The material itself is in the public domain. However, a particular expression (i.e. publication or printing) of it may be copyrighted.
You can go to Project Guttenburg yourself and download a copy of Alice. That doesn't prevent these goofs from putting a copyright on their specific edition of it.
That's as much of the article as you need to read to understand just how messed up Jon Katz is. I know no such thing--in fact, it's one of the stupidest suppositions I've ever read, and here he is trying to state it as fact.
Honestly/., get rid of this hack. He's embarassing.
Logged into one of my boxes at work, and got this fortune:
"When you are about to do an objective and scientific piece of investigation of a topic, it is well to have the answer firmly in hand, so that you can proceed forthrightly, without being deflected or swayed, directly to the goal.
-- Amrom Katz
And of course Jon Katz posts one of his silly articles today. Very amusing!
I have to wonder if the two are related. If so, I don't think that Jon got the sarcasm gene.
Someone below mentioned that advocacy by implementation is great, and works very well. Advocacy by implementation. What a great summary!
The other point was from the article: "Passion doesn't convince. Passion makes you look like an idiot or an asshole." I've been trying to make the same point for years, but never quite got it so succinctly. Bravo!
Well, let me try again here. You're both sort of getting what I mean, and at the same time, not quite. (I take full blame for not explaining myself clearly.:-)
Competition per se is a good thing, on the whole. However, it's fairly ruthless--companies (or individuals) go up against one another, and in the end someone wins and someone loses.
The best way to become a stronger competitor is to ally yourself with someone else. In other words (ironically enough), Competition leads to collusion.
At this point I should probably point out that I'm posting from Canada, which is definitely less of a free-enterprise capitalist country than the US is. That undoubtedly colours my opinions in some manner.
Also, I don't claim to be absolutely right about this, although I do believe it. Of course, I also think that all economic and political systems are inherently unstable, and won't last more than about a century at a time, so what do I know?
It's been an interesting discussion at any rate.
For anyone who liked the buying advice stuff...
on
Deja.com Vu!
·
· Score: 4
check out www.epinions.com. I won't give you a username to credit because I don't have one. Great resource, though--better than Deja ever was.
ESR may be a good programmer, a good project manager, and a decent guy. However, he's also an evangelist. He truly believes in Linux as the Saviour against the Great Satan of MS. As a result, most of his commentary and predictions are readable only as light entertainment.
OK, maybe instead of 'defines...', I should have said 'is de facto...'
I'm afraid that I don't believe it, though. Capitalism invariably degenerates into economic head-butting. Companies that work together, only do so to compete more aggressively against the competition. Intel and MS, for instance have worked together for years because they don't directly compete, but rather complement each other; and they've leveraged that collaboration to keep the upper edge. How many Alphas running OS/2 were sold in 1995-1997? (when the agreement was at its strongest, and also when those competing companies were producing very viable consumer products)
Nope. Not in a capitalist economy. Capitalism implies (hell, it defines!) competition, conflict, and 'only the strong survive.' Competing agencies getting along is anathema to capitalism.
I wouldn't call it _too_ condescending. They've since done similar studies on other groups (mentally disturbed patients, adults in offices, etc.) and found similarly strong but not conclusive results.
I suspect it all sounds too touchy-feely new-agey for most organisations to paint their walls pink (or "rose") as a means of increased happiness/productivity. In fact, businesses in general tend to mistrust new and substantially different ideas about how they should be working. Ergonomics, colours for moods, war rooms, flex hours; and most of us are still working 8-5, M-F (theoretically!) in cube farms not much different from the secretarial pools of the 1940s.
As a corollorary, it's easy and happy to experiment on kids, because it's just as easy to dismiss important results as, "well that wouldn't work in the REAL world!"
Sorry--this is all off on a tangent. Nonetheless, business doesn't like to change.
Every computer owner (well, almost every) does indeed have to do some system administration. I wouldn't dream of arguing that point. That doesn't make them a sysadmin, though; anymore than programming admin tasks in perl makes a sysadmin a programmer. It's a matter of which task is your major job and/or skill.
