"Once we take out the remaining 10-20 leaders, it won't matter who's left. We can pack our bags and go home"
I sincerely hope that is the case. I also understand that Leon may not be able to tell us who those 10 - 20 leaders are.
So here's what I think We The People deserve: A countdown clock. Put a big "20" counter up somewhere, and count it down to zero. If that number doesn't go down by at least 1 per month, I want a very good reason (and for the number to fall the next month), or I want Leon to admit he is not the right guy for the job and to step aside for his replacement.
I have no problem with military action with concrete objectives, victory conditions, and a clear path to the return to normalcy (where perpetual war is not considered normalcy). I also have no problem with a particular leader admitting he is not the right guy for the job. I even have no problem with spending as much as the rest of the planet combined on our military while we have a mission and are making progress.
What I do have a problem with is spending $700b per year and always being told that victory is just over the next hill. $700b per year should be enough to get the job done -- and if it is not, we cannot afford to continue. Now get it done, or bring in the next guy, or change the victory conditions to something that is attainable.
Then, two years from now, I want the peace dividend. We cannot afford to continue on this path (same for health care and social security, and I want my taxes raised).
I think you are posting on the wrong forum. This site, through the surprisingly effective moderation system, leans heavily toward rational analysis when compared to most.
While there is a significant bias in favor of a fairly strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights (though at times the second gets shorter shrift than I might prefer) on this site, that is a bias that would serve my nation (and, I believe, most nations) quite well. And it may be that the offenses to the first and fourth have been most heavily observed to come from the side of the aisle you seem to prefer (at least until Obama took that ball and ran with it). But your post seems targeted at forums which play host to leftists. Certainly the amount of rational disdain that this forum focuses on the left-oriented oligarchs in the health care, law, and copyright industries should be more than adequate evidence of the lack of partisan line-toe-ing here.
Save your implications of dupery for people who do not engage in critical thinking. Your attempt to induce stigma-based inhibition to identifying and publishing cases of media bias and politicians who generate more heat than light are neither warranted nor productive in this place.
If you must pander to one side, do it by pointing out factual errors or examples of emotionalism on the side you do not like. Engage in creative destruction by rational deconstruction; leave your emotionalist inhibition mongering at home.
Several years ago, a roundabout was added to what was (at the time) my daily route to and from work in Phoenix, AZ. It was on a corridor between housing and offices, so it was mostly used by daily commuters. For the first month or two, it was clearly slower and more dangerous. By the six month mark, however, traffic was flowing significantly more efficiently through the intersection, and I no longer observed any close calls or horns blaring -- even on the Friday evening mad rush to the weekend.
I should note that the intersection was particularly well-suited to a roundabout; two housing roads toward the South met three office roads toward the North, and most people using it used it regularly. It seems likely that not all intersections would be so ideally suited -- but in that case, the benefits appeared to far outweigh the costs once users were accustomed to it.
Perhaps a better example is this roundabout recently added on the main route from Phoenix to Las Vegas. Long-haul tractor-trailers, local automobiles, and vacationers zip smoothly around the large-radius roundabout without creating the half-mile backups I regularly experienced when the traffic went through a four-way traffic signal.
Assuming the article subject is grammatically correct, this must be the world's loudest bug. Given the propensity for phrase structure errors on this site, however, I am left wondering if this is the world's loudest bug, or the world's loudest singing penis.
>> It's going to deny the poorest people access to making these documents because it's going to force them to seek attorneys who are often too expensive.
> That is the idea here. The lawyers don't like those books either. The whole point of laws like the one in this case is to protect certain groups from competition
Makes for an interesting lens through which to view the ethics of the software engineering culture. Many of us, particularly on this forum, are contributors to F/LOSS -- very similar to legal templates. There are, however, those such as Microsoft who have at times sought to steer the government to inhibit the flow of F/LOSS. As I reflect on the coders, engineers, and scientists in the field I have known, it strikes me that their level of support for F/LOSS correlates well with their sense of ethics. The most honorable are also those who most strongly advocate for broader publication of source code. Perhaps altruism, though I am skeptical of that term; perhaps more out of a sense of long-term rational self-interest -- advocating for the rising tide of society which raises all ships.
"What legitimate reasons do the police have for avoiding being recorded?"
While I strongly support the public right to record the public actions of public servants, I think there is a legitimate fear of such things on the part of officers. The spectrum runs from "You couldn't handle the truth," to "The enforcement of the law is like making sausage -- you wouldn't want to see how it's done."
The latter can be entirely valid. In order to detain hostile suspects in a manner that is safe for the public, the officer, and the suspect, it can be necessary to use a degree of force which to a normal member of the public can look harsher than is necessary.
Certainly I am not saying this is always the case. I lived in San Francisco for the Fruitvale BART incident and the suspect who got smashed through a BART station window. I am not saying such things do not happen. However, it is the case that even ideal police enforcement involves a degree of physical altercation that is well outside the realm of experience of most people.
