this is also a reason for knowledge-employess to aviod anything that is propriatary. My impression of the author was that he thought of intellectual property monopolies such as copyrights and patents as the end all do all fo corporate america, and you needed to butter up the workers to make sure that they will help you get there. He is simply wong. Companies like cisco and MS anr not new-economy - new-economy companies are companies that do not rely on copyrights and patents, but rather service and more efficient work for their bottom line.
Re:Today, Linux Care, tomorrow, Burger King
on
Finding a Linux Job
·
· Score: 1
Long term prosperity does not come from overpaid work, but productive work - otherwise you're just inflating a baloon. The simple fact is that the linux paradigm is able to achieve much more for a fraction of the cost. Only an idiot would think that they are isolated from the free market competition because too many people value their comfortable place. Too bad, deal with it.
Re:Today, Linux Care, tomorrow, Burger King
on
Finding a Linux Job
·
· Score: 1
I had an interview there and the first question that I was asked was "do you even know what linux is?". For years I'd been taking a whipping at other companies because they blew off my attitude about Linux as naieve, only to be totally humiliated in my attempts to embrace it. Other than that it was the most intelligent and insightfull interview I'd ever been in, but I came off like a UNIX idiot. I felt misjudged (or perhaps rail-roaded by the unchallenging overpaying corporate jobs I've been in) it was soo very fusterating. The experience I had seemed to count for nothing.
Linux Jobs are definitely harder to get.
on
Finding a Linux Job
·
· Score: 1
while it seems like I have people lining up to give me near 6-digit positions in the fortune 500 club, getting a linux job anywhere is another story. I think half my problem is that many of these big companies frankly over-pay because they are simply stupid/wastefull, and hanging arround them long enough makes you into a "dull-blade". I decided to deal with this by beefing up my linux training, hanging out arround more linux related activities, and deal with a massive pay cut. Yea it's tough, but the writing is on the wall - anyone who doesn't "get it" (with Linux) is simply gonna get it.
I can't stand PDF, couldn't they have put in html or something. After all, this IS the internet. I know this is off topic, but I really dislike Adobe and a lot of their tactics. David
Considering this story, it might be possible to flood the patent office with so many bogus claims, that it would effectively shut it down. If enough companies were saved from bogus law-suits - it could provide an "incentive" to offer a constant revnue stream of funding to support the process. David
notice that the people who are most likely to get screwed by MS are always the ones who are closest to them, busisness wise or professionally. Perhaps they would consider changing their often snide attitude toward Linux, and the Linux community and quit trying to shove MS down our throat. This really isn't about MS at all, it's about this attitude that people have that if you just stick with the status-quo corporate America they'll take care of you and everything will be ok......
Good analogy or not, it should also be added that the slavery industry bet an incredible amount of resources on the premise that slavery was a basic right. When it couldn't be sustained anymore the collapse of the institution was violent. Don't be supprised if the collapse of copyrights causes great harm too. Many industries have spent over a trillion dollars on the assumption that copyrights are a basic right. They're not, and their demise is only a matter of time as the values of society must inevitably find them unacceptable to move onward. But they will not let go peacefully. David
Many people in their day saw slavery as a property right. It wasn't, it was simply an excercize of controll over individual liberties in the name of profit as is intellectual property today. And likewise most of the arguments used to justify them are the same. We put effort into getting slaves..... Without slaves we have no incentive to grow cottin.... America's financial propserity can be attributed to slavery.... If you take a slave and free him, you are a thief.... too many prestigious people do for it to be wrong... blah blah blah...
