I've been BBSing (what's that?) for more than 10 years now, and I've probably had more conversations on-line than in-person. I'd have to say that it is extremely unlikely those two posts were written by the same person. And besides, if an intelligent person wanted to sway other intelligent peoples' viewpoints by pretending to be two different people that agree, then (a) the messages would come to a similar conclusion and (b) neither would have significant spelling or grammar errors. And if a less intelligent person tried the same thing, the messages would have looked like they were typed by the same person, which they don't.
Well, I used to update 10 or 20 times a day to check for new stories. But when I installed RedHat 6.0, it came with the wonder of wonders that is SlashApp, the GNOME panel-mounted slashdot story ticker. Now whenever I check what time it is or the system load, a/. article title is sitting there waiting to be clicked on. What a great feeling! It also came in really handy when Slashdot was unavailable for a few hours the other day -- it would poll for me instead of me having to stop what I was doing and try the reload button again every 45 seconds.
While some may consider posting this article to be a service to Slashdot readers, I personally resent it. I can't and shouldn't have to pull out my credit card and join an organization in order to find out what's going on in my world. Not even a summary or excerpts were made available to non-IEEE members, and I had to click around several times on their site before I realized they wanted me to pay them to read this one lousy article. I understand that the IEEE probably performs some valuable service, they've gotta get their slice of the pie, etc etc. But it is clear that the people that the IEEE does serve are their members only. That's not including me or thousands of other/. readers.
I'd appreciate if someone posted a summary or review of the article, because I'm not forking out bucks in order to read it. Maybe I'll go by the local library next month and remember to check if they have a copy of the journal. Then again, I probably won't bother. Teasers piss me off.
this post that I am replying to does not contain anything that would appear to merit scoring it at -1, and neither did his previous post which was nearly identical in content. Probably nobody will answer the post seriously, since it didn't even go so far as to define the acronyms or provide any useful information. Nonetheless, a 0 or 1 score would be more appropriate according to the moderator guidelines.
Since "mailto" is a "special purpose" type of tag that may have new features added to its specification at some point in the future, the programmer may have provided the redirection link as a modular layer of abstraction that would allow for changing the way addresses are handled.
For instance, if the user is a DejaMail customer, it might load the DejaNews "compose" page instead of telling your browser to send mail. Or perhaps it could add a Refers-To-Article: header or something to the email, but only if the browser could handle it.
Who cares, really? I went to DejaNews and wanted to email someone. I just copy-and-pasted their email address after I looked at my browser's status line and realized it wasn't a mailto: link.
I know many people who have been recreational daily pot smokers for more than 5 years. They are all employed. About half of them have pretty good paying technical positions (the other half are not computer geeks). By my estimation, none of them are noticeably brain damaged. None of them are particularly lazy, unless you think they're lazy because they sit on their asses smoking weed every day -- AFTER working 50 hours a week, maintaining relationships/marriages and generally taking care of business.
I have known many programmers and other technically minded types that smoke herb when working their trade. Some feel that it makes their work more enjoyable, reduces frustration and makes having patience easier when up against a tough problem. Others just do it because they can do it and still get the job done, and they like the taste or something. MMmmm, stinky..
When I was at UC Berkeley, I ended up staying up all night in the soda hall computer lab often, sometimes 2 or 3 nights in a row. I would frequently have to take breaks to stretch my legs, relax my eyes, have a soda and smoke a joint. It made going back into the lab that much more tolerable, and seemed to keep my eyes from hurting. I would also take a puff or two before my most boring afternoon math class, cause if I didn't, I would either fall asleep or be distracted from boredom all period. A bit stoned, I would simply kick back, relax and watch the teacher -- and learn.
The GPL is not really all that difficult to understand. In the spirit of public service, it explains what it does and what the ramifications are *very* clearly.
The GPL is kind of long, but is written to be as simple as possible while still achieving its goal of causing software to be really free. I've read the whole thing and understood every line, and I'm definitely no lawyer.
Welp, I was only "shunning" it because it does not meet my needs -- from my post I thought it was clear that I need the freedom available with GNU/Linux or FreeBSD systems, for the simple reason that I don't want to pirate software. I don't like violating software contracts and breaking the law, so I've stopped doing so (no more bootlegged win95 installs on my friends' computers).