Officers, with good historical records to work from, fear the media creating a spectacle of such incidents -- even when the subduing the suspect is done in the best possible way -- much as we feel about the RIAA creating a public spectacle by equating downloading with lost revenue.
All that said, I believe the right solution is to be *more* open about the reality of law enforcement. For the public to see the hostility that officers face on a daily basis, so we can better understand the stress and psychological trauma these men and women must endure. With the ideal outcome being that we are both more understanding of the internal problems these people face in protecting and serving us, and so that we can more precisely identify and punish those who abuse their authority.
"I wanted to find a tool to scan my music to identify files that may be flagged as having been pirated by these cloud services"
Interesting thought -- I rip all my music from original CDs for exactly this reason; to ensure that I am totally compliant in case my tinfoil hat is not just a rakish bit of haberdashery. However, I use the same library as lots of other people, and the same settings. Seems almost certain my rips will be identical to other people's -- assuming Lame is deterministic. I wonder if that means my tracks would get flagged? (not that I'll upload them -- I run a personal cloud)
"Is this supporting terrorists or supporting stockholders?"
This is delaying the penalty to your stockholders until the next time they come around, while throwing the stockholders of all other companies under the bus by stimulating and funding the attackers.
I hate to fill a spot on somebody's buzzword bingo card, but this strikes me as an excellent opportunity for coopetition. If Libre Office and OpenOffice follow relatively similar development paths, but compete on implementation and refinement, it would be an excellent opportunity for exploring alternative solution strategies while cross-pollinating the results.
The fundamentals of OOo/LOo are pretty solid. The major components are well established -- the biggest wins on the horizon are about optimization, handling new formats, and UI enhancements. Development in those areas is easier to inherit across projects than if major project direction changes were still under way.
Without a doubt, splitting the available development pool across two projects has some costs -- but it is not necessarily all down side. LibreOffice thinks they have better ideas for the future of OOo. OpenOffice thinks the same. I hope they are both right; I'd like to see them each throw down some serious code, hold it up with pride to the other project, then do what comes naturally in Open Source world: Steal each other's code.
Not sure about LGPL/ASL compatibility -- but I figure between pluggable libraries, re-implementation, and maybe some special case license grants, they could work it out.
Just seems like it shouldn't be too difficult for a sharing-oriented community to figure out how to have their cake and eat it too. The developers are all after the same thing in the end -- a good F/LOSS office suite. By virtue of each person's contribution to their preferred project, they earn the right to choose their own paths. No need to minimize one or the other project when our very foundational principle is sharing and learning from each other (and showing off our coding chops). They can simply turn our greatest strength into our greatest strength.
> Granting Rightsholder A the right to make money from his sheet music does not produce any net benefits; it merely transfers money from the buyer to the rightsholder.
Hear, Hear!
I've been noodling on this same thing recently. Another way to approach the same answer is by considering the foundation of the copyright supporter's hypothesis.
The fundamental hypothesis behind using the revenue from a copyrighted work as a measure of the value of that copyright is free market theory. In free market theory, the revenue generated by the sale of a good is an estimate of its value to society. The accuracy of that estimate is a function of the efficiency of the free market -- more efficient markets will more closely approximate the ideal market price and volume, and hence more accurately measure the true societal value of the good.
The problem with using revenue as a measure of the societal value of copyright, however, is that it is a fiat monopoly. Monopoly goods do not obey the rules of price theory. Specifically, the number of suppliers of a given good is not allowed to grow, which would enable competition to lower the observed price to match the cost of production. That is, of course, for a good reason. In creative works, the cost of reproduction is significantly lower than the cost of initial production.
It is for that reason that the fiat monopoly exists. To promote the progress of science and the useful arts, it is beneficial for government to inhibit the natural behavior of the free market in a way that induces revenue flow to the creators. That is a good thing.
However, it eliminates the ability to accurately estimate societal value by measuring revenue. The revenue in the copyright (and patent, and trademark) industry is not a measure of market efficient societal benefit. Every time an RIAA or MPAA representative uses sales and loss figures to support their case for expanding copyright enforcement, they are betraying their disdain for, or at least ignorance of, the free market and the principles behind using revenue as an estimate of societal value.
> The abuse of power by local government is as much as, or even more astounding. You just don't see this because most of it is isn't big enough to make the evening news nationwide.
Just noodling on this. Blue sky.
The problem at any level of government ultimately boils down to avarice for power and corruption. Adam Smith came up with an economic system which exploits the harmful characteristic "greed" to induce production. Perhaps the same principle could be applied to government. Instead of pretending we can have non-corrupt federal, state, or local government, we put them in competition.
Have local and state governments operate as they do now, and give them most of the civil authority (abortion, guns, collection of taxes, etc). Then, you set the federal government up with avarice for power as their motive to eliminate corruption at the state and local level. Make it so the federal government can only act as the civil authority in cases where they put a corrupt local or state politician in jail -- they get 6 months to run that guy's office.