First of all, "All operating systems" doesn't mean Unix and Win*.
I've considered this point quite a bit over the years. There is no way of a GUI getting entirely away from the command line as long as the base OS is still based on the command line. None!
The other side of the coin is that the command line falls naturally into place with a heirarchal file system. As long as we have the one, we'll have the other.
The Macintosh (of all things!) did it right in many ways. The command line is an extra tool--not the base level of the operating system. The Mac GUI _is_ the OS, to a greater degree than any other system out there.
Sorry, but that's just not right. There's a big
difference between a programmer administering his computer(s), and someone who's a professional, fulltime sysadmin. Calling yourself a sysadmin because you can add users and compile a linux kernel just isn't the same thing.
Well if you can always manage to do so, then you are (almost by definition) a perfect parent.
And to do that, (always and without exception), you'll have to follow your kid to school, watch over his shoulder, not let him walk home alone with friends, not let him go over to friends' houses to play, go to the library alone, wander through the library unsupervised when you go with him, etc. etc. etc.
If you are not watching your child 24 hours per day, seven days per week, then there's the chance that they'll get into something they shouldn't. After all, kids usually _want_ to get into things they shouldn't--it's part of growing up.
None of which is to say that I approve of censorware (which is almost unfailingly useless), or good parenting. Far from it--when our kids are old enough to play with the computer, I'll have a log of everything they do on it, ported to my secure box. If they get places they're not supposed to, they'll get in trouble for it. BUT, I can't completely eliminate the opportunity for them to get into trouble. It's not possible, and it's not fair to them either.
Typically organisations wouldn't file a class action lawsuit--the whole point of that item is to give organisation-like powers (and numbers) to individuals.
But a company filing a standard civil lawsuit would be interesting.
Two days late, and I don't know if anyone will read this, but I've gotta reply.
First of all, I love reading replies that start with, "No you're wrong." Saves me from having to defend myself, since there's no point.:-)
But I'm not saying that distribution is unimportant--just the specific MEANS of distribution. If there currently are means that can't be blocked, then distribution will continue.
Aside from that detail of definitions, I think we're in agreement.
"but I'm not going to consider it a viable option until the thing works on my Unix system like a Unix piece of software, not like a hacked-over piece of Windows 95 or MacOS 7 software."
That "Win or Mac" comment is hardly fair--this sort of behaviour is unacceptable on any platform for any software. Mozilla just sucks, plain and simple. It's stuck in a perpetual alpha-test stage.
my-mp3.com. napster. myplay.com. These are all ways of _distributing_ files, right? Right.
As much as they may be fighting against these distribution methods, they're not what the RIAA, etc. is really scared of. What they're quietly shitting themselves over is the mp3 format itself. Sure these things make distribution (and let's be honest, piracy) much easier; but as long as FTP, uuencode/SMTP, or HTTP are legal (i.e. they will be), people will be able to distribute them.
What I'm saying is don't get your panties in too tight of a bunch over this. Fight the RIAA for sure, but if it comes down to a choice between closing my-mp3.com and making the mp3 format (or any others for that matter) illegal, don't get distracted from the critical issue.
"As far as the other comment, that the Pu238 "can't" oxidize, well, I suppose that depends on a lot of factors. It isn't supposed to oxidize, just like launch vehicles aren't supposed to explode. Personally I think if they screwed up badly enough to hit the earth dead-on at 30K+km/h that it would be hard to imagine all the Pu remaining in solid form regardless of any attempts to protect it."
But you're utterly missing the point here. They're using plutonium dioxide. It's already oxidised, and it's not going to oxidise anymore. Period!
"Red Hat laid off personnel doing duplicate work, said spokeswoman Melissa London. "Nine acquisitions in the past year created a lot of redundancies," she said."
Regardless of the financial health of RedHat, that's a perfectly valid statement. They did a lot of buying, and now they're streamlining. This bunch of closures and layoffs isn't spelling the end of anything.
Slashdot Mirror
The material itself is in the public domain. However, a particular expression (i.e. publication or printing) of it may be copyrighted.
