I just "splurged" and bought myself a $29.95 subscription to Keyhole a few days ago. Now what?
Man, just my luck. Just when I thought being able to show girls how I zoomed into their backyard and saw a fuzzy sattelite photo of them sunbathing topless was gonna get me laid. Now every Joe Schmo geek will be able to do it.
I guess I'll just stick to writing some socialnetwork things until it finally happens for me.
To think that most users who run Linux on their desktop are doing so only because they don't like Windows is to misunderstand desktop linux entirely.
I'll try to summarize the benefits desktop Linux has over other OSes, and why this is nonsense:
(1) Desktop Linux distros come with hundreds of quality desktop applications, installed and license-free, at no cost. Productivity applications, web browsers, FTP clients, e-mail/PIM programs, messengers, not to mention the rich GNU heritage of command-line tools, a variety of programming environments, etc. This is all installed and ready-to-use after the installation completes on your PC. Thousands more software packages are available in a few clicks via Synaptic/Red Carpet/Yast or whatever. Mac OS X and Windows simply _do not compare_ in this respect.
(Disclosure: It's true that Mac OS has some access to these apps via Apple's X11 and Fink/Darwinports, but you have to admit it's not the same as having these be a "real" part of your desktop.)
(2) Linux will run on a TON of hardware, including old hardware, which means you can use to "revitalize" existing machines and save money.
(3) Linux is always uttered in the same sentence with "open source" and more particularly "open source innovation." For people who want to be a part of the open source movement, Linux (or BSDs) is the natural choice. For people who want to be free of proprietary software, to even the slightest degree, will stick with Linux.
(4) Linux, as a kernel, is hyper-configurable. You can strip it down or compile everything in. Tweakers and power users like this idea.
(5) The "slick GUI" advantage of OS X will rapidly disappear over the next few years, as desktop linux developers make more progress with XOrg, composite, direct rendering, etc.
(6) Linux being used very often as a server, it's just as simple to install major server apps (Apache, Tomcat, mysql, vsftpd etc.) as other apps.
(7) The typical Linux environment is highly, highly scriptable.
Don't think desktop linux is dead. I actually believe that all these pundits are completely wrong. Open source desktop Linux developers will now unite to innovate more so than ever before. This move, if anything, will galvanize developers. Hell, it's already gotten me to get off my ass and start working on something new. I look forward to the future, and you should too.
Noam Chomsky once said the first amendment says you have to allow for free speech for everyone, not just "free speech for ideas you like."
If "securing" the Internet means making it less easy for crackers to break into systems, then I'm all for it, but doubt the government will be much help. For that, we should probably be looking at the work done in security research in Universities across the land.
If securing the Internet means preventing little Johnny from learning about crime ae and murder and sex, well then there is a very simple solution: prevent your child from accessing the Internet.
Little Johnny can just as easily find those things by wandering around town, entering restaurants, stores, parks and local hangouts. But that doesn't mean we should ban speech in public places. It just means if you want to protect your children from ideas you don't like, then protect them, god damnit. Understand that browsing the web is just like walking around town without parental supervision. Don't blame the publishers: blame yourself!
I just met a few parents who let their kid browse the web for hours on end. Eventually, they found out this 13 year old girl was sending naked photos of herself to random 40 year olds online with her webcam. So what did they do? Tried to sue the website that allowed her to do that (buddypic.com), of course! Did she ever think that she might be at fault, for allowing her daughter to browse around the web without any inkling of what is Right and what is Wrong in her innocent mind?
America: land of irresponsible but accusatory parents, who'll shred our constitution if it means they can watch their shitty network TV ("CSI is on!") while their children entertain themselves any way they can, so long as it is state-controlled and state-monitored.
A lot of commentators _really_ are speaking out of their ass on this one.
For example, one of them notes that Apple may face a challenge since Darwin doesn't support as many drivers on Intel x86 as it does on PPC. This is a _very_ important point. What do you think most Linux kernel development is? It isn't mostly scheduler algorithms and such. It's drivers, drivers and more drivers. Look at most of the patches for the Linux kernel. Most of them are to support the amazing diversity of hardware here in the x86 world.
If Dvorak and Co. sincerely believe that OS X will, one day, run on any and all x86 hardware, they first better realize that that day won't be very soon. It takes a lot of developers and a lot of effort to support the whole x86 world, especially with the standard Apple has set for stuff that "just works." I believe (and everyone else should too) that Apple will very much limit the KIND of hardware OS X can run on, so that Apple will remain the primary hardware vendor of Apple machines.
Vaughan-Nichols, for example, writes:
"The part of Mac OS X that talks to drivers is based on FreeBSD. No, the BSD operating systems don't have as many developers as Linux, but their best people are the equal of Linux's best."
The issue here isn't that FreeBSD doesn't have a lot of drivers. The issue is that Darwin _is not_ FreeBSD! Darwin is "based upon FreeBSD," and the Apple developers will have to track FreeBSD development. And FreeBSD development is not nearly as rapid as Linux, and even LINUX is behind the curve on supporting third-party hardware. Meanwhile, Linux driver development is starting to be driven by the corporate world too: you see Intel, HP, and other companies contributing programmer time to these drivers. It would be a strange day indeed if these big companies started throwing their weight behind Apple's experiment instead, and pulled a 180 on this.
The only thing I do agree with is that this should be an impetus for developers to start unifying and throwing their weight at the desktop. This is already happening in a lot of ways, and will only continue. I see a lot of innovation from apps whose implementation has been simplified by high-level programming: I'm talking about PyGTK and Mono apps.
I realized that myself and have begun throwing my brainstorming and programmer time toward trying to make Linux Desktop better for all of us. To put the user interface argument to sleep, I think Keith Packard and anyone else with low-level graphics programming understanding should continue pushing for a move to a direct-rendering-enabled X server, so desktop developers can use the fancy effects Mac OS X has had for a few years. And we should continue innovating with apps like Beagle, F-Spot, and Tomboy, while keeping strong staple apps like Galeon/Epiphany and Evolution running as strong as they are.
And that's just the GTK/GNOME world. There's lots of really amazing and wonderful innovation happening in KDE world too. Have you ever used AmaroK? Best music managing program I've ever seen (way better than iTunes). And it's only been in serious development for a year or two.
As for the suggestion to "just pick one desktop," I think that's ridiculous. Don't destroy a desktop: simply continue unifying the toolkits. Fine-tune the engines that allow QT apps to look and feel like GTK apps, and vice versa. Get some agreement on both sides about things like Open and Save dialogs. And, of course, make this unification OPTIONAL, since I, for one, don't mind having some apps using the Plastik theme and other apps using SmoothGnome. But don't rm -rf * years of development only because you don't like to have a choice.
I think the times are really exciting for Linux developers. We have a chance to put together a serious desktop for developers and for users, and we will be competing alongside the biggest players in the industry. I think we can do it. It's not as grim as it seems.
I just want to pre-emptively respond to all the posts that are going to say, 'well, as usual, Linux is catching up to Microsoft and Apple a couple years after the fact.'
Yes, you may be right. But the difference is that Linux doesn't have to be first, it just has to be better. And it will be. The rich base of command line utilities and a solid kernel are necessary to have great degrees of stability and richness at the higher levels (like an X server). I find my Linux base indispensable (from the point of view of the usefulness and scriptability of all the UNIX tools and primitives), and I think I concord with other Linux users when I say I'd be perfectly happy with my free Linux desktop when it 'catches up' in the less useful things like eye candy and hardware rendering. Because in the end, I'll have a Free, Powerful Desktop that Looks Just As Good As Yours, while you may be stuck with a good-looking, but still proprietary, mess of a system that is still sorely weak in the basics.
Just my two cents... but undoubtedly in the time it took me to write this post, it will no longer be pre-emptive.
I take issue with the fraud idea. They aren't charging late fees anymore. They just set it up so you buy the video implicitly if you keep it seven days after the due date. Thats really not that unreasonably.
I don't know why some/.'ers and other people in "real life" find the need to defend corporations no matter how bad they are. I guess it's a sign of the times, as society plunges headlong into a mix of fascism/corporatism, but let's stay on point.
