I've met many people from behind the Iron Curtain (e.g.: Russia, Romania, etc), not ONE would rather live in communism--most hated it. Futhermore, the problems with the USSR were about a lot more than just their economic system, it was their political and military ideology. Living under constant threat from the secret police is not just a minor difference in opinion, it violates human rights. Capitalism, despite its flaws, has many supporters. So please don't give me this moral relativism crap.
That is not what I said at all.
on
Focus Group Art
·
· Score: 2
I did not proclaim myself to be a "competent art critic"; nor did I say anyone else is capable making the determination. This is precisely my point, that NO ONE can say absolutely what is and is not art. However, we can know the majority opinion. It is not too unreasonable to demand art work shown in galleries does not offend almost everyones' taste. It is ludicrous equate the Cultural Revolution (et. al) to a desire to only spend public funds on art which pleases more than.005% of the population. Particularly when that unappreciated art form so volatile as not to withstand even a decade, witness fecal paintings, and other abstract nonsense. It is not a right to foist this "art" on others; you may, on the other hand, do whatever you wish on your own dollar, as is your Constitutional right.
To reiterate, at some point you must concede that a minority should not be given carte blanche on the public's back. It comes down to proportion and taste. I would never argue that 51% (55, 70, 80, etc) should be able to shut down other forms of public forms of expression when they can be done at REASONABLE cost. Below certain point, you must concede, that the minority should give way to the majority. Particularly when we have 10k minute minorites all fighting for funding--none of which can come to any consensus--which has the effect of crowding out more timeless and widely appreciated works. We live in a world of finite resources, as such some sacrifices must be made--not everyone can have their way all the time.
For the record, I'm about to graduate with a 4.0 from one of the top universities in the country. I'm most likely going to pursue a graduate degree, though not in the liberal arts. Because I made my career choice of my own volition, I do not have any motivation to "put them down a peg".
I agree with you 100%, you are one of the rare few. But you are wasting your breath on slashdot, particularly on something so broad as to capitalism. Most slashdot-commentors do not know their history very well, and lack even a basic understanding of what makes capitalism work (and other systems fail).
I agree, mostly. I happen to work at a medtech company that is the process of developing a device (can't name it here) that is in many ways just as critical as a pacemaker, I can attest to the strength of the FDA review process. Futhermore, these companies are forced to review their own code simply to protect themselves from liability, if nothing else. There is a world of difference between doing extensive field and lab testing (which have obviously failed in the past), and verifying that the code does what it is supposed to do (relatively easy to verify).
I don't believe that Open Source would make any significant contributions in terms of development. In fact, I think it would be a really bad idea to seek out snippets of code from others. There is simply no substitute for a truely excellent and experienced programmer.
Open review might be worthwhile as a final test, though I think few would really provide review that even approaches the FDA--it is very labor intensive and requires certain detailed knowledge of the product. To really properly review the code (at a company like mine), it requires detailed knowledge of the product (as in mechanical, electrical, and optical engineering). Damn few people can even approach it...
I agree, the slashdot cheerleading squad is a problem. I have never stated that Linux is a superior operating system for the masses. Nor do I advocate GPL (et. al) projects [community led] as a suitable method to meet consumer demand--it has only had limited success at satiating geek desire, nevermind the masses.
However, Windows would be a lot better for the average consumer if MS did not enjoy its monopoly power. That is to say, that while Windows might currently be the best option for Joe Schmoe, operating system and application quality has not improved significantly in years. If MS's monopoly position were to be knocked down, the consumer would benefit greatly as competition comes about (nothing to do with Linux neccessarily).
The so called "Tyranny of the majority"
on
Focus Group Art
·
· Score: 2
"Their project is also a thinly veiled commentary on polling and what some might call the tyranny of the majority"
I'm a little unsure as to what they mean by this. What other standard do you hold art to? Should we hang whatever art the minority would have us hang in our galleries? Or should it be "even", one half representational, one half abstract? This would strike me as tyranny of the minority--the notion that those few psuedo-intellectual artists have a better idea of what should be consumed than the majority is a bit disturbing. There is nothing stopping those rare few artists from displaying their own work on their own dollar.
This is not to say that I believe that the whim of the majority should be the only voice, but it is an important one. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for ignoring the majority. For example, some art is undoubtably an acquired taste, which takes time for significant portions of the public to come around. On the other hand, even if you assume that a particular painting has intrinsic merit, should it be on the dollar of the majority which will never come around to enjoying it....
I was speaking more towards liberal arts than I was the sciences. Certainly significant portions of our scientific progress has occured within academic circles, where a professor is entitled to a certain lattititude in his work--without having to worry about short-term goals. This does not mean though, that most professors are grounded in reality--merely that academic work does produce some fruit. However, none of this is to say that academia should be squashed.
That being said, both of my parents are electrical engineers--extremely successful ones at that (I don't mean to brag or anything--so please don't flame me). They've started up multiple successful companies and hold many key patents (though the particular industry will remain unnamed-as I, too, enjoy a certain amount of anonymity). Through the years, I've picked up a lot, both through my parents, their friends, employees, and my own work and school experiences; I can tell you from personal experience, that academia doesn't know the first thing about developing a product. As in a significant product, which requires millions of dollars and a team of people working 80+ hours a week to make it work for a couple years. There are damn few successful academic projects like that which come to mind. I can point to many areas which, try as they might, academia simply can't crack it.
As you said yourself, your institution licenses most of its work; they do it for a reason. Namely, they know making the thing work is an entirely different story. I've seen this as well (in fact, my parents have licensed some technology from universities), and the technique/method/patent is only the first step. Development is huge, and requires a great deal of work and expertise too. This is one thing that so many slashdot readers fail to grasp (e.g.: the difference between mere invention and actually developing a working product from--which leads to taking swipes at all forms of IP). The development many times takes many more years, man hours, and dollars to develop. It is not just a matter of applying the academic blue prints, and building the thing. Academia is simply ill-equipped to rise to such challenges. (There are a number of reasons why this is the case, though 2am is not the time to ennumerate them.)
