You really don't get the point of the argument, do you?
It's an analogy about how, in chaos theory, small perturbations to a system can lead to great changes due to basic instabilities inherent within the system. No one is stupid enough to say that butterflies can ship up a whirlwind, that is just ludicrous.
I think you're taking it too literally. You must think about this. Introduction of rabbits into Australia started as a small thing; maybe a dozen rabbits... but in the absence of predators there was no balance to counteract their rapid reproduction rate. Now there's billions of rabbits in Australia. There are many many examples: kudzu, Africanized honeybees... I'm sure this isn't lost on you, now is it?
Sorry to post fast without reading a lot, but if it hasn't been mentioned yet, Greenpeace was apparently going around grocery stores in San Diego putting labels on foods that were using genetically altered soy and corn. A representative was grilled on a stupid talk show (okay, I was listening, but it was hard), and her points included the fact that genetically-engineered plants may mean MORE pesticides in some instances if you consider that some farmers are palavering over so-called 'RoundUp-Ready' crops that are engineered to survive severe applications of herbicide so that farmers can hose the land with green death and only the soy plants will remain. So there is that issue.
The thing that chafes my hide is that our government claims to be a free-market advocate, but tilts the playing field by not allowing consumers the choice between GE and non-GE food through proper labeling. For that matter, think if you were faced with a decision to buy meat from cannibal cows or meat from grain-only cows. NOW how much would you pay? I'd pay $10/lb for grain-only beef. My point is that proper labeling IS in the interests of a free market. Especially when you consider that 93% of all consumers (quoth the Greenpeacer on the show) prefer labelling of GE products, and 57% would not buy GE food if they could avoid it. In as much as the jury is still out on whether or not there are allergens associated with GE products, I think it would be prudent of our government to submit to the will of the people in this instance and require labelling.
I still prefer to get my milk at Trader Joe's where they proudly proclaim it to be rBST-free! That is the free market folks! Create an industry that is centered around providing healthier food by requiring the manipulators of food to 'fess up!
In it's 1995 Annual Report, IBM touted Network Computing as the "Future of Computing". I'm not completely sure of the history, but that seems to have died, to be replaced by - ostensibly - MS's.NET strategy.
Can Network Computing be considered something of a 'Holy Grail' for the business software environment? And is it IBM strategy to leverage Linux to support an alternative NC architecture based on OS concepts, tools, and products; one that could possibly usurp the MS monopoly on the business software environment?
Here is what I wrote on that subject, with a response taht basically told me I could opt out.
Oh, but that isn't true, is it???
I Could Opt Out, but only by opting out of MSDN...
*sigh*
Oh! Make sure you read the rebuttal where I was told I was Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You know, it's like the inmates defending the warden. What a total brainwashing some people undergo!
Every time some idiot defends MS, I wonder what sort of upbringing they experienced. I bet their Dad beat them a lot, and convinced them that they deserved it.
MS has gotten very good at pushing its solutions on the customer.
- When I first brought this home computer home and started it up, the first thing I saw was a screen that dialed up MS and further prompted me to enter data on myself, basically enforced registration. My identity as a new user was logged and stored away. I wonder to this day what information MS has on me, and if it's legal to obtain it. I believe it should. But my point is that I was guided down a narrow path, afraid to not deviate from it, and MS pushed my initial registration on me.
- When I installed Compaq (nee Digital, nee Powerstation) Visual Fortran, I was told that IE was necessary to use their online help (their only help). It promptly downloaded itself on my desktop and became the default for a bunch of files (.gif,.jpg, etc...). Again, I felt I had no choice but to comply, as part of the initialization process.
- Then when I loaded MS Visual basic onto my machine (God help me), I was forced this time (of course I had to use IE, but I was used to that) to establish a Passport account to finish the installation process! I never wanted a Passport account, man...
So, long story short, I got assimilated and now I have this red device sticking out of my ear.
No, wait. My point is is that the average user is also compelled to do all these things, essentially agree to be tracked and registered, just to run their desktop, or do their job at work. The idea of actually owning what you pay for is a distant memory in.NETland. You can flame me for being a sheep, but I don't have time to fight the power every damn time I turn around.
Here is an interesting link. It's IBM's 1995 Annual Report where the CEO talks all about network computing concepts. It's a good insight into what they thought this thing would be before it got all confusing with the dissembling and rambling explanations of what.NET is and isn't. Man, if you ever wanted an example of doublespeak, you only have to read MS press releases. Black and White are what Bill says they are.
My put on it is that I personally would welcome the demise of pyramidal corps where all the money flows to the top and the serfs get salary in favor of a more meritocratic system in which each programmer is fully represented by the code he develops and gets paid according to the merits of his skill. Noone gets insanely rich, but many get pretty damn comfortable.
I still use Fortran. Just about every day. The first thing it was used for (in my day) was to build missile trajectory codes, heat exchange algorithms, and even simulation modelling. You had to have a deep understanding of the physics before you could even begin to sit down and code, say, an orbital dynamic program.
Those codes do not need to be written in C++, but the analysis still needs to be done, so code jockeys like us still earn our bread and butter maintaining and using the old 70's vintage code. Except now we do it using a Visual Basic wrapper, as opposed to VAX DCL, or Cyber, or even JCL.
We Fortran jocks, in fact, invented the nested acronym. Not too many people know that.
But, man, in about '92, VAXen started to wither and die on the vine faster than vinyls fell to CD's, and many of us temporarily lost our VAX capability, so had to resort to batch files on the PC in DOS.
I still look at that as a conspiracy, a harbinger of things to come, as CIS kiddies started coming out of the woodwork and noone cared so much about green-bar paper (the mark of quality analysis!). C++ killed the VAX!
stories of dragons and rings and wizards and monsters and other fantasy archetypes were already part of literature long before Tolkien brought us his trilogy.
