Well, that's a relief. I'm introducing my mother to Linux, LibreOffice, and GIMP, and having to teach her C/C++, gdb, and Git on top of that might have been a deal-breaker.
The corporate world won't put up with external dependencies like this for any number reasons
The corporate world will put up with whatever MS tells them to. You wouldn't think that exposure to possible BSA audits would be a big hit with them either, but there you go.
True, you are converting food to CO2 when you ride a bicycle or do anything else that "burns calories". The point that just about everyone is missing is that the food you are burning was grown in a field only a short time earlier, and all of its carbon was taken from the CO2 in the atmosphere. All of it. So your net contribution of CO2 in that time is exactly zero.
When you burn gasoline driving a car, you're using carbon that had been buried for many millions of years. This carbon has been "out of the loop" for a very long time, and all of it counts as a net addition of CO2 (about 20 lb. per gallon of gasoline) to the modern atmosphere.
But I think that those of us who aren't sitting in the back row shooting spitballs at the smart kids - i.e., non-Republicans - Gore's statement was pretty much accurate. The Internet was not a physical invention, like routers and modems; it was an institutional one. Facilities around the country had to agree on a common set of protocols and conventions for routing information between them. Bringing ARPANET to the public took planning and legislation, and Gore understood the importance and the potential of it enough to lead the way. It wasn't just promotion and cheerleading. For this he took nothing but ridicule from the GOP, who thereby exposed themselves as a backward-looking bunch of knuckle-dragging cretins. No offense, of course, if you're one of them.
...the same people who entirely failed to foresee the biggest economic collapse most of us have ever lived through. They were handing out AAA ratings, to mortgage backed securities
This suggests that it was merely incompetence on the part of the rating companies, when outright fraud would be the more apt term. They gave out those AAA ratings not because they're boobs, but because their customers - the big investment banks - were paying them them huge fees to do just that. The fact that no one's even been investigated, let alone prosecuted, for this continues to amaze and practically guarantees a repeat performance in the future.
I didn't read any of this as an attempt to equate copyright enforcement with censorship. The problem is that the government will have the authority and the means to shut down entire websites simply because someone complains that a copyright has been enfringed. That is, there is no requirement (or even mechanism) for judicial review before an entire site is muzzled. That opens the door to Censorship with a capital-C.
It is, but only in the sense that cheaper, inexperienced coders are more likely to do it that way out of the box. But it's a mistake to assume that the software engineer who knows better is facing a tradeoff betwwen good (or reasonable) design and expeditious implementation. If you're good, you can deliver both.
It's very likely that the software licenses they bought actually require them to submit to BSA audits on request. I'll also bet they had no idea what they were agreeing to when they purchased them, or what a time-bomb they could become should their record-keeping be less than impeccable.
So, everybody run along and dredge up your proprietary software licenses and EULAs, and find out what you've agreed to. Sweet dreams!
I feel sorry for anyone that has to deal with the BSA. My condolences, but you should have chosen software without licensing issues.
A noble public service, but it's like telling hard-core smokers that cigarettes are bad for them. They bought the high-priced license-encumbered crapware-packed proprietary stuff because the salesman told them it was the best and they have no choice. They're locked in now, and will continue to use it even if it drops runny poops on their shoes every time it runs.
There aren't any salesmen out there selling FOSS, and no slick ads for it on the teevee, so they'll never even know they had alternatives.
Laughs are great, but it looks like the freetards get the last one, doesn't it?
That 20-page license agreement for your superior closed-source $oftware pretty much sets you up for this kind of invasive nonsense, and you have very little recourse. Be sure to factor that in when you're doing your comparative "cost of use" estimations. If you actually did anything like that, of course...
Given the willingness of both parties to force a default
And how would things go down if, say, only one party wanted to force a default, and that hypothetical party controlled the House of Representatives? Assume further that this party was totally ruthless and willing to go to any lengths and use any means to derail the economic "recovery" in time for the next presidential election, regardless of the harm this would do to the country and most of its citizens.
countries where identification could have serious implications for those who have expressed political views or associated themselves with others who have
In the U.S., that would come more from the private sector than the government per se. Retribution is most likely to come from employers - and potential employers even more so - who don't like your views or associations. Even when there's no explicit retribution, it leads to self-censorship as people actively seek to avoid offending the boss and otherwise practice various forms of online brown-nosing. As we learned from the blacklists of the McCarthy era, denying people the right to make a living for their political views is no less effective than throwing them in jail. And that, my friends, is why I don't do social networking.
