The linked article deals with a government body's hiring policies. While I would agree that discriminating against smokers in public sector positions probably isn't a great idea, I have no problem whatsoever with private companies enacting such policies.
It's a great blueprint to follow. The original scrapping of the Netscape code was a necessary first step in clearing out years of cruft, allowing the developers a clean slate to work from as they developed a great competing browser platform. They kept a lot of the good ideas from the Netscape era, with a focus on standards and community feedback.
A lot of products go through this cycle. The big deal isn't "oh my God, we have to do a rewrite"; this is expected every now and again and needs and technologies change. The important part is the process; how things like a major rewrite are managed. People make the difference, not code.
OK, so they can filter but surely that's as much of a minefield as indexing everything? Imagine the law suits when their filtering algorithms start excluding one company and include their opposition. No, they can't filter without running a much higher risk of being held responsible for the content. Google's "SafeSearch" feature sort of skirts the fine edge of this reasoning, but hasn't been challenged yet (i.e. Google getting sued because someone found kiddie porn being "make available" via their search engine). Their broad filtering of search results in some non-U.S. markets might be "iffy" as well.
Although not meeting the strict legal definition as such, search engine providers like Google could conceivably angle for the protections afforded common carriers.
This is actually something I hadn't considered before. Say some industry thugs go out and find some techno-thugs who just happen to operate in a jurisdiction outside the reach of U.S. law and monitoring. Said techno-thugs inherit big bags of money for all the infringing content they can get placed on competing independent distribution systems alongside "legitimate" tracks.
Unfortunately for them, said independent distribution guys just happen to be inside U.S. jurisdiction. Bad day...
I was in the top 5% of my graduating class, and was a professional software developer for several years before joining the Navy. Kinda messes up your worldview, huh? You're an idiot.
I don't know what the GP does for a living, but I'm active duty Navy in the submarine force. We go underwater in a nice enclosed space for months at a time, away and largely out of contact with our families (I'm married), something you might consider a bit on the arduous side compared to most civilian employment.
I also know a lot of people from other service branches, from various backgrounds with varying perspectives on the war. Of course most of those soliders would "rather be home with their families" as opposed to dealing with a hostile combat environment every day. That said, those same soldiers are proud to be serving their nation (the "government" you speak of in your post), and have a job where they voluntarily agreed to accept and execute whatever orders are deemed necessary by those in command. That includes the Commander in Chief.
Since ORDB is defunct, the domain could have been just allowed to expire. That approach doesn't work very well well if you're planning on selling the domain.
The lawsuit was "Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Verizon Communications Inc.", "case number 1:07-cv-11070-LTS, was filed December 6th, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York". Actiontec may be paying an unspecified amount as part of the conditions of settlement, but don't think for a moment Verizon is guiltless in this matter. As they were engaging in the distribution of the infringing devices with Actiontec, they were certainly 50% responsible. If Verizon had thought they had any chance of winning the case, I guarantee you they would have dragged it out as far as possible. This settlement isn't as good as a jury endorsement of the GPL's validity, but it's pretty damn good nonetheless.
I agree that it's somewhat disappointing that they settled when you consider it as a lost opportunity to test the GPL in court, but hopefully the developers well *well* compensated for their trouble. Perhaps they'll donate a portion of their settlement proceeds to helping others fight these cases. How many "little guys" are out there who might have legitimate infringement claims, but are too scared or too broke to stand up to the legal muscle of a large corporation?
On a separate note, I just had to Digg this one. The more ways the news can get out about this, the better off the community as a whole is, and it increases visibility for the validity of the GPL. After all, if the case had no merit, why would a megacorp like Verizon settle? These stories need more exposure.
I'll agree that meth is evil shit, and definitely the most evil street drug I can think of. Lots of personal experience watching people destroy themselves with it, including a couple of funerals. That said, it's still not the state's right to tell someone what they can't put in their own body. Want to regulate drug use for public officials, police officers, members of the military? Fine with me. For private citizens? Hell, no. Once someone commits a crime that harms someone else, lock 'em up, but not before. I also don't believe we should see our taxes go toward medical treatment or welfare for people who screw themselves up with drugs. It was their personal choice to put the crap in their bodies, and they should have considered the consequences ahead of time. Not my problem, nor my responsibility to pay for it.
Your tax dollars are funding lengthy prison stays for people whose only crime was possession and/or use of drugs. They didn't rob anybody, break into anyone's house, assault anyone, or perpetrate any other act of direct harm. The were found to be in possession of chemicals or plants, and you'll continue to pay long after they're released back into society considering the increased crime rate for people who can't get a job to save their life due to a criminal background. Meanwhile, prison corporations keep on raking in the big bucks to build more facilities to house more inmates. Good for them, bad for us and society as a whole.