Perhaps you see things differently, but I've seen both sides of the coin; I am not just talking out of my ass here. Good night.:)
I believe academia does serve a certain function in society. However, this most of this "research" stuff is pretty pointless. Would you mind explaining to me how a PhD. in the liberal arts (e.g.: philosophy, english, management, theology, etc) really advances the human condition? They spend half their time in this little incestuous circle-jerk, doing critiques of critiques of critiques (and the like). How many PhD. do you really know that are producing work (e.g.: a book, or something of value) to be consumed by something other than academics? If they really produced something that people really used, even in something which I regard to be pointless, such as philosophy, I don't have a problem with it.
Futhermore, even in the more "worthwhile" pursuits, the system is geared such that they spin their wheels an aweful lot, many words but little progress. This in turn causes a lot of infighting--the politics in academica is brutal.
Even in the sciences professors are on a different planet. If you believe that they're creating our economy, you are a fool. A rare few may start something, but they hardly ever finish it or develop a product. A lucky few have their work licensed by a real company or individual...
The objection, I am sure, lies primarily in the fact that the individual is not allowed to profit from his own ideas But the professor is profiting from his ideas, as is his right. It's called his employment as a professor. In addition, at UCLA they sell professor-approved lecture notes. I would argue that the students also have the right to profit from *their* work, the notes they took.
...and what of the "poor" engineer who is employeed in Silicon valley, that is forced to sign an NDA (et. al)? He, too, is gainfully employeed. It is called a job; not so different.
My concern with verbatim notes being profitably distributed over the internet is that they might force the professor to dumb down his notes--choosing instead to wait until he can publish, copyright, or patent his work. I know some of my professors have discussed various theories of theirs...to be folded into their next publication...
You need to refer to machaone's previous replies to some of my comments regarding "proof"--only then you will understand.
That being said, I do believe most professors are out of touch. I have had 4 years (and more to come) at university already. The point I was making is that machaone has no "proof" (see above).
Regarding UCLA being a public institution, this strikes me as a bit of a paradox (if you follow the same motif as the rest of slashdot). How can you rant and rage about the evil's of non-disclosure agreements/non-compete, yet proclaim that professors have no rights to their own work. The objection, I am sure, lies primarily in the fact that the individual is not allowed to profit from his own ideas. If a professor were to improve his lecture (before he publishes), and his work is given away at profit by others, this can have the same effect. In that, you claim the state/university/students own his work, not the professor. Let me remind you that the system of notesharing has worked reasonably throughout history, this new internet business has the potential to create new problems. I'm not willing to just knee-jerk to either extreme, one way or other.
Legally speaking, the copyright law is not so cut and dry. Refer to: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/11/12/165 218&threshold=0&commentsort=3&mode=thread& pid=63#146
....this is one thing I hate about the slashdot moderation system. The knee-jerkish reactions (though not horribly written) get moderated quickly to the top(+4/5), while worthwhile comments (other perspective) languish at the bottom, and remain largely unread/moderated/commented.
I think academia is full of bullshit in many places. But to say professors are grossly overpaid is a mistake. Compare their salary relative to other professionals in their field. Consider the costs of obtaining a Phd (including forgone wages), then consider the "risks". I know most professors would actually be richer had they invested the money that went towards their education in the stock market wisely. Or did you know that there are something like 2 million PhDs in the US who can't find employment (or full-employment atleast)?
I know many slashdotters have knee-jerk-reactions to any notion of I.P. (particularly this). So allow me to play devil's advocate for a second, though let me first preface this:
a) I believe most professors are out of touch, and are far too caught up in academia. (no I'm not going to "prove" this, *ahem* mochaone)
b) there are substancial dangers is going overboard with this notion of IP...
One huge distinction between this and other "fair use" acts, is that the professors' work is (or might) be copied word-for-word, with a turn-over of a couple hours. That being said, let me present a theoretical situation:
Let us imagine that I tape all of my professors' lectures, and employ speach recognition on my PC to post verbatim notes to the web minutes later, so that I can profit. Some of my professors are unquestionably far better than others--let us assume they're the top professors in their respective subjects (at teaching--not academia necessarily).
What happens when kids and other professors merely start copying my professors' lectures? It might harm those few excellent professors who really go the extra mile to teach their students. Namely, it'll marginalize professors who strive to improve their teaching. (e.g.: develop improved metaphors, examples, drawings, arguments, etc) These same professors might turn to publishing (already a problem, publish or perish.) as a means to justify their existence (or salary). Their printed works ARE protected on the whole, unlike these free-for-all which slashdot juniors would have. Perhaps, they'd just dumb down their lectures...
Though, admittedly, my argument is hastily constructed; the situation is not so black and white as slashdot would have it. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for and against. It requires more thought and consideration than the mere 5 minute knee-jerk reflex that is evidenced by the majority of slashdot content. I know i'm going to be thinking about this more...
You claim that college professors are the most "out of touch" people on the face of the earth. Can you "prove" they're even out of touch--let alone one of the most "out of touch" groups? Where are your facts?
What law says students can do whatever they want with their notes? Ignoring law for a second, many colleges have policies against "anything". You can't take an audio recording without permission. You can't photograph without permission. Verbatim notes might very well count as an IP violation, as absurd as it might sound. I'm not entirely opposed to the notion either.
Though some potential for abuse remains it is still relatively small. I believe it is difficult to really control the technology industry unless you control two elements(e.g., hardware and OS; OS and apps; etc). MS-OS would be prompted to open their APIs up greatly if they had to compete strictly on the merits of their OS. It would only make sense, baring a pact between the two, for MS-Apps to port their applications to other OSes--where there is a profit to be had, they have an obligation to go.