Funny, I was just thinking while reading the article as to how LOTR was the first time I ever read full-length accounts of trolls, dwarves, elves, gollums, etc in a novel that put them all in one stroy together. In fact, I wanted to post and say that, although I had heard of the others, I had never heard of Orcs (did Tolkien invent that species?), and therefore had to make up in my mind the picture of what one looked like.
And ever since then I have been disappointed whenever I saw somebody else's embodiment of orc-ness. Kind of like the first time I heard Garfield's voice, ya know? It didn't match the image I had formed in my head.
But I would like to see what Tolkien might have ripped off or re-hashed. I think it's pretty damn original, much more so than a Lucas-variety - oh wait! Anything that comes out of consensus-driven Hollywood! - tale. Now Those are pure formula!
Re:Your home is private. Internet boradcasts are n
on
Echelon in the News
·
· Score: 1
I seem to recall that there was a bill or something that proposed to make encrypting an email the basis of probable cause, and therefore a legal excuse to obtain a warrant for search / seizure. It was posted in here a few months ago.
I said it yesterday, and I'll say it again. That's because capitalists are not Nationalistic. They are happy to make money from Americans, Taiwanese, Pakistani children indiscriminately...
They have no pride in America, even though they are American. If they did, they wouldn't be the cause of all those "Yankee Go Home" placards, and the phrase "Ugly American" would mean something to them, the true ugly americans, who give a bad name to a good country.
It has been my experience posting in this forum that British citizens will often support such a system, while Americans almost to a man won't. I attribute this to the relationship that the Brits have with their government; one of consanguineity, a sense that one is of the same type, beliefs, origins, disposition, and outlook. As an American, I am baffled as to why, but they do support video cameras in their streets, surveillance platforms in their Irish towns, and other Big Brother devices.
The psychology must be one of fear. One must feel that he would be the last group to be attacked by the government he is so loyal to. That combined with an unrealistic fear of criminal elements / foreign terrorists / evil agents allows one to be seduced by the technological fix of spying on the entire planet indiscriminately.
Now, if you Are one of those in the Inner Circles of Power, well, then you have almost no choice but to embrace better ways of (as you must perceive) keeping your grip on the wolf's ears. Power serves itself in this instance and as such is incapable of saying 'no' to a means to enlarge, insulate, and safeguard itself. I suspect there is no good rationale for the existence of Echelon or Carnivore except for the need to stay on top.
But this is antithetical to our Constitution, and one would think, post-Magna Carta England, because one of the enlightened priciples espoused by the architects of (at least the US) system of government is a regime founded on the consent of the governed.
Echelon is certainly Un-American, and probably not very terribly British.
And the French, who know freedom, sovereignty, and independence as much as anybody, would certainly be the ones leading this charge, I would think, since they accused US of using Echelon to spy on some Brazilian contractor to steal a contract from France for, um, England? Hang on. Here.
Interestingly enough, it says that this was built during the Cold War. Also, using only the most dubious of logic, this quote from former CIA director James Woolsey:
A questionable justification from Woolsey for this activity at the time was that European companies have a "national culture" of bribery and are the "principle offenders from the point of view of paying bribes in major international contracts in the world".
Hell, you don't see us stopping work on missile defense just because the Soviets crumbled, do you? It's kind of like that.
Welp, I can't argue against those facts about communism, but can you deny that the excesses of captialism contributed to the appeal of Marxism in the same way that, oh, I dunno, Occidental Petroleum contributed to the local appeal of Mohammar Khadafy? I don't argue the concept of capitalism or its philosophy, as you state, it is probably a good econmoic model when applied morally.
So here we have a distinction: whither moral capitalism? In light of this page, one has to wonder to just what extreme a good capitalist is willing to contort himself to keep himself deluded as to his moral certainty.
The environmentalists respond that nature is intrinsically valuable, not for anything it does or can do but simply because it is.
...
Clean air and water benefit people. But if the moderate environmentalists really wanted people to benefit, then they would support the SUV.
That's where I get a little lost. One must have a firm foundation in logic and be themselves grounded in reality, I would think, to claim a moral basis for capitalism. I tend to think that the lure of lucre can sometimes make one wish that black is white. I simply refuse to do that, in the same way that I would think that hanging chads expressed voter intent even if I would have voted for GW, the guy who ruled that hand counting is the proper way to resolve a disputed election tally. heh, sorry... didn't mean to bring that all up agin...
I am sure you are not implying that McDonald's fosters peace, but it may be true that a certain degree of homogeneity among nations correlates well to both a lessening of tensions and corporate development along the same lines, i.e., toward the pinnacle of fast food, Mickey D's.
There is much to be said about the growth of a middle class who are averse to conflict, and it is not in a corporations' interest to have its motherland go to war, unless that corp is, say, Lockheed - Martin.
The plain fact of the matter is (and this has been touched on in arguments about why and why not the GPL is communist), we are experiencing continued growth of the Capitalist Manifesto, which has tendencies of which we are all only too familiar. It is my opinion, after reading Das Kapital, that it is the excesses of capitalism of the turn of the century during the early Industrial Revolution that is responsible for the proper climate for the rise of Marxism as an economic model. Concomitant to that rising in Eastern Europe, government here put strong controls on a growing national scourge; outlawing child labor, workhouses, Monopolies such as Standard Oil, and allowing for the creation of the AFL - CIO and similar Labor Unions. The result of all this is the ascendancy of the middle class, which is the one thing that Communists did not count on.
But now that the government is becoming secured for the interests of capitalists (who follow an inherently evil code, that of greed) once again, witness the ascendancy of corporations once again, to the detriment of the Human Spirit.
Capitalists are not Nationalist, nor are they Humanist. They have but one creed, and are willing to rationalize whatever behaviour they engage in to improve profits. This rationalization destroys all else. The lesson of Frankenstein was the arrogance of a man who, in the pursuit of his single-minded purpose, forgot about God as he became engrossed in his Godly powers.