Do I have any sympathy for someone who screws himself up with drug abuse? Nope, and I never will. I've got family members who went down that road, and I don't even have sympathy for them. However, my lack of sympathy only extends to the non-drug crimes they committed and damage to their own bodies from drug abuse. I do have sympathy for cases where they were locked up for nothing more than possession.
Let natural selection do its job. Sure beats paying into a system that profits more with every user that gets nabbed.
I know a lot of people who have difficulty getting decent jobs because of past indiscretions. It doesn't necessarily make them bad people. Unfortunately, I have to side with the employers in most cases. If the government were to make it illegal to hire someone who's committed a crime (even a misdemeanor) of any sort, that would be unacceptable. However, I fully respect the right of an employer to base the hiring decision on criminal history (or the lack thereof). To expound upon my position, I believe that all drugs (yes, even crack cocaine, methamphetamine, etc) should be legalized, while allowing employers to conduct private drug testing at their discretion. Drug use, criminal activity, etc are personal choices, and the decision to hire a person is a choice completely at the discretion of employers.
You have to understand some of the deeper problems with hiring a person with a criminal history. Companies can be (and have been) held liable in civil suits for the damaging actions of a dishonest employee in situations where the employer "should have considered" the employee's criminal background. I'll go out on a limb and make the assertion that no company wants to risk costly litigation and damages when they can simply "play it safe" with a thorough background check. I have the additional benefit of being active duty military, and have some insight into the "reasons why" these background checks can be so critical to the hiring process (yes, the Navy is a job, just one with unique lifestyle requirements).
So the police want to use this sort of system as a way of predicting future criminal activity, which may or may not happen, the interpretation of which is by necessity highly subjective, and would represent an open-ended means of "justifying" targeted monitoring of specific individuals before they're even legally considered responsible for themselves? What a fantastic idea! Let's be sure to include ways to hold the parents retroactively responsible for breeding in the first place, or not drugging their children since they were obviously criminals in the making, or not putting them through intensive "preventive" psychiatric treatment for their future wrongdoings. It's just like Minority Report, only they're not even bothering to claim definitive knowledge of future events. Outstanding work, gents!
How is highlighting unbalanced reporting and coverage going to escalate anything? Most likely it won't do anything useful and this will be dead within a year. That's what people said about Digg...
Politics aren't nearly partisan enough, Microsoft has to go and encourage further escalation of tensions between the radical left and right. Get your free tub of Microsoft Popcorn(TM) while it's hot!
Slashdot Mirror
The linked article deals with a government body's hiring policies. While I would agree that discriminating against smokers in public sector positions probably isn't a great idea, I have no problem whatsoever with private companies enacting such policies.
Incidentally, I'm a smoker.
This article generated under 100 comments. Is the number of people who care about this news really that small? Wow...
It's a great blueprint to follow. The original scrapping of the Netscape code was a necessary first step in clearing out years of cruft, allowing the developers a clean slate to work from as they developed a great competing browser platform. They kept a lot of the good ideas from the Netscape era, with a focus on standards and community feedback.
A lot of products go through this cycle. The big deal isn't "oh my God, we have to do a rewrite"; this is expected every now and again and needs and technologies change. The important part is the process; how things like a major rewrite are managed. People make the difference, not code.
Although not meeting the strict legal definition as such, search engine providers like Google could conceivably angle for the protections afforded common carriers.
The saying used to be "whatever happens in Enron, stays in Enron," but we can all see how well that worked out...
Maybe the fiber hub has built in packet shredders.
This is actually something I hadn't considered before. Say some industry thugs go out and find some techno-thugs who just happen to operate in a jurisdiction outside the reach of U.S. law and monitoring. Said techno-thugs inherit big bags of money for all the infringing content they can get placed on competing independent distribution systems alongside "legitimate" tracks.
Unfortunately for them, said independent distribution guys just happen to be inside U.S. jurisdiction. Bad day...
If we're counting earth-bound code, I was going to vote for "DNA."
I was in the top 5% of my graduating class, and was a professional software developer for several years before joining the Navy. Kinda messes up your worldview, huh? You're an idiot.
I don't know what the GP does for a living, but I'm active duty Navy in the submarine force. We go underwater in a nice enclosed space for months at a time, away and largely out of contact with our families (I'm married), something you might consider a bit on the arduous side compared to most civilian employment.
I also know a lot of people from other service branches, from various backgrounds with varying perspectives on the war. Of course most of those soliders would "rather be home with their families" as opposed to dealing with a hostile combat environment every day. That said, those same soldiers are proud to be serving their nation (the "government" you speak of in your post), and have a job where they voluntarily agreed to accept and execute whatever orders are deemed necessary by those in command. That includes the Commander in Chief.
Just some perspective from a Sailor.
Or a Nazi, or perhaps he's just new here. I bet his pants are very baggy.
I just emailed the staff at Slashdot about that "Anonymous Coward" asshole. I'm sure that account will be removed any minute now!
I still dial into BBSes using Procomm Plus.
You may be interested in Wired's musings on Clarke. Great photo at the top of the article.