When Blockbuster announced in their television ads "NO MORE LATE FEES!" with song, dance and Hallelujah, most people thought, like I did, that this meant the new policy was MORE FORGIVING than before. When I saw the ad, the first thing I thought is, "That's awesome! How do they do it!"
So to get out of your bubble for a second, just imagine this. Imagine you're using a car rental company, and you've used them before. In the past, their policy for late returns was charging 2x the normal price per day for every day the car is "late". I have no idea how car rentals work, but just go with me for a sec.
Now imagine you run a bunch of ads where you say, "Hey, no late fees anymore on these cars!"
So someone rents your car and when he's running a little late (wants to stay another week in Arizona, or whatever), he figures, eh, no worries, there are no late fees.
But guess what: you are now the owner of your very own Kia Rio!
See how that's deceptive? Or are you still gonna give me some stupid argument about the "lazy consumer?"
Perfect, let's start rating the security of our products by how many patches have been written and applied. What does this kind of numbers game encourage?
(1) Don't write a patch, since that admits failure or insecure products.
or
(2) Wait a long time before writing and committing a patch, so you can do it as "one big patch" (otherwise known as, haha, a Service Pack!).
Thanks Microsoft! Just your STATEMENTS make systems less secure (nevermind your engineering).
Re:A laudable project - which already exists
on
The Hundred-Buck PC
·
· Score: 1
This project, believe it or not, already exists, at least on some level. Give them a call, and see if you can open up a chapter near you.
FREE GEEK was founded in February 2000 (and incorporated as a 501(c)(3) in April 2000) to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations in the community and throughout the world.
In the four years since its formation, Free Geek has recycled over 360 tons of electronic scrap and refurbished over 3,000 computer systems that are now in use by individuals and organizations in the community.
Free Geek does most of this work with volunteers (at any given time, about 200 are active). The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.
Not to plug myself, but I even mentioned Free Geek and the idea of recycling computers to third world nations so that they could use them as "the cheapest library one could ever build" to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy when he came to my university for a round table discussion with other students. He thought it was a great idea (...so it must be?). [end shameless plug]
Man, I guess most Slashdotters haven't studied arguments beyond Linux v. Windows. Perhaps you guys need a philosophy class or three. Makes me sad... a lot of you guys could learn how to argue, considering you engage in argument so often.
Anyway, back to your post. Again, it doesn't follow. The reason you are responsible for the situation you described is because you are hiring a team to commit an act in exchange for money. In other words, that team is acting as an agent of you. Lots of states have legal terms for this like "solicitation of murder" or "murder for hire." And in most states, you get a good amount of hard jail time for that. The fact that you use a secret code is totally irrelevant.
Not to mention that my argument doesn't disallow the ability for law enforcement to stop someone who has the compiled binary of a virus and the intent to use it. If I get into an argument with my girlfriend and threaten to send her a virus, and then she calls the cops on me and they raid my computer and find a folder called "Virus for girlfriend" with a few binaries that are identified viruses inside, it is reasonable to say that I am not protected by free speech here. But even then, the blame isn't put on the guy who wrote the source code of the viruses, so I don't see any point in your line of thinking here.
"So by that analogy, someone who burns down a building shouoldn't be prosecuted because they are just expresssing themselves. Come on, him saying that he didn't distribute his "code" is complete crap. He wrote it and it got distributed."
Nice try, but that doesn't follow. The virus writer isn't like the guy who burns down the building; he's more like the guy who came up with the formula for the molotoff cocktail your guy used to burn down the building. Coming up with the formula is a creative act, and one that is protected enough so that one has the right to actually publish the formula anywhere. One can (or at least, should) be able to publish the design for other molotoff cocktails, or bombs, or guns, or swords, or whatever harmful thing you want.
However, the second someone takes that formula and puts together the ingredients (*ahem, compiles the source code*) and throws it at the building (*ahem, distributes the executable*), then we have our criminal.
What the RIAA/MPAA don't realize is that they are trying to close the barnyard doors after the animals have already left.
Information and content is a lot cheaper and more easily accessible than it was a few years ago. The RIAA still sells CDs for $10-$20, when a CD holds 700MB of music/data, tops. Meanwhile, a DVD, with 8GB of Video/Music/Data, is usually in the $20 range. Already, CDs seem overpriced.
But now take the cost of a high speed internet connection ($30/mo. for cable modems around here), and how much data you have access to in how much time, and you realize that the world has definitely changed. These aren't the days of the local library and record store, but of Google and Kazaa.
The RIAA/MPAA are dinosaur organizations who don't realize the meteor has already struck and they are soon to die. So they go around frantically foraging all the food they can while the doomsday clouds loom above. Information and content is cheap. Dirt cheap. Users want fast access to it. Message to the RIAA: adapt!
People have the connections, they have the big powerful computers, all they don't have is the service. If the RIAA had the foresight to realize that a) CDs are overpriced, b) too much of CD profit goes to marketing/advertising firms and the cushy CEOs of record labels and c) they can readjust the price of music, offer it online, and dominate the market, then today we would probably have an immensely popular online music service that offers songs for $0.25, compensates artists adequately, and keeps the RIAA in business.
You have to keep up with the technological innovations if you want to survive. People pirate movies, but not nearly as many people as those who pirate music. Why? Pirating a movie is a pain in the ass right now. You get a low-quality DVD rip that doesn't easily play on your TV. Music, on the other hand, you get at near-CD quality (or CD quality), and you can easily burn a CD or put it on your MP3 player. The day that one can download 8GB of DVD video in a few minutes is the day DVD videos in stores will be severely overpriced at $20/pop.
As to your other point, the reason this research focuses on censorship-resistant systems, and uses the word censorship, is because as it stands today using no fancy techniques, one cannot be assured that the publication of any document will not be censored by those who can control access to your particular server. And if the government or any other agency wants to censor the publication of a document on the Internet, currently it can (maybe not 'legally', but technically). So this research does have a place, and is well-named.
So the reason it might be worth paying 26k for this virtual island is that there is a real cash economy in the "game" - in other words, presumably the in-game resources he can extract from his island can presumably be sold or utilized to make items in the game that can be exchanged for real US dollars. So it's a virtual investment, but one that has potential real-world payoff.
See, the difference between the "real cash economy" and this game and the "real cash economy" in real life is scarcity.
Who did the "sucker" buy the $26.5K island from? The game developers. And who did the game developers buy it from? Well, no one. They just created it in their map editor, or whatever.
And they can make a million islands just like that one, if they like. Because they are selling a resource which they have unlimited access in duplicating.
The buyer may make money on this, but at some point someone's gonna realize that everyone's a sucker, except the game developers.
For one thing, I'd never spend 26,500 buckaroos on something I wasn't guaranteed to be scarce for at least a little while. What if the game developers sell 40 islands tomorrow? Well, then the value of that island's gonna drop, since there'll be more vacant real estate to sell. Our poor sucker loses money.
It's one thing when you control the fiat on currency (like in the US). It's another when you also control it on _resources_. If you control resources, and can just "print up new resources" to make more money, then what has real value?
While I agree that technology in Math helps for some things, especially visualization of otherwise abstract concepts, technology can also really impede Math learning.
I know this. I'm a public high school graduate who is now in Computer Science and feels as if his Math background is lacking, to say the least.
Yet, I got a 5 on AP Calculus exam, got As in my Calc class, but don't remember a damn thing from Calculus. Why? I mastered the fucking calculator.
Armed with a graphing calculator (TI-89 preferred), I can do anything from Calculus. Armed with a pen, paper, and my own brain, I'm as useless as a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard (sometimes, I feel even more useless).
How can this be, you ask? AP has a section without the Calculutor too! Answer: lots of long-night review the night before the exam. I barely remember that week, let alone the material I crammed into my head for the exam.
Sure, it didn't help that my Calc teacher wasn't stellar, and that it was senior year (so I was busy with college applications and all that nonsense), but nonetheless, I wish I had gotten a real Calculus education. And I could have, if it weren't for that damned calculator.
People learn what interests them. If you love Math and hate technology, then you'll learn math and the calculator will help you out in tough spots. If you don't really love Math but do love technology, then you'll do what's logical: master the device, the graphing calculator. Little did I know I'd actually need the concepts I used my technological know-how to work around!
Now I have to audit a Calc I class to catch up, since I feel so embarassed for myself.