But we only learn this lesson through our mistakes, apparently, since we are doomed to repeat history unless some of the greedy (i.e., the lawmakers and protectors of our Liberties) wake up. Capitalists should never be trusted to manage themselves, but that is what is happening today. And there is nothing the average citizen can trust, except perhaps God himself.
If I want to go ahead and design a really cool lawn mower and publish it on the web, or put circulars in people's mailboxen, then I certainly do have that right, don't you agree?
I disagree that it would not be in the companies' best interest to hire the guy who wrote the neat sorting algorithm. If that were true guys like Torvalds would be penniless.
I actually believe that we need a new paradigm here. One that doesn't pre-suppose that corporations are the only ones who control where the money flows; that programmers Must get hired by big sw firms as a preliminary first step in their career. You are defending the 'rights' of corporations to make money. I am saying that that isn't a right. Developers could choose to do just what Lawnmower Man did and give away their stuff for free, and there had better be no law to prevent that, because it would be antithetical to the concept of a free society and a laissez-faire government. Which I had previously supposed Conservatives such as yourself fawned over so much. Er, not the freedom part but the lack of regulations part.
This raises an interesting question: Can the owner/developer/hacker of an original code that he previously released under normal copyright, change that to GPL and/or release an update to that same code/functionality under GPL (for whatever reason)?
Wouldn't that pull the rug out of a few previous customers, who paid for version 1.0 but now can get 2.0 for, er, free??
It has already been argued elsewhere here that they in fact did not comply with the GPL. They complied with the LGPL, but not the GPL. That is an important point, of course, the crux of the argument. Vidomi seems to be playing dumb, and Lee seems to me to be morally and legally justified; he is outraged that Vidomi used his code in a way that violated his understanding of the license, which, IMHO, is the correct interpretation.
So I dispute your premise that Vidomi is legally in the clear here.
Look at it this way: If Lee instead decided to sell his software, and Vidomi took it and used it as a reasonably large element in their tool - strike the 'large' part, it's irrelevant - would you not expect that under traditional business law, Lee would be entitled to compensation? Vidomi would be sued and lose. Now, Lee entered into the GPL, which, if you read the text of the agreement (or any of a number of posts here), clearly points to exactly where Vidomi was in the wrong. Lee believes this, FSF should (I ain't got all day to follow this story), and a number of people here and elsewhere (hopefully on the bench of your local court) agree with them.
It's interesting to see that, as more people become aware of the concept of GPL, and the difference between LGPL and GPL, how they are startled by the simplicity and the power of it. I'm not saying you just figured it out, but I sure remember when I did.
Now, you immediately take a position that is the polar opposite of mine, and I suspect that it's because I am not a programmer dependent on software to make a living. Taken from your side, and given the fact that any change that threatens the status quo is a bit frightening, the GPL could be perceived as a threat. It represents a potential sea-change in the software industry. It says that sw will not be dominated, as it has in the past, by large (er, monolithic), pyramidal corporations where wealth funnels to the top and guys like yourself would be guaranteed a nice salary with perks and maybe a stock option or two, but certainly no glory.
It points to a genuine New Economy, albeit intrinsically in the fabric of a Free society all along, that values software solely on the basis of its utility and merit, and not on the proprietary nature of er, IP (cringe). It de-commodifies software and commodifies it at the same time: the actual text of a program is now free, but the person who developed that killer-app is now worth more; the software is now commodified, but the coin is not gold, it is more and better software.
Who knows where this would lead? But it should be an attractive alternative to all programmers who are willing to assume the risks involved with such an undertaking (lawsuits seem to be one crag in the ocean, but that should disappear if the courts support the letter of the GPL).
Okay, let me address your single statement...
It just makes it impossible to make money by making software.
By what I just said, I think I explained how that can happen. The difference is that the coders and only the coders stand to gain. Shareholders in xyz.com must figure out a way to merely package and support thier product. I admit that the temptation to want to keep proprietary the product you just linked to a GPL program is strong when there is a direct bottom line impact, but you need to know that when your company enters into a bargain with the GPL devil.
...I really like this retort, from the discussion page at Vidomi, entitled "You Just Don't Get It":
Let's say Virtual Dub wasn't GPL. Let's say Avery Lee was selling his software, and providing source code with each copy sold. Would it be right to copy his code into your own product without compensating him? If he demanded too high a price for his work, would it be okay for you to take it anyway? No. You would have to choose: Pay his price, or forego that code.
In this case, in exchange for using the code Mr. Lee is demanding you publish the rest of your own code under the GPL. Is the price he demands too high? If that is the case, then either you "pay", or you find some other code to do the same work.
Nice and Sweet. There it is in a nutshell. In fact, this leads me to ask the question: Can you write software that would use existing GPL programs without releasing it as GPL? There, I would think the answer would be "yes" in a court of law. But it Should be "no", by the above argument.
[OT] By the way, it has always been my opinion that the Law should be based on common sense. I dunno, it makes all this IANAL stuff somehow a little more irritating. YSNHTBAL!
Re:A left and a right... the GPL takes it, though!
on
AOL And The GPL
·
· Score: 3
"You said the magic word and win the prize!"
Yes, this will play into the whole MS debacle and their fight to undermine, criminalize, and destroy the GPL virus. Think on it: the GPL exists to foster the on-going creative process of programmers freely writing code for the community and allowing that in itself to enhance their own notoriety, taking on the task of being their own agent. This in contrast to MSerfdom, which is the preferred model for an existing large business.
It is in AOL's interests to be sued by GPL authors and prevail. It is also in MS interests, and any other software house built on the traditional pyramid model. Once a court disqualifies the GPL as a valid contract, precedence will have been set, and then GPL will die.
