I still don't like the idea of copying. But the analogies discussed here made me realize something. This issue has been with us **always**. But, in a way, we seem to be redefining theft.
Let's take an example: Throughout history men and women have spent a lot of effort designing furniture. They would then sell this furniture. Someone else, upon seeing this new design, would go and copy it and make their own, sometimes even selling it. We have entire periods and styles of furniture throughout history based on this.
**no-one ever thought a thing about it***.
Thoughout history men and women have created products from their own materials that were exactly like others they saw or owned. In some cases it might have been considered tacky (imitating art), but in others it was just thought of as making do.
Why are we now making the reproduction of things so restrictive after an entire history of humanity freely reproduced works of which were instrumental in making progress?
Imagine if the "copying" of books had been (successfully) banned a thousand years ago? We might not have a Bible, or Shakespears works, or a guitar?
Thanks to slashdot I am beginning to see this issue as a fundamental issue of a civilized society and now believe we should have very strict limits on copywrite.
As long as we keep taking these simplistic approaches to terrorism we will never actually make progress. We have so many more tools at our disposal than creating a police state. It's tragic for future generations that we can't think in more than one direction.
Absolutely,
What we need in this country is a parlament with porportional representation. Minority parties can represent and can actually work to become a majority party. The system would be more responsive.
That is the key phrase here. From everything I have read, the bad loans were a problem, but they would not have sunk the system. There is a serious effort to blame this on the consumer and make it look like a big bank mistake. But it is really the largest theft of funds in history. The value of these instruments, and many others that are not being talked about, have been systematically plundered to make many men (and women) rich, or more rich.
People should go to jail, and the system should be reformed so it cannot happen again. But then, the "system" is being managed and communicated by the same folks who have been involved in the scheme, or their best friends.
It wasn't like "google". They had not secured the folders. The people who read the emails had to go into folders marked with the names of the people and add.pst files to their outlook. That takes purposeful intent.
They were not in a searchable web html site. It is completely different than "google".
I am not saying that the person who went into Palin's email should not have consequences, just that the consequences and outcry about these things should have some consistancy.
Further, I doubt this will get to court. If the "hacker" has good council they will claim that there were state emails there, which makes them part of the discovery process, and subpeona them.
What all this really outlines is that we need more appropriate process and law about both what constitutes electronic privacy, reponsabilities of entities that protect that privacy, and stronger laws to keep politicians from using private email to skirt open government.
That is an ideological statement and not based in fact. It has been shown again and again that public power is almost always less expensive than their private bretheren.
Does that mean that every public power cooperative provides a more economical service? No. But it does go to show that in many markets, without sufficient competition, a public utility may actually be a perfectly responsible and efficient manner in which to provide an important service.
That was the argument in the Soviet Union for the secrecy and special powers without accounting that the KGB had.
Folks that argue that this level of secrecy and extraordinary power should be allowed fail to understand history and the nature of repressing societies, and need to undertstand why it is necessary to freedom to limit such secrecy and government powers from being abused against the citizenry.
Thankfully we are an open Republic... or are we anymore?
Same thing with IT and burnout... From an anectdotal experience, I work IT but I have also worked in places like warehouses lifting boxes and sorting orders for a mail order company.
The warehouse was hot and the boxes were heavy and the task with hurt your fingers but for the life of me I miss the job because my job was straight forward and the task was predictable. Sadly, I had to give it up for money and moved back into IT and just deal with the stress as best I can. I can identify with this. I would LOVE to go back to warehouse work. If only I could live on it.
It is a shame though, that IT is becomming what it is. Maybe I was lucky, but when I started 18 years ago there was not so much pressure and overmanagement(mismanagement?) of everything.
Anyone else remember when the economy was stronger
on
Disillusioned With IT?
·
· Score: 1
I am old enough to remember when there was not so much angst about having to get "rich". We all sound like we are living in a 2cd world country, gone back to only thinking about survival.
Unfortunately it appears that is becomming true. Part of the reason is because we have such low expectations.
There is no reason we cannot have a decent job market with enough opportunity that we have extraordinary choices, like being able to work something fulfilling.
There is also no reason that we cannot have a more stable foundation without all the economic turmoil our ideologies have us caught into now.
We must just choose to make a better way. We have all the resources to do it. Unfortunately it seems so many are willing to accept a "dog eat dog" society. We are moving backwards, not forwards....
Let's face it. These days almost all legislation coming out of Washington is "by the corporation, for the corporation".
Nothing "Tinfoil" about that, it is just our current reality.
It is amazing to me how a lot of our current economic theory is built on "wishful thinking. It is pretty simple to see what will happen with globalization.
There are Billions of cheap laborers in the world labor pool. Economic theory would simply indicate that will lower wages dramatically. You need $15 an hour to live, 5000 others in the world will do your job for $2 an hour. Eventually wages will go up. But we are much more likely to end up with lots of losers and $4 an average hour wages.
If we place our country against 2cd world labor we simply end up with second world conditions in much of our country. Ultimately.
My family only watches an international channel. Yet I must pay for, and subsidize, a program of "standard channels", even though I do not use them, in order to get the international channel (which is charged seperately) . All of the providers (Cable and Satallite) all do this. I have no choice.
There are 3 Billion people in the world making less than $2 a day.
This is never discussed by globalism's advocates and international outsourcers. , but simple economics says that the wider we open the door, the faster our lifestyle will fall. And that goes for ALL jobs (eventually). It is just simple "free market" economics.
As long as companies are willing to train cheap labor while refusing to train middle class labor, there will always be someone available to work cheaper.