I disagree, property rights derive from the fact that not everybody can use something at the same time. People half to come up with rules of ownership to guarentte respect of individual dignity. Slavery failed on the individual dignity part, copyrights fail on the limited nature of property part. Besides, when you restrict me from copying even though it doesn't limit the information you have access to - it is then excercizing a limited form of control over me in the name of protecting your "profits" - that sounds very close to the path to slavery if anything. David
Au contraire. It is not a right enumerated in the Constitution, but see what Amendment IX has to say about that. I have a right to receive proper remuneration for my effort. Writing is frickin' hard. Not everybody is Stephen King and can write ten dictionary-sized bestselling novels in a week. It takes time and effort, which were obviously not spent on another job (except possibly flipping burgers, or sticking price tags on merchandise at S-Mart)
Ok, at the risk at not leaving it as "lets agree to disagree". Lets try this again. People have property rights even if no government exists at all, but they typically organize in the form of government to secure these rights. The foundation of property as a right derives from the fact that property has physical limits, that not everybody can use any property at will without conflicting on anothers ability to use it too. Therefore out of respect for human dignity the concept of private property and individual ownership has evolved. However, intellectual property is slightly different, it original foundation came a few centuries ago (after the great creativity of the renisance BTW) when the king of england promised to grant a monpoly on copying stories to publishers who promised not to print bad things about the monarchy. Later on in the US, it was recgonized that these were not natural law rights, but were allowed anyhow as a SHORT TERM incentive, whose justification was to promote sharing of artistic works to the eventuall public domain. Of course, at no time is the practice of putting effort into somthing a right to renumerated, rahter that is just an extension of natural law property rights of which controlling anothers copying behavior is certainly not. David
first off, I said it's not a basic right and then I said it's unenforcable - that's quite a different thing than saying it's not a basic right because it's unenforcable. Second, copyrights are not a basic right, it has nothing to do with whose rights are more important because when I copy something that you created - your rights are not being violated in any way. In fact, that attitude is rather arrogant. It's similar to saying that stealing slaves from the plantation and freeing them violates their masters basic right. You're assuming that copyrights are like some type of property right, I'm assuming they're not and acting from there. However, unlike yours - my assumption is founded.
if were going to go through all the troubble of narowing them down, we minuswell get rid if them all together. You know, whiping the boy 25% as much as you whiped him the week before is still just plain ole bad. a step in the right direction, but still bad.
you say that IP and copyrights are not such terrible things, but you should look at their foundation. Renember, slavery didn't start out to be that bad either. It was short term indentrued servitude, that was white and black, never inherited, and gave people an opportunity to own property and advance themselves, and if you didn't like slavery or the institution you didn't half to own slaves or you could be kind to the slaves that you had. It happened then, and it's happening now. Copyrights (and patents to a lesser extent) are on a collission course with the bill-of-rights. Every year they get harsher, every year you see new wrongs that result from them, and the problems that result from them will never go away until we adress the core issue. and that is - what is the nature of property and how do we justify it's existence. This is a very different question than what do I think I should be entitled to. If we don't learn to differentiate, history will repeat itself.
it isn't really about the analogy, it's about the nature of the arguments. I deserve X cause I put effort into it, Without X people have no incentive..., The financial success that X has caused in this area justifies it. X will never go away because it's too founded in our society. People need X to keep them under control. blah blah blah. The similarities to slavery just happen to a cooincidence that people have tried to paint both as a property right with certain justifications that are just plain false. For all I know, there might be some compelling argument that justifies IP that has no coorlation to slavery. Physical property has good justification for it's existence that don't use these poor arguments, why should I let you impose intellectual-property on me without other compelling reason???
Well maybe if I have spent oh say 10 years of my life to develop a concept or a process and I decide I want to get some money from my suffering and hard work then I should be able to.
I thought you might say somthing like that. What if you spent several years worth of income importing a slave to the states, and spend 10 years training them to opperate various aspects of your plantation. BZZTT. sorry, doesn't give you the right. NEXT...
there is compelling reason because even though slavery and copyrights have nothing to do with each other in terms of human treatment, they are almost the exact same in terms of the arguments used to uphold them as a property right. Try it, give me an argument that's used to justify intellectual-property that wasn't also used to justify slave property.
I don't think that international pressure could change a damn thing that the US does. In all international bodies that count the US leads so exactly how is "all hell" going to break loose. You are pretty vague here I don't think that the copyright system will be taken down anytime soon especially becuase of international dissent.
this is the whole point though, who said anything about international dissent, half our problems are being caused by US companies. Specifically MS, MPAA, and RIAA. All very heavy in to copyrights, and all very willing to act extremely unethically (perhaps violent) to uphold them. BTW, copyrights are definitely on the way out. When it comes to bogus property rights, they are taking the path that slavery did.