Heh heh... Reminds me of a theory a friend of mine has. We went to several of a series of free outdoor concerts recently, and for every one - regardless of genre - they had the volume turned up so loud that we had to move back 50 yards from the stage just to hear it properly. Seriously, a folksy singer/songwriter? Turn it up to 11! His theory was that the sound guy's hearing was shot from decades of working rock concerts, and he was just setting the volume to what sounded good to him.
Cannot second this enthusiatically enough, and ditto for Nature. If you really want to be a science geek, these are the places to go. I'm no PhD - not even an MS - but I've subscribed for over 25 years and still spend about 5 or 6 hours a week reading it. I also recommend stretching yourself a little by reading some of the research papers in areas that interest you especially; over the long haul it will pay off to get beyond the baby-talk.
No knock on SciAm, New Scientist, and some of the other popular mags; they do a good job of introducing general ideas, but if you have a half-decent math background, their avoidance of math is often a real barrier to understanding, especially in the physical sciences.
No, but he did chair the committee that authorized funding for the creation of what became the internet
...and as a result has been universally taunted and mocked by ignorant Republicans, not a one of whom at the time had even the slightest clue what the internet was, let alone what it could potentially become.
Conspiracy theorists are impossible to argue with. No matter what evidence you show to the kooks they will just rationalise it away
You might say the same thing about people who make the blanket assumption that governments, corporations, and other organizations are all completely open and transparent, only operating in the light of day, and completely without hidden agendas of any kind. But that seems at least as idiotic, doesn't it? Maybe even more so, since it requires nothing but blind trust and not the minimal considerations of motivation and plausible strategy that even the kookiest conspiracy theorist has to ponder.
Sure, there are kooky conspiracy theories advanced by the kookiest of kooky kooks. But history is littered with known false-flag-type operations, and it's foolish to assume that it never happens when the potential payoff is potentially so large (particularly when wars are being started).
Less duplication? In scientific research? So instead of the replication and confirmation/expansion of results, which used to be at the foundation of the scientific method, every "experiment" or study will now be done once and its outcome accepted unquestioningly as the final word?
Clearly, all we have to do is eliminate all funding for genetics (evolution), geology, and climate research, and they'll be plenty of money left over to test all of our new weapons at least twice before putting them into the field.
How long before we here the politicians whining that Clinton's trying to outlaw roof shingles or make everyone replace their roof.
Oh lordy, that was my first thought. Conservatives in particular don't take helpful lifestyle suggestions well, especially when it comes to conserving things. That's why Cheney told us to use all of the energy we could afford, and why it was such an outrage when Michelle Obama pointed out that we could avoid getting fat and sick by eating less junk. Well, gotta go... I'm headed out to buy me a boatload of incandescent bulbs, just to show 'em who's boss.
I've been wondering about the false-flag possibility, too. These recent high-profile "national security" hacks seem like just the perfect threat to justify the kind of internet regulation that certain quarters in government would like to see imposed anyway, and for their own purposes.
It really is easier to repackage software for which you have the source code, surprise surprise.
That may be true, but there's also never any reason to download FOSS from an untrusted source (except for not knowing any better). With cracked proprietary software, untrusted sources are the only sources.
Well, in a utopia of your design you could always pay your local warlord whatever he asks for personal and property protection, contract enforcement, etc. Unlike elected governments, warlords maintain the highest principles of honor and integrity at all times, and you can be assured that your relatively poor bargaining position will never be exploited to your detriment. Were that to happen, of course, you could always take your business to a different, better warlord. That works to keep them in line because warlords will always strive to maintain a free competitive market for warlord services.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about end-users.
Well, that's a relief. I'm introducing my mother to Linux, LibreOffice, and GIMP, and having to teach her C/C++, gdb, and Git on top of that might have been a deal-breaker.