Already, China and India are cranking up and will graduate massive numbers of diploma'd scientists and engineers in a few years. How can you compete when other countries are can create graduates at 10% of our cost, when outsourcing companies run IT labor mills that and actually invest in training while our companies stubbornly refuse to invest in Americans?
The only thing that is saving our tails right now is the fact that there are limits on how fast the spigot of world labor can enter our country.
The only way we can resist global pressures on wages is through thoughtful policy and measured and careful labor immigration policies.
Slashdot Mirror
I still don't like the idea of copying. But the analogies discussed here made me realize something. This issue has been with us **always**. But, in a way, we seem to be redefining theft. Let's take an example: Throughout history men and women have spent a lot of effort designing furniture. They would then sell this furniture. Someone else, upon seeing this new design, would go and copy it and make their own, sometimes even selling it. We have entire periods and styles of furniture throughout history based on this. **no-one ever thought a thing about it***. Thoughout history men and women have created products from their own materials that were exactly like others they saw or owned. In some cases it might have been considered tacky (imitating art), but in others it was just thought of as making do. Why are we now making the reproduction of things so restrictive after an entire history of humanity freely reproduced works of which were instrumental in making progress? Imagine if the "copying" of books had been (successfully) banned a thousand years ago? We might not have a Bible, or Shakespears works, or a guitar? Thanks to slashdot I am beginning to see this issue as a fundamental issue of a civilized society and now believe we should have very strict limits on copywrite.
As long as we keep taking these simplistic approaches to terrorism we will never actually make progress. We have so many more tools at our disposal than creating a police state. It's tragic for future generations that we can't think in more than one direction.
Absolutely, What we need in this country is a parlament with porportional representation. Minority parties can represent and can actually work to become a majority party. The system would be more responsive.
People should go to jail, and the system should be reformed so it cannot happen again. But then, the "system" is being managed and communicated by the same folks who have been involved in the scheme, or their best friends.
It wasn't like "google". They had not secured the folders. The people who read the emails had to go into folders marked with the names of the people and add .pst files to their outlook. That takes purposeful intent.
They were not in a searchable web html site. It is completely different than "google".
I am not saying that the person who went into Palin's email should not have consequences, just that the consequences and outcry about these things should have some consistancy.
Further, I doubt this will get to court. If the "hacker" has good council they will claim that there were state emails there, which makes them part of the discovery process, and subpeona them.
What all this really outlines is that we need more appropriate process and law about both what constitutes electronic privacy, reponsabilities of entities that protect that privacy, and stronger laws to keep politicians from using private email to skirt open government.
Like the GOP staff that used an exploit to read their oppositions email? Hmm, there were no legal consequences in that case. Maybe there should have been? Report Finds Republican Aides Spied On Democrats http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E0D7103FF936A35750C0A9629C8B63
That is an ideological statement and not based in fact. It has been shown again and again that public power is almost always less expensive than their private bretheren. Does that mean that every public power cooperative provides a more economical service? No. But it does go to show that in many markets, without sufficient competition, a public utility may actually be a perfectly responsible and efficient manner in which to provide an important service.
That was the argument in the Soviet Union for the secrecy and special powers without accounting that the KGB had. Folks that argue that this level of secrecy and extraordinary power should be allowed fail to understand history and the nature of repressing societies, and need to undertstand why it is necessary to freedom to limit such secrecy and government powers from being abused against the citizenry. Thankfully we are an open Republic... or are we anymore?
I am old enough to remember when there was not so much angst about having to get "rich". We all sound like we are living in a 2cd world country, gone back to only thinking about survival. Unfortunately it appears that is becomming true. Part of the reason is because we have such low expectations. There is no reason we cannot have a decent job market with enough opportunity that we have extraordinary choices, like being able to work something fulfilling. There is also no reason that we cannot have a more stable foundation without all the economic turmoil our ideologies have us caught into now. We must just choose to make a better way. We have all the resources to do it. Unfortunately it seems so many are willing to accept a "dog eat dog" society. We are moving backwards, not forwards....
Let's face it. These days almost all legislation coming out of Washington is "by the corporation, for the corporation". Nothing "Tinfoil" about that, it is just our current reality.
It is amazing to me how a lot of our current economic theory is built on "wishful thinking. It is pretty simple to see what will happen with globalization. There are Billions of cheap laborers in the world labor pool. Economic theory would simply indicate that will lower wages dramatically. You need $15 an hour to live, 5000 others in the world will do your job for $2 an hour. Eventually wages will go up. But we are much more likely to end up with lots of losers and $4 an average hour wages. If we place our country against 2cd world labor we simply end up with second world conditions in much of our country. Ultimately.
My family only watches an international channel. Yet I must pay for, and subsidize, a program of "standard channels", even though I do not use them, in order to get the international channel (which is charged seperately) . All of the providers (Cable and Satallite) all do this. I have no choice.
There are 3 Billion people in the world making less than $2 a day. This is never discussed by globalism's advocates and international outsourcers. , but simple economics says that the wider we open the door, the faster our lifestyle will fall. And that goes for ALL jobs (eventually). It is just simple "free market" economics. As long as companies are willing to train cheap labor while refusing to train middle class labor, there will always be someone available to work cheaper. Already, China and India are cranking up and will graduate massive numbers of diploma'd scientists and engineers in a few years. How can you compete when other countries are can create graduates at 10% of our cost, when outsourcing companies run IT labor mills that and actually invest in training while our companies stubbornly refuse to invest in Americans? The only thing that is saving our tails right now is the fact that there are limits on how fast the spigot of world labor can enter our country. The only way we can resist global pressures on wages is through thoughtful policy and measured and careful labor immigration policies.