So if you're a federal official and you want power, you've got to go put some of the most dangerous criminals in our society (corrupt public officials) in jail. Local and state politicians would be extremely incentivized to keep their noses clean, and the breeding ground of national politicians would be a cleaner place, reducing the flow rate of explicitly for-sale politicians to D.C.
Hey, Slashdot; Could you clue me? What is the state of alternative DNS systems, particularly something mesh- or web-of-trust- oriented? Any live systems that are usable now? Any projects that look promising where I could lend a hand with code or whatever?
> A single analyst at a private company in the employ of the United States government
There -- fixed that for you. It does not have to be policy for it to be an affront to the sovereign citizens of this nation. It is an affront for our government to use our money to finance research into social manipulation -- particularly when the targets of that social manipulation include dissent regarding the operation of government programs.
> 'cause by golly, we haven't had our two minutes hate yet today, and we need something to be outraged over!
I am not sure if you are being serious, as that is a sterling example of using social stigma to suppress dissent. But I will respond to your statement as though it is a genuine supposition and not a mere caricature of the very topic under debate:
What should strike you as more despicable is that at least two minutes worth of such offenses against our nation happen every day. This nation was founded on dissent, by dissenters, with the express purpose of encouraging and facilitating dissent as expressed in great detail in the Declaration and Constitution. That those sworn to defend those principles are instead using taxpayer money to fund research into the suppression of dissent is anathema to This Grand Experiment.
> 'to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius,'
Ummm, like The Great Barrier Reef?
Jimmy Wales may be the founder, but what makes Wikipedia extraordinary is less like Orville and Wilber and more like a billion coral polyps. Just 'cuz humans were involved in the accretion does not preclude it from being a natural wonder. The amazing thing is not that Jimmy Wales founded it, or that some handful of people worked on it, it is that an enormous number of people worked on it -- simultaneously, independently, without pay or a central design. It is, by far, the broadest decentralized collaborative work in history. It puts termite mounds, beaver dams, and 1970s communes to shame.
Wikipedia is not a work of singular genius, it is a natural wonder of a global organic system. A global organic system that happens to be comprised of human organisms.
There are a few examples of clone software that has done fairly well. Consider DOS, Lotus 1-2-3, Macintosh OS, Windows, Word, Sql Server, MySQL, Excel, OpenOffice, Netscape, Mozilla, Internet Explorer, Chrome, and Safari. Many of which were not just de facto clones but explicitly so.
> Most major corporations/companies are scum or have done scummy things in the past - why take action only when it's Microsoft?
I don't think this forum fits your description. For example, consider the tide of sentiment regarding Google. A company that once -- when it took its mission statement seriously -- could do no wrong in the eyes of this community, is now often derided as an abuser of market dominance and for having sacrificed its stated objectives for money in cases like China.
And while the reaction to Microsoft is more reliable, that is because Microsoft has a more reliable record when estimating the probability of market-harmful outcomes. Predicting the future actions of corporations inherently involves considering their history. Assessing that history objectively is an integral part of making the best business decision. That Microsoft's history makes it a less desirable participant in some information systems is not the fault of those who observe the fact.
> It's in rapid development at this point, but has been stable for me since began using it a couple of weeks ago.
I too have been using Jitsi, including extensive use with my over-60 parents on Windows and people using Linux and OS-X. It has been extremely satisfying, offering both more stability and higher voice quality than my cellphone -- plus video.
Connections can be made peer-to-peer, and with end-to-end encryption. And if you want to get really obsessive, you can tunnel over SSH, through multiple hops, whatever floats your boat. No more blind trust of third parties.
There are also services for linking a traditional telephone number to your SIP account for under $10/month, so you can get everything you get with Skype.
> You could at least explain how Skype no longer works for you instead of letting emotions cloud logic.
It is not an emotional connection that is being made, it is a logical one (though you may have a different set of premises). To more clearly understand the hypothesis, consider the following:
Skype does not include support for standards-based interop, such as SIP. This is a problem because of network effect.
The Skype service is centralized, with all calling controlled by Skype machines. If used in the most common way, this makes your contact list dependent on Skype (and its parent company).
Neither of these flaws is new as of this acquisition, but the expected risk has increased due to the purchasing company's history of anti-competitive practices. Hence the net expected value of using Skype and the Skype service has, in fact, decreased.
To estimate the objective answer to the question, do the math.
What is the value of a software engineer per year?
How many years does a monitor last?
How much does a monitor cost?
What is the rough ratio between screen real estate and productivity for a software engineer?
The last one is the tough one, but far from impossible. Assume that above 21", I get something between 2% and 20% of the increased size as increased productivity. So if I go from 21" to 42" -- a 100% increase in size -- I get 2% to 20% increased productivity. A wide range, but it almost certainly covers a conservative estimate of reality.
