For a homebrew HTPC, you're absolutely right. When the inevitable off-the-shelf units are manufactured for mainstream consumers by the likes of Sony, Toshiba, NEC, etc. however, it makes little sense to pay for a Microsoft OS on each unit when a free alternative can be brought up to scratch ("good enough"). The margins on consumer electronics are quite low, so even volume licenses represent a signficant cost difference from zero license cost.
Microsoft can counter this by creating compelling development environments for developers in this segment. This is a favorite strategy they employ; catering to the natural tendency of most developers to take the path of least effort has usually been richly rewarding. Open source can pre-empt closed source (not just Microsoft) by establishing standards in this development niche and creating ready-made platforms, so core services are readily supplied and it is relatively trivial to combine features to create new services, features, and look-and-feel themes.
Open source can triumph if it can show that for a relatively equivalent amount of development effort, a company can bring to market a HTPC unit with zero OS licensing costs. At the same time, the cumulative amount of advancement of the open source code base from all stakeholders must exceed the opposing improvement efforts from closed source providers. Lest someone misread my message, let me just say right out in front that this is a difficult accomplishment.
One percent of America's population holds 40% of the wealth.
When one day you wake up to find that the top-earning 1% have left the country, and you're out of a job because they took their companies with them and you don't have the gumption to start your own business, let me know what you think of levying heavy taxes upon the ones that create the wealth and not coincidentally, the jobs you seek.
Oh yes, and if you think taxing wealth (as contrasted with taxing income) is a dandy idea, and support the IRS hounding private citizens who wish to renounce citizenship because citizens with raging cases of class envy like yourself hate the rich, think again. Push comes to shove, you and the IRS can confiscate all of my dollar-denominated assets and shove it up your collectivist asses. You'll be left with a rapidly dwindling capital base you will only know to consume for your socialist fantasies, and I'll go elsewhere to build a new means of creating wealth for myself.
...in addition to the lawyers fees for SJG being paid by the FBI.
Wrong. That should read: "in addition to the lawyers fees for SJG being paid by the taxpayers." Everyone should have a crystal clear understanding that this one of the big reasons it is so ruinous for individuals and small businesses when a federal agency jerks their chains. The attorney fees for the federal government are funded by a virtually bottomless honey pot of taxypayer funds, while you and I have to gulp hard, turn to savings, friends, pro bono legal aid, or contingency legal arrangements and such. The largesse of the peasants' labor taken at gunpoint for the King's agents, and whatever scraps that may be had for the peasants; and may the Kernel in The Sky help you if your assets are attached "as part of the investigation".
It is a positive feedback loop for the feds, and worse, there are no market disincentives for going fishing and losing. Even when they lose, they use that to their advantage, by pointing to the expenses incurred running people into the ground in court as justification for larger budgets, make our wallets that much thinner every April 15th, and go after more people on flimsier crap next year to pad their resumes. When a geek pads a resume, they might screw up a contract or project; when a fed pads a resume, it puts into ruins for years and decades or even terminates lives.
I feel sorry for this guy. Unless he has pension-busting/career-ending/agency-budget-axing political connections, is the Mafia or a drug cartel and can personally threaten the lives of the agents involved, or in an equivalent manner carry a bigger f*ck-you stick than the feds, there ain't a stale/tmp file's chance in a skulker session that he's getting his stuff back without time consuming and expensive legal assistance. Good luck, dilinger.
In case some readers are wondering about the significance of this incident, I would like to add some information that doesn't usually come up in the conventional descriptions in the media. What was stolen were laptop drives (described on CNN to be "roughly the size of a pack of cards"). The drives contain information used by the American Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST). An example of the kind of information the drives contain is how to disarm various American and Russian models of nuclear devices. Basically, not the kind of information you want to fall into terrorist hands; it would superbly inform them of how to devise a device and a plot that could foil NEST equipment, knowledge, and procedures. This is not a uniquely American concern, either: NEST is frequently consulted by American allies.
