"Security flaws found in the "open-source" software created by volunteers collaborating online, building off each other's work."
If a company uses the work of "volunteers collaborating online" it should at least do some checks on that software, improve it, make it better, more secure and make sure it suits their needs. That's the difference from proprietary software where you buy it and then discover that it has a quirk that works against you or it has a security hole that you can't fix yourself, not even hire somebody to fix it.
And companies, at least responsible ones, are doing this, of course. The author is just naive to think they don't. The simple fact is that with "open-source" there are more eyes looking for security holes and fixing them, including programmers employed by companies.
Doesn't seem to work. Tried "former CEO of Merill Lynch" and "Merrill's mess". Neither gives me a link to the article, so it seems the article itself was removed from the index.
It's not about his beliefs. It's about his actions. He participated with lots of money to an act of discrimination against people who did him no wrong. And he didn't have the decency not to drag the name of his employer into that mess.
No, but his actions of agression, based on those beliefs, towards people who didn't do him any harm, kind of speak against his ability to lead.
And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant.
Good, do that, but remember that you are also just an employee and can get the boot just as well for firing people just because they don't like you or agree with you. If you can't take criticism, you will be either fired or left to rule over cowards.
I think you are turning the story on it's head. It is Brendan Eich who attempted to impose his own moral views on people that he had no connection with, other than the fact that they lived in the same state. So why would the people at Mozilla think he would be more considerate to them? Why would they trust him with power and responsability?
So, because you were pro US invasion of Irak, now you feel you also need to support the Russian invasion of Ukraina? Interesting logic, but clearly flawed.
Skip these fakes you mention and go straight to the real futurologists: Nostradamus and Mother Shipton.
"When pictures seem alive with movements free,
when boats like fishes swim beneath the sea.
When men like birds shall scour the sky.
Then half the world, deep drenched in blood shall die."
-- Mother Shipton, predicting the World Wars
Yes, free market "principles" apply no matter what. And that means that employers who have businesses in countries that "feel a responsibility to [their] country's citizens" will either loose their business to firms from the "third world" because those will have lower costs, or will move their production lines to said "third world". Now, the government can feel a responsibility towards local businesses and put ridiculous taxes on imports from the "third world countries". It usually escalates like this and spins further and further out of control. Because balance in any system is a fragile thing, there is usually an oscillation around it, and some theories say that any intervention from powerful entities (like governments, or monopolies) can spin the system out of control.
Well, to be fair, trusting free market would also mean removing the artificial barriers that prevent people from outside the country from working in the country. Otherwise the employers will move their business to a country with lower wages, as per said free market principles.
Users can't fix bug. Users can't make software do what they want it to do. There's a tiny percentage of users who happen to be software developers and who could
There is a clear contradiction in your statement. I hope you can see it.
May I remind you that millions of people around the world use proprietary software that WAS modified by other users, without even having the source code, to remove artificial restrictions (you have to keep your DVD in the drive when you want to run your software, etc). So, I would think that more useful stuff could be done if that "tiny percentage" had the source code, and the rest of the users would benefit. A whole software ecosystem was built from scratch by that "tiny percentage" (kernels, system software, applications in FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, Haiku, etc) and you say that you know these people would not want the source?
And I want to point out, that I was just stating that RMS has nothing against "for-profit". Did your statement show that he has? No, so why are you arguing?
If you would ever let your software be used by for-profit interests, you are not part of the community he is speaking of.
Let me fix that:
"If you would ever let your software be used to build software that imposes limits on its users, you are not part of the community he is speaking of."
When I say limits, I mean on what machine or OS they can run it, their ability to fix bugs or make it do what they want it to do, their ability to share their modifications that they made with others, etc.
What if it doesn't? What if this BSD licensed code is used by company X to build a piece of proprietary software, and that software is sold to a bunch of users, it does not work as they want it to work (maybe bugs, maybe poor design), and causes a lot of pain and frustration to these users who can't get anyone to fix the software, except company X and company X finds that it's not in the interest of their shareholders to fix those issues.
From RAM (framebuffer) to the video display there's usually no CPU involvement, true. But the CPU puts the frame in the memory (or updates the memory if they use "dirty rectangles"). Next generations of computers after Z80 (16 bit ones like Atari ST and Amiga and x86 PCs) use hardware blitters and it makes it possible to redraw every frame completely, instead of messing with "dirty rectangles". Drawing the frame is still the business of the application running on the CPU. So, lots of pixels to move to the framebuffer, for each frame.
in the US, journalists may use **anonymous sources**
The whole point of the issue is that anonymity is impossible in the surveillance state. The Government does not need to arrest journalists to get to their sources. It has set in place a system that works around the "process that every collage journalism major learns".
