Not true. There's an ongoing case (sorry, forget who) where the U.S. government won't return a computer they seized because the guy encrypted his hard disk and won't give them the key. They want to make sure it doesn't contain 'harmful' material. As I recall, one of the arguments his attorney was going to make was that forcing him to divulge this info in order to recover his property would violate his constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Don't know if this will fly, but my point is, if they can decrypt everything, why haven't they in his case? They clearly think he's hiding something prosecutable, so they have a great incentive to bring all their powers to bear.
I can't say how widespread it is either, but it's not linux-specific. During one span of employment, I was responsible for several programmers who had developed the company's product around the Forth programming language. Since they had this specialized knowledge of the oddball language and system architecture (easy there, Forth defenders, you have to admit it isn't very widely used), they knew they were very difficult to replace. Before I showed up, if the sales department wanted them to change something, they had to be bribed! One salesman even had to take them to Disneyland. I helped the company finally get the application back under control, but the experience taught me to never let your staff start to think they're irreplacable. These 'Linux Gods' probably think they're so in demand and hard to replace that they can give major 'tude and get away with it.
I've come across several folks who are relatively new Linux users (I've been using/developing under Linux since '94) but consider themselves "Linux Gods". The elitist attitude that they spout forth does more to damage the Linux "cause" than they know
Someone once said that the three essential personality traits to be a successful computer programmer are impatience, laziness, and hubris. Sounds like they just have an overabundance of the third.
I can't say what the percentage of Java jobs are web work, but the Java work I'm presently doing is a communications system for the military, and quite challenging. I blush to say what I'm charging the customer, but let's just say the compensation is more than adequate. And I know of another project going on with 20 or so programmers developing a large Java app employing network comms, database acess, and all the big-time stuff one associates with systems work. Bottom line, even if Java work were as bad as you say, I suspect most people would rather be employed Java coders if the other choice was to be an unemployed obscure-functional-language coders.
Trained staff in a minority language are going to be rare. This does not necessarily make them more expensive (nobody else wants them), but it does make recruitment much harder and more uncertain.
A corollary to this is that programmers are going to be less willing to learn a language that no other employer is going to want. Having a few years of intensive (not an insult, just an example) Eiffel experience on your resume might just be a recipe for unemployment, whereas Java programmers are practically carjacked by prospective employers these days. Acquaintences of mine have quit jobs just to avoid being put into this position.
My guess on why functional languages haven't been as popular as langugages such as C and Java is that they're typically good at doing one particular type of job, but not so hot generally. Consequently you end up with a bunch of different languages to solve different problems and no one language can reach a critical mass of widespread usage.
Excellent point! If Yesmail can drag this thing out and make as much noise as humanly possible, they'll get a tremendous amount of free publicity (not all good, but remember the saying: "As long as they spell your name right..."). And then if they finally capitulate to satisfy MAPS and get taken off the list, they can use the occasion to paint themselves as the now-conforming good guys whom advertisers should use. I wonder if they're really that Machiavellian?
From here: "Finally, don't waste our time with threats. We get all kinds of threats. If you intend to sue us, then get on with it. If you don't, then don't waste our time or yours telling us how actionable our activities are."
What's interesting is that MAPS has posted a roadmap on how to sue it, apparently wanting to get a court to establish the legitimacy and legality of its tactics. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that they consciously provoked YesMail to get their case before a judge.
According to the article, they do get warrants. If someone knows, however, I'd like to know whether the target of such a warrant has to be informed. I'm guessing no, else it would defeat the purpose.
Hey, I'm just as paranoid as any of you, but Cringeley thinking the FBI wants the ability to shut down the internet is delusional. Even if it did (and the first big hurdle is why?), the second a carnivore box started inhibiting packet flow thru the ISP, the techs would think that it's malfunctioned and sever it from the network (maybe with extreme prejudice). Since the Carnivore boxes are only going to be installed under court-ordered surveillance, how would the FBI even be able to get one into every ISP? Are they going to claim that there's a suspect connected to every ISP in the country? Cringeley's argument is just hogwash.
How'd you like the website that you designed dissected into its component quarks by a planetful of generally-grumpy computer pros? The thought sends chills down my spine.
Actually posting a bond is a pretty good idea overall. IANAL and all, but I don't think that is common practice
I think that there is one area where it's used now (at least in the U.S.). If you lose a lawsuit and are assessed damages, you have to post a bond of some percentage of those damages (sorry, I forget how much. It may vary from state to state.) if you decide to appeal.
How can the Olympic Commitee claim to own the word Olympic? It's been part of the english (and other languages) lexicon since before english even existed
I remember when Zilog started sending threatening letters to any computer company that had the letter Z in its name, claiming that it it infringed on their corporate identity (they were best known for their Z80 processor), or some such nonsense. I seriously doubt that they'd have prevailed in most cases, but few wanted the costs of taking on a major corporation (backed by Exxon, incidentally), so they had to rename their companies. The point being, they don't necessarily have to have a valid legal case, they can use the intimidation factor to get their way.