That burst won't happen as long as exogenous events don't shake up the equities market. Events like a derivatives cascade. Or an unwinding of the earnings spiral. Ever wonder what might happen if increasing stock valuations of equities a company owns in another company stall out for a couple of quarters in a row? Especially when current FASB rules allow an increased valuation of shares held in another company to be booked as income...aka earnings for the company owning the equity, making it advantageous for companies to hold shares in each other? The term "unwinding" comes to mind; in worst case scenarios, the term "cross defaults" comes up, giving me the heebie jeebies.
A recent historical example of this kind of unwinding is found in the current Japanese depression; companies were allowed to book income from increasing real estate values of land they owned, causing a frenzy of speculative investments into their equities because of the improved balance sheets, letting the companies purchase more real estate, bidding up the prices on real estate because other companies were using the same growth strategy... When it became obvious real estate values couldn't go on any longer, the effects were rather sobering.
Bear markets can be brutal. Yes bridgette, those retirees from the Depression have seen mutual funds before; they were called "investment trusts" back then. A lot of those people swore off of securities for the rest of their lives, even when the effects of the crash were obviously over.
If the ruling on Microsoft has ramifications upon the NASDAQ, then I will be watching the performance of cross-holdings that Microsoft owns with its strategic partners. Because Microsoft is a leading indicator of the tech market for many people, if a kind of dampening oscillation (or worse) effect on earnings is set up through the cross-holdings I would get very nervous. These cross-holdings would lock the companies' share prices into a death spiral. It would become a rather dreadful decision between selling off shares of the strategic investment and booking a gigantic loss that quarter, or hanging on tight for the ride down in share price in the hopes that the loss won't be as great and wish for a fairly quick recovery. Anyone know what the futures trading on MSFT is like on Instinet right now?
Certification and licensing do not fix broken project management. When faced with broken management, as a professional you do what other professionals do: bring up the issue with management and get the management's decision, all in writing with a signature. Call it a "memorandum of understanding" or some other bogus suit-friendly name; if you are on something like Lotus Notes where messages are authenticated, a simple email exchange is sufficient. Keep your own copy in your personal project file at home. This applies to both situations you cited.
When the shit hits the fan, if fingers start pointing at you, you have your ammo. They won't point at you though, because they'll remember the memo from months ago.
The argument that we "need" certification or licensing "for our own good" is a crock. If clients want quality product, they will pay for the testing necessary to ensure it. The SEI has put out reams of data supporting what it costs to produce good software. Advocating certification or licensing as a substitute for good (but expensive) practice is just what to expect from clueless management that wants a cheap silver bullet and is not willing or able to put up with the realities of quality coding.
Folks, read your employment contracts, and if legal jargon puts you off hire a competent attorney to interpret it for you. Remember you have every right to cross out a part of the contract you don't like, even write in a new part, initial it, and make it binding. I do this all the time, and the counter-party usually has absolutely no problems with it. I always insist upon total ownership of all work performed outside of "work for hire".
Most managers couldn't give a rat's ass about what their company lawyers wrote in for intellectual property coverage, and if you talk to them about it, you will find they will accept the common sense idea that you own the work you produce on your own time with your own resources. Keep a journal of your work like scientists keep a notebook, and if you keep a timesheet and incorporate, you get to call yourself a business and can find some favorable tax treatment; I'm oversimplifying for brevity, so educate yourself on the specifics. Finally, remember to always keep your own copy of originally signed contracts, find out what the longest statute of limitations that apply in your locality are, and archive the dead-tree stuff for at least that period.
The new economy brought us (or at least those of us who contract) many new benefits and opportunities, but it also brings with it new responsibilities. The last time I checked, overly broad intellectual property clauses are usually struck down, but expensive to take to court and bring down. If Brown attempts to fight this, precedent is with him in general (though I'm not claiming it is in this specific instance --- don't know enough about the particulars), but it will likely cost him dearly.
If there is an AM talk radio station in your area, call them and ask if a program called Bruce Williams is broadcast by them. The guy runs a call-in show where most people ask him about business matters. When folks call him about contracts, he demystifies them, and is pretty straightforward about how you negotiate one. It wouldn't hurt to also pick up some of the legal self-help books by Nolo Press to familiarize yourself with what business people do. The attorneys' bars in most states despise folks like Nolo Press, and that tells me to run, don't walk to Nolo for the information they sell.