You can go to Project Guttenburg yourself and download a copy of Alice. That doesn't prevent these goofs from putting a copyright on their specific edition of it.
That's as much of the article as you need to read to understand just how messed up Jon Katz is. I know no such thing--in fact, it's one of the stupidest suppositions I've ever read, and here he is trying to state it as fact.
Honestly
Of course he does! Go read my "Irony of the day" post for a chuckle.
Logged into one of my boxes at work, and got this fortune:
And of course Jon Katz posts one of his silly articles today. Very amusing!
I have to wonder if the two are related. If so, I don't think that Jon got the sarcasm gene.
Someone below mentioned that advocacy by implementation is great, and works very well. Advocacy by implementation. What a great summary!
The other point was from the article: "Passion doesn't convince. Passion makes you look like an idiot or an asshole." I've been trying to make the same point for years, but never quite got it so succinctly. Bravo!
Well, let me try again here. You're both sort of getting what I mean, and at the same time, not quite. (I take full blame for not explaining myself clearly. :-)
Competition per se is a good thing, on the whole. However, it's fairly ruthless--companies (or individuals) go up against one another, and in the end someone wins and someone loses.
The best way to become a stronger competitor is to ally yourself with someone else. In other words (ironically enough), Competition leads to collusion.
At this point I should probably point out that I'm posting from Canada, which is definitely less of a free-enterprise capitalist country than the US is. That undoubtedly colours my opinions in some manner.
Also, I don't claim to be absolutely right about this, although I do believe it. Of course, I also think that all economic and political systems are inherently unstable, and won't last more than about a century at a time, so what do I know?
It's been an interesting discussion at any rate.
check out www.epinions.com. I won't give you a username to credit because I don't have one. Great resource, though--better than Deja ever was.
Amazon? Amazon has never had anything _but_ cruft. They're evil wrapped in fluff.
ESR may be a good programmer, a good project manager, and a decent guy. However, he's also an evangelist. He truly believes in Linux as the Saviour against the Great Satan of MS. As a result, most of his commentary and predictions are readable only as light entertainment.
OK, maybe instead of 'defines...', I should have said 'is de facto...'
I'm afraid that I don't believe it, though. Capitalism invariably degenerates into economic head-butting. Companies that work together, only do so to compete more aggressively against the competition. Intel and MS, for instance have worked together for years because they don't directly compete, but rather complement each other; and they've leveraged that collaboration to keep the upper edge. How many Alphas running OS/2 were sold in 1995-1997? (when the agreement was at its strongest, and also when those competing companies were producing very viable consumer products)
You may not agree, but that's how I see it.
Hee, hee! I hope I'm not the only one who got this reference.
"Can't we all just get along?"
Nope. Not in a capitalist economy. Capitalism implies (hell, it defines!) competition, conflict, and 'only the strong survive.' Competing agencies getting along is anathema to capitalism.
Sad, ain't it?
I wouldn't call it _too_ condescending. They've since done similar studies on other groups (mentally disturbed patients, adults in offices, etc.) and found similarly strong but not conclusive results.
I suspect it all sounds too touchy-feely new-agey for most organisations to paint their walls pink (or "rose") as a means of increased happiness/productivity. In fact, businesses in general tend to mistrust new and substantially different ideas about how they should be working. Ergonomics, colours for moods, war rooms, flex hours; and most of us are still working 8-5, M-F (theoretically!) in cube farms not much different from the secretarial pools of the 1940s.
As a corollorary, it's easy and happy to experiment on kids, because it's just as easy to dismiss important results as, "well that wouldn't work in the REAL world!"
Sorry--this is all off on a tangent. Nonetheless, business doesn't like to change.
Every computer owner (well, almost every) does indeed have to do some system administration. I wouldn't dream of arguing that point. That doesn't make them a sysadmin, though; anymore than programming admin tasks in perl makes a sysadmin a programmer. It's a matter of which task is your major job and/or skill.
First of all, "All operating systems" doesn't mean Unix and Win*.
I've considered this point quite a bit over the years. There is no way of a GUI getting entirely away from the command line as long as the base OS is still based on the command line. None!