The corporate world won't put up with external dependencies like this for any number reasons
The corporate world will put up with whatever MS tells them to. You wouldn't think that exposure to possible BSA audits would be a big hit with them either, but there you go.
You've got me there.
True, you are converting food to CO2 when you ride a bicycle or do anything else that "burns calories". The point that just about everyone is missing is that the food you are burning was grown in a field only a short time earlier, and all of its carbon was taken from the CO2 in the atmosphere. All of it. So your net contribution of CO2 in that time is exactly zero.
When you burn gasoline driving a car, you're using carbon that had been buried for many millions of years. This carbon has been "out of the loop" for a very long time, and all of it counts as a net addition of CO2 (about 20 lb. per gallon of gasoline) to the modern atmosphere.
Appropriate user name, have to say.
But I think that those of us who aren't sitting in the back row shooting spitballs at the smart kids - i.e., non-Republicans - Gore's statement was pretty much accurate. The Internet was not a physical invention, like routers and modems; it was an institutional one. Facilities around the country had to agree on a common set of protocols and conventions for routing information between them. Bringing ARPANET to the public took planning and legislation, and Gore understood the importance and the potential of it enough to lead the way. It wasn't just promotion and cheerleading. For this he took nothing but ridicule from the GOP, who thereby exposed themselves as a backward-looking bunch of knuckle-dragging cretins. No offense, of course, if you're one of them.
...the same people who entirely failed to foresee the biggest economic collapse most of us have ever lived through. They were handing out AAA ratings, to mortgage backed securities
This suggests that it was merely incompetence on the part of the rating companies, when outright fraud would be the more apt term. They gave out those AAA ratings not because they're boobs, but because their customers - the big investment banks - were paying them them huge fees to do just that. The fact that no one's even been investigated, let alone prosecuted, for this continues to amaze and practically guarantees a repeat performance in the future.
I didn't read any of this as an attempt to equate copyright enforcement with censorship. The problem is that the government will have the authority and the means to shut down entire websites simply because someone complains that a copyright has been enfringed. That is, there is no requirement (or even mechanism) for judicial review before an entire site is muzzled. That opens the door to Censorship with a capital-C.
Is it truly cheaper to be sloppy ?
It is, but only in the sense that cheaper, inexperienced coders are more likely to do it that way out of the box. But it's a mistake to assume that the software engineer who knows better is facing a tradeoff betwwen good (or reasonable) design and expeditious implementation. If you're good, you can deliver both.
It's very likely that the software licenses they bought actually require them to submit to BSA audits on request. I'll also bet they had no idea what they were agreeing to when they purchased them, or what a time-bomb they could become should their record-keeping be less than impeccable.
So, everybody run along and dredge up your proprietary software licenses and EULAs, and find out what you've agreed to. Sweet dreams!
I feel sorry for anyone that has to deal with the BSA. My condolences, but you should have chosen software without licensing issues.
A noble public service, but it's like telling hard-core smokers that cigarettes are bad for them. They bought the high-priced license-encumbered crapware-packed proprietary stuff because the salesman told them it was the best and they have no choice. They're locked in now, and will continue to use it even if it drops runny poops on their shoes every time it runs.
There aren't any salesmen out there selling FOSS, and no slick ads for it on the teevee, so they'll never even know they had alternatives.
Freetards are always great for a good laugh.
Laughs are great, but it looks like the freetards get the last one, doesn't it?
That 20-page license agreement for your superior closed-source $oftware pretty much sets you up for this kind of invasive nonsense, and you have very little recourse. Be sure to factor that in when you're doing your comparative "cost of use" estimations. If you actually did anything like that, of course...
Given the willingness of both parties to force a default
And how would things go down if, say, only one party wanted to force a default, and that hypothetical party controlled the House of Representatives? Assume further that this party was totally ruthless and willing to go to any lengths and use any means to derail the economic "recovery" in time for the next presidential election, regardless of the harm this would do to the country and most of its citizens.
Both parties, indeed.
countries where identification could have serious implications for those who have expressed political views or associated themselves with others who have
In the U.S., that would come more from the private sector than the government per se. Retribution is most likely to come from employers - and potential employers even more so - who don't like your views or associations. Even when there's no explicit retribution, it leads to self-censorship as people actively seek to avoid offending the boss and otherwise practice various forms of online brown-nosing. As we learned from the blacklists of the McCarthy era, denying people the right to make a living for their political views is no less effective than throwing them in jail. And that, my friends, is why I don't do social networking.