I honestly have no idea how other countries will deal with the internet. Countries like the US that tend to allow more freedom of expression can't even handle it. Every time I turn arround someone wants to sue an mp3 site, censor in the name of stopping porn, jerk away peoples domain names without due process, restrict the export of encryption, and force people to remove DVD code from their web sites.
Yes I think it is safe to say, the US of A definitely can not handle what's going on - and if anything goes down - it will go down here first. In fact, it is almost frightening, because many large corporations have bet over a trillion dollars on the assumption that copyrights are a basic right, they're not, they're not sustainable, and they're not enforcable. It's only a matter of time before all hell breaks loose.
I wasn't compairing it to the holocaust, but the arguments that I shouldn't care about X because even if X is immoral it doesn't affect me right now - is invalid and I provided an example brought to its logical conclusion. I think you should consider that some industries have bet over a trillion dollars on the assumption that copyrights are a basic right. It is not, and if you don't think in the end that people will be willing to kill, or even consider worse. Think very carefully, because even the germans thought of themselves as rational civilized people protecting their interests.
while this may speed up gene mapping by an alleded 3 years, it may lock people out from using that technoloty for another 17 years assuming that the patents don't get extended. Besides, I thought patents were supposed to be in incentive to bring inventions and discoveries out into the open. It seems in this case they are well under way to being brought out into the open without intellectual property help. Infact the patents that companies gain first may very well inhibit it.
If everybody has 'your' IP, then it matters very much because you now have quite a reputation. Next thing you know, Linus will be a bum on the streets because everybody can copy his kernel - by your logic. Besides, what makes you think that somthings a property right just because the government defines it that way Did your ancestors own slaves???
look, he said creating works doesn't matter if everyone could copy your IP, and he was wrong. He implies the IP was a basic property because the government said it was. I challenged that too. What's the deal???
You are right, and it frighten's me because the fact is many large institutions have bet well over a tirllion dollars on the assumption that intellectual property is like a basic right. it is not, and when it fails them god only knows what will happen, even though we history gives us some idea. The only thing we have that's even close to this is in the 1850's when very large institutions bet huge amounts of resources on the assumption that slave ownership was a basic right. when it became unsustainable, a very violent war eventually broke out. If that was to happen today, these new technologies would make it even harsher, and it would not be a north vs south, because IP has no specific geographic regions, it would be more like a mini anarchy. of course, this is extreme speculation - but it just underscores why people need fight the concept of intellectual property at any chance they get.
people like Harriet Tubman (spelling) did more to end slavery than all of the petitioning congress combined. If you want to do somthing that helps, you can simply copy, buy coppies, sell coppies, of any type of CD, DVD, software and media you can think of.
Slashdot Mirror
this is also a reason for knowledge-employess to aviod anything that is propriatary. My impression of the author was that he thought of intellectual property monopolies such as copyrights and patents as the end all do all fo corporate america, and you needed to butter up the workers to make sure that they will help you get there. He is simply wong. Companies like cisco and MS anr not new-economy - new-economy companies are companies that do not rely on copyrights and patents, but rather service and more efficient work for their bottom line.
Long term prosperity does not come from overpaid work, but productive work - otherwise you're just inflating a baloon. The simple fact is that the linux paradigm is able to achieve much more for a fraction of the cost. Only an idiot would think that they are isolated from the free market competition because too many people value their comfortable place. Too bad, deal with it.
I had an interview there and the first question that I was asked was "do you even know what linux is?". For years I'd been taking a whipping at other companies because they blew off my attitude about Linux as naieve, only to be totally humiliated in my attempts to embrace it. Other than that it was the most intelligent and insightfull interview I'd ever been in, but I came off like a UNIX idiot. I felt misjudged (or perhaps rail-roaded by the unchallenging overpaying corporate jobs I've been in) it was soo very fusterating. The experience I had seemed to count for nothing.
while it seems like I have people lining up to give me near 6-digit positions in the fortune 500 club, getting a linux job anywhere is another story. I think half my problem is that many of these big companies frankly over-pay because they are simply stupid/wastefull, and hanging arround them long enough makes you into a "dull-blade". I decided to deal with this by beefing up my linux training, hanging out arround more linux related activities, and deal with a massive pay cut. Yea it's tough, but the writing is on the wall - anyone who doesn't "get it" (with Linux) is simply gonna get it.
