and the model's grids are getting finer and finer each year. Still, we know much more than you suspect, with much more certainty than you seem to think. As I keep saying, if you know better than tens of thousands of very intelligent, dedicated, hard-working scientists, with massive amounts of data, published in peer reviewed journals, I'm sure we'd all love to hear about it. If you're just spouting off on Slashdot cos you just don't like hippies, well enjoy your drought (if you're in the west of the US), your -30 degrees big freeze if you're in the NE, your thaw if you're in the arctic north, and your crumbling economy wherever your are.
YAAT (BYHL). HAND!
If you can find reasoned objections to the Real Climate.org articles, by all means come back and discuss 'em here. Alternatively, I hear that Nature and Science (and GeoPhys. Review Letters and a zillion other journals) are always on the lookout for exciting new research breakthroughs. I know I'd love to hear 'em, so bring it on...
Well it's not like me to preach positivity and optimism on this topic :) but... things aren't necessarily all bad.
Firstly, the Swedish scientist you refer to was the first to even posit that human CO2 could affect the climate. There was very little evidence at that time to support the hypothesis. Fortunately, an absolute mountain of data has been collected since then, especially in the fields of paleo-climate (proxy records such as tree rings, sediment and ice cores and many many others) that give us a much better of how climate changed in the past, and how atmospheric composition and other factors such as vulcanism, gas hydrates and so on played in the mix. Secondly, computerised models have exploded in power and sensitivity. Modelling the climate is a massively difficult job - as it happens, this is one area where Linux and Free software is helping to save the world, with many of the world's supercomputers using Linux to run climate models (the Earth Simulator, f'rinstance).I believe the UK's well respected Hadley Centre uses a lot of Perl, too.
Thirdly, data about what's happening now is vastly superior - starting with the Hawaiian CO2 records in the 50s, to today's miriad of satellite, atmospheric and oceanic sensors.
Finally, despite the US government's wilful disdain for the science (tho' Bush now finally accepts the basic thesis - they just don't want to join Kyoto for stupid domestic political reasons), the majority of the rest of the world aren't that stupid and ARE actually taking action. Kyoto has now been ratified. As the scientific evidence gets stronger, more action will be taken in the next few decades. Neither China nor India want to see their nascent industrial/social revolutions destroyed by climatic catastrophes or massively increased cost of pollution, and everyone outside the US can see the straightforward economic bonuses from investing in energy conservation, renewables, adn even (in some cases) even nuclear power. (If China wants to do that, well that's their lookout. Good luck to them.) I know the plural of 'anecdote' isn't 'data' but a couple of personal anecdotes: here in the UK, completely without publicity as far as I'm aware, traffic lights have been replaced with LED clusters, and solar and wind(!) powered signs are sprouting around my curent location in the West Country. That's right, I'm talknig electrically lit road signs with small solar arrays on top, and I've seen at least one larger signs with a small, perhaps 1.5m diameter, wind turbine on the top. "Mao tse Tung said... 'The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step'" (as well as 'change must come through the barrel of a gun"... oops, wrong meeting! ;)
Finally, personal activities can help. Replace your lightbulbs with energy efficient ones. Switch to LCD displays as your CRTs wear out. Use energy efficient transport where available; use your dollars (pounds, Euros, yen, roubles...) to invest and notonly will you be helping the planet - you'll be saving money,too. Think about it.
And if you're still feeling as depressed as you sound, perhaps see your doctor...
Sadly, the BBC's once excellent Horizon series seems to have shilled out to misrepresenting real science in the interests of sensationalism and keeping Soho's post-production CGI and compositing shops in work; the jury on Real Climate is still out (see the two detailed articles there) but it seems likely that (a) the supposed amazing new research is in fact not terribly new and is already taken account of in the computer models; and (possibly) (b) that Dr Peter Cox, a highly respected climatologist, was deliberately misrepresented. I am a firm adherent to the scientific orthodoxy on anthropogenic climate forcing (broadly: it's happening, fast, and bad consequences are likely to follow) but, as with the IPCC reports, it behoves those of us trying to educate the rest of the population to be cautious and conservative (small 'c') in predictions. The IPCC's middle trend line will cause disasterous enough consequnces as is, without needing to invent any more of it (as Marvin would say.) If the real-world climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing turns out to be greater that assumed, or other unpredicted non-linear effects show up (which is quite likely) it will become obvious fairly rapidly. Arguably the last decade's run of record high temperatures, dramatic off-expected trendline warming in the arctic, apparent signs of increased loss of Greenland ice, western European heatwaves, and the various other datapoint 'straws in the wind' are now starting to add up to that evidence - that we're at, nearing, or just past a tipping point - but the oil, SUV and US military-industrial industries will jump all over any perceived weakness or exaggeration in the scientific case for urgent, immediate action. There's no need to give them any more ammo.