Do you imagine that there is a company that hasn't considered the business aspects of the GPL? I know many have. And what do you think they think about it? Travel with me, if you will, into the mind of a corporate CEO. Careful, don't step on it, it's pretty small..."
"If I could only get the GPL code and keep it, it would be like having thousands of programmers working for me day and night for free! But if I can't keep what I write, then it would be like giving my profit away. Gee, if I could only find a way..." "Darla, get MyCongressman on the rotary phone."
Yes, if they could only get all that lucrative software, use it in their products, and then not have to re-release it! That would work for about a week after the courts rule that the GPL is unenforceable. The courts would basically allow this to happen, programmers stop releasing code, and go to work for large corps, and things go back to the Way They Were.
And Andy Grove, who scoffs at the thought of a New Economy, would be right. There is now a glimmer of hope that Linus and Richard's baby could re-invent this economic system, empowering people at the expense of corps.
But if GPL-holders sue AOL and lose, this glimmer would die. It would also die if they failed to sue, given that AOL has actually violated the contract. It would be a signal to all other CEO's to scoff up what they could and use it, and then try to keep it.
So it is very important here that the FSF win this one, a big case against a big company.
Because if not, MS will be the next violater, if they aren't already.
Oh, I see: "We are doing this because we Care about you." Translation: Let us scare the shit out of you so you are so full of fear you can't function and are therefore under our control 24/7. Then we will feel that we have done a good job as a parent.
Parents might do well to note that the danger is not that Other kids will watch Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and kung-fu someone to death on the playground, but that their own kid will snap under the oppressive and anxiety-ridden lifestyle they have chosen for them, grab the gun from under Dad's bed, and start shooting up the school, thereby dealing with the insane pressure in the way his peers taught him.
For a quick example of how someone can lose touch with reality and his own sense of self-worth, here is one of those poor souls. The poor guy has lost touch with himself, and feels that there is no where to turn. How many of our children are lost like that? And how is monitoring their life day after day going to help them become the strong adults we hope to raise?
Insanity heaped upon insanity, that's what it is...
Re:Corporations were declared persons in 1886 !
on
2600 v. Ford Motors
·
· Score: 2
Thanks for that reducto ad absurdium. That is exactly my point, thereabouts. Funny how money bends and warps everything it touches to serve its own desires...
Since when do companies enjoy the rights of individuals? Seems to me we're talking about a company being offended. I thought only people have a right to be offended. Corporations are in it only to make money, and if a consumer has a gripe, his airing of it should be protected. Let the company fix it any way it can, but certainly not in the courts.
So, the company is not offended, it's 'good name' isn't being tarnished, because it isn't a citizen in the community! The only interest it cares about is its profitability. I hate when court time is spent protecting the marginal return of corps...
Yes, I know this rant has nothing to do with what you wrote... thanks for being my parent post.:)
My opinion: what MS is pushing is the same old, tried-and-true corporate model of existence in which the money flows upward into the top of the pyramid and a few guys gets rich. What Linux represents is a non-corporate model in which individuals gain in reputation and therefore become more valuable assets to whatever company they choose to work for by virtue of the degree to which they are familiar with the plethora of OS software out there. This is a fundamentally different way for people to make money, and perhaps it should scare corporate America.
But nowhere in our Constitution is the right to profitiability guaranteed, in fact, I don't recall the Constitution Ever being written for Corporations, although you can argue that corps do enjoy the freedoms and rights of individuals in this Machiavellian universe.
BUT the government has certainly guaranteed the rights of people to give away their products under whatever fair agreement they can legally ask for (i.e., GPL, you know, the one in the crosshairs).
MS is arguing for something that if the govt agreed to (outlawing the GPL as an enforceable agreement between two parties, basically allowing MS to steal all OS s/w, use it at their whim, and give nothing back to the community), it would neam the end of Constitutional protection for the individual to engage in an agreement with another. I, for one, would be shocked at the outrageousness of the unConstitutionality of such an act.
We should ask Mr. VP this: "Are you saying that Edison had no right to Not patent his lightbulb? Furthermore, are you saying that if Edison didn't patent it, that lightbulbs would never get invented?"
Sorry, man, you picked an industry that can't be regulated like lightbulbs. IP is not and never will be Real Property, and you must Never Ever use GPL in your software, or, guess what...
...it becomes GPL, too!
And maybe, just maybe, the concept of Software Giants becomes obsolete, and the idea of Software Geniuses predominates, and although one or two of us can't become multi-billionaires, All of us can become comfortably wealthy.
I guess what you are kind of saying is "We got a lot of stuff out of the exploration of space and the shot to the moon because so many different technologies were advanced. But now that we've done that, we are really only extending the capabilities, and not therefore going to produce those neat spin-offs like astronaut ice cream and space blankets."
I kind of agree. What will we accomplish by landing there? It isn't like in the movies, when we find all these killer bug-like creatures or are enlightened and attuned with the unverse by meeting up with some wispy gay Martian guy. It will be like the Moon Landing, but with better audio/video, and much more coverage. Or no coverage; hard to tell since the timelines are so long.
On the other hand, why not go to the moon? We sure spend our money on worse things, and relatively speaking, this would be a somewhat noble human conquest, turning all our heads skyward. NASA represents a lot of what is Noble about being an American, and a human being, too.
The real answer, of course, is that we Are in our birthplace, and our graveyard, and it's our job to take care of everything in between. If you want to talk priorities, think of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. Now there's a good spin-off, IMO.
One more thing: I got the pleasure to hear Dan Goldin talk at a company meeting. Very dynamic fellow, and compelling as well. I'm sure he's from my hometown area New York! I can't imagine a neater job than to be steering the largest non-military space program in the world, albeit after the Challenger disaster. (Well, except for that last part, the job would be cool.)
Slashdot Mirror
You really don't get the point of the argument, do you?
