First, the comparison is not between hardware and software, but between hardware and source code. The specific issue is not about posting binary executables on the Internet, but rather addresses posting source code (which can, admittedly, be used to create binary executables).
Secondly, assuming that you meant source code as opposed to software. You are correct that the functional characteristics of source code and hardware are remarkably similar. The difference lies in the the expressive nature of the two media.
Source code (especially in second or third generation languages) is by defenition an abstraction above the hardware level. The programming language in effect allows the user to both write and understand the program from an abstract level. In otherwords, the source code is expressive enough to communicate more to another programmer than would a series of ones and zeros or a series of or and and gates.
Somehow this article is taking the wrong approach to respond to what by now should be a familiar problem. This whole situation seems quite reminisent of the time when Richard Stallman was getting sick of the limitations imposed by proprietary software. He certainly could have justified himself in violating the licences which proprietary software issued. However, rather than do that he took a more ethical approach and undertook the task of making good software openly available such that noone would be forced to live under the bondage of proprietary software.
I assume that you are all aware of the result of this small undertaking.
Now, examining the almost parallel case which the music industry has now brought upon us, a quite feasible and ethical solution would be to respond in exactly the same way. If we as a community disagree with the music industry's actions to "protect" their music, than let us ignore them. The industry is not a necessary component in the distribution of music. There are already many bands that make their music available as mp3s which can be downloaded directly off of their websites.
The strongest solution to this problem thus seems to be to support the Open Music movement. This would imply supporting primarily those groups who understand the importance of the free distribution of music. Proprietary, industry distributed music can either be ignored, or purchased according to the standards that they have set.
Remember, Open Source does nothing to deface or circumvent the foolish fences which proprietary software has built around itself. Rather it introduces a new frame of mind which they can do nothing about.
There is really no need to actively campagin against the music industry. If their choices lead them to death, than let death come. And meanwhile, those who have a greater vision of the future and a deeper understanding of today's culture will have long since abandoned the old standard, and built their own.
There are several distinct aspects of this situation that need to be seperated and brought out.
The first is the necessity of filtering publicaly accessible Internet content. It is obvious to me that there are certain types of sites that I simply don't want my kids looking at -- whether it be at home at school or at the public library. It is a shame that such sites are even on the Internet in the first place. I would be most supportive of blocking such sites at publicaly accessible terminals -- inasmuch as they were all that was blocked.
This leads to the second aspect of this situation. The effectiveness of the tools which are currently being used to do this job. As the above cited study shows, they currently fail miserabely.
It is definitely wrong to block valid sites in a blind attempt to block obscene material. If lawmakers are considering the use of software to do this trick, they must also consider the full implications of such an approach.
In order for it to be effective without overstepping its bounds, such software (whatever its fundamental approach) would require a large amount of human feedback and interaction. Admitidly this would be much more expensive than a blind approach, but should lawmakers want to accomplish something, they must consider the cost of truely accomplishing their goal.
This basicaly comes down to the fact that lawmakers should not dodge the issue by implementing a quick-fix, but should fully consider all of the implications of their decisions.
You definitely are correct in pointing out that your (our) real job is being a husband and a father.
Regardless of the current trends and demands of many employers, it is essential that we, as a programming community, figure out just what is important to us, and that we do what it takes to bring this about.
If we honestly think that overworking ourselves will bring about an increase in productivity, we can continue to shoot for that.
But if we feel that it is important to our well-being to regularly spend time with our families and with ourselves, than we must take the responsibility of establishing such trends.
As programmers, we are valuable assets to the companies that we work for, enough so that we can make clear our own needs. Indeed, anything that will have the end effect of increasing our on the job efficiency merits strong consideration from our employers.
Slashdot Mirror
http://csoft.net/
First, the comparison is not between hardware and software, but between hardware and source code. The specific issue is not about posting binary executables on the Internet, but rather addresses posting source code (which can, admittedly, be used to create binary executables).
Secondly, assuming that you meant source code as opposed to software. You are correct that the functional characteristics of source code and hardware are remarkably similar. The difference lies in the the expressive nature of the two media.
Source code (especially in second or third generation languages) is by defenition an abstraction above the hardware level. The programming language in effect allows the user to both write and understand the program from an abstract level. In otherwords, the source code is expressive enough to communicate more to another programmer than would a series of ones and zeros or a series of or and and gates.
I assume that you are all aware of the result of this small undertaking.
Now, examining the almost parallel case which the music industry has now brought upon us, a quite feasible and ethical solution would be to respond in exactly the same way. If we as a community disagree with the music industry's actions to "protect" their music, than let us ignore them. The industry is not a necessary component in the distribution of music. There are already many bands that make their music available as mp3s which can be downloaded directly off of their websites.
The strongest solution to this problem thus seems to be to support the Open Music movement. This would imply supporting primarily those groups who understand the importance of the free distribution of music. Proprietary, industry distributed music can either be ignored, or purchased according to the standards that they have set.
Remember, Open Source does nothing to deface or circumvent the foolish fences which proprietary software has built around itself. Rather it introduces a new frame of mind which they can do nothing about.
There is really no need to actively campagin against the music industry. If their choices lead them to death, than let death come. And meanwhile, those who have a greater vision of the future and a deeper understanding of today's culture will have long since abandoned the old standard, and built their own.
The first is the necessity of filtering publicaly accessible Internet content. It is obvious to me that there are certain types of sites that I simply don't want my kids looking at -- whether it be at home at school or at the public library. It is a shame that such sites are even on the Internet in the first place. I would be most supportive of blocking such sites at publicaly accessible terminals -- inasmuch as they were all that was blocked.
This leads to the second aspect of this situation. The effectiveness of the tools which are currently being used to do this job. As the above cited study shows, they currently fail miserabely.
It is definitely wrong to block valid sites in a blind attempt to block obscene material. If lawmakers are considering the use of software to do this trick, they must also consider the full implications of such an approach.
In order for it to be effective without overstepping its bounds, such software (whatever its fundamental approach) would require a large amount of human feedback and interaction. Admitidly this would be much more expensive than a blind approach, but should lawmakers want to accomplish something, they must consider the cost of truely accomplishing their goal.
This basicaly comes down to the fact that lawmakers should not dodge the issue by implementing a quick-fix, but should fully consider all of the implications of their decisions.
Regardless of the current trends and demands of many employers, it is essential that we, as a programming community, figure out just what is important to us, and that we do what it takes to bring this about.
If we honestly think that overworking ourselves will bring about an increase in productivity, we can continue to shoot for that.
But if we feel that it is important to our well-being to regularly spend time with our families and with ourselves, than we must take the responsibility of establishing such trends.
As programmers, we are valuable assets to the companies that we work for, enough so that we can make clear our own needs. Indeed, anything that will have the end effect of increasing our on the job efficiency merits strong consideration from our employers.