So, now plug in the other numbers using the example case of going from 1 x 21" to 2 x 21":
V = value of software engineer per year = $100k (or whatever) L = lifespan of monitor, in years = 3 Mc = cost of monitor = $500 (for a good one) Ec = cost of electricity, per year = $80 P = increase in productivity = 2% to 20%.
V * P = value added by buying the monitor, per year Ec + Mc / L = cost of buying the monitor, per year
V * P = (2% to 20%) * $100k = $2k to $20k Ec + Mc / L = $80 + $500 / 3 = $246
Value of buying the monitor is $2k to $20k per year. Cost of buying the monitor is $246 per year.
It is extreme fiscal irresponsibility to not buy the monitor -- though a new factor enters the equation when you reach the point of having to add office-space rental consideration (ie: so many monitors that you need a bigger space). There are also decreasing returns from increasing screen real-estate which are not considered in this small example but would be easy to incorporate.
The same is probably also true of the accounting department, since accountants make most of their contribution through a computer screen.
The same is probably also true of the CEO, since his value per year to the company is much higher.
This is probably less true, for example, of point-of-sale personnel, who make most of their contribution through human interaction, not through a monitor.
This is probably less true of low level functionaries, who have a lower annual value to the corporation.
From the Article: 'It said the document outlines the US agenda "for partnering with other nations and peoples to ensure the prosperity, security, and openness that we seek in our increasingly networked world."'
Let's see: Prosperity, Security, and Openness.
Let me guess -- in that order, right?
Here's how it plays out:
"What's first on the agenda today, gentlemen?"
"Prosperity"
"All-right, I asked around, and all the lobbyists in my outer office agree on how to maximize prosperity. We should give total control of popular content to the MAFIAA and the Cable and Telcos. Next?"
"Security"
"Right; absolute authority to shut down anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, without having to document anything goes to National Cyber Command. Next?"
"Oppenness"
"Perfect -- nations we don't like, and which are small enough that we can kick their ass, have to allow their people to speak freely on the Internet."
"Awesome, I think we're done. Who's up for a round of golf?"
"Now hang on, there -- we have to make this look like it was a challenging struggle between opposing voices interested only in the best principles of American democracy."
"Right, let's get a couple of the spin doctors to rewrite the health-care debate script. Most of the public bought that."
"1. Pull the plug on Grandma, as per Republican Budget plans 2. Tax cuts for the rich paid for by pulling the plug on medical care for the poor 3. Transfer of American natural resources to oil companies, who will sell us back these resources at a 500% markup 4. Vote for the same Republicans that just ruined the country 5. Lose the Senate in 2012 (enables moneygrab/poormurder) 6. Censor the internet on behalf of the MAFIAA"
You seem to be buying the stagecraft. The Democrats are just playing Dean Martin to the Republican's Jerry Lewis. There has to be a remotely credible opposition to facilitate the transition to oligarchy without the frog jumping out of the pot. As long as a significant portion of the populace thinks the Democrats present a realistic threat to corporate integration into government, Democrats (and Republicans) will keep getting elected, and keep approving corporatist handovers like the health care package.
People need to believe there is a balance struck by opposing forces, so they imagine that Democrats and Republicans are not on the same side. The CItizens United ruling (and most critically its affirmation of the utterly antithetical-to-American-democracy concept of corporate person-hood) put a bullet in the head of that dying notion.
I completely understand, and agree, that there is at the moment no more credible opposition to the oligarchy than the Democrats. But that is only because it is a two-man show and their role is meant to be less obviously hostile to We The People, not because they are dancing to a different piper's tune.
> Google and Yahoo may complain about the cost to comply, so I'd expect some sort of amendment to compensate whichever third party is having to make changes to get rid of the links
GAH! Yeah, I bet you're right, just like the warrantless call monitoring systems. Some corps aren't happy with the laws written to channel more power and money to some other corps? Simple; give the unhappy corps some taxpayer cashflow to keep their mouths shut. And, of course, let those corps know you'll be expecting some of that money back come campaign funding time.
The rate at which we are being turned into vassals of the oligarchy is astonishing. I thought they were supposed to boil the frog slowly.
You are holding hearings on matters of information science. These matters may be reflected in information policy going forward. Could you please take the time to publish some information policy theory papers which outline your findings and present your hypotheses about how government, corporations, and the public should interact to best serve the sovereign(*) of the nation?
Information science is a very new field. The public should be encouraged and empowered to consider and discuss the direction of the legislative theory that relates to this critical and novel sector of our economy.
Slashdot Mirror
Love the idea.
"Once we take out the remaining 10-20 leaders, it won't matter who's left. We can pack our bags and go home"
I sincerely hope that is the case. I also understand that Leon may not be able to tell us who those 10 - 20 leaders are.