MS-OS may still be able to vocalize threats to, say, an OEM--but it would be a shallow threat. They would make enemies quickly. MS-OS would be marganalized by the increased availability of applications on other OSes.
It comes down to numbers and intution, but I sincerely believe that a horizontal split would be highly effective. On the other hand, I think a vertical split would create too much market confusion too quickly. If there are 5 MS-OS companies, who do you support? What happens when all 5 try to develop independently? Porting would be a mess, each would be pressing its own hardware-software-interlock with new propietary modifications. I believe, that MS/IBM did one very important thing for the industry, that is, they created a standard overnight; a vertical split would effectively knock it back just as quickly--no standards.
Perhaps, the markets would rally around the company with Bill Gates at the helm...but then that would result in similar problems again I suspect...
Microsoft is a monopoly, and they have abused their power. The author doesn't seem to refute this. He seems to think the status quo is optimal because he can't personally identify specific harm to the consumer. That does not mean it doesn't happen. He completely neglects the fact that, amongst other things, given the economics of MS's position and rate their rate of innovation, prices and stability should IMPROVE. Not remain the same. MS doesn't enjoy any real competition in Win95/98, and they have a virtual monopoly on applications. They use these two footholds to gain leverage into one another, which allows them to play them to set whatever pace they wish on the aggregate. Competition would keep them honest. Their applications, operating systems, and services should compete on their own merits; not on the fact that they're tied together.
Thus a three way breakup(e.g., Apps, OS, Services) of MS is optimal to the consumer, and in the short run for the MS shareholder (long term value would be hurt by losing of a monopoly position). That being said, I don't advocate regulation of prices and other such similar actions. They are fundamentally different propostions.
The moderation system on slashdot is largely broken. The fact that you feel compelled to protect yourself from it speaks volumes. Though you seem to see flaws in slashdot content management (comments/articles/moderation), you still want to extend Katz the benefit of the doubt because he's got fans. Yet you're willing to write mine off with a shrug. Though they're slightly different, it is effectively the same issue. Majority whim v "right". The standard should not be whatever is popular at the moment. That is to say, just because the "more people" appear to be happier with it doesn't make it "right".
Futhermore, what majority desires is not neccessarily better for them. The majority may desire to do geek-cheerleeding, but it hurts everyone as those who're most reasonable are put off by it--causing inbalance. They may be only 5% of slashdot, but in BALANCING slashdot, they carry a great deal more weight.
There is no way to "prove" any of this, at least without extensive effort. That does not mean they're worthless. The majority of slashdot comments, yours included, don't live up to this standard of "proof". You can, however, draw thought and futher review.
My original comment was largely targeted at THE EDITORS. Since it is my belief that the editors know what they're doing, I provided the editors with a RATIONAL argument as to why they MIGHT not want to exclusively pursue the whims of the apparent majority (if Katz-comment-traffic-people are indeed a majority).
As much as I hate MS, I admit that this case has a certain gravity. As unfair as it sounds to send an individual to jail without appeal, there is a large distinction; as such, it must be handled with carefull consideration.
First off, an individual is smaller, and less likely to offend people and interests. A company of MS's size is hugely exposed and stands to run afoul of many political interests. The decision of one judge, can potentially flush billions of dollars down the drain, put thousands of people out of work, crush an industry, etc. As much as MS may deserve this treatment, I'm not inclined to treat it casually.
Secondly, when an individual is convicted of a crime, it is normally for a specific act and there is much less room for interpretation. e.g.: murder is murder. Antitrust on the other hand, is more open to interpretation and tends to cover a prevailing behavior in the company, rather than a specific act.
Thirdly, I don't believe every single case should get full access. I do, however, require more information on this law before i'm willing pass personal judgement. That being said though, I'm all too happy to see MS's fate decided sooner rather than later.
You are mostly correct. However, according to the NYLJ:
"It precludes a party from appealing until a 'final judgment' is issued - in other words, until Judge Jackson has his say not only on the law's application to his findings of fact, but on what remedies should apply to Microsoft's antitrust violations."
Does this mean that before the Supreme Court issues a writ of certiorari, that Judge Jackson's decision takes effect instantly--without any other judicial review? Despite the fact that I am a firm believer in MS's guilt, this doesn't strike me as due process. And if the Supreme Court refuses to issue a writ, does it get bumped down to the appelate courts before Jackson's decision can take effect? I don't know about you, but I need more information.
It would be one thing if I really believed that both Katz and the editors are sincere in what they write, but I don't think this to be the case. I believe Katz is effectively telling the slashdot-cheerleeding squad whatever they want to hear(I've seen Katz speak out of both sides of his mouth); I object to that on principle. But beyond that, as I've already stated, I think it detracts from slashdot in general, even if I ignore Katz.
I did view your Karma/comment history briefly. You were giving me "pointers" on how to write, implying that mine don't deserve the time of day. My first comment on this thread has recieved a score of 4. And you seem to imply that whatever the readership comments or moderates is good. I see a certain paradox in saying that Katz's articles are worthwhile because they draw moderation and comments, yet saying that mine, which draws moderation and comments, is not. Or yours....or whatever...
I was responding to specific gripes of mochaone, and some which you can't see in this thread from previous arguments with him. Context!
I do not get upset over this stuff. I was making a point, that I see a general trend, a focus of trying to create flamewars to increase banner revenue. This trend results in an increasingly singular viewpoint, that of geek fanaticism.
It is my belief that the slashdot editors KNOW what they're doing; thus I don't need to prove it to them. Instead, I made a financial argument that it could hurt them in the long term. The mere fact that they generate increased hits in the short term does NOT mean it is healthy in the long term. For example (though extreme), if I were to put the KKK up on slashdot, to spread their propaganda. I have no doubt it would generate a thousand comments. If I kept doing this on a regular basis, the readership would get fed up--they would leave en masse.
