If a CEO makes $147,000 per day, well that's market forces.
In what country? In the US anyway, there is little connection between the market performance and pay. It seems to me that the CEO echelon has become a tight-knit group that hop from one CEO position to the next, demanding huge compensation and/or parachutes making any kind of consequence for poor performance practically nonexistent. I also say it's not market driven because there is such a disconnect between the "market" - that his, the consumers who drive revenue, and the CEO that the consumers, for all practical purposes, have no say over who is the CEO of any particular company, or how much they are paid.
There's nothing more informative than a seemingly bitter individual who can lambaste a programming environment without providing any specific details. Am I supposed to just walk away thinking that you are correct, when you don't even take the time to explain your position?
This sounds like a comment from someone who became frustrated at trying to learn the language and/or some of its accompanying technologies. Java isn't perfect, but it has quite a bit to offer. The only thing that bothers me is that it's Sun's baby, and Sun supports the various forms of DMCA-like legislation that has been making its way out of the current (rather sordid) whitehouse administration.
I find it rather ironic that Redhat would come within a mile of such a fetid mess. I'm also surprised (and quite saddened) that Sun Microsystems is involved.
Support http://www.ipaction.org/ - it might be one of the only practical ways to get something done about this kind of nonsense.
People so callously and carelessly jump onto anything that sounds like, "oh noes! This is the next dragon that must be slain! Let's kill it! But in order to do that, I'll need to watch you, listen to your phone calls, examine your emails, etc!" Notice that they are in no way related.
Here's an interesting read on the statistics often used to cite the purported "seriousness" of the problem:
This guy starts calling people and asking questions, trying to nail down where this stuff comes from, and also uncovers an interesting relationship in the process. It's a good read.
You've now brought me to a question that I didn't think I'd have to ask...what is the average period of time over which such an investment is recouped? To clarify, at what point is such an investment considered a loss, or a profitable venture? Do you really believe that studios and other content creators amortize their "investment" over the entire life of the copyright?
Your point about ease of copying is relevant, though. If people could copy my shed without impacting my property in any way, would I have some kind of right to stop them?
Yes - I'm not arguing against the concept of copyright, because I think it is valid. I'm arguing against the insanity that it has become, through repeated modifications to the original law, so that the notion of "limited exclusivity," for all practical purposes, no longer exists.
I was mainly referring to the actual physical production of the medium, not the content itself. My point stands that the industry is benefitting from economies of scale that weren't available when copyright was first enacted. If they want to blow years and millions of dollars on its creation that's not a requirement, it's a choice.
While things didn't go well while Carter was in office (the economy), at least the guy recognized the importance of statesman-like conduct. He continues it to this day.
Bush's inability to pronounce "nuclear" is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg. It seems like he messes up just about every time he opens his mouth.
A copyright should last for lets say 40/50 years or the life of the author plus maybe 5, maybe 10 years
I say less...the original copyright was only 14 years. It was later extended to 28, and so on. When the copyright was first incorporated into law, media producers faced some real challenges with distribution and production, and I believe, had a right to cover those costs and make a reasonable profit. Today, it's much different - the geographical and production/reproduction issues have been drastically reduced (via the net, and the ability to acquire the content in digital form). The irony here is that the length of the copyright is now longer than it has ever been in its history.
If I build a shed in my garden, I put a lot of time and money behind it. Should I have some inherent right to earn money as a result?
This is one of the most inapplicable examples I've ever seen on the topic. If you build a shed in your back yard, chances are that nobody else will be using it or benefitting from it because it's on your property. Any attempt to derive benefit by someone else would be recognized as tresspassing, and further, since it can't be "copied" or easily transferred like music and other media can, it can only offer a very limited about of combined benefit anyway.
Bingo. It's all about damage control and PR spin- elections are approaching, and Republicans are worried.
Because Bush has violated the public's trust on a number of occasions, I personally don't see how anyone can take much of what he does with too much more than the proverbial grain of salt. November will be interesting.