So here's what I think We The People deserve: A countdown clock. Put a big "20" counter up somewhere, and count it down to zero. If that number doesn't go down by at least 1 per month, I want a very good reason (and for the number to fall the next month), or I want Leon to admit he is not the right guy for the job and to step aside for his replacement.
I have no problem with military action with concrete objectives, victory conditions, and a clear path to the return to normalcy (where perpetual war is not considered normalcy). I also have no problem with a particular leader admitting he is not the right guy for the job. I even have no problem with spending as much as the rest of the planet combined on our military while we have a mission and are making progress.
What I do have a problem with is spending $700b per year and always being told that victory is just over the next hill. $700b per year should be enough to get the job done -- and if it is not, we cannot afford to continue. Now get it done, or bring in the next guy, or change the victory conditions to something that is attainable.
Then, two years from now, I want the peace dividend. We cannot afford to continue on this path (same for health care and social security, and I want my taxes raised).
"I'll be happy with raising my taxes by the $1.50/year it will cost to try again."
So would I. Unfortunately they're going to cut our taxes by $1.50 and spend the money anyway.
Excellent analysis. Thank you for your post!
I think you are posting on the wrong forum. This site, through the surprisingly effective moderation system, leans heavily toward rational analysis when compared to most.
While there is a significant bias in favor of a fairly strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights (though at times the second gets shorter shrift than I might prefer) on this site, that is a bias that would serve my nation (and, I believe, most nations) quite well. And it may be that the offenses to the first and fourth have been most heavily observed to come from the side of the aisle you seem to prefer (at least until Obama took that ball and ran with it). But your post seems targeted at forums which play host to leftists. Certainly the amount of rational disdain that this forum focuses on the left-oriented oligarchs in the health care, law, and copyright industries should be more than adequate evidence of the lack of partisan line-toe-ing here.
Save your implications of dupery for people who do not engage in critical thinking. Your attempt to induce stigma-based inhibition to identifying and publishing cases of media bias and politicians who generate more heat than light are neither warranted nor productive in this place.
If you must pander to one side, do it by pointing out factual errors or examples of emotionalism on the side you do not like. Engage in creative destruction by rational deconstruction; leave your emotionalist inhibition mongering at home.
Several years ago, a roundabout was added to what was (at the time) my daily route to and from work in Phoenix, AZ. It was on a corridor between housing and offices, so it was mostly used by daily commuters. For the first month or two, it was clearly slower and more dangerous. By the six month mark, however, traffic was flowing significantly more efficiently through the intersection, and I no longer observed any close calls or horns blaring -- even on the Friday evening mad rush to the weekend.
I should note that the intersection was particularly well-suited to a roundabout; two housing roads toward the South met three office roads toward the North, and most people using it used it regularly. It seems likely that not all intersections would be so ideally suited -- but in that case, the benefits appeared to far outweigh the costs once users were accustomed to it.
Perhaps a better example is this roundabout recently added on the main route from Phoenix to Las Vegas. Long-haul tractor-trailers, local automobiles, and vacationers zip smoothly around the large-radius roundabout without creating the half-mile backups I regularly experienced when the traffic went through a four-way traffic signal.
'Bug With "Singing Penis" Is World's Loudest'
Assuming the article subject is grammatically correct, this must be the world's loudest bug. Given the propensity for phrase structure errors on this site, however, I am left wondering if this is the world's loudest bug, or the world's loudest singing penis.
>> It's going to deny the poorest people access to making these documents because it's going to force them to seek attorneys who are often too expensive.
> That is the idea here. The lawyers don't like those books either. The whole point of laws like the one in this case is to protect certain groups from competition
Makes for an interesting lens through which to view the ethics of the software engineering culture. Many of us, particularly on this forum, are contributors to F/LOSS -- very similar to legal templates. There are, however, those such as Microsoft who have at times sought to steer the government to inhibit the flow of F/LOSS. As I reflect on the coders, engineers, and scientists in the field I have known, it strikes me that their level of support for F/LOSS correlates well with their sense of ethics. The most honorable are also those who most strongly advocate for broader publication of source code. Perhaps altruism, though I am skeptical of that term; perhaps more out of a sense of long-term rational self-interest -- advocating for the rising tide of society which raises all ships.
"What legitimate reasons do the police have for avoiding being recorded?"
While I strongly support the public right to record the public actions of public servants, I think there is a legitimate fear of such things on the part of officers. The spectrum runs from "You couldn't handle the truth," to "The enforcement of the law is like making sausage -- you wouldn't want to see how it's done."
The latter can be entirely valid. In order to detain hostile suspects in a manner that is safe for the public, the officer, and the suspect, it can be necessary to use a degree of force which to a normal member of the public can look harsher than is necessary.
Certainly I am not saying this is always the case. I lived in San Francisco for the Fruitvale BART incident and the suspect who got smashed through a BART station window. I am not saying such things do not happen. However, it is the case that even ideal police enforcement involves a degree of physical altercation that is well outside the realm of experience of most people.