More and more kids are excited by technology. That means less and less will learn math, especially if they are using stuff like Mathematica in their classrooms, instead of working out the derivatives or whatnot.
I take the same view as my algorithms Professor nowadays. On the second day of class, he took away the graphing calculator from a student he saw using it to calculate whatever, then he brought it up to his desk, pulled out a hammer from his drawer, and smashed it to pieces.
Or so we thought; he actually smashed an old, broken calculator to pieces that he switched with the brand-new one. We were all shocked, and amused when he revealed the trick, but then he said, "If you want to learn something, throw away your calculator, unless that thing you want to learn is your calculator."
I know this thread is dead already, but I just had to respond to this absurdity.
The bottom line is this: you can only be charitable and giving with your OWN MONEY. You can't donate all the shareholder's money to your pet cause without expecting them to get a new board.
We are talking about a corporation being morally and socially responsible. That does not mean the corporation has to "donate shareholder money," although from the sound of it, you hold the typical (and stupid) business mentality that you can just "throw money at things" to solve problems. What I and most people who worry about this stuff are talking about are the actions the corporation takes. Will the corporation's manufacturing practice adversely affect the environment of the surrounding community? Will closing down a factory in a small town where the company was born, only in order to move to cheaper overseas markets and save some cash, ruin the economy of that town? Is the corporation treating its employees with dignitee and respect?
I'm not saying CEO Joe Schmo has to donate his shareholder's money to Make-a-Wish. I'm saying when he makes decisions, he has to think about things OTHER than the bottom line. And that, increasingly, isn't the case. CEOs feel pressure from their shareholders due to the legal structure of corporations, which allows a group of shareholders to remove a CEO at the slightest performance dip (when earnings go flat). And a CEO has to worry so much about keeping his own job that he doesn't let moral and social concerns enter into his corporate decision-making.
they are legally required to put profits for their shareholders above all other considerations
No. You're wrong. Why do so many people think this? They are responsible to their shareholders in that they cannot willfully or illegally lose their shareholders money. They do no have to forsake their values.
No, you're naive. The basic naivete comes from your language, in fact. "They do not have to forsake their values." Sure, they don't. But there's a _lot_ of pressure to do so.
Do you really believe people think this because they are whacky? Take a look at this passage from an article from the Harvard Business School:
Generating corporate virtue
By now, the story of Malden Mills and its owner, Aaron Feuerstein, is so familiar that the company name has become a sort of shorthand for corporate benevolence. The tale briefly told: In 1995, a fire destroyed Malden Mills' textile plant in Lawrence, an economically depressed town in northeastern Massachusetts. With an insurance settlement of close to $300 million in hand, Feuerstein could have, for example, moved operations to a country with a lower wage base, or he could have retired. Instead, he rebuilt in Lawrence and continued to pay his employees while the new plant was under construction.
"Why don't more companies act that way?" is a common reaction when people first hear the story. It is much too simplistic to reply that Feuerstein is a better person than most. Whatever Feuerstein's relative level of virtue, he had far fewer shareholders to answer to than the average CEO. Feuerstein's only shareholders are himself and several members of his family, who presumably share his willingness to sacrifice profits for the sake of the employees' wellbeing. (Feuerstein was perhaps too willing--Malden Mills filed for bankruptcy protection last November.) The typical CEO of a publicly held corporation, by contrast, is accountable to thousands of shareholders.
My purpose here is not to denigrate the share-owned corporation, which is a fundamental building block of democratic capitalism, but to acknowledge that its legal structure imposes certain priorities on its senior leaders. If they fail to maximize earnings for shareholders, managers risk removal by the equity holders to whom they report. Worse, failure to serve shareholders' interests puts the corporation in jeopardy of being acquired by a stronger company or losing access to capital markets. In theory at least, self-interest and self-preservation ensure that no rational executive will engage in activities that clearly erode shareholder value.
For an interesting approach to the problem (and it does exist!), check out the article.
According to Netcraft, Apache outnumbers IIS 3:1, and I'm making the (valid) assumption that most Apache web servers run on Linux. Let's also make the other assumption that most 24/7 machines are web servers (that most servers accessible on the net are web servers).
So, Netcraft has 37,620,349 Apache servers on-file, compared to 11,679,222 IIS servers. Mi2G has reported 235,907 successful breaches. First of all, to give you an idea of the sample size, that's 0.5% of all servers recorded by Netcraft! But let's give them that, since this is a sample of breaches occuring in a relatively short time period.
Now here comes the real news. 59,419 of computers recorded as breached are Windows, whereas 154,846 of computers recorded as breached are Linux (mi2g's numbers). Let's take those as percentages of all Linux [*nix] servers, and of all Windows servers. Looks like 0.4% of Linux servers have been breached, whereas 0.5% of Windows servers have been breached. So Windows is a little less secure, by my metric.
Now, this is a little unfair, because my assumption above (that Apache servers run Linux) is wrong. Many Apache servers that Netcraft picks up run BSD and could even run Mac OS X Server, I guess. Even taking this into account, the breach rate would be about the same for the two OSes (probably a little bit better for Linux).
What this doesn't take into account in terms of the Windows/UNIX debate are the hidden costs of an IIS server in terms of administration, virii, stability, reboot requirements, etc. the list goes on and on. It also doesn't take into account SOME hidden costs of Linux/BSD servers, but those are minor compared to the Windows annoyances (trust me, I know: I administer a Windows server, unfortunately).
That said, I do think BSD probably is more secure, and I use Netcraft's "longest uptime" as one of my metrics. To me, it seems the longer a site is on the Internet, the more statistical chance it has to get attacked. That ALL of the top uptime sites on Netcraft's list run BSD shows me that BSD is a pretty rock-solid OS for servers, that you can leave them out there in the wild for years without worry.
The real bottom line is that software that runs on UNIX-like OSes tends to be more secure, and this usually has not too much to do with the OS. For your box to have real security, the system administrator has to be smart (or the distro has to come with Smart Defaults, like I believe Debian does in the Linux world). The only real way to prevent security breaches is to be a smart administrator: to think ahead and secure your boxen before it's too late.
All this study shows me is that no OS is a "magic bullet," that breaches occur on unprotected machines regardless of your OS. No one blames car manufacturers/designers for stolen in-dash CD players if you stupidly forget to lock your doors.
A lot of people don't realize you have to punch one or two holes in your firewall in order for Edonkey to work at good speeds. It's true that Edonkey is generally slow, but I think the impression that it is "ass-slow" comes from having to configure Edonkey to work through firewalls or suffer grave consequences.
Once Edonkey has you recognized as "Available", then speeds will start to pick up. Yea, you won't get 200kb/sec. downloads, but you'll get 30k/sec or so, and will be able to find stuff you can't normally find on Kazaa and other networks.
I use Edonkey in a set-it-and-forget-it way.
Now that Edonkey has a bittorrent plug-in, things are even better. Bittorrent is still (IMO) the fastest way to get files (if you can find a good torrent), but Edonkey does something very nice by allowing you to download a file from Bittorrent peers AND Edonkey peers simultaneously... that's pretty neat! I'd like it if they develop that plug-in even further.
I'm graduating in 2006 with a computer science degree. I'm a hard-working student with a near-perfect GPA at a major university, but I really don't think my value in the workforce has been significantly increased by my college education, outside of the "basic practice" one gets in college, i.e. problem solving and critical thinking.
I entered college already fluent in a few programming languages, with a full understanding of a lot of CS concepts (which I ended up relearning), a good math background, and most importantly, a lot of drive to work on my own thing and solve problems. In high school, I wasn't a complete geek, but I did spend a lot of classes writing down my own ideas for this or that program (drawing charts, writing pseudocode) rather than listening to my teachers.
In fact, most of the best students among my CS colleagues are very much like me--they entered with a certain background, and it was that background that allowed them to excel. Yes, we tune those skills a little (for example, I know C/asm a lot better now that I've worked on building an OS in C/asm), but I think 4 years of personal freerange hacking with a *couple* CS theory books read on the side would have done much the same thing.
Truthfully, I think I learned more usable skills in my elective classes and my minor (Philosophy) in terms of fleshing out my own ideas on broader subjects, fine-tuning and tweaking my writing, framing arguments, engaging in debates, etc. Ultimately, these kinds of activities make me a a better thinker, someone who can do more than just be a "code monkey." These classes are also much more social than CS classes.