Glenn Greenwald is using Snowden to further his career...the way he's shopping Snowden interviews around proves it.
Way to go, attacking the person with uninformed opinions. It was Snowden's choice to disclose the information without hiding behind anonymity, and I see a number of practical and moral reasons for that, one being exactly that the Government would have known anyway.
Working towards social equality causes starvation because Stalin and Mao (and probably Pol Pot)?
Is it seriously your argument? The fact that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are not good examples (which the OP did not even mention, so I don't see why you do) means that there are good ones? Why don't you provide one? As far as I know, every place that abandoned private business by nationalisation has ruined it's own economy. That doesn't mean we should not work to find a better solution. I'm all for making this world fair for everyone.
But the fact is that Communism has failed everywhere, even in the few places where it came to power by democratic means (like Chile), while Capitalism is still "working" (far from perfect, looks like it's moving towards something bad itself). But lets acknowledge that we don't have an alternate working solution at the moment, and move forward in trying to find one.
Check this video by Slavoj iek: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ
I was reacting to your statement that I quoted. No, he did not say "independent nation-state", and perhaps that's one piece of the confusion.
No, I don't think "nation" is less ambiguous, it's just that it's a "newer" notion (that you also suggested would fit his categorization) that has appeared in the timeframe that the author seems to target: during the last struggle for independence of a lot of the countries. But no, I don't think nation is a better idea just an alternative that seems to fit his line of thinking.
And in regards to the European thing, no I was not thinking about Europe. What struck me was India in comparison with China and Japan. I think he used a double standard in the case of those countries.
In the end I think the exercise that this guy has performed is useless, with a clear bias, and it should have been obvious that it would cause controversy.
Here's what you don't get:
He's not talking about existence as a culture, he's talking about being recognized as an independent nation-state.
A lot of people are not getting it, and it's the author's fault. He calls the article and talks repeatedly about the "age of a country", when in fact, as you say, he is calculating the time since the last successful struggle for independence. No wonder people don't understand what he is doing, since even he doesn't know. What would you call the time since the last struggle for independence? Birth of the modern nation? That is a new concept, and by that standard, all nations are very young. And in that case don't use the word "country" (it means a lot of other things, compared to nation).
Nobody is forcing anyone to connect to the internet (well, except EA and UbiSoft if you really need to play their games).
People who think the Internet should not exist, should just unplug that cable from the computer, or better, they shouldn't get a subscription from the ISP. It's THAT simple! No more fear of those crazy cyberwarrior ninjas and their electronic katanas.
Yes, but the fact still remains, that allowing anyone to take good and necessary features, publish the description of those features like they are implementation details (which is what patents should be), then sue the hell out of those who do get the whole thing right just to rob some of their success, is still wrong.
[...]He's been almost explicit about the immorality of licenses he disagrees with, such as the BSD license[...]
That's most likely a lie. Please tell us where he says something like that.
Meanwhile here's what I found of him saying about the BSD license:
FB: Wasn't that BSD license free enough?
RMS: This license does qualify as free software, but I think it is not as good as some free software licenses because it doesn't protect the freedom of all users. It allows middlemen to make the software proprietary, which means they distribute the software to others but without the freedom.
> How about the "unplanned" international banking crisis?
It's actually quite "planned". Pulling the ropes of the monetary system is one of the few things that is still heavily "manipulated" to influence the economy by governments all over the world. That's why we have National Banks (or the FED, or whatever it's called in your country) that have a monopoly on the production of money and some serious strings to pull on the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
"Security flaws found in the "open-source" software created by volunteers collaborating online, building off each other's work." If a company uses the work of "volunteers collaborating online" it should at least do some checks on that software, improve it, make it better, more secure and make sure it suits their needs. That's the difference from proprietary software where you buy it and then discover that it has a quirk that works against you or it has a security hole that you can't fix yourself, not even hire somebody to fix it. And companies, at least responsible ones, are doing this, of course. The author is just naive to think they don't. The simple fact is that with "open-source" there are more eyes looking for security holes and fixing them, including programmers employed by companies.