In order for an operating system to be really useful for me, I've got to be able to give out copies of it -- it has to do with the way that I use computers: I only use other people's computers. Most frequent are computers at my work, clients' computers, and my friends computers (many of which I assembled).
I typically have some level control over the software that is installed on all these systems, and don't want to cause the owner to have to pay for software. Because if it belongs to my work, I'd rather get a raise 'cause I provide less expensive solutions. If it belongs to a client, I'd rather they pay me to set up a free system than blow their wad on software. And if it belongs to my friends, most of whom are not rolling in dough, I just want to save them some money. And I want to do it legally. So I can only in good conscience use freely distributable software. (and not all of this software is GPL "free" or even DFSWG "free")
I did fine on under 20k when I was in school. 50000 bucks is a good deal of money even after taxes; plenty of room to save some. Or, to buy a new car and rent a condo and pick up an expensive drug habit.
My solution is simple: keep the same old car, rent a room, and limit my Guinness intake -- and save some money, too.
This would be a great way for *some* companies to use free software and save money too.
A large company can afford to have a programmer (or more than one) on staff to ensure that the necessary software is available and works. That programmer can collaborate with others in similar positions at different companies to create a free software solution for the problem. Management at the assorted orgs will perpetually request new features and fixes, thus keeping the programmers working.
There are two problems with this -- first, small companies don't have the money to hire a full time programmer, or the expertise. Second, while individuals may value cooperation, corporations would usually rather squash their competition.
Smaller businesses can hire a consultant which will perform the same job as the programmers for larger orgs. These programmers would be on contract for several small companies instead of on salary for one large one. The idea is that if the company's needs are not very specialized, the consultant will spend more time installing existing free software than creating new stuff.
In this way, businesses could be competitive and cooperative at the same time. Two companies in the same business might run somewhat different software, but it would be mostly the same code base, contributed by programmers at both organizations. There are many many MANY types of companies that pay enough in software licensing fees to be able to benefit greatly from a scheme like this.
You're free to assign your copyright to a company who will not give away the source. You're welcome to choose to work in an environment where your employer, through contract, literally owns large sections of your brain for the rest of your life -- since you developed the ideas in that section of your brain while 'on the clock.'
But the nice thing about freedom, is that you're free not to. And I choose to write software, get paid, and release the software as GPL so that even though my copyright is assigned to my employer, the code is still free -- and since I am free to re-use or modify it later, I am free to use my own knowledge as I see fit.
If you value freedom, but can't figure out how to do this, maybe you should just become a web designer, or perhaps a waiter. If you don't value freedom, there are tons of unethical things you can do to trade your freedom (and even that of the people around you) for increased monetary compensation.
If you really value freedom, by the way, please realize that it is possibly, often luxurious to live (in California even) on less than $50K/yr.
Q: Would I like a brand new Lexus, or freedom of choice.. lexus.. freedom of choice..
A: I'll take my freedom -- actually, I'll never give it up in the first place.
RMS founded the free software foundation with the sole purpose of creating more free software. He sold copies of Emacs to people who were not able to get a copy any other way, in order to make enough money to continue to eat and create more free software. He needed to make a few bucks, and other people needed a copy of Emacs quicker than they could get it at 1200 baud. But profitability is obviously not the goal of the organization, as it is a non-profit org.
The author of this essay understands the benefits of "Open Source" software to the same extent that proprietary software companies also understand them. He essentially has no concept of the reason for the existance of this "hacker gift culture". It is here because *SOME* people are willing to act (even if it means writing software and not getting paid) to preserve their freedom. NOT to have MORE restrictive software licenses. And for you "GPL is too restrictive!" types, who are usually trying to figure out a way to make money off of someone else's work -- enforced freedom is not really a restriction at all.
If I go get BeOS, say I buy it (like I bought RedHat and Debian GNU/Linux), and I like it, can I give a copy to my friend who might also like it? If not, I'm not interested.
let us all worship Maximized Revenue, and bring forth offerings of stock options and lexuses. all praise the great god money.
sheesh.. do you think Maximized Revenue is all that matters? Does it make you happy? If so, I'm sorry.
Donating to charity doesn't usually yield Maximized Revenue either, but sometimes it's just a darned nice thing to do. In the case of software companies, it's not only nice to open up their wares, but it's beneficial to the very people the company depends on for sustenance.
