As a followup to my previous post. I don't disagree with you about EULA's which are generally dismissive of user rights to sue, but Fortune 500 companies that enter into agreements with the likes of MS, IBM, SUN, etc... Do not get EULA's, they get custome contracts or "partnerships" that can end up in court if things don't go well. The law books are rife with legal battles involving SAP and companies claiming that they have not fulfilled such and such part of a contract. Corning Glass is one example from Massachusetts.
IBM was sued by the Denver airport for allegedly mucking up a baggage management system. There were counter suits and such. Don't know how it turned out.
I don't see why -- you'll have to come up with some arguments as to why do you think this is so.
The reason why is because so called "high-tech" warfare allows for the amplification of killing potential coupled with the abstraction of the actuall disaster. The amplification of killing power, I think, is obvious. As for the abstraction of killing and it's effect on the psychology of the soldier and the general populus perhaps you can look at the effects of press coverage of the Vietnam war on the population as opposed to CNN in the Gulf War. One representing uncontroled human access to violence and the other representing the more modern approach which is to concider the media itself a front in the domestic psychological war that runs concurrent to any modern war.
As for colonialism, my position is that the European system, mainly the Economic model, allows for the manipulation of populations in such ways as to produce the types of massecures we see today. I recognize the poster who mentioned that massecures have been a fact of history. There are difference between Ghengis Kahn and the modern situation however. Kahn was one person who's empire rose and fell with him. Empires that are build on Economic models enjoy a certain imortality of policy that is different from the ego driven policy of the despot. I fully agree that modern times necessarily came from the experience of the past. I don't agree that things are much the same. I think that there is a deffinate vector to history that points from a past of precedents into a future of possibilities. By looking at our legacy you can asses the present and make predictions for the future. As for "high-tech" warefare, does anybody think it somehow puts a human face on killing? Does it connect the purpetrator of voilence more closely with the victims in such a way as to provoke a concious questioning of the validity of the act?
I think that our weaponry has been moving in the direction of removing the human face from the victim. This makes it easier for policy planners to put whatever face they want on the victim. Does this happen? From my experience watching the US in action, yes. Rather than work out effective alternatives to violence we hurd negotiations to violence, which is where the US excells.
Finally, your critic on rambling metaphorical statements is well taken. However, that is exactly what I concidered your original post to be. (Imitation is the best form of flattery?)
There are a few points you are failing to concider:
1. The dehumanization factor of so called "high-tech" warfare creates a social/political climet that allows for justifications of mass suffering. Couple that with the prospect of zero loss of life warefare and it becomes very easy for policy makes to "unleash" tremendous destructive force on people who have no defense against such agression.
2. Don't forget the high-tech media which is one of the greatest weapons devised.
3. In reference to Cambodia and Rawanda you need to check your history a little better. The USA turned a blined eye to both of these areas as massacures beyond imagination were taking place. If you look at Rawanda's history you'll find that massacures the scale of recent did not take place until colonial Europe arived and pit populations against themselves. As for Cambodia, the USA did all it could to insure that the entirety of southeast asia remained a hell whole throughout the 60's and 70's.
While were at it you should'nt fail to mention South America, where in Nicaragua the US CIA spent it's time training soldiers to butcher the civilian population.
It's easy to think that war without loss of life is a good thing if your side is right. The problem is that we ( the USA ) is not right. For all are morel grandstanding our foriegn policy is completely self interested to the point where killing and torturing entire population is justifiable. Look at our atitude tords the UN and the US advancement of NATO as a global enforcer of policy and "peace".
I've been able to run Linux at my office without trouble. The only integration problem I have is with the Exchange server. I'll be looking into some solutions with my partner in crime but I am woundering if this is already underway?
Your description is very much like that of Plato describing his "Forms". Your ideas about the "incoroptability of concepts" is true. But, and you mention this, people are corruptable (or less negativly, can change there minds). Also they may not be sharing the same vision as the next person even if it seems so on the outside. The problem for people that enjoy the spirit of open source, free software distrabution and communtiy development is that they seem to be a minority. While the majority of individuals in the consumer market and in IT departments may gain glimpses into the possobilities of OSS they can not connect that possoblilty to a workable reality. The pressures of the market are to adopt existing solutions that follow the trench of the past. The people digging those trenches are the corporations and they tend to drain into there own pockets. OSS is at a criticle time and what J. Kelly is noticing is that it seems to be mutating into the corporate model.