I think organizations that attempt to have domains pulled should have to post a bond to cover the owner's costs if the owner prevails. Right now, you're looking at a costly legal fight that penalizes you even if you win. Companies and others use this to intimidate innocent targets into backing down.
How'd you like to be the webmaster at IAS.com? Here you're suddenly hammered by a horde of slashdotters showing up, and you're going "What the f...?" Then you go over to SlashDot and find out that your site has been incorrectly linked in a story about IAM.com, but that everyone's saying, "yeah, that site really is a piece of feces. They oughta sue." Gotta ruin your day.
Try every single credit card company I've ever dealt with
Uh uh. You signal your assent by using the card. NetSol simply rewrites 'your' agreement and says you're now bound by it, pal, unless you opt out by canceling your domain. No 'agreement' should require an affirmative act to prevent it from taking effect.
According to the filing, Razorfish's contract requires the customer to accept or reject deliverables within five days. IAM claims that this provision is "unconscionable," and that latent defects and late delivery prevented it from learning about all of the site's alleged problems within the five-day period.
I'm not exactly sobbing into my beer because these bozos signed a contract containing provisions that they now have a problem with. Reading the contract (and I mean going through every bloody line) is essential in a business deal. I remember working for a company which was negotiating a deal with a client. We went back and forth with a contract, adding and deleting each time. We thought we were done and went to their city to sign it. They provided us with a cleaned-up 'final' copy and wanted it signed right then. We declined and took it back to our hotel room and went through it line by line, comparing it to our working copy. We discovered that the devious bastards had snuck in a provision for us to provide them free training. Moral: read the damned contract!
Slashdot Mirror
The Gov. can already break all these encryptions
Not true. There's an ongoing case (sorry, forget who) where the U.S. government won't return a computer they seized because the guy encrypted his hard disk and won't give them the key. They want to make sure it doesn't contain 'harmful' material. As I recall, one of the arguments his attorney was going to make was that forcing him to divulge this info in order to recover his property would violate his constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Don't know if this will fly, but my point is, if they can decrypt everything, why haven't they in his case? They clearly think he's hiding something prosecutable, so they have a great incentive to bring all their powers to bear.
I can't say how widespread it is either, but it's not linux-specific. During one span of employment, I was responsible for several programmers who had developed the company's product around the Forth programming language. Since they had this specialized knowledge of the oddball language and system architecture (easy there, Forth defenders, you have to admit it isn't very widely used), they knew they were very difficult to replace. Before I showed up, if the sales department wanted them to change something, they had to be bribed! One salesman even had to take them to Disneyland. I helped the company finally get the application back under control, but the experience taught me to never let your staff start to think they're irreplacable. These 'Linux Gods' probably think they're so in demand and hard to replace that they can give major 'tude and get away with it.
I've come across several folks who are relatively new Linux users (I've been using/developing under Linux since '94) but consider themselves "Linux Gods". The elitist attitude that they spout forth does more to damage the Linux "cause" than they know
Someone once said that the three essential personality traits to be a successful computer programmer are impatience, laziness, and hubris. Sounds like they just have an overabundance of the third.
I can't say what the percentage of Java jobs are web work, but the Java work I'm presently doing is a communications system for the military, and quite challenging. I blush to say what I'm charging the customer, but let's just say the compensation is more than adequate. And I know of another project going on with 20 or so programmers developing a large Java app employing network comms, database acess, and all the big-time stuff one associates with systems work. Bottom line, even if Java work were as bad as you say, I suspect most people would rather be employed Java coders if the other choice was to be an unemployed obscure-functional-language coders.
Trained staff in a minority language are going to be rare. This does not necessarily make them more expensive (nobody else wants them), but it does make recruitment much harder and more uncertain.
A corollary to this is that programmers are going to be less willing to learn a language that no other employer is going to want. Having a few years of intensive (not an insult, just an example) Eiffel experience on your resume might just be a recipe for unemployment, whereas Java programmers are practically carjacked by prospective employers these days. Acquaintences of mine have quit jobs just to avoid being put into this position.
My guess on why functional languages haven't been as popular as langugages such as C and Java is that they're typically good at doing one particular type of job, but not so hot generally. Consequently you end up with a bunch of different languages to solve different problems and no one language can reach a critical mass of widespread usage.
Excellent point! If Yesmail can drag this thing out and make as much noise as humanly possible, they'll get a tremendous amount of free publicity (not all good, but remember the saying: "As long as they spell your name right ..."). And then if they finally capitulate to satisfy MAPS and get taken off the list, they can use the occasion to paint themselves as the now-conforming good guys whom advertisers should use. I wonder if they're really that Machiavellian?