CS grads are generally too insular. I see a lot of kids who may be programming masters, but can't articulate a sentence when called on in class. It doesn't seem like these kinds of people will be able to do something meaningful in "the real world." Yes, they may have lots of creativity buried in their code, but that won't get them anywhere if they can't a) communicate their ideas to someone else and b) defend them coherently when their merit is questioned.
It seems to me if I were an employer, I'd care about whether my employee can think, debate, and communicate. Unless, of course, I really just wanted a code monkey.
This is one of those myths that has been busted time and time again, but thick-headed conservatives nonetheless spew the lies and thus perpetuate them.
To make the myth more concrete, conservatives believe MoveOn.org, a 527 group clearly connected in some way with the Democratic party (yes, this is itself wrong, but talk to your Congressman about Campaign Finance Reform if you want something to be done about it) ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Here's what really happened--here's the background the soundbite-obsessed Fox News anchors can't dig into because they aren't real journalists.
MoveOn.org ran a content called Bush in 30 Seconds. It was a content that allows ANYONE to submit an ad to MoveOn.org, and the ads would be showcased on the website while voting took place. The ad with the most votes would be aired by MoveOn.org.
Two of the OVER 1,500 ads compared Bush to Hitler. You can see these two ads here and here.
Now, in case we are forgetting, let me remind you of the correct interpretation of the first amendment--in order for there to be freedom of speech, there has to be freedom of speech even for ideas you don't like. Sure, most people absolutely hate even the mention of Hitler, but by censoring those people who use his image or make comparisons to him, we violate the first amendment right in all cases. There are some legal exceptions (the famous "fighting words" case among others).
That said, I am just reminding you that even these two amateur filmmakers did nothing wrong within the law, which sometimes isn't clear to people who don't truly respect constitutional rights.
The bottom line, however, is that MoveOn.org never aired these ads because people never voted them to the top. So, although you can fault these two amateur filmmakers for this film, you can't fault the democratic party, "democrats" at large, or even MoveOn.org. It would be like faulting Salon.com (or "the liberal media") if on one of their Forums I posted a message that said Bush reminds me of Hitler.
Plus, I find this somewhat ridiculous because one could easily turn this around. Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992. I am positive that most moral theorists and philosophers would find serious problems with that equivalence claim, regardless of their standpoint on abortion. Contrast this to the two ads posted on MoveOn.org, and you find one very important distinction. The ads on MoveOn.org focus on Hitler's power in using propaganda, his military force abroad and his rhetoric saying that he is driven by God. These particular aspects of Hitler's character could be argued to be found in George W. Bush. However, the comparison is unfair because it seeks emotional manipulation and deception, in that whenever someone thinks of Hitler, one thinks immediately of the holocaust and pure evil (thus, the mental connection, whatever the intention, becomes "Bush is this evil murderous leader"). But you have to admit that Limbaugh's comparison is much worse, because he effectively says that feminists are evil, murderous people, conducting their own holocaust. A clear distinction.
But, I won't fault him for that. After all, he is just one person, one viewpoint. It's his right of speech. And that means I can't say, "because Rush Limbaugh said it, it is mainstream conservati
I just got a $125 ticket for talking on the cell phone while driving.
I pulled out the phone and had it sitting on my lap until I got to a red light. Then I hit dial and told my friend I was running late to a meeting. I hung up. Conversation went like this: "I'm in the car, but I'll be there in 20 minutes. See you soon."
"Ok, bye."
*Knock knock*
Motorcycle cop at my window. Tells me to pull over.
I try to explain to him that I only spoke on the cell phone at a red light, and so my car wasn't moving. Then he explained to me that the rule is, if you have a cell phone out and the engine is on, you are violating the law.
I'm getting charged $125 (no small fee for me, I'm a student) for being a careful driver. This was actually the second time I've ever used my cell phone in the car (the other time I was in bumper-to-bumper traffic on a highway, so my car was stopped), and I get caught. My luck. I normally yell at people for talking on the phone and driving negligently.
Want to know the truth? Cell phone laws are a conspiracy to make money. Who makes money off hands free sets? Cell phone companies. Is talking on a hands-free set really any better than talking on a cell phone? Not really. It's not the lack of both hands that cause accidents, it's not paying attention to the road (for crying out loud, how about countries where you have to drive stick shift: it's the NORM to drive with one hand!) But a hands-free set makes the cell phone companies another $40-80, depending on the unit.
It's to save lives my ass. How about making drinking a Starbucks Macchiato while driving a crime? I'm sure plenty of accidents have been caused by those, and at least then you're giving $125 tickets to RICH people.
They teach assembler in my school's CS program second year. The whole class is basically 8086 assembler and then the end of the class gets into more advanced assembler coding (like AT&T style and NASM). The class ended with an overview of Jasmin, which is basically a Java assembler... the purpose being to understand how the JVM works and to code directly for it. At the time I thought this was strange, but considering the only "Programming Language" courses my CS program has are in Java, this actually made sense. (Note: other classes expect a lot of programming, but expect that you already know C/C++/Java/whatever.) This teaches the graduates here who aren't thinking about it already to be wary of what kind of code is being executed by the JVM.
I do think this is important, and am spending a lot of time on my own to learn as much as I can assembler/C-wise, since I know jobs I get here and there (like my summer job) will require high-level languages (Java, C#) and I don't want to lose that low-level knowledge.
It's actually harder for us (the younger generation), because there have been so many abstractions that you really have to be on top of things to understand what's going on at the machine level. At this point, programs tend to go from source to bytecode to being executed on the physical machine, and in order to optimize programs you have to know what's going on at every step. That and you have to have a lot of discipline to learn the low level stuff, since the high level stuff can make you so productive without even thinking about it or putting in any effort. But this discipline ultimately makes you a better high-level programmer too, so it's worth it regardless...
Re:Oh yeah, blame the management
on
Why I.T. Matters
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Today being an IT expert means that you know Java, can hack HTML and do bullet-point presentations for your managers.
Wow, you don't really get it, do you? It's precisely this kind of thinking that has allowed IT to be outsourced. The thinking that anyone who knows Java and can write HTML is good enough to be an IT worker.
If you had actually read my father's response, rather than skimming it and getting angry that it criticizes the Managerial Class (of which I assume you are either a part, or at least aspite to be a part), you'd realize that he has a much higher standard for what an IT worker should be than you do. Yea, the job market is saturated with "supposed" IT workers, but that doesn't mean it's bad for people who actually know what they're doing. Incompetent people used to be able to get well-paying jobs by just knowing Java. Now you have to prove that you are smarter than that. A lot of supposed IT workers just have money signs in their eyes. I think outsourcing is a bad idea, but I also know that the people who will suffer most from it are the people who don't deserve IT jobs in the first place.
I tend to agree with another/. poster who responded to the article reporting a lower enrollment in Computer Science by saying, "Good, now the people who actually care about Computer Science will be the only ones who get degrees." Computer Science, like Business School, was, in the last 5 years, too often the place you'd find money-hungry asslickers who don't care about anything (i.e. have no passions but the green).
IT workers are not "I know Java and HTML" morons. Real IT workers are people who can integrate computer systems and make a business run smoother. The truth is, real IT workers should be able to design and implement the systems from scratch, but should know when not to in order to save the business time and money.
I find it easy to blame even your assertion on management. Managers hire IT workers. But because the managerial class is not defined by competence, managers don't know the criteria on which to evaluate IT workers. So they hire morons. Morons fill the IT ranks, and suddenly IT gets redefined by people like you as "knowing Java and 'hacking' HTML." The smart IT workers become irrelevant in manager's eyes, because they don't know hot recognize IT workers as "smart."
So yea, blaming management sounds about right to me, actually. Even for this.
(Disclosure: Personally, I don't plan to go into IT, at least not permanently, though I am pursuing a computer science degree...)
Slashdot Mirror
I just "splurged" and bought myself a $29.95 subscription to Keyhole a few days ago. Now what?
Man, just my luck. Just when I thought being able to show girls how I zoomed into their backyard and saw a fuzzy sattelite photo of them sunbathing topless was gonna get me laid. Now every Joe Schmo geek will be able to do it.