Actually, it's not much of a moral issue. I spent a couple of months categorizing sites for a web filtering company (I won't say which one, but it happens to be particularly relevant to this discussion). The policies and categories were all tuned for use in a corporate environment, where the management doesn't want its users burning time looking at inappropriate things at work. When the company talks about "protecting" their users, they usually mean protecting them from sexual harassment lawsuits and time wasting employees, not "bad content".
This product includes categories that are regarded by some to be "potentially harmful" such as drugs, sex, hate speech, etc. It also contains oodles of entertainment/humor sites, job search pages, art and culture, general news sites like CNN, etc. The job I was doing was not "censoring" or even "blocking", I was just categorizing. The product is sold as an aide to system administrators to more accurately control what their users can access, and the system administrator can select categories to block based on their usage policy. If there are a few inaccuracies in the list, or the admin disagrees with how a site is listed, they can make an exception. Which takes no time at all, compared to making your own list of hundreds of thousands of sites organized by category.
P.S. I put slashdot on their exempt list a while back:) (you're welcome)
Umm.. Mormon.com used to be a pr0n site. I talked to someone at the Mormon church about this. When SmartFilter found out that it was no longer (someone emailed them), it was immediately removed.
I read it the first time. And the second time, before I realized it was just more spam. I fully support your right to post it not only once, but repeatedly, and to post links to it, regardless of the fact that you use an infintesimal amount of MY costly bandwidth to do so -- thereby indirectly costing me a small amount of money without my explicit permission. Unfortunately, I can't send you a bill for it, because I used an HTTP GET command to *ASK FOR IT*. The same applies to junk mail I recieve on my POP3 email box. According to RFC 1725, 'RETR x' means I WANT to download x.
Luckily, free speech is a two way street, giving me the unalienable right to tell you: Knock off the dumb x!=y BS, and say something original or shut the hell up. We read your message already. Do they not let you talk at home or something?
Slashdot Mirror
I've been BBSing (what's that?) for more than 10 years now, and I've probably had more conversations on-line than in-person. I'd have to say that it is extremely unlikely those two posts were written by the same person. And besides, if an intelligent person wanted to sway other intelligent peoples' viewpoints by pretending to be two different people that agree, then (a) the messages would come to a similar conclusion and (b) neither would have significant spelling or grammar errors. And if a less intelligent person tried the same thing, the messages would have looked like they were typed by the same person, which they don't.
Well, I used to update 10 or 20 times a day to check for new stories. But when I installed RedHat 6.0, it came with the wonder of wonders that is SlashApp, the GNOME panel-mounted slashdot story ticker. Now whenever I check what time it is or the system load, a /. article title is sitting there waiting to be clicked on. What a great feeling! It also came in really handy when Slashdot was unavailable for a few hours the other day -- it would poll for me instead of me having to stop what I was doing and try the reload button again every 45 seconds.
While some may consider posting this article to be a service to Slashdot readers, I personally resent it. I can't and shouldn't have to pull out my credit card and join an organization in order to find out what's going on in my world. Not even a summary or excerpts were made available to non-IEEE members, and I had to click around several times on their site before I realized they wanted me to pay them to read this one lousy article. I understand that the IEEE probably performs some valuable service, they've gotta get their slice of the pie, etc etc. But it is clear that the people that the IEEE does serve are their members only. That's not including me or thousands of other /. readers.
I'd appreciate if someone posted a summary or review of the article, because I'm not forking out bucks in order to read it. Maybe I'll go by the local library next month and remember to check if they have a copy of the journal. Then again, I probably won't bother. Teasers piss me off.
this post that I am replying to does not contain anything that would appear to merit scoring it at -1, and neither did his previous post which was nearly identical in content. Probably nobody will answer the post seriously, since it didn't even go so far as to define the acronyms or provide any useful information. Nonetheless, a 0 or 1 score would be more appropriate according to the moderator guidelines.
Since "mailto" is a "special purpose" type of tag that may have new features added to its specification at some point in the future, the programmer may have provided the redirection link as a modular layer of abstraction that would allow for changing the way addresses are handled.
For instance, if the user is a DejaMail customer, it might load the DejaNews "compose" page instead of telling your browser to send mail. Or perhaps it could add a Refers-To-Article: header or something to the email, but only if the browser could handle it.