Doesn't seem to work. Tried "former CEO of Merill Lynch" and "Merrill's mess". Neither gives me a link to the article, so it seems the article itself was removed from the index.
It's not about his beliefs. It's about his actions. He participated with lots of money to an act of discrimination against people who did him no wrong. And he didn't have the decency not to drag the name of his employer into that mess.
Eich's beliefs mean nothing
No, but his actions of agression, based on those beliefs, towards people who didn't do him any harm, kind of speak against his ability to lead.
And yes, if an employee of mine made public comments about not wanting me as CEO because of my politics, I would show him the door in an instant.
Good, do that, but remember that you are also just an employee and can get the boot just as well for firing people just because they don't like you or agree with you. If you can't take criticism, you will be either fired or left to rule over cowards.
I think you are turning the story on it's head. It is Brendan Eich who attempted to impose his own moral views on people that he had no connection with, other than the fact that they lived in the same state. So why would the people at Mozilla think he would be more considerate to them? Why would they trust him with power and responsability?
So, because you were pro US invasion of Irak, now you feel you also need to support the Russian invasion of Ukraina? Interesting logic, but clearly flawed.
Skip these fakes you mention and go straight to the real futurologists: Nostradamus and Mother Shipton.
"When pictures seem alive with movements free,
when boats like fishes swim beneath the sea.
When men like birds shall scour the sky.
Then half the world, deep drenched in blood shall die."
-- Mother Shipton, predicting the World Wars
Yes, free market "principles" apply no matter what. And that means that employers who have businesses in countries that "feel a responsibility to [their] country's citizens" will either loose their business to firms from the "third world" because those will have lower costs, or will move their production lines to said "third world". Now, the government can feel a responsibility towards local businesses and put ridiculous taxes on imports from the "third world countries". It usually escalates like this and spins further and further out of control. Because balance in any system is a fragile thing, there is usually an oscillation around it, and some theories say that any intervention from powerful entities (like governments, or monopolies) can spin the system out of control.
Well, to be fair, trusting free market would also mean removing the artificial barriers that prevent people from outside the country from working in the country. Otherwise the employers will move their business to a country with lower wages, as per said free market principles.
Users can't fix bug. Users can't make software do what they want it to do. There's a tiny percentage of users who happen to be software developers and who could
There is a clear contradiction in your statement. I hope you can see it.
May I remind you that millions of people around the world use proprietary software that WAS modified by other users, without even having the source code, to remove artificial restrictions (you have to keep your DVD in the drive when you want to run your software, etc). So, I would think that more useful stuff could be done if that "tiny percentage" had the source code, and the rest of the users would benefit. A whole software ecosystem was built from scratch by that "tiny percentage" (kernels, system software, applications in FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Linux, Haiku, etc) and you say that you know these people would not want the source?
And I want to point out, that I was just stating that RMS has nothing against "for-profit". Did your statement show that he has? No, so why are you arguing?
If you would ever let your software be used by for-profit interests, you are not part of the community he is speaking of.
Let me fix that:
"If you would ever let your software be used to build software that imposes limits on its users, you are not part of the community he is speaking of."
When I say limits, I mean on what machine or OS they can run it, their ability to fix bugs or make it do what they want it to do, their ability to share their modifications that they made with others, etc.
Because it makes everyone's life better
What if it doesn't? What if this BSD licensed code is used by company X to build a piece of proprietary software, and that software is sold to a bunch of users, it does not work as they want it to work (maybe bugs, maybe poor design), and causes a lot of pain and frustration to these users who can't get anyone to fix the software, except company X and company X finds that it's not in the interest of their shareholders to fix those issues.
From RAM (framebuffer) to the video display there's usually no CPU involvement, true. But the CPU puts the frame in the memory (or updates the memory if they use "dirty rectangles"). Next generations of computers after Z80 (16 bit ones like Atari ST and Amiga and x86 PCs) use hardware blitters and it makes it possible to redraw every frame completely, instead of messing with "dirty rectangles". Drawing the frame is still the business of the application running on the CPU. So, lots of pixels to move to the framebuffer, for each frame.