I am not putting a gun to the editors' heads, my points remain open for consideration. The mere fact that I lack exact statistics does not make my efforts worthless. Also, I have OBSERVED a number of people, those whom I believe to be the more worthwhile posters on/., who are fed up with this. This can indeed be indicitive of the population. It remains open to investigation. If they wish to ignore my arguments, time will prove me right. But then again, as an AC pointed out in this thread, maybe they're looking for an IPO (et. al) exit...
It is ironic that you purport that Katz's articles are apropos for slashdot, yet the KKK or Bill Gates is not. What facts do you have the back this up? What proof do you have that Gates' claims of MS superiority are indeed FUD? How does this differ from my claims that Katz's articles are essentially anti-establishment FUD (though my comment presumes that the editors already KNOW)--with an immature sycophantic geek-cheerleading-squad?
If you assume that user replies/moderation are an accurate indicator of the intrinsic worth of a comment, then I am significantly better off than yourself. My comment/Karma history demonstrates this well. Or would you have me believe that, perhaps, there are other criterion? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you mean JP, his nickname was JP. I knew him from #cha0s on undernet and have had run-ins in #hackphreak and the like. That was like 3-4 years ago. He was certainly incompetent then (far worse than the company he kept), though he tried his hands at being a script kiddy. Since that time, I've seen JP do and say things which make his incompetence glaringly obvious. He hasn't really changed at all as best as I can tell; Same personality, different symptoms.
I believe he stopped using IRC recently as he acquired too many enemies, particularly packet pixies/script kiddies. Though he evidently goes on anonymously or has someone else go for him, so he can get his script kiddy leads.
The state of our legal system is not such that they can afford to risk it. They DO face liability for allowing mp3 sites to run which they're made aware of. Furthermore, trading of copyrighted mp3s like that is still technically illegal, and the college does have a certain obligation to minimize it, especially when they can do so with so little effort.
Sigh, you walk in midstream, put words in my mouth, and act like you should be an arbitrator. A couple points:
1) I put "fact" in quotations for a reason. Mainly because "fact" seems to have a very special meaning for mochaone. If you had read previous comments of his, you would understand this. For instance, he tells me that I have no "proof" that the US tort system need adjustment. Despite my being able to cite numerous companies that have been adversely affected by huge awards...including ones owned by family and friends. Yet, at the same time he effectively states that corporations are "evil" and need to be restrained by force of excessive lawsuits. That is just the tip of the iceberg, and low resolution at that...
2) Slashdot can do whatever it wants to do. That does not mean that I have to remain silent about it. I don't need any proof to say that I, and many others, are growing discontent with the editorial control on slashdot. If the KKK were to be given a podium on slashdot every other day, you're not going to spend hours trying to "disprove" every one of their claims. You simply KNOW it to be untrue, and have better ways to spend your time. Instead, you express your discontent to slashdot; in the hope that, with enough similar complaints, action will be taken. I simply know what Katz is up to, and I refuse to contribute to the problem (e.g., being on the other end of the flame fest doesn't extinguish the flames). Slashdot is not usenet afterall; it IS moderated and editorial controls are used.
3) My problem with JP has NOTHING to do with his use of unsubstantiated claims. JP (whom I know) flat out lies and intentionally distorts the truth. The problem does not lie in the proof, it lies in the person. He is a hack. So to compare me to JP is nonsense.
4) Katz doesn't use "facts". His position is certainly not that of the status quo--he is infact very much of a liberal*. You should try reading his drivel for a change. Futhermore, I'm not writing an article, merely a comment. Because of size and time constraints on slashdot, and particularly its temporal nature, I'm not going to spend a great deal of time "disproving" some silly point.
5) I don't purport every one of my statements to be scientific proof. That is an unreasonable standard, and nothing would happen if every comment had to fit to such a standard. Slashdot is simply not the forum for that. The fact is that there IS utility in a forum with REASONED debate, even if you don't have statistics to back up your claim. You can still develop an argument. However, that by no means, means that it must be swallowed whole and without inspection.
...anyhow, I've wasted enough time on slashdot for a couple days. Bye
You're just bitter from previous discussions with me. e.g., http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/10/30 /1253219&cid=136
1. I don't read his crap anymore. Though Katz hype articles DO take away from that "critical" mass that is formed in other discussions, thus hurting me.
2. I, and others, just might stop reading slashdot, if things don't improve. But I won't go without a "fight", so to speak.
3. I'm actually in the process of doing something much like that, though with a different spin.
4. Other parties are more than entitled to express their opinions, but that doesn't mean that I can't desire not to see it on slashdot. You'd hardly advocate Bill Gates' right to post FUD on here regularly...or KKK (et.al).
5. You're obsessed with "factual" arguments. Because the editors know what they are doing perfectly well, I do not need to "prove" anything. In truth, the only thing that really matters is that significant portions of the mature readership here object to Katz articles. Instead of wasting time, I provide them with a financial argument as to why they shouldn't shrug off editorial control.
Additionally, I don't need "factual" arguments. In fact, these "factual" arguments are numerous on Katz's articles--they ARE the problem. Though it is true that I have posted comments on a Katz's thread, I won't sustain the argument like many others will.
PS: If you think all action and argument must be made on "fact", then you're a bigger fool than I thought. Your notion of "fact" is statistics. The fact of the matter is that statistics are easily bent. There is a saying "There are three kinds of lies in this world: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
You don't need to know the exact statistics to know that driving drunk is dangerous, you can be reasonably confident though when you OBSERVE multiple friends that have died in such crashes that it is infact dangerous.....and pssst, Since when does Katz bring "fact" into his arguments? By your reasoning, since he lacks "facts" he can make no claims about: society, law, computing, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I've met many people from behind the Iron Curtain (e.g.: Russia, Romania, etc), not ONE would rather live in communism--most hated it. Futhermore, the problems with the USSR were about a lot more than just their economic system, it was their political and military ideology. Living under constant threat from the secret police is not just a minor difference in opinion, it violates human rights. Capitalism, despite its flaws, has many supporters. So please don't give me this moral relativism crap.