Who cares, really? I went to DejaNews and wanted to email someone. I just copy-and-pasted their email address after I looked at my browser's status line and realized it wasn't a mailto: link.
AFAIK, IANAL means I Am Not A Lawyer. I've never seen it spelled out, but I BBS'ed for 10 years and got really good with acronyms :)
I know many people who have been recreational daily pot smokers for more than 5 years. They are all employed. About half of them have pretty good paying technical positions (the other half are not computer geeks). By my estimation, none of them are noticeably brain damaged. None of them are particularly lazy, unless you think they're lazy because they sit on their asses smoking weed every day -- AFTER working 50 hours a week, maintaining relationships/marriages and generally taking care of business.
I have known many programmers and other technically minded types that smoke herb when working their trade. Some feel that it makes their work more enjoyable, reduces frustration and makes having patience easier when up against a tough problem. Others just do it because they can do it and still get the job done, and they like the taste or something. MMmmm, stinky..
When I was at UC Berkeley, I ended up staying up all night in the soda hall computer lab often, sometimes 2 or 3 nights in a row. I would frequently have to take breaks to stretch my legs, relax my eyes, have a soda and smoke a joint. It made going back into the lab that much more tolerable, and seemed to keep my eyes from hurting. I would also take a puff or two before my most boring afternoon math class, cause if I didn't, I would either fall asleep or be distracted from boredom all period. A bit stoned, I would simply kick back, relax and watch the teacher -- and learn.
Well, are you going to write a HOWTO-6ft-Blondes or what?!?
tgif
The GPL is not really all that difficult to understand. In the spirit of public service, it explains what it does and what the ramifications are *very* clearly.
The GPL is kind of long, but is written to be as simple as possible while still achieving its goal of causing software to be really free. I've read the whole thing and understood every line, and I'm definitely no lawyer.
Welp, I was only "shunning" it because it does not meet my needs -- from my post I thought it was clear that I need the freedom available with GNU/Linux or FreeBSD systems, for the simple reason that I don't want to pirate software. I don't like violating software contracts and breaking the law, so I've stopped doing so (no more bootlegged win95 installs on my friends' computers).
In order for an operating system to be really useful for me, I've got to be able to give out copies of it -- it has to do with the way that I use computers: I only use other people's computers. Most frequent are computers at my work, clients' computers, and my friends computers (many of which I assembled).
I typically have some level control over the software that is installed on all these systems, and don't want to cause the owner to have to pay for software. Because if it belongs to my work, I'd rather get a raise 'cause I provide less expensive solutions. If it belongs to a client, I'd rather they pay me to set up a free system than blow their wad on software. And if it belongs to my friends, most of whom are not rolling in dough, I just want to save them some money. And I want to do it legally. So I can only in good conscience use freely distributable software. (and not all of this software is GPL "free" or even DFSWG "free")
I did fine on under 20k when I was in school. 50000 bucks is a good deal of money even after taxes; plenty of room to save some. Or, to buy a new car and rent a condo and pick up an expensive drug habit.
My solution is simple: keep the same old car, rent a room, and limit my Guinness intake -- and save some money, too.
-=Ivan
This would be a great way for *some* companies to use free software and save money too.
A large company can afford to have a programmer (or more than one) on staff to ensure that the necessary software is available and works. That programmer can collaborate with others in similar positions at different companies to create a free software solution for the problem. Management at the assorted orgs will perpetually request new features and fixes, thus keeping the programmers working.
There are two problems with this -- first, small companies don't have the money to hire a full time programmer, or the expertise. Second, while individuals may value cooperation, corporations would usually rather squash their competition.
Smaller businesses can hire a consultant which will perform the same job as the programmers for larger orgs. These programmers would be on contract for several small companies instead of on salary for one large one. The idea is that if the company's needs are not very specialized, the consultant will spend more time installing existing free software than creating new stuff.
In this way, businesses could be competitive and cooperative at the same time. Two companies in the same business might run somewhat different software, but it would be mostly the same code base, contributed by programmers at both organizations. There are many many MANY types of companies that pay enough in software licensing fees to be able to benefit greatly from a scheme like this.