From here: "Finally, don't waste our time with threats. We get all kinds of threats. If you intend to sue us, then get on with it. If you don't, then don't waste our time or yours telling us how actionable our activities are."
What's interesting is that MAPS has posted a roadmap on how to sue it, apparently wanting to get a court to establish the legitimacy and legality of its tactics. It wouldn't be surprising to find out that they consciously provoked YesMail to get their case before a judge.
What, like all those whimsical sight-impared lynx users using that dweebish text-to-speech interface?
The sites are designed to accomodate access by those with sight impairment. This can be done without regard to the browser the user is employing.
According to the article, they do get warrants. If someone knows, however, I'd like to know whether the target of such a warrant has to be informed. I'm guessing no, else it would defeat the purpose.
Go here to see charts and graphs of solar activity.
.lt. 'damage from one SlashDot link'
/. tag filter?)
"This page cannot be displayed." For web servers, I'll bet 'damage from 40 solar flares'
(How the heck do you get a 'less than' symbol thru the
I think it's already affecting the ))DF)(#$*)0fa0d*)#*$)*#$)0808myasdfjthgkbndjfvaerk t ad ertkh ah
Carnivore is a sealed box that is installed at the network operations center of an Internet Service Provider.
I look forward to the first SlashDot article on "How I hacked Carnivore: Making one Federally-Funded, Kick-Ass Tivo Box!"
Hey, I'm just as paranoid as any of you, but Cringeley thinking the FBI wants the ability to shut down the internet is delusional. Even if it did (and the first big hurdle is why?), the second a carnivore box started inhibiting packet flow thru the ISP, the techs would think that it's malfunctioned and sever it from the network (maybe with extreme prejudice). Since the Carnivore boxes are only going to be installed under court-ordered surveillance, how would the FBI even be able to get one into every ISP? Are they going to claim that there's a suspect connected to every ISP in the country? Cringeley's argument is just hogwash.
How'd you like the website that you designed dissected into its component quarks by a planetful of generally-grumpy computer pros? The thought sends chills down my spine.
Actually posting a bond is a pretty good idea overall. IANAL and all, but I don't think that is common practice
I think that there is one area where it's used now (at least in the U.S.). If you lose a lawsuit and are assessed damages, you have to post a bond of some percentage of those damages (sorry, I forget how much. It may vary from state to state.) if you decide to appeal.
How can the Olympic Commitee claim to own the word Olympic? It's been part of the english (and other languages) lexicon since before english even existed
I remember when Zilog started sending threatening letters to any computer company that had the letter Z in its name, claiming that it it infringed on their corporate identity (they were best known for their Z80 processor), or some such nonsense. I seriously doubt that they'd have prevailed in most cases, but few wanted the costs of taking on a major corporation (backed by Exxon, incidentally), so they had to rename their companies. The point being, they don't necessarily have to have a valid legal case, they can use the intimidation factor to get their way.
I think organizations that attempt to have domains pulled should have to post a bond to cover the owner's costs if the owner prevails. Right now, you're looking at a costly legal fight that penalizes you even if you win. Companies and others use this to intimidate innocent targets into backing down.
Hmmm. The city of Olympia, Washington is gonna have to rename itself if they want a web page. And Olympia Dukakis, watch out ...
How'd you like to be the webmaster at IAS.com? Here you're suddenly hammered by a horde of slashdotters showing up, and you're going "What the f...?" Then you go over to SlashDot and find out that your site has been incorrectly linked in a story about IAM.com, but that everyone's saying, "yeah, that site really is a piece of feces. They oughta sue." Gotta ruin your day.
the IAM site was veeerrrryyyy slow loading
Don't discount the Slashdot Effect. Before rendering judgement on load time, wait until the tide subsides.
Try every single credit card company I've ever dealt with
Uh uh. You signal your assent by using the card. NetSol simply rewrites 'your' agreement and says you're now bound by it, pal, unless you opt out by canceling your domain. No 'agreement' should require an affirmative act to prevent it from taking effect.
It alleges that some of those breaches include building a site that could not be accessed with version 4.0 of AOL's software
I think Razorfish is entitled to a bonus for this. Keeping out the clue-deprived should be considered an added feature, not a bug.
According to the filing, Razorfish's contract requires the customer to accept or reject deliverables within five days. IAM claims that this provision is "unconscionable," and that latent defects and late delivery prevented it from learning about all of the site's alleged problems within the five-day period.
I'm not exactly sobbing into my beer because these bozos signed a contract containing provisions that they now have a problem with. Reading the contract (and I mean going through every bloody line) is essential in a business deal. I remember working for a company which was negotiating a deal with a client. We went back and forth with a contract, adding and deleting each time. We thought we were done and went to their city to sign it. They provided us with a cleaned-up 'final' copy and wanted it signed right then. We declined and took it back to our hotel room and went through it line by line, comparing it to our working copy. We discovered that the devious bastards had snuck in a provision for us to provide them free training. Moral: read the damned contract!