I guess I'll just stick to writing some social network things until it finally happens for me.
To think that most users who run Linux on their desktop are doing so only because they don't like Windows is to misunderstand desktop linux entirely.
I'll try to summarize the benefits desktop Linux has over other OSes, and why this is nonsense:
(1) Desktop Linux distros come with hundreds of quality desktop applications, installed and license-free, at no cost. Productivity applications, web browsers, FTP clients, e-mail/PIM programs, messengers, not to mention the rich GNU heritage of command-line tools, a variety of programming environments, etc. This is all installed and ready-to-use after the installation completes on your PC. Thousands more software packages are available in a few clicks via Synaptic/Red Carpet/Yast or whatever. Mac OS X and Windows simply _do not compare_ in this respect.
(Disclosure: It's true that Mac OS has some access to these apps via Apple's X11 and Fink/Darwinports, but you have to admit it's not the same as having these be a "real" part of your desktop.)
(2) Linux will run on a TON of hardware, including old hardware, which means you can use to "revitalize" existing machines and save money.
(3) Linux is always uttered in the same sentence with "open source" and more particularly "open source innovation." For people who want to be a part of the open source movement, Linux (or BSDs) is the natural choice. For people who want to be free of proprietary software, to even the slightest degree, will stick with Linux.
(4) Linux, as a kernel, is hyper-configurable. You can strip it down or compile everything in. Tweakers and power users like this idea.
(5) The "slick GUI" advantage of OS X will rapidly disappear over the next few years, as desktop linux developers make more progress with XOrg, composite, direct rendering, etc.
(6) Linux being used very often as a server, it's just as simple to install major server apps (Apache, Tomcat, mysql, vsftpd etc.) as other apps.
(7) The typical Linux environment is highly, highly scriptable.
Don't think desktop linux is dead. I actually believe that all these pundits are completely wrong. Open source desktop Linux developers will now unite to innovate more so than ever before. This move, if anything, will galvanize developers. Hell, it's already gotten me to get off my ass and start working on something new. I look forward to the future, and you should too.
Noam Chomsky once said the first amendment says you have to allow for free speech for everyone, not just "free speech for ideas you like."
If "securing" the Internet means making it less easy for crackers to break into systems, then I'm all for it, but doubt the government will be much help. For that, we should probably be looking at the work done in security research in Universities across the land.
If securing the Internet means preventing little Johnny from learning about crime ae and murder and sex, well then there is a very simple solution: prevent your child from accessing the Internet.
Little Johnny can just as easily find those things by wandering around town, entering restaurants, stores, parks and local hangouts. But that doesn't mean we should ban speech in public places. It just means if you want to protect your children from ideas you don't like, then protect them, god damnit. Understand that browsing the web is just like walking around town without parental supervision. Don't blame the publishers: blame yourself!
I just met a few parents who let their kid browse the web for hours on end. Eventually, they found out this 13 year old girl was sending naked photos of herself to random 40 year olds online with her webcam. So what did they do? Tried to sue the website that allowed her to do that (buddypic.com), of course! Did she ever think that she might be at fault, for allowing her daughter to browse around the web without any inkling of what is Right and what is Wrong in her innocent mind?
America: land of irresponsible but accusatory parents, who'll shred our constitution if it means they can watch their shitty network TV ("CSI is on!") while their children entertain themselves any way they can, so long as it is state-controlled and state-monitored.
A lot of commentators _really_ are speaking out of their ass on this one.
For example, one of them notes that Apple may face a challenge since Darwin doesn't support as many drivers on Intel x86 as it does on PPC. This is a _very_ important point. What do you think most Linux kernel development is? It isn't mostly scheduler algorithms and such. It's drivers, drivers and more drivers. Look at most of the patches for the Linux kernel. Most of them are to support the amazing diversity of hardware here in the x86 world.
If Dvorak and Co. sincerely believe that OS X will, one day, run on any and all x86 hardware, they first better realize that that day won't be very soon. It takes a lot of developers and a lot of effort to support the whole x86 world, especially with the standard Apple has set for stuff that "just works." I believe (and everyone else should too) that Apple will very much limit the KIND of hardware OS X can run on, so that Apple will remain the primary hardware vendor of Apple machines.
Vaughan-Nichols, for example, writes:
"The part of Mac OS X that talks to drivers is based on FreeBSD. No, the BSD operating systems don't have as many developers as Linux, but their best people are the equal of Linux's best."
The issue here isn't that FreeBSD doesn't have a lot of drivers. The issue is that Darwin _is not_ FreeBSD! Darwin is "based upon FreeBSD," and the Apple developers will have to track FreeBSD development. And FreeBSD development is not nearly as rapid as Linux, and even LINUX is behind the curve on supporting third-party hardware. Meanwhile, Linux driver development is starting to be driven by the corporate world too: you see Intel, HP, and other companies contributing programmer time to these drivers. It would be a strange day indeed if these big companies started throwing their weight behind Apple's experiment instead, and pulled a 180 on this.
The only thing I do agree with is that this should be an impetus for developers to start unifying and throwing their weight at the desktop. This is already happening in a lot of ways, and will only continue. I see a lot of innovation from apps whose implementation has been simplified by high-level programming: I'm talking about PyGTK and Mono apps.
I realized that myself and have begun throwing my brainstorming and programmer time toward trying to make Linux Desktop better for all of us. To put the user interface argument to sleep, I think Keith Packard and anyone else with low-level graphics programming understanding should continue pushing for a move to a direct-rendering-enabled X server, so desktop developers can use the fancy effects Mac OS X has had for a few years. And we should continue innovating with apps like Beagle, F-Spot, and Tomboy, while keeping strong staple apps like Galeon/Epiphany and Evolution running as strong as they are.
And that's just the GTK/GNOME world. There's lots of really amazing and wonderful innovation happening in KDE world too. Have you ever used AmaroK? Best music managing program I've ever seen (way better than iTunes). And it's only been in serious development for a year or two.
As for the suggestion to "just pick one desktop," I think that's ridiculous. Don't destroy a desktop: simply continue unifying the toolkits. Fine-tune the engines that allow QT apps to look and feel like GTK apps, and vice versa. Get some agreement on both sides about things like Open and Save dialogs. And, of course, make this unification OPTIONAL, since I, for one, don't mind having some apps using the Plastik theme and other apps using SmoothGnome. But don't rm -rf * years of development only because you don't like to have a choice.
I think the times are really exciting for Linux developers. We have a chance to put together a serious desktop for developers and for users, and we will be competing alongside the biggest players in the industry. I think we can do it. It's not as grim as it seems.
I just want to pre-emptively respond to all the posts that are going to say, 'well, as usual, Linux is catching up to Microsoft and Apple a couple years after the fact.'
Yes, you may be right. But the difference is that Linux doesn't have to be first, it just has to be better. And it will be. The rich base of command line utilities and a solid kernel are necessary to have great degrees of stability and richness at the higher levels (like an X server). I find my Linux base indispensable (from the point of view of the usefulness and scriptability of all the UNIX tools and primitives), and I think I concord with other Linux users when I say I'd be perfectly happy with my free Linux desktop when it 'catches up' in the less useful things like eye candy and hardware rendering. Because in the end, I'll have a Free, Powerful Desktop that Looks Just As Good As Yours, while you may be stuck with a good-looking, but still proprietary, mess of a system that is still sorely weak in the basics.
Just my two cents... but undoubtedly in the time it took me to write this post, it will no longer be pre-emptive.
I take issue with the fraud idea. They aren't charging late fees anymore. They just set it up so you buy the video implicitly if you keep it seven days after the due date. Thats really not that unreasonably.
/.'ers and other people in "real life" find the need to defend corporations no matter how bad they are. I guess it's a sign of the times, as society plunges headlong into a mix of fascism/corporatism, but let's stay on point.
I don't know why some
When Blockbuster announced in their television ads "NO MORE LATE FEES!" with song, dance and Hallelujah, most people thought, like I did, that this meant the new policy was MORE FORGIVING than before. When I saw the ad, the first thing I thought is, "That's awesome! How do they do it!"