You're free to assign your copyright to a company who will not give away the source. You're welcome to choose to work in an environment where your employer, through contract, literally owns large sections of your brain for the rest of your life -- since you developed the ideas in that section of your brain while 'on the clock.'
But the nice thing about freedom, is that you're free not to. And I choose to write software, get paid, and release the software as GPL so that even though my copyright is assigned to my employer, the code is still free -- and since I am free to re-use or modify it later, I am free to use my own knowledge as I see fit.
If you value freedom, but can't figure out how to do this, maybe you should just become a web designer, or perhaps a waiter. If you don't value freedom, there are tons of unethical things you can do to trade your freedom (and even that of the people around you) for increased monetary compensation.
If you really value freedom, by the way, please realize that it is possibly, often luxurious to live (in California even) on less than $50K/yr.
Q: Would I like a brand new Lexus, or freedom of choice.. lexus.. freedom of choice..
A: I'll take my freedom -- actually, I'll never give it up in the first place.
RMS founded the free software foundation with the sole purpose of creating more free software. He sold copies of Emacs to people who were not able to get a copy any other way, in order to make enough money to continue to eat and create more free software. He needed to make a few bucks, and other people needed a copy of Emacs quicker than they could get it at 1200 baud. But profitability is obviously not the goal of the organization, as it is a non-profit org.
The author of this essay understands the benefits of "Open Source" software to the same extent that proprietary software companies also understand them. He essentially has no concept of the reason for the existance of this "hacker gift culture". It is here because *SOME* people are willing to act (even if it means writing software and not getting paid) to preserve their freedom. NOT to have MORE restrictive software licenses. And for you "GPL is too restrictive!" types, who are usually trying to figure out a way to make money off of someone else's work -- enforced freedom is not really a restriction at all.
(can't resist..)
free as in free speech. not free beer.
If I go get BeOS, say I buy it (like I bought RedHat and Debian GNU/Linux), and I like it, can I give a copy to my friend who might also like it? If not, I'm not interested.
let us all worship Maximized Revenue, and bring forth offerings of stock options and lexuses. all praise the great god money.
sheesh.. do you think Maximized Revenue is all that matters? Does it make you happy? If so, I'm sorry.
Donating to charity doesn't usually yield Maximized Revenue either, but sometimes it's just a darned nice thing to do. In the case of software companies, it's not only nice to open up their wares, but it's beneficial to the very people the company depends on for sustenance.
Actually, it's not much of a moral issue. I spent a couple of months categorizing sites for a web filtering company (I won't say which one, but it happens to be particularly relevant to this discussion). The policies and categories were all tuned for use in a corporate environment, where the management doesn't want its users burning time looking at inappropriate things at work. When the company talks about "protecting" their users, they usually mean protecting them from sexual harassment lawsuits and time wasting employees, not "bad content".
:) (you're welcome)
This product includes categories that are regarded by some to be "potentially harmful" such as drugs, sex, hate speech, etc. It also contains oodles of entertainment/humor sites, job search pages, art and culture, general news sites like CNN, etc. The job I was doing was not "censoring" or even "blocking", I was just categorizing. The product is sold as an aide to system administrators to more accurately control what their users can access, and the system administrator can select categories to block based on their usage policy. If there are a few inaccuracies in the list, or the admin disagrees with how a site is listed, they can make an exception. Which takes no time at all, compared to making your own list of hundreds of thousands of sites organized by category.
P.S. I put slashdot on their exempt list a while back
Umm.. Mormon.com used to be a pr0n site. I talked to someone at the Mormon church about this. When SmartFilter found out that it was no longer (someone emailed them), it was immediately removed.
I read it the first time. And the second time, before I realized it was just more spam. I fully support your right to post it not only once, but repeatedly, and to post links to it, regardless of the fact that you use an infintesimal amount of MY costly bandwidth to do so -- thereby indirectly costing me a small amount of money without my explicit permission. Unfortunately, I can't send you a bill for it, because I used an HTTP GET command to *ASK FOR IT*. The same applies to junk mail I recieve on my POP3 email box. According to RFC 1725, 'RETR x' means I WANT to download x.
Luckily, free speech is a two way street, giving me the unalienable right to tell you: Knock off the dumb x!=y BS, and say something original or shut the hell up. We read your message already. Do they not let you talk at home or something?
--Ivan (stingray@2xtreme.net)