I did not proclaim myself to be a "competent art critic"; nor did I say anyone else is capable making the determination. This is precisely my point, that NO ONE can say absolutely what is and is not art. However, we can know the majority opinion. It is not too unreasonable to demand art work shown in galleries does not offend almost everyones' taste. It is ludicrous equate the Cultural Revolution (et. al) to a desire to only spend public funds on art which pleases more than .005% of the population. Particularly when that unappreciated art form so volatile as not to withstand even a decade, witness fecal paintings, and other abstract nonsense. It is not a right to foist this "art" on others; you may, on the other hand, do whatever you wish on your own dollar, as is your Constitutional right.
To reiterate, at some point you must concede that a minority should not be given carte blanche on the public's back. It comes down to proportion and taste. I would never argue that 51% (55, 70, 80, etc) should be able to shut down other forms of public forms of expression when they can be done at REASONABLE cost. Below certain point, you must concede, that the minority should give way to the majority. Particularly when we have 10k minute minorites all fighting for funding--none of which can come to any consensus--which has the effect of crowding out more timeless and widely appreciated works. We live in a world of finite resources, as such some sacrifices must be made--not everyone can have their way all the time.
For the record, I'm about to graduate with a 4.0 from one of the top universities in the country. I'm most likely going to pursue a graduate degree, though not in the liberal arts. Because I made my career choice of my own volition, I do not have any motivation to "put them down a peg".
I agree with you 100%, you are one of the rare few. But you are wasting your breath on slashdot, particularly on something so broad as to capitalism. Most slashdot-commentors do not know their history very well, and lack even a basic understanding of what makes capitalism work (and other systems fail).
I agree, mostly. I happen to work at a medtech company that is the process of developing a device (can't name it here) that is in many ways just as critical as a pacemaker, I can attest to the strength of the FDA review process. Futhermore, these companies are forced to review their own code simply to protect themselves from liability, if nothing else. There is a world of difference between doing extensive field and lab testing (which have obviously failed in the past), and verifying that the code does what it is supposed to do (relatively easy to verify).
I don't believe that Open Source would make any significant contributions in terms of development. In fact, I think it would be a really bad idea to seek out snippets of code from others. There is simply no substitute for a truely excellent and experienced programmer.
Open review might be worthwhile as a final test, though I think few would really provide review that even approaches the FDA--it is very labor intensive and requires certain detailed knowledge of the product. To really properly review the code (at a company like mine), it requires detailed knowledge of the product (as in mechanical, electrical, and optical engineering). Damn few people can even approach it...
I agree, the slashdot cheerleading squad is a problem. I have never stated that Linux is a superior operating system for the masses. Nor do I advocate GPL (et. al) projects [community led] as a suitable method to meet consumer demand--it has only had limited success at satiating geek desire, nevermind the masses.
However, Windows would be a lot better for the average consumer if MS did not enjoy its monopoly power. That is to say, that while Windows might currently be the best option for Joe Schmoe, operating system and application quality has not improved significantly in years. If MS's monopoly position were to be knocked down, the consumer would benefit greatly as competition comes about (nothing to do with Linux neccessarily).
"Their project is also a thinly veiled commentary on polling and what some might call the tyranny of the majority"
I'm a little unsure as to what they mean by this. What other standard do you hold art to? Should we hang whatever art the minority would have us hang in our galleries? Or should it be "even", one half representational, one half abstract? This would strike me as tyranny of the minority--the notion that those few psuedo-intellectual artists have a better idea of what should be consumed than the majority is a bit disturbing. There is nothing stopping those rare few artists from displaying their own work on their own dollar.
This is not to say that I believe that the whim of the majority should be the only voice, but it is an important one. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for ignoring the majority. For example, some art is undoubtably an acquired taste, which takes time for significant portions of the public to come around. On the other hand, even if you assume that a particular painting has intrinsic merit, should it be on the dollar of the majority which will never come around to enjoying it....
I was speaking more towards liberal arts than I was the sciences. Certainly significant portions of our scientific progress has occured within academic circles, where a professor is entitled to a certain lattititude in his work--without having to worry about short-term goals. This does not mean though, that most professors are grounded in reality--merely that academic work does produce some fruit. However, none of this is to say that academia should be squashed.
:)
That being said, both of my parents are electrical engineers--extremely successful ones at that (I don't mean to brag or anything--so please don't flame me). They've started up multiple successful companies and hold many key patents (though the particular industry will remain unnamed-as I, too, enjoy a certain amount of anonymity). Through the years, I've picked up a lot, both through my parents, their friends, employees, and my own work and school experiences; I can tell you from personal experience, that academia doesn't know the first thing about developing a product. As in a significant product, which requires millions of dollars and a team of people working 80+ hours a week to make it work for a couple years. There are damn few successful academic projects like that which come to mind. I can point to many areas which, try as they might, academia simply can't crack it.
As you said yourself, your institution licenses most of its work; they do it for a reason. Namely, they know making the thing work is an entirely different story. I've seen this as well (in fact, my parents have licensed some technology from universities), and the technique/method/patent is only the first step. Development is huge, and requires a great deal of work and expertise too. This is one thing that so many slashdot readers fail to grasp (e.g.: the difference between mere invention and actually developing a working product from--which leads to taking swipes at all forms of IP). The development many times takes many more years, man hours, and dollars to develop. It is not just a matter of applying the academic blue prints, and building the thing. Academia is simply ill-equipped to rise to such challenges. (There are a number of reasons why this is the case, though 2am is not the time to ennumerate them.)