It's an analogy about how, in chaos theory, small perturbations to a system can lead to great changes due to basic instabilities inherent within the system. No one is stupid enough to say that butterflies can ship up a whirlwind, that is just ludicrous.
I think you're taking it too literally. You must think about this. Introduction of rabbits into Australia started as a small thing; maybe a dozen rabbits... but in the absence of predators there was no balance to counteract their rapid reproduction rate. Now there's billions of rabbits in Australia. There are many many examples: kudzu, Africanized honeybees... I'm sure this isn't lost on you, now is it?
Now go back in the corner and color.
Sorry to post fast without reading a lot, but if it hasn't been mentioned yet, Greenpeace was apparently going around grocery stores in San Diego putting labels on foods that were using genetically altered soy and corn. A representative was grilled on a stupid talk show (okay, I was listening, but it was hard), and her points included the fact that genetically-engineered plants may mean MORE pesticides in some instances if you consider that some farmers are palavering over so-called 'RoundUp-Ready' crops that are engineered to survive severe applications of herbicide so that farmers can hose the land with green death and only the soy plants will remain. So there is that issue.
The thing that chafes my hide is that our government claims to be a free-market advocate, but tilts the playing field by not allowing consumers the choice between GE and non-GE food through proper labeling. For that matter, think if you were faced with a decision to buy meat from cannibal cows or meat from grain-only cows. NOW how much would you pay? I'd pay $10/lb for grain-only beef. My point is that proper labeling IS in the interests of a free market. Especially when you consider that 93% of all consumers (quoth the Greenpeacer on the show) prefer labelling of GE products, and 57% would not buy GE food if they could avoid it. In as much as the jury is still out on whether or not there are allergens associated with GE products, I think it would be prudent of our government to submit to the will of the people in this instance and require labelling.
I still prefer to get my milk at Trader Joe's where they proudly proclaim it to be rBST-free! That is the free market folks! Create an industry that is centered around providing healthier food by requiring the manipulators of food to 'fess up!
Gotta fly...
In it's 1995 Annual Report, IBM touted Network Computing as the "Future of Computing". I'm not completely sure of the history, but that seems to have died, to be replaced by - ostensibly - MS's .NET strategy.
Can Network Computing be considered something of a 'Holy Grail' for the business software environment? And is it IBM strategy to leverage Linux to support an alternative NC architecture based on OS concepts, tools, and products; one that could possibly usurp the MS monopoly on the business software environment?
Please say Yes.
Here is what I wrote on that subject, with a response taht basically told me I could opt out.
Oh, but that isn't true, is it???
I Could Opt Out, but only by opting out of MSDN...
*sigh*
Oh! Make sure you read the rebuttal where I was told I was Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You know, it's like the inmates defending the warden. What a total brainwashing some people undergo!
Every time some idiot defends MS, I wonder what sort of upbringing they experienced. I bet their Dad beat them a lot, and convinced them that they deserved it.
- When I first brought this home computer home and started it up, the first thing I saw was a screen that dialed up MS and further prompted me to enter data on myself, basically enforced registration. My identity as a new user was logged and stored away. I wonder to this day what information MS has on me, and if it's legal to obtain it. I believe it should. But my point is that I was guided down a narrow path, afraid to not deviate from it, and MS pushed my initial registration on me.
- When I installed Compaq (nee Digital, nee Powerstation) Visual Fortran, I was told that IE was necessary to use their online help (their only help). It promptly downloaded itself on my desktop and became the default for a bunch of files (.gif, .jpg, etc...). Again, I felt I had no choice but to comply, as part of the initialization process.
- Then when I loaded MS Visual basic onto my machine (God help me), I was forced this time (of course I had to use IE, but I was used to that) to establish a Passport account to finish the installation process! I never wanted a Passport account, man...
So, long story short, I got assimilated and now I have this red device sticking out of my ear.
No, wait. My point is is that the average user is also compelled to do all these things, essentially agree to be tracked and registered, just to run their desktop, or do their job at work. The idea of actually owning what you pay for is a distant memory in .NETland. You can flame me for being a sheep, but I don't have time to fight the power every damn time I turn around.
Here is an interesting link. It's IBM's 1995 Annual Report where the CEO talks all about network computing concepts. It's a good insight into what they thought this thing would be before it got all confusing with the dissembling and rambling explanations of what .NET is and isn't. Man, if you ever wanted an example of doublespeak, you only have to read MS press releases. Black and White are what Bill says they are.
My put on it is that I personally would welcome the demise of pyramidal corps where all the money flows to the top and the serfs get salary in favor of a more meritocratic system in which each programmer is fully represented by the code he develops and gets paid according to the merits of his skill. Noone gets insanely rich, but many get pretty damn comfortable.
I still use Fortran. Just about every day. The first thing it was used for (in my day) was to build missile trajectory codes, heat exchange algorithms, and even simulation modelling. You had to have a deep understanding of the physics before you could even begin to sit down and code, say, an orbital dynamic program.
Those codes do not need to be written in C++, but the analysis still needs to be done, so code jockeys like us still earn our bread and butter maintaining and using the old 70's vintage code. Except now we do it using a Visual Basic wrapper, as opposed to VAX DCL, or Cyber, or even JCL.
We Fortran jocks, in fact, invented the nested acronym. Not too many people know that.
But, man, in about '92, VAXen started to wither and die on the vine faster than vinyls fell to CD's, and many of us temporarily lost our VAX capability, so had to resort to batch files on the PC in DOS.
I still look at that as a conspiracy, a harbinger of things to come, as CIS kiddies started coming out of the woodwork and noone cared so much about green-bar paper (the mark of quality analysis!). C++ killed the VAX!
heh, correct me if I'm wrong...
stories of dragons and rings and wizards and monsters and other fantasy archetypes were already part of literature long before Tolkien brought us his trilogy.