The internet is a collection of tiny dictatorship.
I disagree with this characterization. It's true that an internet community is like any other opportunity for one or more select individuals to exercise control, but the question remains as to just how much control is necessary. I was a member of one community that went relatively untouched by admins, except for truly exceptional cases of abuse. Yes, it was rife with criticism targeting the common interest we all had, and yes, the occasional flame war would break out, but all in all, the community usually maintained fairly reasonable average standard of behavior. Further, this community had none of the editorial controls that Digg has.
Tf this level of scrutiny is being exercised by those running the site, it makes me wonder what their real objective is. One thing *I* don't appreciate as a user is being led to believe that the content I am reading is a product of the *community*, when in fact, at least a portion of it is the leftovers from editorial binges exercised by those in control. Digg has a nice concept, but it's not beyond being fouled by mismanagement.
I think your last point is a fairly important one. There are all of these "services" springing up, but there's a little demon waiting at the end of the tunnel, should one decide to look for an alternative. That is, how do you get your data from one service provider over to another one? Granted, the same thing might apply to software, but when you figure in this cost, SaaS doesn't appear to be as good as people might be let to believe.
The bottom line is that something needs to provide the first basic direction as to how the query is resolved.
Agreed. Waaaay back when I first heard about storing dates in reverse order (Y, M, D), I thought that was kind of strange. But shortly after, it became clear as to why this would make sense. The realm of domains is no different - it's simply a classification scheme whose order implements the most general component, on toward the most specific.
This is exactly what happened with the legislation that Microsoft wrote for the state of Oklahoma. An interview in a detailed article revealed that those exercising spin control are making these same kind of comments..."Oh, it wasn't intended to be interpreted that way..." etc. When I hear comments like that, it tells me that though the legislation may not be interpreted a certain way, it most likely will. Once it becomes law, all bets are off.
For those that don't know, IPac is a new political action committee whose primary focus is to remove people from office who make bad policy decisions related to technology. Their website is at http://www.ipaction.org/ . This is a great way for the "little guy" to get involved and actually have a voice in a process that has thus far, been fairly non-representational as far as the average citizen is concerned.
In my humblest opinion, programming is fun on its own, and it really doesn't matter what it is you're coding so long as it is challenging and stimulating.
I think there should be a slight correction here...coding can be fun on its own, but when you're forced to rehash stuff over and over because of poor management, poor inter-disciplinary communication, time constraints, the never-ending marketing vs reality syndrome, and long stretches of overtime to meet unrealistic deadlines, I believe very strongly that it can turn every last bit of passion, motivation, and creativity into a barren, soulless wasteland.
Does anyone see something similar to what happens with the RIAA/MPAA? There are a few key players dictating everything associated with product creation, development, sales, and who gets what slice of the pie. The issues faced by the gaming industry seem much like those faced by those who produce content of other types- namely how to get around the fat man in the middle.
If DRM becomes as oppressive as the big media players seem to want it to be, then it will drive people away from platforms requiring it and towards platforms that circumvent it.
There is a very arrogant assumption that consumers will continue to buy or use the product, regardless of the hassle, scrutiny, and freedom they're given by so-called content owners. I'm still waiting for the day when people en masse wise up and say, "Keep your stuff- I'm not interested," and find other material (they can either buy or legally download).
I personally think the EU case is a well-deserved and long overdue slap. We saw the overall effect of the Anti-competitive ruling- which, for all intents and purposes, accomplished very little. The EU's requirement should have been part of the US settlement from the very outset.
In my opinion, you can't dominate a marketplace and expect to do bsuiness as you please...it's just too risky - especially when you consider that the medium in question is a huge part of the technical infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
If a CEO makes $147,000 per day, well that's market forces.