Perhaps you see things differently, but I've seen both sides of the coin; I am not just talking out of my ass here. Good night.
I believe academia does serve a certain function in society. However, this most of this "research" stuff is pretty pointless. Would you mind explaining to me how a PhD. in the liberal arts (e.g.: philosophy, english, management, theology, etc) really advances the human condition? They spend half their time in this little incestuous circle-jerk, doing critiques of critiques of critiques (and the like). How many PhD. do you really know that are producing work (e.g.: a book, or something of value) to be consumed by something other than academics? If they really produced something that people really used, even in something which I regard to be pointless, such as philosophy, I don't have a problem with it.
Futhermore, even in the more "worthwhile" pursuits, the system is geared such that they spin their wheels an aweful lot, many words but little progress. This in turn causes a lot of infighting--the politics in academica is brutal.
Even in the sciences professors are on a different planet. If you believe that they're creating our economy, you are a fool. A rare few may start something, but they hardly ever finish it or develop a product. A lucky few have their work licensed by a real company or individual...
The objection, I am sure, lies primarily in the fact that the individual is not allowed to profit from his own ideas But the professor is profiting from his ideas, as is his right. It's called his employment as a professor. In addition, at UCLA they sell professor-approved lecture notes. I would argue that the students also have the right to profit from *their* work, the notes they took.
...and what of the "poor" engineer who is employeed in Silicon valley, that is forced to sign an NDA (et. al)? He, too, is gainfully employeed. It is called a job; not so different.
My concern with verbatim notes being profitably distributed over the internet is that they might force the professor to dumb down his notes--choosing instead to wait until he can publish, copyright, or patent his work. I know some of my professors have discussed various theories of theirs...to be folded into their next publication...
You need to refer to machaone's previous replies to some of my comments regarding "proof"--only then you will understand.
5 218&threshold=0&commentsort=3&mode=thread& pid=63#146
That being said, I do believe most professors are out of touch. I have had 4 years (and more to come) at university already. The point I was making is that machaone has no "proof" (see above).
Regarding UCLA being a public institution, this strikes me as a bit of a paradox (if you follow the same motif as the rest of slashdot). How can you rant and rage about the evil's of non-disclosure agreements/non-compete, yet proclaim that professors have no rights to their own work. The objection, I am sure, lies primarily in the fact that the individual is not allowed to profit from his own ideas. If a professor were to improve his lecture (before he publishes), and his work is given away at profit by others, this can have the same effect. In that, you claim the state/university/students own his work, not the professor. Let me remind you that the system of notesharing has worked reasonably throughout history, this new internet business has the potential to create new problems. I'm not willing to just knee-jerk to either extreme, one way or other.
Legally speaking, the copyright law is not so cut and dry. Refer to:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/11/12/16
Ooops, spelling error: s/substancial/substantial
....this is one thing I hate about the slashdot moderation system. The knee-jerkish reactions (though not horribly written) get moderated quickly to the top(+4/5), while worthwhile comments (other perspective) languish at the bottom, and remain largely unread/moderated/commented.
I think academia is full of bullshit in many places. But to say professors are grossly overpaid is a mistake. Compare their salary relative to other professionals in their field. Consider the costs of obtaining a Phd (including forgone wages), then consider the "risks". I know most professors would actually be richer had they invested the money that went towards their education in the stock market wisely. Or did you know that there are something like 2 million PhDs in the US who can't find employment (or full-employment atleast)?
I know many slashdotters have knee-jerk-reactions to any notion of I.P. (particularly this). So allow me to play devil's advocate for a second, though let me first preface this:
a) I believe most professors are out of touch, and are far too caught up in academia. (no I'm not going to "prove" this, *ahem* mochaone)
b) there are substancial dangers is going overboard with this notion of IP...
One huge distinction between this and other "fair use" acts, is that the professors' work is (or might) be copied word-for-word, with a turn-over of a couple hours. That being said, let me present a theoretical situation:
Let us imagine that I tape all of my professors' lectures, and employ speach recognition on my PC to post verbatim notes to the web minutes later, so that I can profit. Some of my professors are unquestionably far better than others--let us assume they're the top professors in their respective subjects (at teaching--not academia necessarily).
What happens when kids and other professors merely start copying my professors' lectures? It might harm those few excellent professors who really go the extra mile to teach their students. Namely, it'll marginalize professors who strive to improve their teaching. (e.g.: develop improved metaphors, examples, drawings, arguments, etc) These same professors might turn to publishing (already a problem, publish or perish.) as a means to justify their existence (or salary). Their printed works ARE protected on the whole, unlike these free-for-all which slashdot juniors would have. Perhaps, they'd just dumb down their lectures...
Though, admittedly, my argument is hastily constructed; the situation is not so black and white as slashdot would have it. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for and against.
It requires more thought and consideration than the mere 5 minute knee-jerk reflex that is evidenced by the majority of slashdot content. I know i'm going to be thinking about this more...
You claim that college professors are the most "out of touch" people on the face of the earth. Can you "prove" they're even out of touch--let alone one of the most "out of touch" groups? Where are your facts?
What law says students can do whatever they want with their notes? Ignoring law for a second, many colleges have policies against "anything". You can't take an audio recording without permission. You can't photograph without permission. Verbatim notes might very well count as an IP violation, as absurd as it might sound. I'm not entirely opposed to the notion either.
Though some potential for abuse remains it is still relatively small. I believe it is difficult to really control the technology industry unless you control two elements(e.g., hardware and OS; OS and apps; etc). MS-OS would be prompted to open their APIs up greatly if they had to compete strictly on the merits of their OS. It would only make sense, baring a pact between the two, for MS-Apps to port their applications to other OSes--where there is a profit to be had, they have an obligation to go.