The question becomes, who is going to be able to explain the ideals OSS started with to the people in a world overrun with the deeply ingrained models we see around us. How can you explain "pink" to someone who has never seen the color. You may be able to show them "pink" in your own little cloistered world but how do they then step back out into a world of only black and white and make a difference. Not everybody is a super-hero nor should they be required to be.
We are talking about the mass adoption of a new way of doing things that includes not just process change but a new set of values. I think that what J. Kelly might be trying to say is that the message, or the incorruptable idea, is being changed. It's becoming more in line with the existing system and it's original champions are either changing there minds or being trampled in the rush.
A friend of mine read Code Complete and had some sort of religious experience. I read as much as I could stand and put it back on my shelf. I've found that Microsoft Press books give me a queezy, unatural feeling. They select people from there own ranks and publish there work. It's all a bit to easy for me. If you want to adopt a complete an _practical_ software development model that has worked for me in the past, Rational Rose has done a lot of work in this area. There software is expensive and kludgy but the process that they describe is earily accurate in describing the phases and issues that are involved in all types of projects (well run and doomed alike). Finaly, I started a company in 1995 based on a contract that served as funding. A few points I'd like to mention. 1. Don't give up! I went months without money after my first contract ended and the bills were pilling up. I was so involved with the work at hand that I was not lining up the next job. The two people I started the company with left. I stuck with the company and landed a small contract that got me out of the whole. Then, a few months later I landed the largest contract of my life! Never underestimate coincidence, good humor, and sticking to your personal values as a proffesional and an individual. It may sound corny but you will attract what you are and nice people tend to find each other and not let each other fail. 2. Decide what you want to do and then agree on leadership. I think it is better to have one person who drives the vision. That person should idealy be able to take criticism and adapt there stratagy and ideas but it should be _there_ stratagy and ideas. This is hard when everybody has there own goals and ambitions but if that is the case then you should start multiple companies. You can only do one thing at a time. 3. Manage your books. This was a mess for me. An outside accountant migh be usefull depending on the size of the company but if you want to save money then QuickBooks is fine as long as you designate time (twice a month) to handle all book keeping and bank/credit issues. It's very satisfying to have books that are balanced. Try it! 4. Common sense goes a long way in the startup phase so don't hesitate to trust your instincts. You might want to read a book on eutrapanuerail (sp?) companies because you will hit management issues when the company becomes succesfull. Understanding your own motivation, strengths and limitations will be key as the companay goes through it's growth phases. Best of luck!
Slashdot Mirror
As a followup to my previous post. I don't disagree with you about EULA's which are generally dismissive of user rights to sue, but Fortune 500 companies that enter into agreements with the likes of MS, IBM, SUN, etc... Do not get EULA's, they get custome contracts or "partnerships" that can end up in court if things don't go well. The law books are rife with legal battles involving SAP and companies claiming that they have not fulfilled such and such part of a contract. Corning Glass is one example from Massachusetts.
IBM was sued by the Denver airport for allegedly mucking up a baggage management system. There were counter suits and such. Don't know how it turned out.
The reason why is because so called "high-tech" warfare allows for the amplification of killing potential coupled with the abstraction of the actuall disaster. The amplification of killing power, I think, is obvious. As for the abstraction of killing and it's effect on the psychology of the soldier and the general populus perhaps you can look at the effects of press coverage of the Vietnam war on the population as opposed to CNN in the Gulf War. One representing uncontroled human access to violence and the other representing the more modern approach which is to concider the media itself a front in the domestic psychological war that runs concurrent to any modern war.
As for colonialism, my position is that the European system, mainly the Economic model, allows for the manipulation of populations in such ways as to produce the types of massecures we see today. I recognize the poster who mentioned that massecures have been a fact of history. There are difference between Ghengis Kahn and the modern situation however. Kahn was one person who's empire rose and fell with him. Empires that are build on Economic models enjoy a certain imortality of policy that is different from the ego driven policy of the despot. I fully agree that modern times necessarily came from the experience of the past. I don't agree that things are much the same. I think that there is a deffinate vector to history that points from a past of precedents into a future of possibilities. By looking at our legacy you can asses the present and make predictions for the future. As for "high-tech" warefare, does anybody think it somehow puts a human face on killing? Does it connect the purpetrator of voilence more closely with the victims in such a way as to provoke a concious questioning of the validity of the act?