Slashdot Mirror
For a homebrew HTPC, you're absolutely right. When the inevitable off-the-shelf units are manufactured for mainstream consumers by the likes of Sony, Toshiba, NEC, etc. however, it makes little sense to pay for a Microsoft OS on each unit when a free alternative can be brought up to scratch ("good enough"). The margins on consumer electronics are quite low, so even volume licenses represent a signficant cost difference from zero license cost.
Microsoft can counter this by creating compelling development environments for developers in this segment. This is a favorite strategy they employ; catering to the natural tendency of most developers to take the path of least effort has usually been richly rewarding. Open source can pre-empt closed source (not just Microsoft) by establishing standards in this development niche and creating ready-made platforms, so core services are readily supplied and it is relatively trivial to combine features to create new services, features, and look-and-feel themes.
Open source can triumph if it can show that for a relatively equivalent amount of development effort, a company can bring to market a HTPC unit with zero OS licensing costs. At the same time, the cumulative amount of advancement of the open source code base from all stakeholders must exceed the opposing improvement efforts from closed source providers. Lest someone misread my message, let me just say right out in front that this is a difficult accomplishment.
One percent of America's population holds 40% of the wealth.
When one day you wake up to find that the top-earning 1% have left the country, and you're out of a job because they took their companies with them and you don't have the gumption to start your own business, let me know what you think of levying heavy taxes upon the ones that create the wealth and not coincidentally, the jobs you seek.
Oh yes, and if you think taxing wealth (as contrasted with taxing income) is a dandy idea, and support the IRS hounding private citizens who wish to renounce citizenship because citizens with raging cases of class envy like yourself hate the rich, think again. Push comes to shove, you and the IRS can confiscate all of my dollar-denominated assets and shove it up your collectivist asses. You'll be left with a rapidly dwindling capital base you will only know to consume for your socialist fantasies, and I'll go elsewhere to build a new means of creating wealth for myself.
But they don't recognize the notion of natural rights like we are supposed to with the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the right to bear arms.
Wrong. That should read: "in addition to the lawyers fees for SJG being paid by the taxpayers." Everyone should have a crystal clear understanding that this one of the big reasons it is so ruinous for individuals and small businesses when a federal agency jerks their chains. The attorney fees for the federal government are funded by a virtually bottomless honey pot of taxypayer funds, while you and I have to gulp hard, turn to savings, friends, pro bono legal aid, or contingency legal arrangements and such. The largesse of the peasants' labor taken at gunpoint for the King's agents, and whatever scraps that may be had for the peasants; and may the Kernel in The Sky help you if your assets are attached "as part of the investigation".
It is a positive feedback loop for the feds, and worse, there are no market disincentives for going fishing and losing. Even when they lose, they use that to their advantage, by pointing to the expenses incurred running people into the ground in court as justification for larger budgets, make our wallets that much thinner every April 15th, and go after more people on flimsier crap next year to pad their resumes. When a geek pads a resume, they might screw up a contract or project; when a fed pads a resume, it puts into ruins for years and decades or even terminates lives.
I feel sorry for this guy. Unless he has pension-busting/career-ending/agency-budget-axing political connections, is the Mafia or a drug cartel and can personally threaten the lives of the agents involved, or in an equivalent manner carry a bigger f*ck-you stick than the feds, there ain't a stale /tmp file's chance in a skulker session that he's getting his stuff back without time consuming and expensive legal assistance. Good luck, dilinger.
In case some readers are wondering about the significance of this incident, I would like to add some information that doesn't usually come up in the conventional descriptions in the media. What was stolen were laptop drives (described on CNN to be "roughly the size of a pack of cards"). The drives contain information used by the American Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST). An example of the kind of information the drives contain is how to disarm various American and Russian models of nuclear devices. Basically, not the kind of information you want to fall into terrorist hands; it would superbly inform them of how to devise a device and a plot that could foil NEST equipment, knowledge, and procedures. This is not a uniquely American concern, either: NEST is frequently consulted by American allies.