David
I can't stand PDF, couldn't they have put in html or something. After all, this IS the internet. I know this is off topic, but I really dislike Adobe and a lot of their tactics. David
Considering this story, it might be possible to flood the patent office with so many bogus claims, that it would effectively shut it down. If enough companies were saved from bogus law-suits - it could provide an "incentive" to offer a constant revnue stream of funding to support the process. David
notice that the people who are most likely to get screwed by MS are always the ones who are closest to them, busisness wise or professionally. Perhaps they would consider changing their often snide attitude toward Linux, and the Linux community and quit trying to shove MS down our throat. This really isn't about MS at all, it's about this attitude that people have that if you just stick with the status-quo corporate America they'll take care of you and everything will be ok......
Good analogy or not, it should also be added that the slavery industry bet an incredible amount of resources on the premise that slavery was a basic right. When it couldn't be sustained anymore the collapse of the institution was violent. Don't be supprised if the collapse of copyrights causes great harm too. Many industries have spent over a trillion dollars on the assumption that copyrights are a basic right. They're not, and their demise is only a matter of time as the values of society must inevitably find them unacceptable to move onward. But they will not let go peacefully. David
Many people in their day saw slavery as a property right. It wasn't, it was simply an excercize of controll over individual liberties in the name of profit as is intellectual property today. And likewise most of the arguments used to justify them are the same. We put effort into getting slaves..... Without slaves we have no incentive to grow cottin.... America's financial propserity can be attributed to slavery.... If you take a slave and free him, you are a thief.... too many prestigious people do for it to be wrong... blah blah blah ...
I disagree, property rights derive from the fact that not everybody can use something at the same time. People half to come up with rules of ownership to guarentte respect of individual dignity. Slavery failed on the individual dignity part, copyrights fail on the limited nature of property part. Besides, when you restrict me from copying even though it doesn't limit the information you have access to - it is then excercizing a limited form of control over me in the name of protecting your "profits" - that sounds very close to the path to slavery if anything. David
Ok, at the risk at not leaving it as "lets agree to disagree". Lets try this again. People have property rights even if no government exists at all, but they typically organize in the form of government to secure these rights. The foundation of property as a right derives from the fact that property has physical limits, that not everybody can use any property at will without conflicting on anothers ability to use it too. Therefore out of respect for human dignity the concept of private property and individual ownership has evolved. However, intellectual property is slightly different, it original foundation came a few centuries ago (after the great creativity of the renisance BTW) when the king of england promised to grant a monpoly on copying stories to publishers who promised not to print bad things about the monarchy. Later on in the US, it was recgonized that these were not natural law rights, but were allowed anyhow as a SHORT TERM incentive, whose justification was to promote sharing of artistic works to the eventuall public domain. Of course, at no time is the practice of putting effort into somthing a right to renumerated, rahter that is just an extension of natural law property rights of which controlling anothers copying behavior is certainly not. David
first off, I said it's not a basic right and then I said it's unenforcable - that's quite a different thing than saying it's not a basic right because it's unenforcable. Second, copyrights are not a basic right, it has nothing to do with whose rights are more important because when I copy something that you created - your rights are not being violated in any way. In fact, that attitude is rather arrogant. It's similar to saying that stealing slaves from the plantation and freeing them violates their masters basic right. You're assuming that copyrights are like some type of property right, I'm assuming they're not and acting from there. However, unlike yours - my assumption is founded.
if were going to go through all the troubble of narowing them down, we minuswell get rid if them all together. You know, whiping the boy 25% as much as you whiped him the week before is still just plain ole bad. a step in the right direction, but still bad.
you say that IP and copyrights are not such terrible things, but you should look at their foundation. Renember, slavery didn't start out to be that bad either. It was short term indentrued servitude, that was white and black, never inherited, and gave people an opportunity to own property and advance themselves, and if you didn't like slavery or the institution you didn't half to own slaves or you could be kind to the slaves that you had. It happened then, and it's happening now. Copyrights (and patents to a lesser extent) are on a collission course with the bill-of-rights. Every year they get harsher, every year you see new wrongs that result from them, and the problems that result from them will never go away until we adress the core issue. and that is - what is the nature of property and how do we justify it's existence. This is a very different question than what do I think I should be entitled to. If we don't learn to differentiate, history will repeat itself.