Officers, with good historical records to work from, fear the media creating a spectacle of such incidents -- even when the subduing the suspect is done in the best possible way -- much as we feel about the RIAA creating a public spectacle by equating downloading with lost revenue.
All that said, I believe the right solution is to be *more* open about the reality of law enforcement. For the public to see the hostility that officers face on a daily basis, so we can better understand the stress and psychological trauma these men and women must endure. With the ideal outcome being that we are both more understanding of the internal problems these people face in protecting and serving us, and so that we can more precisely identify and punish those who abuse their authority.
"I wanted to find a tool to scan my music to identify files that may be flagged as having been pirated by these cloud services"
Interesting thought -- I rip all my music from original CDs for exactly this reason; to ensure that I am totally compliant in case my tinfoil hat is not just a rakish bit of haberdashery. However, I use the same library as lots of other people, and the same settings. Seems almost certain my rips will be identical to other people's -- assuming Lame is deterministic. I wonder if that means my tracks would get flagged? (not that I'll upload them -- I run a personal cloud)
"Is this supporting terrorists or supporting stockholders?"
This is delaying the penalty to your stockholders until the next time they come around, while throwing the stockholders of all other companies under the bus by stimulating and funding the attackers.
Never pay the Dane Geld.
I hate to fill a spot on somebody's buzzword bingo card, but this strikes me as an excellent opportunity for coopetition. If Libre Office and OpenOffice follow relatively similar development paths, but compete on implementation and refinement, it would be an excellent opportunity for exploring alternative solution strategies while cross-pollinating the results.
The fundamentals of OOo/LOo are pretty solid. The major components are well established -- the biggest wins on the horizon are about optimization, handling new formats, and UI enhancements. Development in those areas is easier to inherit across projects than if major project direction changes were still under way.
Without a doubt, splitting the available development pool across two projects has some costs -- but it is not necessarily all down side. LibreOffice thinks they have better ideas for the future of OOo. OpenOffice thinks the same. I hope they are both right; I'd like to see them each throw down some serious code, hold it up with pride to the other project, then do what comes naturally in Open Source world: Steal each other's code.
Not sure about LGPL/ASL compatibility -- but I figure between pluggable libraries, re-implementation, and maybe some special case license grants, they could work it out.
Just seems like it shouldn't be too difficult for a sharing-oriented community to figure out how to have their cake and eat it too. The developers are all after the same thing in the end -- a good F/LOSS office suite. By virtue of each person's contribution to their preferred project, they earn the right to choose their own paths. No need to minimize one or the other project when our very foundational principle is sharing and learning from each other (and showing off our coding chops). They can simply turn our greatest strength into our greatest strength.
> Granting Rightsholder A the right to make money from his sheet music does not produce any net benefits; it merely transfers money from the buyer to the rightsholder.
Hear, Hear!
I've been noodling on this same thing recently. Another way to approach the same answer is by considering the foundation of the copyright supporter's hypothesis.
The fundamental hypothesis behind using the revenue from a copyrighted work as a measure of the value of that copyright is free market theory. In free market theory, the revenue generated by the sale of a good is an estimate of its value to society. The accuracy of that estimate is a function of the efficiency of the free market -- more efficient markets will more closely approximate the ideal market price and volume, and hence more accurately measure the true societal value of the good.
The problem with using revenue as a measure of the societal value of copyright, however, is that it is a fiat monopoly. Monopoly goods do not obey the rules of price theory. Specifically, the number of suppliers of a given good is not allowed to grow, which would enable competition to lower the observed price to match the cost of production. That is, of course, for a good reason. In creative works, the cost of reproduction is significantly lower than the cost of initial production.
It is for that reason that the fiat monopoly exists. To promote the progress of science and the useful arts, it is beneficial for government to inhibit the natural behavior of the free market in a way that induces revenue flow to the creators. That is a good thing.
However, it eliminates the ability to accurately estimate societal value by measuring revenue. The revenue in the copyright (and patent, and trademark) industry is not a measure of market efficient societal benefit. Every time an RIAA or MPAA representative uses sales and loss figures to support their case for expanding copyright enforcement, they are betraying their disdain for, or at least ignorance of, the free market and the principles behind using revenue as an estimate of societal value.
> The abuse of power by local government is as much as, or even more astounding. You just don't see this because most of it is isn't big enough to make the evening news nationwide.
Just noodling on this. Blue sky.
The problem at any level of government ultimately boils down to avarice for power and corruption. Adam Smith came up with an economic system which exploits the harmful characteristic "greed" to induce production. Perhaps the same principle could be applied to government. Instead of pretending we can have non-corrupt federal, state, or local government, we put them in competition.