That burst won't happen as long as exogenous events don't shake up the equities market. Events like a derivatives cascade. Or an unwinding of the earnings spiral. Ever wonder what might happen if increasing stock valuations of equities a company owns in another company stall out for a couple of quarters in a row? Especially when current FASB rules allow an increased valuation of shares held in another company to be booked as income...aka earnings for the company owning the equity, making it advantageous for companies to hold shares in each other? The term "unwinding" comes to mind; in worst case scenarios, the term "cross defaults" comes up, giving me the heebie jeebies.
A recent historical example of this kind of unwinding is found in the current Japanese depression; companies were allowed to book income from increasing real estate values of land they owned, causing a frenzy of speculative investments into their equities because of the improved balance sheets, letting the companies purchase more real estate, bidding up the prices on real estate because other companies were using the same growth strategy... When it became obvious real estate values couldn't go on any longer, the effects were rather sobering.
Bear markets can be brutal. Yes bridgette, those retirees from the Depression have seen mutual funds before; they were called "investment trusts" back then. A lot of those people swore off of securities for the rest of their lives, even when the effects of the crash were obviously over.
If the ruling on Microsoft has ramifications upon the NASDAQ, then I will be watching the performance of cross-holdings that Microsoft owns with its strategic partners. Because Microsoft is a leading indicator of the tech market for many people, if a kind of dampening oscillation (or worse) effect on earnings is set up through the cross-holdings I would get very nervous. These cross-holdings would lock the companies' share prices into a death spiral. It would become a rather dreadful decision between selling off shares of the strategic investment and booking a gigantic loss that quarter, or hanging on tight for the ride down in share price in the hopes that the loss won't be as great and wish for a fairly quick recovery. Anyone know what the futures trading on MSFT is like on Instinet right now?
Certification and licensing do not fix broken project management. When faced with broken management, as a professional you do what other professionals do: bring up the issue with management and get the management's decision, all in writing with a signature. Call it a "memorandum of understanding" or some other bogus suit-friendly name; if you are on something like Lotus Notes where messages are authenticated, a simple email exchange is sufficient. Keep your own copy in your personal project file at home. This applies to both situations you cited.
When the shit hits the fan, if fingers start pointing at you, you have your ammo. They won't point at you though, because they'll remember the memo from months ago.
The argument that we "need" certification or licensing "for our own good" is a crock. If clients want quality product, they will pay for the testing necessary to ensure it. The SEI has put out reams of data supporting what it costs to produce good software. Advocating certification or licensing as a substitute for good (but expensive) practice is just what to expect from clueless management that wants a cheap silver bullet and is not willing or able to put up with the realities of quality coding.
Folks, read your employment contracts, and if legal jargon puts you off hire a competent attorney to interpret it for you. Remember you have every right to cross out a part of the contract you don't like, even write in a new part, initial it, and make it binding. I do this all the time, and the counter-party usually has absolutely no problems with it. I always insist upon total ownership of all work performed outside of "work for hire".
Most managers couldn't give a rat's ass about what their company lawyers wrote in for intellectual property coverage, and if you talk to them about it, you will find they will accept the common sense idea that you own the work you produce on your own time with your own resources. Keep a journal of your work like scientists keep a notebook, and if you keep a timesheet and incorporate, you get to call yourself a business and can find some favorable tax treatment; I'm oversimplifying for brevity, so educate yourself on the specifics. Finally, remember to always keep your own copy of originally signed contracts, find out what the longest statute of limitations that apply in your locality are, and archive the dead-tree stuff for at least that period.
The new economy brought us (or at least those of us who contract) many new benefits and opportunities, but it also brings with it new responsibilities. The last time I checked, overly broad intellectual property clauses are usually struck down, but expensive to take to court and bring down. If Brown attempts to fight this, precedent is with him in general (though I'm not claiming it is in this specific instance --- don't know enough about the particulars), but it will likely cost him dearly.
If there is an AM talk radio station in your area, call them and ask if a program called Bruce Williams is broadcast by them. The guy runs a call-in show where most people ask him about business matters. When folks call him about contracts, he demystifies them, and is pretty straightforward about how you negotiate one. It wouldn't hurt to also pick up some of the legal self-help books by Nolo Press to familiarize yourself with what business people do. The attorneys' bars in most states despise folks like Nolo Press, and that tells me to run, don't walk to Nolo for the information they sell.