So to get out of your bubble for a second, just imagine this. Imagine you're using a car rental company, and you've used them before. In the past, their policy for late returns was charging 2x the normal price per day for every day the car is "late". I have no idea how car rentals work, but just go with me for a sec.
Now imagine you run a bunch of ads where you say, "Hey, no late fees anymore on these cars!"
So someone rents your car and when he's running a little late (wants to stay another week in Arizona, or whatever), he figures, eh, no worries, there are no late fees.
But guess what: you are now the owner of your very own Kia Rio!
See how that's deceptive? Or are you still gonna give me some stupid argument about the "lazy consumer?"
Perfect, let's start rating the security of our products by how many patches have been written and applied. What does this kind of numbers game encourage?
(1) Don't write a patch, since that admits failure or insecure products.
or
(2) Wait a long time before writing and committing a patch, so you can do it as "one big patch" (otherwise known as, haha, a Service Pack!).
Thanks Microsoft! Just your STATEMENTS make systems less secure (nevermind your engineering).
This project, believe it or not, already exists, at least on some level. Give them a call, and see if you can open up a chapter near you.
FREE GEEK was founded in February 2000 (and incorporated as a 501(c)(3) in April 2000) to recycle computer technology and provide low and no-cost computing to individuals and not-for-profit and social change organizations in the community and throughout the world.
In the four years since its formation, Free Geek has recycled over 360 tons of electronic scrap and refurbished over 3,000 computer systems that are now in use by individuals and organizations in the community.
Free Geek does most of this work with volunteers (at any given time, about 200 are active). The volunteers disassemble the donated equipment and test the components, which are either recycled as electronic scrap or recycled into refurbished systems. These refurbished computers are then loaded with Open Source Software, such as GNU/Linux, Open Office, and other Free Software.
Not to plug myself, but I even mentioned Free Geek and the idea of recycling computers to third world nations so that they could use them as "the cheapest library one could ever build" to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy when he came to my university for a round table discussion with other students. He thought it was a great idea (...so it must be?). [end shameless plug]
Man, I guess most Slashdotters haven't studied arguments beyond Linux v. Windows. Perhaps you guys need a philosophy class or three. Makes me sad... a lot of you guys could learn how to argue, considering you engage in argument so often.
Anyway, back to your post. Again, it doesn't follow. The reason you are responsible for the situation you described is because you are hiring a team to commit an act in exchange for money. In other words, that team is acting as an agent of you. Lots of states have legal terms for this like "solicitation of murder" or "murder for hire." And in most states, you get a good amount of hard jail time for that. The fact that you use a secret code is totally irrelevant.
Not to mention that my argument doesn't disallow the ability for law enforcement to stop someone who has the compiled binary of a virus and the intent to use it. If I get into an argument with my girlfriend and threaten to send her a virus, and then she calls the cops on me and they raid my computer and find a folder called "Virus for girlfriend" with a few binaries that are identified viruses inside, it is reasonable to say that I am not protected by free speech here. But even then, the blame isn't put on the guy who wrote the source code of the viruses, so I don't see any point in your line of thinking here.
"So by that analogy, someone who burns down a building shouoldn't be prosecuted because they are just expresssing themselves. Come on, him saying that he didn't distribute his "code" is complete crap. He wrote it and it got distributed."
Nice try, but that doesn't follow. The virus writer isn't like the guy who burns down the building; he's more like the guy who came up with the formula for the molotoff cocktail your guy used to burn down the building. Coming up with the formula is a creative act, and one that is protected enough so that one has the right to actually publish the formula anywhere. One can (or at least, should) be able to publish the design for other molotoff cocktails, or bombs, or guns, or swords, or whatever harmful thing you want.
However, the second someone takes that formula and puts together the ingredients (*ahem, compiles the source code*) and throws it at the building (*ahem, distributes the executable*), then we have our criminal.
What the RIAA/MPAA don't realize is that they are trying to close the barnyard doors after the animals have already left.
Information and content is a lot cheaper and more easily accessible than it was a few years ago. The RIAA still sells CDs for $10-$20, when a CD holds 700MB of music/data, tops. Meanwhile, a DVD, with 8GB of Video/Music/Data, is usually in the $20 range. Already, CDs seem overpriced.
But now take the cost of a high speed internet connection ($30/mo. for cable modems around here), and how much data you have access to in how much time, and you realize that the world has definitely changed. These aren't the days of the local library and record store, but of Google and Kazaa.
The RIAA/MPAA are dinosaur organizations who don't realize the meteor has already struck and they are soon to die. So they go around frantically foraging all the food they can while the doomsday clouds loom above. Information and content is cheap. Dirt cheap. Users want fast access to it. Message to the RIAA: adapt!
People have the connections, they have the big powerful computers, all they don't have is the service. If the RIAA had the foresight to realize that a) CDs are overpriced, b) too much of CD profit goes to marketing/advertising firms and the cushy CEOs of record labels and c) they can readjust the price of music, offer it online, and dominate the market, then today we would probably have an immensely popular online music service that offers songs for $0.25, compensates artists adequately, and keeps the RIAA in business.
You have to keep up with the technological innovations if you want to survive. People pirate movies, but not nearly as many people as those who pirate music. Why? Pirating a movie is a pain in the ass right now. You get a low-quality DVD rip that doesn't easily play on your TV. Music, on the other hand, you get at near-CD quality (or CD quality), and you can easily burn a CD or put it on your MP3 player. The day that one can download 8GB of DVD video in a few minutes is the day DVD videos in stores will be severely overpriced at $20/pop.
As to your other point, the reason this research focuses on censorship-resistant systems, and uses the word censorship, is because as it stands today using no fancy techniques, one cannot be assured that the publication of any document will not be censored by those who can control access to your particular server. And if the government or any other agency wants to censor the publication of a document on the Internet, currently it can (maybe not 'legally', but technically). So this research does have a place, and is well-named.
Shouldn't these developers take a look at some of the research in this area?
Tangler, FreeHaven, and Publius come to mind.
So the reason it might be worth paying 26k for this virtual island is that there is a real cash economy in the "game" - in other words, presumably the in-game resources he can extract from his island can presumably be sold or utilized to make items in the game that can be exchanged for real US dollars. So it's a virtual investment, but one that has potential real-world payoff.
See, the difference between the "real cash economy" and this game and the "real cash economy" in real life is scarcity.
Who did the "sucker" buy the $26.5K island from? The game developers. And who did the game developers buy it from? Well, no one. They just created it in their map editor, or whatever.
And they can make a million islands just like that one, if they like. Because they are selling a resource which they have unlimited access in duplicating.
The buyer may make money on this, but at some point someone's gonna realize that everyone's a sucker, except the game developers.
For one thing, I'd never spend 26,500 buckaroos on something I wasn't guaranteed to be scarce for at least a little while. What if the game developers sell 40 islands tomorrow? Well, then the value of that island's gonna drop, since there'll be more vacant real estate to sell. Our poor sucker loses money.
It's one thing when you control the fiat on currency (like in the US). It's another when you also control it on _resources_. If you control resources, and can just "print up new resources" to make more money, then what has real value?
While I agree that technology in Math helps for some things, especially visualization of otherwise abstract concepts, technology can also really impede Math learning.
I know this. I'm a public high school graduate who is now in Computer Science and feels as if his Math background is lacking, to say the least.
Yet, I got a 5 on AP Calculus exam, got As in my Calc class, but don't remember a damn thing from Calculus. Why? I mastered the fucking calculator.
Armed with a graphing calculator (TI-89 preferred), I can do anything from Calculus. Armed with a pen, paper, and my own brain, I'm as useless as a monkey throwing darts at a dartboard (sometimes, I feel even more useless).
How can this be, you ask? AP has a section without the Calculutor too! Answer: lots of long-night review the night before the exam. I barely remember that week, let alone the material I crammed into my head for the exam.
Sure, it didn't help that my Calc teacher wasn't stellar, and that it was senior year (so I was busy with college applications and all that nonsense), but nonetheless, I wish I had gotten a real Calculus education. And I could have, if it weren't for that damned calculator.
People learn what interests them. If you love Math and hate technology, then you'll learn math and the calculator will help you out in tough spots. If you don't really love Math but do love technology, then you'll do what's logical: master the device, the graphing calculator. Little did I know I'd actually need the concepts I used my technological know-how to work around!