Have local and state governments operate as they do now, and give them most of the civil authority (abortion, guns, collection of taxes, etc). Then, you set the federal government up with avarice for power as their motive to eliminate corruption at the state and local level. Make it so the federal government can only act as the civil authority in cases where they put a corrupt local or state politician in jail -- they get 6 months to run that guy's office.
So if you're a federal official and you want power, you've got to go put some of the most dangerous criminals in our society (corrupt public officials) in jail. Local and state politicians would be extremely incentivized to keep their noses clean, and the breeding ground of national politicians would be a cleaner place, reducing the flow rate of explicitly for-sale politicians to D.C.
Obviously totally unrealistic -- just noodling.
Hey, Slashdot; Could you clue me? What is the state of alternative DNS systems, particularly something mesh- or web-of-trust- oriented? Any live systems that are usable now? Any projects that look promising where I could lend a hand with code or whatever?
> A single analyst at a private company in the employ of the United States government
There -- fixed that for you. It does not have to be policy for it to be an affront to the sovereign citizens of this nation. It is an affront for our government to use our money to finance research into social manipulation -- particularly when the targets of that social manipulation include dissent regarding the operation of government programs.
> 'cause by golly, we haven't had our two minutes hate yet today, and we need something to be outraged over!
I am not sure if you are being serious, as that is a sterling example of using social stigma to suppress dissent. But I will respond to your statement as though it is a genuine supposition and not a mere caricature of the very topic under debate:
What should strike you as more despicable is that at least two minutes worth of such offenses against our nation happen every day. This nation was founded on dissent, by dissenters, with the express purpose of encouraging and facilitating dissent as expressed in great detail in the Declaration and Constitution. That those sworn to defend those principles are instead using taxpayer money to fund research into the suppression of dissent is anathema to This Grand Experiment.
> 'to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius,'
Ummm, like The Great Barrier Reef?
Jimmy Wales may be the founder, but what makes Wikipedia extraordinary is less like Orville and Wilber and more like a billion coral polyps. Just 'cuz humans were involved in the accretion does not preclude it from being a natural wonder. The amazing thing is not that Jimmy Wales founded it, or that some handful of people worked on it, it is that an enormous number of people worked on it -- simultaneously, independently, without pay or a central design. It is, by far, the broadest decentralized collaborative work in history. It puts termite mounds, beaver dams, and 1970s communes to shame.
Wikipedia is not a work of singular genius, it is a natural wonder of a global organic system. A global organic system that happens to be comprised of human organisms.
> You will never get anywhere making a clone.
There are a few examples of clone software that has done fairly well. Consider DOS, Lotus 1-2-3, Macintosh OS, Windows, Word, Sql Server, MySQL, Excel, OpenOffice, Netscape, Mozilla, Internet Explorer, Chrome, and Safari. Many of which were not just de facto clones but explicitly so.
> Most major corporations/companies are scum or have done scummy things in the past - why take action only when it's Microsoft?
I don't think this forum fits your description. For example, consider the tide of sentiment regarding Google. A company that once -- when it took its mission statement seriously -- could do no wrong in the eyes of this community, is now often derided as an abuser of market dominance and for having sacrificed its stated objectives for money in cases like China.
And while the reaction to Microsoft is more reliable, that is because Microsoft has a more reliable record when estimating the probability of market-harmful outcomes. Predicting the future actions of corporations inherently involves considering their history. Assessing that history objectively is an integral part of making the best business decision. That Microsoft's history makes it a less desirable participant in some information systems is not the fault of those who observe the fact.
> It's in rapid development at this point, but has been stable for me since began using it a couple of weeks ago.
I too have been using Jitsi, including extensive use with my over-60 parents on Windows and people using Linux and OS-X. It has been extremely satisfying, offering both more stability and higher voice quality than my cellphone -- plus video.
Connections can be made peer-to-peer, and with end-to-end encryption. And if you want to get really obsessive, you can tunnel over SSH, through multiple hops, whatever floats your boat. No more blind trust of third parties.
There are also services for linking a traditional telephone number to your SIP account for under $10/month, so you can get everything you get with Skype.
> You could at least explain how Skype no longer works for you instead of letting emotions cloud logic.
It is not an emotional connection that is being made, it is a logical one (though you may have a different set of premises). To more clearly understand the hypothesis, consider the following:
Skype does not include support for standards-based interop, such as SIP. This is a problem because of network effect.
The Skype service is centralized, with all calling controlled by Skype machines. If used in the most common way, this makes your contact list dependent on Skype (and its parent company).
Neither of these flaws is new as of this acquisition, but the expected risk has increased due to the purchasing company's history of anti-competitive practices. Hence the net expected value of using Skype and the Skype service has, in fact, decreased.
I hope that sufficiently clarifies the issue.
To estimate the objective answer to the question, do the math.
What is the value of a software engineer per year?
How many years does a monitor last?
How much does a monitor cost?
What is the rough ratio between screen real estate and productivity for a software engineer?