I think that our weaponry has been moving in the direction of removing the human face from the victim. This makes it easier for policy planners to put whatever face they want on the victim. Does this happen? From my experience watching the US in action, yes. Rather than work out effective alternatives to violence we hurd negotiations to violence, which is where the US excells.
Finally, your critic on rambling metaphorical statements is well taken. However, that is exactly what I concidered your original post to be. (Imitation is the best form of flattery?)
There are a few points you are failing to concider:
1. The dehumanization factor of so called "high-tech" warfare creates a social/political climet that allows for justifications of mass suffering. Couple that with the prospect of zero loss of life warefare and it becomes very easy for policy makes to "unleash" tremendous destructive force on people who have no defense against such agression.
2. Don't forget the high-tech media which is one of the greatest weapons devised.
3. In reference to Cambodia and Rawanda you need to check your history a little better. The USA turned a blined eye to both of these areas as massacures beyond imagination were taking place. If you look at Rawanda's history you'll find that massacures the scale of recent did not take place until colonial Europe arived and pit populations against themselves. As for Cambodia, the USA did all it could to insure that the entirety of southeast asia remained a hell whole throughout the 60's and 70's.
While were at it you should'nt fail to mention South America, where in Nicaragua the US CIA spent it's time training soldiers to butcher the civilian population.
It's easy to think that war without loss of life is a good thing if your side is right. The problem is that we ( the USA ) is not right. For all are morel grandstanding our foriegn policy is completely self interested to the point where killing and torturing entire population is justifiable. Look at our atitude tords the UN and the US advancement of NATO as a global enforcer of policy and "peace".
I've been able to run Linux at my office without trouble. The only integration problem I have is with the Exchange server. I'll be looking into some solutions with my partner in crime but I am woundering if this is already underway?
The question becomes, who is going to be able to explain the ideals OSS started with to the people in a world overrun with the deeply ingrained models we see around us. How can you explain "pink" to someone who has never seen the color. You may be able to show them "pink" in your own little cloistered world but how do they then step back out into a world of only black and white and make a difference. Not everybody is a super-hero nor should they be required to be.
We are talking about the mass adoption of a new way of doing things that includes not just process change but a new set of values. I think that what J. Kelly might be trying to say is that the message, or the incorruptable idea, is being changed. It's becoming more in line with the existing system and it's original champions are either changing there minds or being trampled in the rush.
A friend of mine read Code Complete and had some sort of religious experience. I read as much as I could stand and put it back on my shelf. I've found that Microsoft Press books give me a queezy, unatural feeling. They select people from there own ranks and publish there work. It's all a bit to easy for me. If you want to adopt a complete an _practical_ software development model that has worked for me in the past, Rational Rose has done a lot of work in this area. There software is expensive and kludgy but the process that they describe is earily accurate in describing the phases and issues that are involved in all types of projects (well run and doomed alike). Finaly, I started a company in 1995 based on a contract that served as funding. A few points I'd like to mention. 1. Don't give up! I went months without money after my first contract ended and the bills were pilling up. I was so involved with the work at hand that I was not lining up the next job. The two people I started the company with left. I stuck with the company and landed a small contract that got me out of the whole. Then, a few months later I landed the largest contract of my life! Never underestimate coincidence, good humor, and sticking to your personal values as a proffesional and an individual. It may sound corny but you will attract what you are and nice people tend to find each other and not let each other fail. 2. Decide what you want to do and then agree on leadership. I think it is better to have one person who drives the vision. That person should idealy be able to take criticism and adapt there stratagy and ideas but it should be _there_ stratagy and ideas. This is hard when everybody has there own goals and ambitions but if that is the case then you should start multiple companies. You can only do one thing at a time. 3. Manage your books. This was a mess for me. An outside accountant migh be usefull depending on the size of the company but if you want to save money then QuickBooks is fine as long as you designate time (twice a month) to handle all book keeping and bank/credit issues. It's very satisfying to have books that are balanced. Try it! 4. Common sense goes a long way in the startup phase so don't hesitate to trust your instincts. You might want to read a book on eutrapanuerail (sp?) companies because you will hit management issues when the company becomes succesfull. Understanding your own motivation, strengths and limitations will be key as the companay goes through it's growth phases. Best of luck!