MS-OS may still be able to vocalize threats to, say, an OEM--but it would be a shallow threat. They would make enemies quickly. MS-OS would be marganalized by the increased availability of applications on other OSes.
It comes down to numbers and intution, but I sincerely believe that a horizontal split would be highly effective. On the other hand, I think a vertical split would create too much market confusion too quickly. If there are 5 MS-OS companies, who do you support? What happens when all 5 try to develop independently? Porting would be a mess, each would be pressing its own hardware-software-interlock with new propietary modifications. I believe, that MS/IBM did one very important thing for the industry, that is, they created a standard overnight; a vertical split would effectively knock it back just as quickly--no standards.
Perhaps, the markets would rally around the company with Bill Gates at the helm...but then that would result in similar problems again I suspect...
Microsoft is a monopoly, and they have abused their power. The author doesn't seem to refute this. He seems to think the status quo is optimal because he can't personally identify specific harm to the consumer. That does not mean it doesn't happen. He completely neglects the fact that, amongst other things, given the economics of MS's position and rate their rate of innovation, prices and stability should IMPROVE. Not remain the same. MS doesn't enjoy any real competition in Win95/98, and they have a virtual monopoly on applications. They use these two footholds to gain leverage into one another, which allows them to play them to set whatever pace they wish on the aggregate. Competition would keep them honest. Their applications, operating systems, and services should compete on their own merits; not on the fact that they're tied together.
Thus a three way breakup(e.g., Apps, OS, Services) of MS is optimal to the consumer, and in the short run for the MS shareholder (long term value would be hurt by losing of a monopoly position). That being said, I don't advocate regulation of prices and other such similar actions. They are fundamentally different propostions.
The moderation system on slashdot is largely broken. The fact that you feel compelled to protect yourself from it speaks volumes. Though you seem to see flaws in slashdot content management (comments/articles/moderation), you still want to extend Katz the benefit of the doubt because he's got fans. Yet you're willing to write mine off with a shrug. Though they're slightly different, it is effectively the same issue. Majority whim v "right". The standard should not be whatever is popular at the moment. That is to say, just because the "more people" appear to be happier with it doesn't make it "right".
Futhermore, what majority desires is not neccessarily better for them. The majority may desire to do geek-cheerleeding, but it hurts everyone as those who're most reasonable are put off by it--causing inbalance. They may be only 5% of slashdot, but in BALANCING slashdot, they carry a great deal more weight.
There is no way to "prove" any of this, at least without extensive effort. That does not mean they're worthless. The majority of slashdot comments, yours included, don't live up to this standard of "proof". You can, however, draw thought and futher review.
My original comment was largely targeted at THE EDITORS. Since it is my belief that the editors know what they're doing, I provided the editors with a RATIONAL argument as to why they MIGHT not want to exclusively pursue the whims of the apparent majority (if Katz-comment-traffic-people are indeed a majority).
As much as I hate MS, I admit that this case has a certain gravity. As unfair as it sounds to send an individual to jail without appeal, there is a large distinction; as such, it must be handled with carefull consideration.
First off, an individual is smaller, and less likely to offend people and interests. A company of MS's size is hugely exposed and stands to run afoul of many political interests. The decision of one judge, can potentially flush billions of dollars down the drain, put thousands of people out of work, crush an industry, etc. As much as MS may deserve this treatment, I'm not inclined to treat it casually.
Secondly, when an individual is convicted of a crime, it is normally for a specific act and there is much less room for interpretation. e.g.: murder is murder. Antitrust on the other hand, is more open to interpretation and tends to cover a prevailing behavior in the company, rather than a specific act.
Thirdly, I don't believe every single case should get full access. I do, however, require more information on this law before i'm willing pass personal judgement. That being said though, I'm all too happy to see MS's fate decided sooner rather than later.
You are mostly correct. However, according to the NYLJ:
"It precludes a party from appealing until a 'final judgment' is issued - in other words, until Judge Jackson has his say not only on the law's application to his findings of fact, but on what remedies should apply to Microsoft's antitrust violations."
Does this mean that before the Supreme Court issues a writ of certiorari, that Judge Jackson's decision takes effect instantly--without any other judicial review? Despite the fact that I am a firm believer in MS's guilt, this doesn't strike me as due process. And if the Supreme Court refuses to issue a writ, does it get bumped down to the appelate courts before Jackson's decision can take effect? I don't know about you, but I need more information.
It would be one thing if I really believed that both Katz and the editors are sincere in what they write, but I don't think this to be the case. I believe Katz is effectively telling the slashdot-cheerleeding squad whatever they want to hear(I've seen Katz speak out of both sides of his mouth); I object to that on principle. But beyond that, as I've already stated, I think it detracts from slashdot in general, even if I ignore Katz.
I did view your Karma/comment history briefly. You were giving me "pointers" on how to write, implying that mine don't deserve the time of day. My first comment on this thread has recieved a score of 4. And you seem to imply that whatever the readership comments or moderates is good. I see a certain paradox in saying that Katz's articles are worthwhile because they draw moderation and comments, yet saying that mine, which draws moderation and comments, is not. Or yours....or whatever...
...anyhow, I've got work to get done today. Bye
I was responding to specific gripes of mochaone, and some which you can't see in this thread from previous arguments with him. Context!
/., who are fed up with this. This can indeed be indicitive of the population. It remains open to investigation. If they wish to ignore my arguments, time will prove me right. But then again, as an AC pointed out in this thread, maybe they're looking for an IPO (et. al) exit...
I do not get upset over this stuff. I was making a point, that I see a general trend, a focus of trying to create flamewars to increase banner revenue. This trend results in an increasingly singular viewpoint, that of geek fanaticism.