The last one is the tough one, but far from impossible. Assume that above 21", I get something between 2% and 20% of the increased size as increased productivity. So if I go from 21" to 42" -- a 100% increase in size -- I get 2% to 20% increased productivity. A wide range, but it almost certainly covers a conservative estimate of reality.
So, now plug in the other numbers using the example case of going from 1 x 21" to 2 x 21":
V = value of software engineer per year = $100k (or whatever)
L = lifespan of monitor, in years = 3
Mc = cost of monitor = $500 (for a good one)
Ec = cost of electricity, per year = $80
P = increase in productivity = 2% to 20%.
V * P = value added by buying the monitor, per year
Ec + Mc / L = cost of buying the monitor, per year
V * P = (2% to 20%) * $100k = $2k to $20k
Ec + Mc / L = $80 + $500 / 3 = $246
Value of buying the monitor is $2k to $20k per year.
Cost of buying the monitor is $246 per year.
It is extreme fiscal irresponsibility to not buy the monitor -- though a new factor enters the equation when you reach the point of having to add office-space rental consideration (ie: so many monitors that you need a bigger space). There are also decreasing returns from increasing screen real-estate which are not considered in this small example but would be easy to incorporate.
The same is probably also true of the accounting department, since accountants make most of their contribution through a computer screen.
The same is probably also true of the CEO, since his value per year to the company is much higher.
This is probably less true, for example, of point-of-sale personnel, who make most of their contribution through human interaction, not through a monitor.
This is probably less true of low level functionaries, who have a lower annual value to the corporation.
From the Article: 'It said the document outlines the US agenda "for partnering with other nations and peoples to ensure the prosperity, security, and openness that we seek in our increasingly networked world."'
Let's see: Prosperity, Security, and Openness.
Let me guess -- in that order, right?
Here's how it plays out:
"What's first on the agenda today, gentlemen?"
"Prosperity"
"All-right, I asked around, and all the lobbyists in my outer office agree on how to maximize prosperity. We should give total control of popular content to the MAFIAA and the Cable and Telcos. Next?"
"Security"
"Right; absolute authority to shut down anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason, without having to document anything goes to National Cyber Command. Next?"
"Oppenness"
"Perfect -- nations we don't like, and which are small enough that we can kick their ass, have to allow their people to speak freely on the Internet."
"Awesome, I think we're done. Who's up for a round of golf?"
"Now hang on, there -- we have to make this look like it was a challenging struggle between opposing voices interested only in the best principles of American democracy."
"Right, let's get a couple of the spin doctors to rewrite the health-care debate script. Most of the public bought that."
"Hahaha, that's awesome. Make it so."
"1. Pull the plug on Grandma, as per Republican Budget plans
2. Tax cuts for the rich paid for by pulling the plug on medical care for the poor
3. Transfer of American natural resources to oil companies, who will sell us back these resources at a 500% markup
4. Vote for the same Republicans that just ruined the country
5. Lose the Senate in 2012 (enables moneygrab/poormurder)
6. Censor the internet on behalf of the MAFIAA"
You seem to be buying the stagecraft. The Democrats are just playing Dean Martin to the Republican's Jerry Lewis. There has to be a remotely credible opposition to facilitate the transition to oligarchy without the frog jumping out of the pot. As long as a significant portion of the populace thinks the Democrats present a realistic threat to corporate integration into government, Democrats (and Republicans) will keep getting elected, and keep approving corporatist handovers like the health care package.
People need to believe there is a balance struck by opposing forces, so they imagine that Democrats and Republicans are not on the same side. The CItizens United ruling (and most critically its affirmation of the utterly antithetical-to-American-democracy concept of corporate person-hood) put a bullet in the head of that dying notion.
I completely understand, and agree, that there is at the moment no more credible opposition to the oligarchy than the Democrats. But that is only because it is a two-man show and their role is meant to be less obviously hostile to We The People, not because they are dancing to a different piper's tune.
> Google and Yahoo may complain about the cost to comply, so I'd expect some sort of amendment to compensate whichever third party is having to make changes to get rid of the links
GAH! Yeah, I bet you're right, just like the warrantless call monitoring systems. Some corps aren't happy with the laws written to channel more power and money to some other corps? Simple; give the unhappy corps some taxpayer cashflow to keep their mouths shut. And, of course, let those corps know you'll be expecting some of that money back come campaign funding time.
The rate at which we are being turned into vassals of the oligarchy is astonishing. I thought they were supposed to boil the frog slowly.
An open request to United States legislators:
You are holding hearings on matters of information science. These matters may be reflected in information policy going forward. Could you please take the time to publish some information policy theory papers which outline your findings and present your hypotheses about how government, corporations, and the public should interact to best serve the sovereign(*) of the nation?
Information science is a very new field. The public should be encouraged and empowered to consider and discuss the direction of the legislative theory that relates to this critical and novel sector of our economy.
* sovereign == We The People