Arthur C. Clarke Wikipedia entry. Definitely a loss.
The lawsuit was "Erik Andersen and Rob Landley v. Verizon Communications Inc.", "case number 1:07-cv-11070-LTS, was filed December 6th, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York". Actiontec may be paying an unspecified amount as part of the conditions of settlement, but don't think for a moment Verizon is guiltless in this matter. As they were engaging in the distribution of the infringing devices with Actiontec, they were certainly 50% responsible. If Verizon had thought they had any chance of winning the case, I guarantee you they would have dragged it out as far as possible. This settlement isn't as good as a jury endorsement of the GPL's validity, but it's pretty damn good nonetheless.
I agree that it's somewhat disappointing that they settled when you consider it as a lost opportunity to test the GPL in court, but hopefully the developers well *well* compensated for their trouble. Perhaps they'll donate a portion of their settlement proceeds to helping others fight these cases. How many "little guys" are out there who might have legitimate infringement claims, but are too scared or too broke to stand up to the legal muscle of a large corporation?
On a separate note, I just had to Digg this one. The more ways the news can get out about this, the better off the community as a whole is, and it increases visibility for the validity of the GPL. After all, if the case had no merit, why would a megacorp like Verizon settle? These stories need more exposure.
I find your post thought-provoking enough to merit a response off-list, if you're interested. Drop me a line at philip.paradis@palegray.net.
I'll agree that meth is evil shit, and definitely the most evil street drug I can think of. Lots of personal experience watching people destroy themselves with it, including a couple of funerals. That said, it's still not the state's right to tell someone what they can't put in their own body. Want to regulate drug use for public officials, police officers, members of the military? Fine with me. For private citizens? Hell, no. Once someone commits a crime that harms someone else, lock 'em up, but not before. I also don't believe we should see our taxes go toward medical treatment or welfare for people who screw themselves up with drugs. It was their personal choice to put the crap in their bodies, and they should have considered the consequences ahead of time. Not my problem, nor my responsibility to pay for it.
Your tax dollars are funding lengthy prison stays for people whose only crime was possession and/or use of drugs. They didn't rob anybody, break into anyone's house, assault anyone, or perpetrate any other act of direct harm. The were found to be in possession of chemicals or plants, and you'll continue to pay long after they're released back into society considering the increased crime rate for people who can't get a job to save their life due to a criminal background. Meanwhile, prison corporations keep on raking in the big bucks to build more facilities to house more inmates. Good for them, bad for us and society as a whole.
Do I have any sympathy for someone who screws himself up with drug abuse? Nope, and I never will. I've got family members who went down that road, and I don't even have sympathy for them. However, my lack of sympathy only extends to the non-drug crimes they committed and damage to their own bodies from drug abuse. I do have sympathy for cases where they were locked up for nothing more than possession.
Let natural selection do its job. Sure beats paying into a system that profits more with every user that gets nabbed.
I know a lot of people who have difficulty getting decent jobs because of past indiscretions. It doesn't necessarily make them bad people. Unfortunately, I have to side with the employers in most cases. If the government were to make it illegal to hire someone who's committed a crime (even a misdemeanor) of any sort, that would be unacceptable. However, I fully respect the right of an employer to base the hiring decision on criminal history (or the lack thereof). To expound upon my position, I believe that all drugs (yes, even crack cocaine, methamphetamine, etc) should be legalized, while allowing employers to conduct private drug testing at their discretion. Drug use, criminal activity, etc are personal choices, and the decision to hire a person is a choice completely at the discretion of employers.
You have to understand some of the deeper problems with hiring a person with a criminal history. Companies can be (and have been) held liable in civil suits for the damaging actions of a dishonest employee in situations where the employer "should have considered" the employee's criminal background. I'll go out on a limb and make the assertion that no company wants to risk costly litigation and damages when they can simply "play it safe" with a thorough background check. I have the additional benefit of being active duty military, and have some insight into the "reasons why" these background checks can be so critical to the hiring process (yes, the Navy is a job, just one with unique lifestyle requirements).
Dad always said, "I bear half of the responsibility for bringing you into this world, and I can be 100% of the reason you leave it."
So the police want to use this sort of system as a way of predicting future criminal activity, which may or may not happen, the interpretation of which is by necessity highly subjective, and would represent an open-ended means of "justifying" targeted monitoring of specific individuals before they're even legally considered responsible for themselves? What a fantastic idea! Let's be sure to include ways to hold the parents retroactively responsible for breeding in the first place, or not drugging their children since they were obviously criminals in the making, or not putting them through intensive "preventive" psychiatric treatment for their future wrongdoings. It's just like Minority Report, only they're not even bothering to claim definitive knowledge of future events. Outstanding work, gents!
Politics aren't nearly partisan enough, Microsoft has to go and encourage further escalation of tensions between the radical left and right. Get your free tub of Microsoft Popcorn(TM) while it's hot!