Funny, I was just thinking while reading the article as to how LOTR was the first time I ever read full-length accounts of trolls, dwarves, elves, gollums, etc in a novel that put them all in one stroy together. In fact, I wanted to post and say that, although I had heard of the others, I had never heard of Orcs (did Tolkien invent that species?), and therefore had to make up in my mind the picture of what one looked like.
And ever since then I have been disappointed whenever I saw somebody else's embodiment of orc-ness. Kind of like the first time I heard Garfield's voice, ya know? It didn't match the image I had formed in my head.
But I would like to see what Tolkien might have ripped off or re-hashed. I think it's pretty damn original, much more so than a Lucas-variety - oh wait! Anything that comes out of consensus-driven Hollywood! - tale. Now Those are pure formula!
I seem to recall that there was a bill or something that proposed to make encrypting an email the basis of probable cause, and therefore a legal excuse to obtain a warrant for search / seizure. It was posted in here a few months ago.
I said it yesterday, and I'll say it again. That's because capitalists are not Nationalistic. They are happy to make money from Americans, Taiwanese, Pakistani children indiscriminately...
They have no pride in America, even though they are American. If they did, they wouldn't be the cause of all those "Yankee Go Home" placards, and the phrase "Ugly American" would mean something to them, the true ugly americans, who give a bad name to a good country.
It has been my experience posting in this forum that British citizens will often support such a system, while Americans almost to a man won't. I attribute this to the relationship that the Brits have with their government; one of consanguineity, a sense that one is of the same type, beliefs, origins, disposition, and outlook. As an American, I am baffled as to why, but they do support video cameras in their streets, surveillance platforms in their Irish towns, and other Big Brother devices.
The psychology must be one of fear. One must feel that he would be the last group to be attacked by the government he is so loyal to. That combined with an unrealistic fear of criminal elements / foreign terrorists / evil agents allows one to be seduced by the technological fix of spying on the entire planet indiscriminately.
Now, if you Are one of those in the Inner Circles of Power, well, then you have almost no choice but to embrace better ways of (as you must perceive) keeping your grip on the wolf's ears. Power serves itself in this instance and as such is incapable of saying 'no' to a means to enlarge, insulate, and safeguard itself. I suspect there is no good rationale for the existence of Echelon or Carnivore except for the need to stay on top.
But this is antithetical to our Constitution, and one would think, post-Magna Carta England, because one of the enlightened priciples espoused by the architects of (at least the US) system of government is a regime founded on the consent of the governed.
Echelon is certainly Un-American, and probably not very terribly British.
And the French, who know freedom, sovereignty, and independence as much as anybody, would certainly be the ones leading this charge, I would think, since they accused US of using Echelon to spy on some Brazilian contractor to steal a contract from France for, um, England? Hang on. Here.
Interestingly enough, it says that this was built during the Cold War. Also, using only the most dubious of logic, this quote from former CIA director James Woolsey:
A questionable justification from Woolsey for this activity at the time was that European companies have a "national culture" of bribery and are the "principle offenders from the point of view of paying bribes in major international contracts in the world".
Hell, you don't see us stopping work on missile defense just because the Soviets crumbled, do you? It's kind of like that.
Welp, I can't argue against those facts about communism, but can you deny that the excesses of captialism contributed to the appeal of Marxism in the same way that, oh, I dunno, Occidental Petroleum contributed to the local appeal of Mohammar Khadafy? I don't argue the concept of capitalism or its philosophy, as you state, it is probably a good econmoic model when applied morally.
So here we have a distinction: whither moral capitalism? In light of this page, one has to wonder to just what extreme a good capitalist is willing to contort himself to keep himself deluded as to his moral certainty.
Here's a quote from the article See the USA in Your SUV:
The environmentalists respond that nature is intrinsically valuable, not for anything it does or can do but simply because it is.
...
Clean air and water benefit people. But if the moderate environmentalists really wanted people to benefit, then they would support the SUV.
That's where I get a little lost. One must have a firm foundation in logic and be themselves grounded in reality, I would think, to claim a moral basis for capitalism. I tend to think that the lure of lucre can sometimes make one wish that black is white. I simply refuse to do that, in the same way that I would think that hanging chads expressed voter intent even if I would have voted for GW, the guy who ruled that hand counting is the proper way to resolve a disputed election tally. heh, sorry... didn't mean to bring that all up agin...
Is it just me, or are other people slightly sickened when they think about what all happens to red meat?
I am so turned off when I think of steak and hamburgers now, that I can barely order and wolf down a Big Mac or prime rib any more.
In other news, E. Coli just broke out again, this time in Old Folk's Homes. Seems that This strand is a drug-resistant strain!
I am sure you are not implying that McDonald's fosters peace, but it may be true that a certain degree of homogeneity among nations correlates well to both a lessening of tensions and corporate development along the same lines, i.e., toward the pinnacle of fast food, Mickey D's.
There is much to be said about the growth of a middle class who are averse to conflict, and it is not in a corporations' interest to have its motherland go to war, unless that corp is, say, Lockheed - Martin.
The plain fact of the matter is (and this has been touched on in arguments about why and why not the GPL is communist), we are experiencing continued growth of the Capitalist Manifesto, which has tendencies of which we are all only too familiar. It is my opinion, after reading Das Kapital, that it is the excesses of capitalism of the turn of the century during the early Industrial Revolution that is responsible for the proper climate for the rise of Marxism as an economic model. Concomitant to that rising in Eastern Europe, government here put strong controls on a growing national scourge; outlawing child labor, workhouses, Monopolies such as Standard Oil, and allowing for the creation of the AFL - CIO and similar Labor Unions. The result of all this is the ascendancy of the middle class, which is the one thing that Communists did not count on.
But now that the government is becoming secured for the interests of capitalists (who follow an inherently evil code, that of greed) once again, witness the ascendancy of corporations once again, to the detriment of the Human Spirit.