Now I have to audit a Calc I class to catch up, since I feel so embarassed for myself.
More and more kids are excited by technology. That means less and less will learn math, especially if they are using stuff like Mathematica in their classrooms, instead of working out the derivatives or whatnot.
I take the same view as my algorithms Professor nowadays. On the second day of class, he took away the graphing calculator from a student he saw using it to calculate whatever, then he brought it up to his desk, pulled out a hammer from his drawer, and smashed it to pieces.
Or so we thought; he actually smashed an old, broken calculator to pieces that he switched with the brand-new one. We were all shocked, and amused when he revealed the trick, but then he said, "If you want to learn something, throw away your calculator, unless that thing you want to learn is your calculator."
That student he embarassed was me.
I'm still compiling!!
Here's a coralized link to the screenshots, too:
I know this thread is dead already, but I just had to respond to this absurdity.
The bottom line is this: you can only be charitable and giving with your OWN MONEY. You can't donate all the shareholder's money to your pet cause without expecting them to get a new board.
We are talking about a corporation being morally and socially responsible. That does not mean the corporation has to "donate shareholder money," although from the sound of it, you hold the typical (and stupid) business mentality that you can just "throw money at things" to solve problems. What I and most people who worry about this stuff are talking about are the actions the corporation takes. Will the corporation's manufacturing practice adversely affect the environment of the surrounding community? Will closing down a factory in a small town where the company was born, only in order to move to cheaper overseas markets and save some cash, ruin the economy of that town? Is the corporation treating its employees with dignitee and respect?
I'm not saying CEO Joe Schmo has to donate his shareholder's money to Make-a-Wish. I'm saying when he makes decisions, he has to think about things OTHER than the bottom line. And that, increasingly, isn't the case. CEOs feel pressure from their shareholders due to the legal structure of corporations, which allows a group of shareholders to remove a CEO at the slightest performance dip (when earnings go flat). And a CEO has to worry so much about keeping his own job that he doesn't let moral and social concerns enter into his corporate decision-making.
Yes, you're really, really naive.
they are legally required to put profits for their shareholders above all other considerations
No. You're wrong. Why do so many people think this? They are responsible to their shareholders in that they cannot willfully or illegally lose their shareholders money. They do no have to forsake their values.
No, you're naive. The basic naivete comes from your language, in fact. "They do not have to forsake their values." Sure, they don't. But there's a _lot_ of pressure to do so.
Do you really believe people think this because they are whacky? Take a look at this passage from an article from the Harvard Business School:
Generating corporate virtue
By now, the story of Malden Mills and its owner, Aaron Feuerstein, is so familiar that the company name has become a sort of shorthand for corporate benevolence. The tale briefly told: In 1995, a fire destroyed Malden Mills' textile plant in Lawrence, an economically depressed town in northeastern Massachusetts. With an insurance settlement of close to $300 million in hand, Feuerstein could have, for example, moved operations to a country with a lower wage base, or he could have retired. Instead, he rebuilt in Lawrence and continued to pay his employees while the new plant was under construction.
"Why don't more companies act that way?" is a common reaction when people first hear the story. It is much too simplistic to reply that Feuerstein is a better person than most. Whatever Feuerstein's relative level of virtue, he had far fewer shareholders to answer to than the average CEO. Feuerstein's only shareholders are himself and several members of his family, who presumably share his willingness to sacrifice profits for the sake of the employees' wellbeing. (Feuerstein was perhaps too willing--Malden Mills filed for bankruptcy protection last November.) The typical CEO of a publicly held corporation, by contrast, is accountable to thousands of shareholders.
My purpose here is not to denigrate the share-owned corporation, which is a fundamental building block of democratic capitalism, but to acknowledge that its legal structure imposes certain priorities on its senior leaders. If they fail to maximize earnings for shareholders, managers risk removal by the equity holders to whom they report. Worse, failure to serve shareholders' interests puts the corporation in jeopardy of being acquired by a stronger company or losing access to capital markets. In theory at least, self-interest and self-preservation ensure that no rational executive will engage in activities that clearly erode shareholder value.
For an interesting approach to the problem (and it does exist!), check out the article.
According to Netcraft, Apache outnumbers IIS 3:1, and I'm making the (valid) assumption that most Apache web servers run on Linux. Let's also make the other assumption that most 24/7 machines are web servers (that most servers accessible on the net are web servers).
So, Netcraft has 37,620,349 Apache servers on-file, compared to 11,679,222 IIS servers. Mi2G has reported 235,907 successful breaches. First of all, to give you an idea of the sample size, that's 0.5% of all servers recorded by Netcraft! But let's give them that, since this is a sample of breaches occuring in a relatively short time period.
Now here comes the real news. 59,419 of computers recorded as breached are Windows, whereas 154,846 of computers recorded as breached are Linux (mi2g's numbers). Let's take those as percentages of all Linux [*nix] servers, and of all Windows servers. Looks like 0.4% of Linux servers have been breached, whereas 0.5% of Windows servers have been breached. So Windows is a little less secure, by my metric.
Now, this is a little unfair, because my assumption above (that Apache servers run Linux) is wrong. Many Apache servers that Netcraft picks up run BSD and could even run Mac OS X Server, I guess. Even taking this into account, the breach rate would be about the same for the two OSes (probably a little bit better for Linux).
What this doesn't take into account in terms of the Windows/UNIX debate are the hidden costs of an IIS server in terms of administration, virii, stability, reboot requirements, etc. the list goes on and on. It also doesn't take into account SOME hidden costs of Linux/BSD servers, but those are minor compared to the Windows annoyances (trust me, I know: I administer a Windows server, unfortunately).
That said, I do think BSD probably is more secure, and I use Netcraft's "longest uptime" as one of my metrics. To me, it seems the longer a site is on the Internet, the more statistical chance it has to get attacked. That ALL of the top uptime sites on Netcraft's list run BSD shows me that BSD is a pretty rock-solid OS for servers, that you can leave them out there in the wild for years without worry.
The real bottom line is that software that runs on UNIX-like OSes tends to be more secure, and this usually has not too much to do with the OS. For your box to have real security, the system administrator has to be smart (or the distro has to come with Smart Defaults, like I believe Debian does in the Linux world). The only real way to prevent security breaches is to be a smart administrator: to think ahead and secure your boxen before it's too late.
All this study shows me is that no OS is a "magic bullet," that breaches occur on unprotected machines regardless of your OS. No one blames car manufacturers/designers for stolen in-dash CD players if you stupidly forget to lock your doors.
A lot of people don't realize you have to punch one or two holes in your firewall in order for Edonkey to work at good speeds. It's true that Edonkey is generally slow, but I think the impression that it is "ass-slow" comes from having to configure Edonkey to work through firewalls or suffer grave consequences.
Once Edonkey has you recognized as "Available", then speeds will start to pick up. Yea, you won't get 200kb/sec. downloads, but you'll get 30k/sec or so, and will be able to find stuff you can't normally find on Kazaa and other networks.
I use Edonkey in a set-it-and-forget-it way.
Now that Edonkey has a bittorrent plug-in, things are even better. Bittorrent is still (IMO) the fastest way to get files (if you can find a good torrent), but Edonkey does something very nice by allowing you to download a file from Bittorrent peers AND Edonkey peers simultaneously... that's pretty neat! I'd like it if they develop that plug-in even further.
I'm graduating in 2006 with a computer science degree. I'm a hard-working student with a near-perfect GPA at a major university, but I really don't think my value in the workforce has been significantly increased by my college education, outside of the "basic practice" one gets in college, i.e. problem solving and critical thinking.
I entered college already fluent in a few programming languages, with a full understanding of a lot of CS concepts (which I ended up relearning), a good math background, and most importantly, a lot of drive to work on my own thing and solve problems. In high school, I wasn't a complete geek, but I did spend a lot of classes writing down my own ideas for this or that program (drawing charts, writing pseudocode) rather than listening to my teachers.
In fact, most of the best students among my CS colleagues are very much like me--they entered with a certain background, and it was that background that allowed them to excel. Yes, we tune those skills a little (for example, I know C/asm a lot better now that I've worked on building an OS in C/asm), but I think 4 years of personal freerange hacking with a *couple* CS theory books read on the side would have done much the same thing.