It is my belief that the slashdot editors KNOW what they're doing; thus I don't need to prove it to them. Instead, I made a financial argument that it could hurt them in the long term. The mere fact that they generate increased hits in the short term does NOT mean it is healthy in the long term. For example (though extreme), if I were to put the KKK up on slashdot, to spread their propaganda. I have no doubt it would generate a thousand comments. If I kept doing this on a regular basis, the readership would get fed up--they would leave en masse.
I am not putting a gun to the editors' heads, my points remain open for consideration. The mere fact that I lack exact statistics does not make my efforts worthless. Also, I have OBSERVED a number of people, those whom I believe to be the more worthwhile posters on
It is ironic that you purport that Katz's articles are apropos for slashdot, yet the KKK or Bill Gates is not. What facts do you have the back this up? What proof do you have that Gates' claims of MS superiority are indeed FUD? How does this differ from my claims that Katz's articles are essentially anti-establishment FUD (though my comment presumes that the editors already KNOW)--with an immature sycophantic geek-cheerleading-squad?
If you assume that user replies/moderation are an accurate indicator of the intrinsic worth of a comment, then I am significantly better off than yourself. My comment/Karma history demonstrates this well. Or would you have me believe that, perhaps, there are other criterion? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you mean JP, his nickname was JP. I knew him from #cha0s on undernet and have had run-ins in #hackphreak and the like. That was like 3-4 years ago. He was certainly incompetent then (far worse than the company he kept), though he tried his hands at being a script kiddy. Since that time, I've seen JP do and say things which make his incompetence glaringly obvious. He hasn't really changed at all as best as I can tell; Same personality, different symptoms.
I believe he stopped using IRC recently as he acquired too many enemies, particularly packet pixies/script kiddies. Though he evidently goes on anonymously or has someone else go for him, so he can get his script kiddy leads.
The state of our legal system is not such that they can afford to risk it. They DO face liability for allowing mp3 sites to run which they're made aware of. Furthermore, trading of copyrighted mp3s like that is still technically illegal, and the college does have a certain obligation to minimize it, especially when they can do so with so little effort.
Sigh, you walk in midstream, put words in my mouth, and act like you should be an arbitrator. A couple points:
1) I put "fact" in quotations for a reason. Mainly because "fact" seems to have a very special meaning for mochaone. If you had read previous comments of his, you would understand this. For instance, he tells me that I have no "proof" that the US tort system need adjustment. Despite my being able to cite numerous companies that have been adversely affected by huge awards...including ones owned by family and friends. Yet, at the same time he effectively states that corporations are "evil" and need to be restrained by force of excessive lawsuits. That is just the tip of the iceberg, and low resolution at that...
2) Slashdot can do whatever it wants to do. That does not mean that I have to remain silent about it. I don't need any proof to say that I, and many others, are growing discontent with the editorial control on slashdot. If the KKK were to be given a podium on slashdot every other day, you're not going to spend hours trying to "disprove" every one of their claims. You simply KNOW it to be untrue, and have better ways to spend your time. Instead, you express your discontent to slashdot; in the hope that, with enough similar complaints, action will be taken. I simply know what Katz is up to, and I refuse to contribute to the problem (e.g., being on the other end of the flame fest doesn't extinguish the flames). Slashdot is not usenet afterall; it IS moderated and editorial controls are used.
3) My problem with JP has NOTHING to do with his use of unsubstantiated claims. JP (whom I know) flat out lies and intentionally distorts the truth. The problem does not lie in the proof, it lies in the person. He is a hack. So to compare me to JP is nonsense.
4) Katz doesn't use "facts". His position is certainly not that of the status quo--he is infact very much of a liberal*. You should try reading his drivel for a change. Futhermore, I'm not writing an article, merely a comment. Because of size and time constraints on slashdot, and particularly its temporal nature, I'm not going to spend a great deal of time "disproving" some silly point.
5) I don't purport every one of my statements to be scientific proof. That is an unreasonable standard, and nothing would happen if every comment had to fit to such a standard. Slashdot is simply not the forum for that. The fact is that there IS utility in a forum with REASONED debate, even if you don't have statistics to back up your claim. You can still develop an argument. However, that by no means, means that it must be swallowed whole and without inspection.
...anyhow, I've wasted enough time on slashdot for a couple days. Bye
You're just bitter from previous discussions with me. e.g.,0 /1253219&cid=136
http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/10/3
1. I don't read his crap anymore. Though Katz hype articles DO take away from that "critical" mass that is formed in other discussions, thus hurting me.
2. I, and others, just might stop reading slashdot, if things don't improve. But I won't go without a "fight", so to speak.
3. I'm actually in the process of doing something much like that, though with a different spin.
4. Other parties are more than entitled to express their opinions, but that doesn't mean that I can't desire not to see it on slashdot. You'd hardly advocate Bill Gates' right to post FUD on here regularly...or KKK (et.al).
5. You're obsessed with "factual" arguments. Because the editors know what they are doing perfectly well, I do not need to "prove" anything. In truth, the only thing that really matters is that significant portions of the mature readership here object to Katz articles. Instead of wasting time, I provide them with a financial argument as to why they shouldn't shrug off editorial control.
Additionally, I don't need "factual" arguments. In fact, these "factual" arguments are numerous on Katz's articles--they ARE the problem. Though it is true that I have posted comments on a Katz's thread, I won't sustain the argument like many others will.
PS: If you think all action and argument must be made on "fact", then you're a bigger fool than I thought. Your notion of "fact" is statistics. The fact of the matter is that statistics are easily bent. There is a saying "There are three kinds of lies in this world: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
You don't need to know the exact statistics to know that driving drunk is dangerous, you can be reasonably confident though when you OBSERVE multiple friends that have died in such crashes that it is infact dangerous.....and pssst, Since when does Katz bring "fact" into his arguments? By your reasoning, since he lacks "facts" he can make no claims about: society, law, computing, etc.