Thank you.
Anyway for a beautiful, comprehensive, authoritative debunking of this myth, read this excellent article by respected climate scientists with refs to articles in actual proper real peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to Newsweek.)
This has been a Climate TrollBuster service. YAAT(BYHL).HAND.
This is one sad, sad motherfucker.
The Crichton book gets a comprehensive and authoritative trashing over at RealClimate.org, and here, too. Good reading (Real Climate, that is, not the Crichton garbage!)
I agree that it's up to teh individual author (or these days, corporation) to decide what weight to put on each factor when deciding whether to Free, Open or notFree their own software. I think history shows that the generally correct answer to such conundrums tends to take a long time (relative to internet time, anyway) to emerge; it's the aggregate of many many such decisions over several decades, and the aggregate results of those decisions. Although FSW dates from 1984, or the 70s if you include the BSD, it's only really crossed onto business radar in the last five years or so. Corporations have a natural resistance to change, especially such a dramatic change in business model which could potentially destroy the company. So it'll take time.
Ah, the 'open source' argument rather than the 'FSF' argument. That was what got me looking into Linux Perl & Apache in the first place - they were so clearly superior to the proprietary equivalents, even when I wasn't paying for the things myself. But as I get older I'm becoming less reasonable and more of a zealot... (isn't it supposed to be the other way round?Ultimately I guess even the full-blown FSF argument is a utilitarian argument - we should be free to share 'our stuff' with friends, neighbours, co-workers etc, ultimately, because it makes us 'feel bad' not to be able to do so. (This isn't explicitly stated in the FSF docs as far as I'm aware, but seems logical.) RMS feels sufficiently better for his sense of moral superiority to make up for the lost pleasure of, say, using Photoshop or playing Unreal.
The trouble with the 'best tool for the job' approach is that sometimes the proprietary tool is the most technically superior. GIMP vs. Photoshop is the canonical example I think. RMS' arguments about why it's important for users etc to understand the 'Freedom' issue makes sense to me (I forget the filename, it's easy to find on fsf.org.)
There's no reason that I can think of why you couldn't make your onsulting work free - from the client's PoV that would be better. If you GPL what you sell them they get the source
Hmmm, cheap mass transit, interesting geology and climate, isolated from the outside world but with good bandwidth, and plenty of drinking budies... sounds like an ideal place to live! And best of all, Bjork's not there any more :)
Hmm... 691306... you're new here, aren't you. Welcome to slashdot, where the ability to (insert preferred menial technical activity) makes you an instant expert on every topic under the sun, from business practices, the law, IC engineering, and... (the favourite hangout for the ill-informed trolls) climate change and modelling!
To be fair, the ratio of idiot posts saying "Duh, don't these so-called 'scientists' realise the sun is getting hotter?" (or whatever) seems to be decreasing of late.
If you read the article (and I'd love to find the actual paper, but I don't think it's up oni any prepreint servers yet - the Meeting where they're presenting isn't for some time) they used some proxy measurements and well-understood modelling techniques to extend their dataset, both spatially and time-wise.
(a) because software is ultimately mathematics (algorithms), whereas literature is art;
(b) you were talking about *publication* costs - not about the content alone.
Oh, well that wasn't what you said. If they all quit their jobs tomorrow of course they won't get paid. But people clearly can make a good living from FSW so the point is moot.
We're talking about software, not tap-dancing. You accept that it's possible to make a living thru' FSW (we've already established that.) If they're not successful (at making a living) then they AREN'T making a living, are they.
Not at all, 'the greatest good for the greatest number' is a pretty well-established concept in both formal and folk philosophy (how most people seek to live their lives.)