In what country? In the US anyway, there is little connection between the market performance and pay. It seems to me that the CEO echelon has become a tight-knit group that hop from one CEO position to the next, demanding huge compensation and/or parachutes making any kind of consequence for poor performance practically nonexistent. I also say it's not market driven because there is such a disconnect between the "market" - that his, the consumers who drive revenue, and the CEO that the consumers, for all practical purposes, have no say over who is the CEO of any particular company, or how much they are paid.
There's nothing more informative than a seemingly bitter individual who can lambaste a programming environment without providing any specific details. Am I supposed to just walk away thinking that you are correct, when you don't even take the time to explain your position?
This sounds like a comment from someone who became frustrated at trying to learn the language and/or some of its accompanying technologies. Java isn't perfect, but it has quite a bit to offer. The only thing that bothers me is that it's Sun's baby, and Sun supports the various forms of DMCA-like legislation that has been making its way out of the current (rather sordid) whitehouse administration.
I find it rather ironic that Redhat would come within a mile of such a fetid mess. I'm also surprised (and quite saddened) that Sun Microsystems is involved.
Support http://www.ipaction.org/ - it might be one of the only practical ways to get something done about this kind of nonsense.
People so callously and carelessly jump onto anything that sounds like, "oh noes! This is the next dragon that must be slain! Let's kill it! But in order to do that, I'll need to watch you, listen to your phone calls, examine your emails, etc!" Notice that they are in no way related.
Here's an interesting read on the statistics often used to cite the purported "seriousness" of the problem:
http://www.radosh.net/archive/001481.html
This guy starts calling people and asking questions, trying to nail down where this stuff comes from, and also uncovers an interesting relationship in the process. It's a good read.
You've now brought me to a question that I didn't think I'd have to ask...what is the average period of time over which such an investment is recouped? To clarify, at what point is such an investment considered a loss, or a profitable venture? Do you really believe that studios and other content creators amortize their "investment" over the entire life of the copyright?
Your point about ease of copying is relevant, though. If people could copy my shed without impacting my property in any way, would I have some kind of right to stop them?
Yes - I'm not arguing against the concept of copyright, because I think it is valid. I'm arguing against the insanity that it has become, through repeated modifications to the original law, so that the notion of "limited exclusivity," for all practical purposes, no longer exists.
I was mainly referring to the actual physical production of the medium, not the content itself. My point stands that the industry is benefitting from economies of scale that weren't available when copyright was first enacted. If they want to blow years and millions of dollars on its creation that's not a requirement, it's a choice.
While things didn't go well while Carter was in office (the economy), at least the guy recognized the importance of statesman-like conduct. He continues it to this day.
Bush's inability to pronounce "nuclear" is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg. It seems like he messes up just about every time he opens his mouth.
A copyright should last for lets say 40/50 years or the life of the author plus maybe 5, maybe 10 years
I say less...the original copyright was only 14 years. It was later extended to 28, and so on. When the copyright was first incorporated into law, media producers faced some real challenges with distribution and production, and I believe, had a right to cover those costs and make a reasonable profit. Today, it's much different - the geographical and production/reproduction issues have been drastically reduced (via the net, and the ability to acquire the content in digital form). The irony here is that the length of the copyright is now longer than it has ever been in its history.
If I build a shed in my garden, I put a lot of time and money behind it. Should I have some inherent right to earn money as a result?
This is one of the most inapplicable examples I've ever seen on the topic. If you build a shed in your back yard, chances are that nobody else will be using it or benefitting from it because it's on your property. Any attempt to derive benefit by someone else would be recognized as tresspassing, and further, since it can't be "copied" or easily transferred like music and other media can, it can only offer a very limited about of combined benefit anyway.
I think that was well-stated. Patents have effectively become a vehicle for speculation based on the sweat of others' brows. It should be illegal.
...they simply want to seem like they care.
Bingo. It's all about damage control and PR spin- elections are approaching, and Republicans are worried.
Because Bush has violated the public's trust on a number of occasions, I personally don't see how anyone can take much of what he does with too much more than the proverbial grain of salt. November will be interesting.