Heh heh... Reminds me of a theory a friend of mine has. We went to several of a series of free outdoor concerts recently, and for every one - regardless of genre - they had the volume turned up so loud that we had to move back 50 yards from the stage just to hear it properly. Seriously, a folksy singer/songwriter? Turn it up to 11! His theory was that the sound guy's hearing was shot from decades of working rock concerts, and he was just setting the volume to what sounded good to him.
Cannot second this enthusiatically enough, and ditto for Nature. If you really want to be a science geek, these are the places to go. I'm no PhD - not even an MS - but I've subscribed for over 25 years and still spend about 5 or 6 hours a week reading it. I also recommend stretching yourself a little by reading some of the research papers in areas that interest you especially; over the long haul it will pay off to get beyond the baby-talk.
No knock on SciAm, New Scientist, and some of the other popular mags; they do a good job of introducing general ideas, but if you have a half-decent math background, their avoidance of math is often a real barrier to understanding, especially in the physical sciences.
No, but he did chair the committee that authorized funding for the creation of what became the internet
...and as a result has been universally taunted and mocked by ignorant Republicans, not a one of whom at the time had even the slightest clue what the internet was, let alone what it could potentially become.
Conspiracy theorists are impossible to argue with. No matter what evidence you show to the kooks they will just rationalise it away
You might say the same thing about people who make the blanket assumption that governments, corporations, and other organizations are all completely open and transparent, only operating in the light of day, and completely without hidden agendas of any kind. But that seems at least as idiotic, doesn't it? Maybe even more so, since it requires nothing but blind trust and not the minimal considerations of motivation and plausible strategy that even the kookiest conspiracy theorist has to ponder.
Sure, there are kooky conspiracy theories advanced by the kookiest of kooky kooks. But history is littered with known false-flag-type operations, and it's foolish to assume that it never happens when the potential payoff is potentially so large (particularly when wars are being started).
Less duplication? In scientific research? So instead of the replication and confirmation/expansion of results, which used to be at the foundation of the scientific method, every "experiment" or study will now be done once and its outcome accepted unquestioningly as the final word?
Clearly, all we have to do is eliminate all funding for genetics (evolution), geology, and climate research, and they'll be plenty of money left over to test all of our new weapons at least twice before putting them into the field.
How long before we here the politicians whining that Clinton's trying to outlaw roof shingles or make everyone replace their roof.
Oh lordy, that was my first thought. Conservatives in particular don't take helpful lifestyle suggestions well, especially when it comes to conserving things. That's why Cheney told us to use all of the energy we could afford, and why it was such an outrage when Michelle Obama pointed out that we could avoid getting fat and sick by eating less junk. Well, gotta go... I'm headed out to buy me a boatload of incandescent bulbs, just to show 'em who's boss.
I must have said something crazy and implausible. Apologies, and carry on...
I've been wondering about the false-flag possibility, too. These recent high-profile "national security" hacks seem like just the perfect threat to justify the kind of internet regulation that certain quarters in government would like to see imposed anyway, and for their own purposes.
If the financial services industry taught us anything, it's that fraud is perfectly legal (and even rewarded) if it's large enough...
Bitcoin has one characteristic that could make it desirable and useful. It is a non-inflatable currency.
It's deflatable as hell, though. Not sure why anyone would think it was a good idea for a growing economy.
It really is easier to repackage software for which you have the source code, surprise surprise.
That may be true, but there's also never any reason to download FOSS from an untrusted source (except for not knowing any better). With cracked proprietary software, untrusted sources are the only sources.
Well, in a utopia of your design you could always pay your local warlord whatever he asks for personal and property protection, contract enforcement, etc. Unlike elected governments, warlords maintain the highest principles of honor and integrity at all times, and you can be assured that your relatively poor bargaining position will never be exploited to your detriment. Were that to happen, of course, you could always take your business to a different, better warlord. That works to keep them in line because warlords will always strive to maintain a free competitive market for warlord services.