This devices are listed in the leaked "NSA Toolbox Catalog" document, that was reported in this Spiegel article:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/catalog-reveals-nsa-has-back-doors-for-numerous-devices-a-940994.html
Some pictures:
Cottonmouth-I, USB spying device
http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_COTTONMOUTH-I.jpg
Cottonmouth-II, USB spying device
http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_COTTONMOUTH-II.jpg
Cottonmouth-III, USB spying device
http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_COTTONMOUTH-III.jpg
Firewalk, ethernet spying device
http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/USB/S3223_FIREWALK.jpg
Ragemaster, monitor cable spying device
http://www.spiegel.de/static/happ/netzwelt/2014/na/v1/pub/img/Bildschirm/S3224_RAGEMASTER.jpg
There's many more in that cataloge, including software and hardware tools and devices.
in the US, journalists may use **anonymous sources**
The whole point of the issue is that anonymity is impossible in the surveillance state. The Government does not need to arrest journalists to get to their sources. It has set in place a system that works around the "process that every collage journalism major learns".
Glenn Greenwald is using Snowden to further his career...the way he's shopping Snowden interviews around proves it.
Way to go, attacking the person with uninformed opinions. It was Snowden's choice to disclose the information without hiding behind anonymity, and I see a number of practical and moral reasons for that, one being exactly that the Government would have known anyway.
Working towards social equality causes starvation because Stalin and Mao (and probably Pol Pot)?
Is it seriously your argument? The fact that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are not good examples (which the OP did not even mention, so I don't see why you do) means that there are good ones? Why don't you provide one? As far as I know, every place that abandoned private business by nationalisation has ruined it's own economy. That doesn't mean we should not work to find a better solution. I'm all for making this world fair for everyone.
But the fact is that Communism has failed everywhere, even in the few places where it came to power by democratic means (like Chile), while Capitalism is still "working" (far from perfect, looks like it's moving towards something bad itself). But lets acknowledge that we don't have an alternate working solution at the moment, and move forward in trying to find one.
Check this video by Slavoj iek: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ
He is clearly well fed, but considering going hungary, or maybe Venezuela.
I was reacting to your statement that I quoted. No, he did not say "independent nation-state", and perhaps that's one piece of the confusion.
No, I don't think "nation" is less ambiguous, it's just that it's a "newer" notion (that you also suggested would fit his categorization) that has appeared in the timeframe that the author seems to target: during the last struggle for independence of a lot of the countries. But no, I don't think nation is a better idea just an alternative that seems to fit his line of thinking.
And in regards to the European thing, no I was not thinking about Europe. What struck me was India in comparison with China and Japan. I think he used a double standard in the case of those countries.
In the end I think the exercise that this guy has performed is useless, with a clear bias, and it should have been obvious that it would cause controversy.
Here's what you don't get: He's not talking about existence as a culture, he's talking about being recognized as an independent nation-state.
A lot of people are not getting it, and it's the author's fault. He calls the article and talks repeatedly about the "age of a country", when in fact, as you say, he is calculating the time since the last successful struggle for independence. No wonder people don't understand what he is doing, since even he doesn't know. What would you call the time since the last struggle for independence? Birth of the modern nation? That is a new concept, and by that standard, all nations are very young. And in that case don't use the word "country" (it means a lot of other things, compared to nation).
Nobody is forcing anyone to connect to the internet (well, except EA and UbiSoft if you really need to play their games).
People who think the Internet should not exist, should just unplug that cable from the computer, or better, they shouldn't get a subscription from the ISP. It's THAT simple! No more fear of those crazy cyberwarrior ninjas and their electronic katanas.
Yes, but the fact still remains, that allowing anyone to take good and necessary features, publish the description of those features like they are implementation details (which is what patents should be), then sue the hell out of those who do get the whole thing right just to rob some of their success, is still wrong.
Testing is for finding bugs.
Debugging is for fixing bugs. More precisely, it's a step in the process, explaining why the bug happens.
Such a new whale species, and already extinct.
[...]He's been almost explicit about the immorality of licenses he disagrees with, such as the BSD license[...]
That's most likely a lie. Please tell us where he says something like that.
Meanwhile here's what I found of him saying about the BSD license:
FB: Wasn't that BSD license free enough?
RMS: This license does qualify as free software, but I think it is not as good as some free software licenses because it doesn't protect the freedom of all users. It allows middlemen to make the software proprietary, which means they distribute the software to others but without the freedom.
From: http://linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html?page=2
> How about the "unplanned" international banking crisis? It's actually quite "planned". Pulling the ropes of the monetary system is one of the few things that is still heavily "manipulated" to influence the economy by governments all over the world. That's why we have National Banks (or the FED, or whatever it's called in your country) that have a monopoly on the production of money and some serious strings to pull on the economy.