Once again, that's only a difference of degree. Thought experiment: if you as a non-FSW developer, or a company selling nonFSW, were guaranteed the same income or profitability - in other words all things being equal - FSW would be preferred to nonFSW. It's the (assumed) marginal loss of income or profitability (or numbers employed,... there are lots of ways to quantify 'success' of course) that dictates that nonFSW is preferred. Very well then, what if profits (or your salary) was 1% less? Would your answer to the latter question be any different if your income was 10 times greater than it is now? See, the point is, (to misquote Churchill) we've already decided what kind of developer you are; now we're just haggling about the price ;)
Yes I think we're getting to the nub. Of course many questions arise... such as: how do you quantify risk? How do you quantify things such as 'peace of mind' (or 'smug hippy bastard quotient' if you prefer)? Apart from anything else many things are unknowable. For example I started the gradual process of moving away from non-FSW eight or nine years ago; I had no idea at that time that I'd be able to make my living fiddling around with Apache and Perl after four years, whilst still using Outlook, Word and so on for mail, publishing my CV and so on; or that in 2005 I'd be able to make a living doing security stuff using Windows solely for pen-test practice labs.
You are implying that their expectation (to be paid) is relevant to whether they SHOULD be paid. If that was not what you meant, why mention the expectation? Ok, so you accept that it's perfectly possible to make a living through FSW. Good! Now - given that FSW is less bad than non-FSW (as the users have more rights), it follows that if one CAN do something that is less bad than an alternative, one is morally compelled to act that way - or shrug one's shoulders and say 'well, I could be doing less harm in the world than I am doing, but (I just don't care | don't believe it is important enough | other reasons for producing nonFSW)."
Top tip! Thanks for that, I'll pass it on...
thanks, I'll google around.
(And yes, I do drink alcohol and in the past... smoked a LOT of weed. But I did just cut my hair short for the first time in 5 years so I guess my name's off the great Freak Rollcall of Honour...
Yes, because the point is not that I question your right to distribute yuor software however you wish, but that I question why you do so, given the RMS / FSF ethical arguments for FSW. I don't believe it's because all non-FSW devs are evil, or stupid, or utterly venal; I think it's most likely because they don't agree with the FSF argument, and I'm trying to work out where and why that is. That was the point, I'm afraid, perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly.
It is perfectly possible to move from earning a living writing 100% non-Free SW to one 100% the other way without going hungry in the meantime. And of course many, many people DO support their families with FSW in one form or another, whether core development, customisation, admin, support, consultancy, distribution, blah blah blah. So the ethical question 'why write non FSW' isn't answered by "that's what I'm doing now" let alone "it's the only way I can make a living". The second is virtually never true, the first ignores the possibility that one can change what one is doing gradually over time...
You've raised a real question in amongst the abuse though, which is: how does one decide whether the moral logic of Free software compells me to use it in preference to non-Free software, when there are many thousands of people suffering far worse things than lack of Free software? A: It's a false dichotomy. I do, as a matter of fact, contribute in various ways to various charitable orgs that have nothing to do with computers per se. But I am not a doctor, or a development worker,.. I am a computer-person for want of a better term. I try my best not to do things that appear to harm others, that's all. No doubt there is more I could do for others, but I don't see use of FreeSW as either inconsistent with doing anything else to help others, or as any kind of personal sacrifice. All I've done is to gradually move away from helping a system that harms me (as a user) and others (encouraging non-Free SW companies by giving them money or supporting / developing with their SW.)
Again, it's not one-or-the-other; and anyway, FSW has the happy side-effect of being more utility to the world's poor. Of course NFSW isn't the worst evil in the world today. Do you think humanity as a species should make a collective list of Evil Stuff to elliminate, and then work down it one item at a time? 'Right, that's world poverty elliminated! Now to tackle the brutal trench warfare that's swept the planet!" If I see a big beetle on the footpath, I avoid stamping on it and instead will generally pick it up or prod it off into the undergrowth. How can I live with myself, not stamping on beetles, when there are children starving in the third world?!- confuses Free beer with free speech;
- argues by analogy (books != software);
- uses the fact that people expect something to happen to justify it above alternatives;
- seems to make all the classic troll/misapprehensions about not being able to make a living with Free software.
Thanks for playing