Capitalists are not Nationalist, nor are they Humanist. They have but one creed, and are willing to rationalize whatever behaviour they engage in to improve profits. This rationalization destroys all else. The lesson of Frankenstein was the arrogance of a man who, in the pursuit of his single-minded purpose, forgot about God as he became engrossed in his Godly powers.
But we only learn this lesson through our mistakes, apparently, since we are doomed to repeat history unless some of the greedy (i.e., the lawmakers and protectors of our Liberties) wake up. Capitalists should never be trusted to manage themselves, but that is what is happening today. And there is nothing the average citizen can trust, except perhaps God himself.
If I want to go ahead and design a really cool lawn mower and publish it on the web, or put circulars in people's mailboxen, then I certainly do have that right, don't you agree?
I disagree that it would not be in the companies' best interest to hire the guy who wrote the neat sorting algorithm. If that were true guys like Torvalds would be penniless.
I actually believe that we need a new paradigm here. One that doesn't pre-suppose that corporations are the only ones who control where the money flows; that programmers Must get hired by big sw firms as a preliminary first step in their career. You are defending the 'rights' of corporations to make money. I am saying that that isn't a right. Developers could choose to do just what Lawnmower Man did and give away their stuff for free, and there had better be no law to prevent that, because it would be antithetical to the concept of a free society and a laissez-faire government. Which I had previously supposed Conservatives such as yourself fawned over so much. Er, not the freedom part but the lack of regulations part.
This raises an interesting question: Can the owner/developer/hacker of an original code that he previously released under normal copyright, change that to GPL and/or release an update to that same code/functionality under GPL (for whatever reason)?
Wouldn't that pull the rug out of a few previous customers, who paid for version 1.0 but now can get 2.0 for, er, free??
Hmmm, my head hurts, now, great...
It has already been argued elsewhere here that they in fact did not comply with the GPL. They complied with the LGPL, but not the GPL. That is an important point, of course, the crux of the argument. Vidomi seems to be playing dumb, and Lee seems to me to be morally and legally justified; he is outraged that Vidomi used his code in a way that violated his understanding of the license, which, IMHO, is the correct interpretation.
So I dispute your premise that Vidomi is legally in the clear here.
Look at it this way: If Lee instead decided to sell his software, and Vidomi took it and used it as a reasonably large element in their tool - strike the 'large' part, it's irrelevant - would you not expect that under traditional business law, Lee would be entitled to compensation? Vidomi would be sued and lose. Now, Lee entered into the GPL, which, if you read the text of the agreement (or any of a number of posts here), clearly points to exactly where Vidomi was in the wrong. Lee believes this, FSF should (I ain't got all day to follow this story), and a number of people here and elsewhere (hopefully on the bench of your local court) agree with them.
It's interesting to see that, as more people become aware of the concept of GPL, and the difference between LGPL and GPL, how they are startled by the simplicity and the power of it. I'm not saying you just figured it out, but I sure remember when I did.
Now, you immediately take a position that is the polar opposite of mine, and I suspect that it's because I am not a programmer dependent on software to make a living. Taken from your side, and given the fact that any change that threatens the status quo is a bit frightening, the GPL could be perceived as a threat. It represents a potential sea-change in the software industry. It says that sw will not be dominated, as it has in the past, by large (er, monolithic), pyramidal corporations where wealth funnels to the top and guys like yourself would be guaranteed a nice salary with perks and maybe a stock option or two, but certainly no glory.
It points to a genuine New Economy, albeit intrinsically in the fabric of a Free society all along, that values software solely on the basis of its utility and merit, and not on the proprietary nature of er, IP (cringe). It de-commodifies software and commodifies it at the same time: the actual text of a program is now free, but the person who developed that killer-app is now worth more; the software is now commodified, but the coin is not gold, it is more and better software.
Who knows where this would lead? But it should be an attractive alternative to all programmers who are willing to assume the risks involved with such an undertaking (lawsuits seem to be one crag in the ocean, but that should disappear if the courts support the letter of the GPL).
Okay, let me address your single statement...
It just makes it impossible to make money by making software.
By what I just said, I think I explained how that can happen. The difference is that the coders and only the coders stand to gain. Shareholders in xyz.com must figure out a way to merely package and support thier product. I admit that the temptation to want to keep proprietary the product you just linked to a GPL program is strong when there is a direct bottom line impact, but you need to know that when your company enters into a bargain with the GPL devil.
Muahahahahaha!
...I really like this retort, from the discussion page at Vidomi, entitled "You Just Don't Get It":
Let's say Virtual Dub wasn't GPL. Let's say Avery Lee was selling his software, and providing source code with each copy sold. Would it be right to copy his code into your own product without compensating him? If he demanded too high a price for his work, would it be okay for you to take it anyway? No. You would have to choose: Pay his price, or forego that code.
In this case, in exchange for using the code Mr. Lee is demanding you publish the rest of your own code under the GPL. Is the price he demands too high? If that is the case, then either you "pay", or you find some other code to do the same work.
Nice and Sweet. There it is in a nutshell. In fact, this leads me to ask the question: Can you write software that would use existing GPL programs without releasing it as GPL? There, I would think the answer would be "yes" in a court of law. But it Should be "no", by the above argument.
[OT] By the way, it has always been my opinion that the Law should be based on common sense. I dunno, it makes all this IANAL stuff somehow a little more irritating. YSNHTBAL!
"You said the magic word and win the prize!"
Yes, this will play into the whole MS debacle and their fight to undermine, criminalize, and destroy the GPL virus. Think on it: the GPL exists to foster the on-going creative process of programmers freely writing code for the community and allowing that in itself to enhance their own notoriety, taking on the task of being their own agent. This in contrast to MSerfdom, which is the preferred model for an existing large business.