Truthfully, I think I learned more usable skills in my elective classes and my minor (Philosophy) in terms of fleshing out my own ideas on broader subjects, fine-tuning and tweaking my writing, framing arguments, engaging in debates, etc. Ultimately, these kinds of activities make me a a better thinker, someone who can do more than just be a "code monkey." These classes are also much more social than CS classes.
CS grads are generally too insular. I see a lot of kids who may be programming masters, but can't articulate a sentence when called on in class. It doesn't seem like these kinds of people will be able to do something meaningful in "the real world." Yes, they may have lots of creativity buried in their code, but that won't get them anywhere if they can't a) communicate their ideas to someone else and b) defend them coherently when their merit is questioned.
It seems to me if I were an employer, I'd care about whether my employee can think, debate, and communicate. Unless, of course, I really just wanted a code monkey.
I used the word "content" when I meant to say "contest." I don't know why, but I apologize :-)</embarassed>
...comparing him to Hitler...
This is one of those myths that has been busted time and time again, but thick-headed conservatives nonetheless spew the lies and thus perpetuate them.
To make the myth more concrete, conservatives believe MoveOn.org, a 527 group clearly connected in some way with the Democratic party (yes, this is itself wrong, but talk to your Congressman about Campaign Finance Reform if you want something to be done about it) ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Here's what really happened--here's the background the soundbite-obsessed Fox News anchors can't dig into because they aren't real journalists.
MoveOn.org ran a content called Bush in 30 Seconds. It was a content that allows ANYONE to submit an ad to MoveOn.org, and the ads would be showcased on the website while voting took place. The ad with the most votes would be aired by MoveOn.org.
Two of the OVER 1,500 ads compared Bush to Hitler. You can see these two ads here and here.
Now, in case we are forgetting, let me remind you of the correct interpretation of the first amendment--in order for there to be freedom of speech, there has to be freedom of speech even for ideas you don't like . Sure, most people absolutely hate even the mention of Hitler, but by censoring those people who use his image or make comparisons to him, we violate the first amendment right in all cases. There are some legal exceptions (the famous "fighting words" case among others).
That said, I am just reminding you that even these two amateur filmmakers did nothing wrong within the law, which sometimes isn't clear to people who don't truly respect constitutional rights.
The bottom line, however, is that MoveOn.org never aired these ads because people never voted them to the top. So, although you can fault these two amateur filmmakers for this film, you can't fault the democratic party, "democrats" at large, or even MoveOn.org. It would be like faulting Salon.com (or "the liberal media") if on one of their Forums I posted a message that said Bush reminds me of Hitler.
Plus, I find this somewhat ridiculous because one could easily turn this around. Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992. I am positive that most moral theorists and philosophers would find serious problems with that equivalence claim, regardless of their standpoint on abortion. Contrast this to the two ads posted on MoveOn.org, and you find one very important distinction. The ads on MoveOn.org focus on Hitler's power in using propaganda, his military force abroad and his rhetoric saying that he is driven by God. These particular aspects of Hitler's character could be argued to be found in George W. Bush. However, the comparison is unfair because it seeks emotional manipulation and deception, in that whenever someone thinks of Hitler, one thinks immediately of the holocaust and pure evil (thus, the mental connection, whatever the intention, becomes "Bush is this evil murderous leader"). But you have to admit that Limbaugh's comparison is much worse, because he effectively says that feminists are evil, murderous people, conducting their own holocaust. A clear distinction.
But, I won't fault him for that. After all, he is just one person, one viewpoint. It's his right of speech. And that means I can't say, "because Rush Limbaugh said it, it is mainstream conservati
I just got a $125 ticket for talking on the cell phone while driving.
I pulled out the phone and had it sitting on my lap until I got to a red light. Then I hit dial and told my friend I was running late to a meeting. I hung up. Conversation went like this: "I'm in the car, but I'll be there in 20 minutes. See you soon."
"Ok, bye."
*Knock knock*
Motorcycle cop at my window. Tells me to pull over.
I try to explain to him that I only spoke on the cell phone at a red light, and so my car wasn't moving. Then he explained to me that the rule is, if you have a cell phone out and the engine is on, you are violating the law.
I'm getting charged $125 (no small fee for me, I'm a student) for being a careful driver. This was actually the second time I've ever used my cell phone in the car (the other time I was in bumper-to-bumper traffic on a highway, so my car was stopped), and I get caught. My luck. I normally yell at people for talking on the phone and driving negligently.
Want to know the truth? Cell phone laws are a conspiracy to make money. Who makes money off hands free sets? Cell phone companies. Is talking on a hands-free set really any better than talking on a cell phone? Not really. It's not the lack of both hands that cause accidents, it's not paying attention to the road (for crying out loud, how about countries where you have to drive stick shift: it's the NORM to drive with one hand!) But a hands-free set makes the cell phone companies another $40-80, depending on the unit.
It's to save lives my ass. How about making drinking a Starbucks Macchiato while driving a crime? I'm sure plenty of accidents have been caused by those, and at least then you're giving $125 tickets to RICH people.
They teach assembler in my school's CS program second year. The whole class is basically 8086 assembler and then the end of the class gets into more advanced assembler coding (like AT&T style and NASM). The class ended with an overview of Jasmin, which is basically a Java assembler... the purpose being to understand how the JVM works and to code directly for it. At the time I thought this was strange, but considering the only "Programming Language" courses my CS program has are in Java, this actually made sense. (Note: other classes expect a lot of programming, but expect that you already know C/C++/Java/whatever.) This teaches the graduates here who aren't thinking about it already to be wary of what kind of code is being executed by the JVM.
I do think this is important, and am spending a lot of time on my own to learn as much as I can assembler/C-wise, since I know jobs I get here and there (like my summer job) will require high-level languages (Java, C#) and I don't want to lose that low-level knowledge.
It's actually harder for us (the younger generation), because there have been so many abstractions that you really have to be on top of things to understand what's going on at the machine level. At this point, programs tend to go from source to bytecode to being executed on the physical machine, and in order to optimize programs you have to know what's going on at every step. That and you have to have a lot of discipline to learn the low level stuff, since the high level stuff can make you so productive without even thinking about it or putting in any effort. But this discipline ultimately makes you a better high-level programmer too, so it's worth it regardless...
Today being an IT expert means that you know Java, can hack HTML and do bullet-point presentations for your managers.
/. poster who responded to the article reporting a lower enrollment in Computer Science by saying, "Good, now the people who actually care about Computer Science will be the only ones who get degrees." Computer Science, like Business School, was, in the last 5 years, too often the place you'd find money-hungry asslickers who don't care about anything (i.e. have no passions but the green).
Wow, you don't really get it, do you? It's precisely this kind of thinking that has allowed IT to be outsourced. The thinking that anyone who knows Java and can write HTML is good enough to be an IT worker.
If you had actually read my father's response, rather than skimming it and getting angry that it criticizes the Managerial Class (of which I assume you are either a part, or at least aspite to be a part), you'd realize that he has a much higher standard for what an IT worker should be than you do. Yea, the job market is saturated with "supposed" IT workers, but that doesn't mean it's bad for people who actually know what they're doing. Incompetent people used to be able to get well-paying jobs by just knowing Java. Now you have to prove that you are smarter than that. A lot of supposed IT workers just have money signs in their eyes. I think outsourcing is a bad idea, but I also know that the people who will suffer most from it are the people who don't deserve IT jobs in the first place.
I tend to agree with another
IT workers are not "I know Java and HTML" morons. Real IT workers are people who can integrate computer systems and make a business run smoother. The truth is, real IT workers should be able to design and implement the systems from scratch, but should know when not to in order to save the business time and money.
I find it easy to blame even your assertion on management. Managers hire IT workers. But because the managerial class is not defined by competence, managers don't know the criteria on which to evaluate IT workers. So they hire morons. Morons fill the IT ranks, and suddenly IT gets redefined by people like you as "knowing Java and 'hacking' HTML." The smart IT workers become irrelevant in manager's eyes, because they don't know hot recognize IT workers as "smart."
So yea, blaming management sounds about right to me, actually. Even for this.
(Disclosure: Personally, I don't plan to go into IT, at least not permanently, though I am pursuing a computer science degree...)