The other side of the coin is that the command line falls naturally into place with a heirarchal file system. As long as we have the one, we'll have the other.
The Macintosh (of all things!) did it right in many ways. The command line is an extra tool--not the base level of the operating system. The Mac GUI _is_ the OS, to a greater degree than any other system out there.
*pat pat*
That's nice, little boy. Run along and play now.
With an attitude like that, I already know what I think of his programming skills.
Sorry, but that's just not right. There's a big
difference between a programmer administering his computer(s), and someone who's a professional, fulltime sysadmin. Calling yourself a sysadmin because you can add users and compile a linux kernel just isn't the same thing.
Well if you can always manage to do so, then you are (almost by definition) a perfect parent.
And to do that, (always and without exception), you'll have to follow your kid to school, watch over his shoulder, not let him walk home alone with friends, not let him go over to friends' houses to play, go to the library alone, wander through the library unsupervised when you go with him, etc. etc. etc.
If you are not watching your child 24 hours per day, seven days per week, then there's the chance that they'll get into something they shouldn't. After all, kids usually _want_ to get into things they shouldn't--it's part of growing up.
None of which is to say that I approve of censorware (which is almost unfailingly useless), or good parenting. Far from it--when our kids are old enough to play with the computer, I'll have a log of everything they do on it, ported to my secure box. If they get places they're not supposed to, they'll get in trouble for it. BUT, I can't completely eliminate the opportunity for them to get into trouble. It's not possible, and it's not fair to them either.
Typically organisations wouldn't file a class action lawsuit--the whole point of that item is to give organisation-like powers (and numbers) to individuals.
But a company filing a standard civil lawsuit would be interesting.
So any parents who aren't perfect are lazy and
selfish?
Obviously not a parent. Hopefully never will be
one either, with an attitude like that. (although
it wouldn't last very long)
Two days late, and I don't know if anyone will read this, but I've gotta reply.
:-)
First of all, I love reading replies that start with, "No you're wrong." Saves me from having to defend myself, since there's no point.
But I'm not saying that distribution is unimportant--just the specific MEANS of distribution. If there currently are means that can't be blocked, then distribution will continue.
Aside from that detail of definitions, I think we're in agreement.
"but I'm not going to consider it a viable option until the thing works on my Unix system like a Unix piece of software, not like a hacked-over piece of Windows 95 or MacOS 7 software."
That "Win or Mac" comment is hardly fair--this sort of behaviour is unacceptable on any platform for any software. Mozilla just sucks, plain and simple. It's stuck in a perpetual alpha-test stage.
my-mp3.com. napster. myplay.com. These are all ways of _distributing_ files, right? Right.
As much as they may be fighting against these distribution methods, they're not what the RIAA, etc. is really scared of. What they're quietly shitting themselves over is the mp3 format itself. Sure these things make distribution (and let's be honest, piracy) much easier; but as long as FTP, uuencode/SMTP, or HTTP are legal (i.e. they will be), people will be able to distribute them.
What I'm saying is don't get your panties in too tight of a bunch over this. Fight the RIAA for sure, but if it comes down to a choice between closing my-mp3.com and making the mp3 format (or any others for that matter) illegal, don't get distracted from the critical issue.
"As far as the other comment, that the Pu238 "can't" oxidize, well, I suppose that depends on a lot of factors. It isn't supposed to oxidize, just like launch vehicles aren't supposed to explode. Personally I think if they screwed up badly enough to hit the earth dead-on at 30K+km/h that it would be hard to imagine all the Pu remaining in solid form regardless of any attempts to protect it."
But you're utterly missing the point here. They're using plutonium dioxide. It's already oxidised, and it's not going to oxidise anymore. Period!
"Red Hat laid off personnel doing duplicate work, said spokeswoman Melissa London. "Nine acquisitions in the past year created a lot of redundancies," she said."
Regardless of the financial health of RedHat, that's a perfectly valid statement. They did a lot of buying, and now they're streamlining. This bunch of closures and layoffs isn't spelling the end of anything.