it isn't really about the analogy, it's about the nature of the arguments. I deserve X cause I put effort into it, Without X people have no incentive ..., The financial success that X has caused in this area justifies it. X will never go away because it's too founded in our society. People need X to keep them under control. blah blah blah. The similarities to slavery just happen to a cooincidence that people have tried to paint both as a property right with certain justifications that are just plain false. For all I know, there might be some compelling argument that justifies IP that has no coorlation to slavery. Physical property has good justification for it's existence that don't use these poor arguments, why should I let you impose intellectual-property on me without other compelling reason???
I thought you might say somthing like that. What if you spent several years worth of income importing a slave to the states, and spend 10 years training them to opperate various aspects of your plantation. BZZTT. sorry, doesn't give you the right. NEXT...
there is compelling reason because even though slavery and copyrights have nothing to do with each other in terms of human treatment, they are almost the exact same in terms of the arguments used to uphold them as a property right. Try it, give me an argument that's used to justify intellectual-property that wasn't also used to justify slave property.
this is the whole point though, who said anything about international dissent, half our problems are being caused by US companies. Specifically MS, MPAA, and RIAA. All very heavy in to copyrights, and all very willing to act extremely unethically (perhaps violent) to uphold them. BTW, copyrights are definitely on the way out. When it comes to bogus property rights, they are taking the path that slavery did.
I honestly have no idea how other countries will deal with the internet. Countries like the US that tend to allow more freedom of expression can't even handle it. Every time I turn arround someone wants to sue an mp3 site, censor in the name of stopping porn, jerk away peoples domain names without due process, restrict the export of encryption, and force people to remove DVD code from their web sites.
Yes I think it is safe to say, the US of A definitely can not handle what's going on - and if anything goes down - it will go down here first. In fact, it is almost frightening, because many large corporations have bet over a trillion dollars on the assumption that copyrights are a basic right, they're not, they're not sustainable, and they're not enforcable. It's only a matter of time before all hell breaks loose.
David
I wasn't compairing it to the holocaust, but the arguments that I shouldn't care about X because even if X is immoral it doesn't affect me right now - is invalid and I provided an example brought to its logical conclusion. I think you should consider that some industries have bet over a trillion dollars on the assumption that copyrights are a basic right. It is not, and if you don't think in the end that people will be willing to kill, or even consider worse. Think very carefully, because even the germans thought of themselves as rational civilized people protecting their interests.
while this may speed up gene mapping by an alleded 3 years, it may lock people out from using that technoloty for another 17 years assuming that the patents don't get extended. Besides, I thought patents were supposed to be in incentive to bring inventions and discoveries out into the open. It seems in this case they are well under way to being brought out into the open without intellectual property help. Infact the patents that companies gain first may very well inhibit it.
look, he said creating works doesn't matter if everyone could copy your IP, and he was wrong. He implies the IP was a basic property because the government said it was. I challenged that too. What's the deal???
I could care less, they are hauling off the Jew's, but I am not a jew so I have nothing to worry about.
You are right, and it frighten's me because the fact is many large institutions have bet well over a tirllion dollars on the assumption that intellectual property is like a basic right. it is not, and when it fails them god only knows what will happen, even though we history gives us some idea. The only thing we have that's even close to this is in the 1850's when very large institutions bet huge amounts of resources on the assumption that slave ownership was a basic right. when it became unsustainable, a very violent war eventually broke out. If that was to happen today, these new technologies would make it even harsher, and it would not be a north vs south, because IP has no specific geographic regions, it would be more like a mini anarchy. of course, this is extreme speculation - but it just underscores why people need fight the concept of intellectual property at any chance they get.
people like Harriet Tubman (spelling) did more to end slavery than all of the petitioning congress combined. If you want to do somthing that helps, you can simply copy, buy coppies, sell coppies, of any type of CD, DVD, software and media you can think of.