The internet is a collection of tiny dictatorship.
I disagree with this characterization. It's true that an internet community is like any other opportunity for one or more select individuals to exercise control, but the question remains as to just how much control is necessary. I was a member of one community that went relatively untouched by admins, except for truly exceptional cases of abuse. Yes, it was rife with criticism targeting the common interest we all had, and yes, the occasional flame war would break out, but all in all, the community usually maintained fairly reasonable average standard of behavior. Further, this community had none of the editorial controls that Digg has.
Tf this level of scrutiny is being exercised by those running the site, it makes me wonder what their real objective is. One thing *I* don't appreciate as a user is being led to believe that the content I am reading is a product of the *community*, when in fact, at least a portion of it is the leftovers from editorial binges exercised by those in control. Digg has a nice concept, but it's not beyond being fouled by mismanagement.
So there you have it, security through obscurity does not work
I generally agree with this, but that's exactly what encryption is- security through obscurity.
I think your last point is a fairly important one. There are all of these "services" springing up, but there's a little demon waiting at the end of the tunnel, should one decide to look for an alternative. That is, how do you get your data from one service provider over to another one? Granted, the same thing might apply to software, but when you figure in this cost, SaaS doesn't appear to be as good as people might be let to believe.
The bottom line is that something needs to provide the first basic direction as to how the query is resolved.
Agreed. Waaaay back when I first heard about storing dates in reverse order (Y, M, D), I thought that was kind of strange. But shortly after, it became clear as to why this would make sense. The realm of domains is no different - it's simply a classification scheme whose order implements the most general component, on toward the most specific.
This is exactly what happened with the legislation that Microsoft wrote for the state of Oklahoma. An interview in a detailed article revealed that those exercising spin control are making these same kind of comments..."Oh, it wasn't intended to be interpreted that way..." etc. When I hear comments like that, it tells me that though the legislation may not be interpreted a certain way, it most likely will. Once it becomes law, all bets are off.
For those that don't know, IPac is a new political action committee whose primary focus is to remove people from office who make bad policy decisions related to technology. Their website is at http://www.ipaction.org/ . This is a great way for the "little guy" to get involved and actually have a voice in a process that has thus far, been fairly non-representational as far as the average citizen is concerned.
Let's not forget the very real possibility of torture.
There is already ample evidence. vv
In my humblest opinion, programming is fun on its own, and it really doesn't matter what it is you're coding so long as it is challenging and stimulating.
I think there should be a slight correction here...coding can be fun on its own, but when you're forced to rehash stuff over and over because of poor management, poor inter-disciplinary communication, time constraints, the never-ending marketing vs reality syndrome, and long stretches of overtime to meet unrealistic deadlines, I believe very strongly that it can turn every last bit of passion, motivation, and creativity into a barren, soulless wasteland.
Does anyone see something similar to what happens with the RIAA/MPAA? There are a few key players dictating everything associated with product creation, development, sales, and who gets what slice of the pie. The issues faced by the gaming industry seem much like those faced by those who produce content of other types- namely how to get around the fat man in the middle.
If DRM becomes as oppressive as the big media players seem to want it to be, then it will drive people away from platforms requiring it and towards platforms that circumvent it.
There is a very arrogant assumption that consumers will continue to buy or use the product, regardless of the hassle, scrutiny, and freedom they're given by so-called content owners. I'm still waiting for the day when people en masse wise up and say, "Keep your stuff- I'm not interested," and find other material (they can either buy or legally download).
I personally think the EU case is a well-deserved and long overdue slap. We saw the overall effect of the Anti-competitive ruling- which, for all intents and purposes, accomplished very little. The EU's requirement should have been part of the US settlement from the very outset.
In my opinion, you can't dominate a marketplace and expect to do bsuiness as you please...it's just too risky - especially when you consider that the medium in question is a huge part of the technical infrastructure.