It is in AOL's interests to be sued by GPL authors and prevail. It is also in MS interests, and any other software house built on the traditional pyramid model. Once a court disqualifies the GPL as a valid contract, precedence will have been set, and then GPL will die.
Do you imagine that there is a company that hasn't considered the business aspects of the GPL? I know many have. And what do you think they think about it? Travel with me, if you will, into the mind of a corporate CEO. Careful, don't step on it, it's pretty small..."
"If I could only get the GPL code and keep it, it would be like having thousands of programmers working for me day and night for free! But if I can't keep what I write, then it would be like giving my profit away. Gee, if I could only find a way..." "Darla, get MyCongressman on the rotary phone."
Yes, if they could only get all that lucrative software, use it in their products, and then not have to re-release it! That would work for about a week after the courts rule that the GPL is unenforceable. The courts would basically allow this to happen, programmers stop releasing code, and go to work for large corps, and things go back to the Way They Were.
And Andy Grove, who scoffs at the thought of a New Economy, would be right. There is now a glimmer of hope that Linus and Richard's baby could re-invent this economic system, empowering people at the expense of corps.
But if GPL-holders sue AOL and lose, this glimmer would die. It would also die if they failed to sue, given that AOL has actually violated the contract. It would be a signal to all other CEO's to scoff up what they could and use it, and then try to keep it.
So it is very important here that the FSF win this one, a big case against a big company.
Because if not, MS will be the next violater, if they aren't already.
Oh, I see: "We are doing this because we Care about you." Translation: Let us scare the shit out of you so you are so full of fear you can't function and are therefore under our control 24/7. Then we will feel that we have done a good job as a parent.
Parents might do well to note that the danger is not that Other kids will watch Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and kung-fu someone to death on the playground, but that their own kid will snap under the oppressive and anxiety-ridden lifestyle they have chosen for them, grab the gun from under Dad's bed, and start shooting up the school, thereby dealing with the insane pressure in the way his peers taught him.
For a quick example of how someone can lose touch with reality and his own sense of self-worth, here is one of those poor souls. The poor guy has lost touch with himself, and feels that there is no where to turn. How many of our children are lost like that? And how is monitoring their life day after day going to help them become the strong adults we hope to raise?
Insanity heaped upon insanity, that's what it is...
Thanks for that reducto ad absurdium. That is exactly my point, thereabouts. Funny how money bends and warps everything it touches to serve its own desires...
Since when do companies enjoy the rights of individuals? Seems to me we're talking about a company being offended. I thought only people have a right to be offended. Corporations are in it only to make money, and if a consumer has a gripe, his airing of it should be protected. Let the company fix it any way it can, but certainly not in the courts.
:)
So, the company is not offended, it's 'good name' isn't being tarnished, because it isn't a citizen in the community! The only interest it cares about is its profitability. I hate when court time is spent protecting the marginal return of corps...
Yes, I know this rant has nothing to do with what you wrote... thanks for being my parent post.
My opinion: what MS is pushing is the same old, tried-and-true corporate model of existence in which the money flows upward into the top of the pyramid and a few guys gets rich. What Linux represents is a non-corporate model in which individuals gain in reputation and therefore become more valuable assets to whatever company they choose to work for by virtue of the degree to which they are familiar with the plethora of OS software out there. This is a fundamentally different way for people to make money, and perhaps it should scare corporate America.
But nowhere in our Constitution is the right to profitiability guaranteed, in fact, I don't recall the Constitution Ever being written for Corporations, although you can argue that corps do enjoy the freedoms and rights of individuals in this Machiavellian universe.
BUT the government has certainly guaranteed the rights of people to give away their products under whatever fair agreement they can legally ask for (i.e., GPL, you know, the one in the crosshairs).
MS is arguing for something that if the govt agreed to (outlawing the GPL as an enforceable agreement between two parties, basically allowing MS to steal all OS s/w, use it at their whim, and give nothing back to the community), it would neam the end of Constitutional protection for the individual to engage in an agreement with another. I, for one, would be shocked at the outrageousness of the unConstitutionality of such an act.
We should ask Mr. VP this: "Are you saying that Edison had no right to Not patent his lightbulb? Furthermore, are you saying that if Edison didn't patent it, that lightbulbs would never get invented?"
Sorry, man, you picked an industry that can't be regulated like lightbulbs. IP is not and never will be Real Property, and you must Never Ever use GPL in your software, or, guess what...
...it becomes GPL, too!
And maybe, just maybe, the concept of Software Giants becomes obsolete, and the idea of Software Geniuses predominates, and although one or two of us can't become multi-billionaires, All of us can become comfortably wealthy.
I guess what you are kind of saying is "We got a lot of stuff out of the exploration of space and the shot to the moon because so many different technologies were advanced. But now that we've done that, we are really only extending the capabilities, and not therefore going to produce those neat spin-offs like astronaut ice cream and space blankets."
I kind of agree. What will we accomplish by landing there? It isn't like in the movies, when we find all these killer bug-like creatures or are enlightened and attuned with the unverse by meeting up with some wispy gay Martian guy. It will be like the Moon Landing, but with better audio/video, and much more coverage. Or no coverage; hard to tell since the timelines are so long.
On the other hand, why not go to the moon? We sure spend our money on worse things, and relatively speaking, this would be a somewhat noble human conquest, turning all our heads skyward. NASA represents a lot of what is Noble about being an American, and a human being, too.
The real answer, of course, is that we Are in our birthplace, and our graveyard, and it's our job to take care of everything in between. If you want to talk priorities, think of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. Now there's a good spin-off, IMO.
One more thing: I got the pleasure to hear Dan Goldin talk at a company meeting. Very dynamic fellow, and compelling as well. I'm sure he's from my hometown area New York! I can't imagine a neater job than to be steering the largest non-military space program in the world, albeit after the Challenger disaster. (Well, except for that last part, the job would be cool.)