Worse, they won't pay to develop you by training on things you actually need to learn in order to be productive. Why? Because they're afraid as soon as we go through training that we'll jump ship for something more lucrative.
Hey managers, take a fucking clue. This is what happens when you don't train: You end up with a work crew of once basically competant guys who've given up on fighting tooth and nail for the training to learn how to do their job right, and who instead settle for half-right, half-assed work.
I don't care, I get paid by the hour, not by the job, or by how well the job is accomplished. I don't get a share of the profits. And I don't get anything close to a fair raise based on my performance. Why should I care if the company does well or take any pride in my work?
In South Korea, a deeply conformist society where children must speak to elders with a special deferential grammar...
What, you mean, like calling people "mister/missus" or "sir/ma'am"?
OK, maybe we don't go quite so far as to engrain it into our grammar but there is a "polite language" with which children (at least until recently) were expected to address adults, which could easily be labeled "deferential".
I can still remember being a kid and being taken to task for addressing adults as though they were equals. We got called brats, smart-asses and worse, sometimes physically disciplined.
So when did the US become an enlightened egalitarian anarchist society?
If I pay someone to develop some piece of code for me, and we consider that a work-for-hire, then I shouldn't have to pay for that code again, ever. I *own* that code. If I'm a real swell guy, I don't care if he gives that code away to other people. I'm magnanimous, but not stupid, so I tell the guy, look, you can only give this source code away if you make everyone you give it to promise that they will keep the code free. Now, if the people who take this free software and then try to sell it back to me, I'm going to take offense. If they want to sell me stuff that they developed at their own expense, that's their business. But if they want to use what I paid to develop, then they have to let me in on whatever improvements they add to it. Because, after all, I'm being nice and letting them use my source for free. I expect turnaround to be fair play.
If I pay taxes, and that tax money goes to pay for the development of some piece of code, then all taxpayers should never have to pay for that code again, ever. If someone develops Open/Free code using federal funds, I (and every other taxpayer) owns the code. It's a lot like all the public school teachers, the police, fire department, army, and whoever else's salary is paid for by my tax dollars.
In a non-commodity, non-commercial development model, the benefit that the software gives you is not your ability to reap profits from the masses by repackaging and selling that software, but rather your ability to use that software to do something useful.
Software is designed to do something useful. What useful thing the software is designed to do is subtly, but crucially, different in a closed-source/commercial model as opposed to an open/free model.
In other words, StarOffice (as an example) is a piece of software designed to allow you to produce word processing documents. By contrast Micro$oft Office is a piece of software designed to earn Microsoft lots of money, but as an afterthought or side-effect of that, it allows people who pay Microsoft for the privilege to use it to create word processing documents. Microsoft says there's no point to making Office if it doesn't make them money. The people who hack for StarOffice say that the point to StarOffice is to increase office productivity, and there is still a point for them to work on this project even if it doesn't earn money.
If tax dollars are being spent to fund the development of software, that benefit should be freely accessible to all who use it. Or at the very least, all who use it and pay taxes. But extending this benefit to those who don't pay taxes doesn't cost any more than the cost of a download and some blank media.
Let's see how this analogy grabs you: if I went to one of our National Parks and saw that some company had set up an admission booth just outside the entrance, and was charging people to get in at this particular entrance. Maybe you could still get in to the park through another entrance. And maybe the pay entrance entitled you to special services or additional products that the company offers you. But if all the company is selling is admission to a free park, and nothing more than that, then it's wrong. And it's extra wrong if they try to work out some arrangement whereby people who don't pay to get in at their entrance can't use the free entrances, either.
Or, maybe it's like this: I landscape my house, then I set up a toll booth on the road in front of my house, which was paved with public money, and then I charge everyone who drives by, to pay for the landscaping because everyone who drives by my house "benefits" from seeing my pretty terraces and flowers and shrubs.
And while I'm at it, since the neighbor's property values go up too, why the hell shouldn't I charge them a "living near me" fee?
He is right companies can't use it. What is the point of a company trying to sell something, which is what most companies do, when they have to, by law, release their additional work to the public for free. There can be no profit in that.
Companies can use Open-Source models; however, most (not all, remember Red Hat is a company after all) decide not to because they've decided that it's not in their interests to do so.
Companies like M$ don't take the public's interests into account here. Unless, that is, a concern over the public's interest in paying for software counts.
Look at it this way: Would the opposite of what Ballmer said be true? If government gave funding to private companies to develop closed-source software, would *that* software be available to all?
If you're shrewd enough, you could say, "Sure closed source software available to all. You just have to be willing/able to pay for it. And not want access to anything more than just the binaries."
If you're really shrewd, you'll say that if good software is available for free to everyone, it'll undermine capitalism and disrupt the economy, putting professional programmers out of work. But what's the correct answer to that problem? Are we to expect the government to prop up a software industry that is not able to come up with a viable business model without stomping all over open-source/non-commercial business models? I guess they should continue to subsidize the buggy whip industry, too.
So then, let's recap, which benefits the people the most?
Free/Open Soruce software development being funded by federal money? (An injustice in Ballmer's eyes.) Which eliminates artificial shortages, frees programmers from having to repeatedly re-invent the wheel so that they can develop new innovations, and generally lubricates the economy?
Or closed software development being funded by the government, and then in turn sold back to the people who are paying taxes to the government that's funding the development of that software? (The opposite of Ballmer's nightmare.) Because, that way, by some twisted M$-logic, if the software is closed-source, proprietary, and commercial, only then can "everyone" use it and benefit by it (as long as they have paid for a license).
I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. It'd be downright WRONG for the government to fund ANYTHING BUT open source software. With the possible exception of code that is classified as a military secret for national security reasons.
If the government is funding some project, then it doesn't have to make a profit in order to continue to improve. Because, duh, profits aren't fueling the development -- the government funding is.
The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody.
Ballmer justifies this belief by saying that "open source software is not available to companies." The hell it isn't! They can look at the source (and even use it!) just like anyone else can! They just can't take GPL'd code and add their own stuff to it without sharing those additions.
I'm so proud to be human. We can actually build a monument to our shame, letting all future generations know that we realized we were dumbasses. When did we become so enlightened? Usually we take care of shameful things by cover-ups and denial.
So, then, I guess it's OK to harass small groups of people who are enthusiastically into some hobby, but if a lot of people like to do it, then it's OK? Wouldn't it make sense to try to enact legislation to stop "mainstream" "harmful matter", as it affects a much greater proportion of the people? Going after "cults" is only going to address a very small amount of the harm being done.
Let's look at the activity itself, identify who, if anyone, it harms, and whether that harm is something that legislation could (and also whether it should) be used to stop that harm, or if the risk of harm is "reasonable" or outweighed by the benefits of that activity.
Then make sure that the legislation to prevent the harm isn't worse than the harm that it's supposed to prevent.
The best argument to make on the behalf of video games is that they are not harmful. Argue that people are responsible for their own decisions and actions. Punish murderers; not the publisher of "Murder for Dummies".
Does advertising work? It depends on what you want it to achieve.
I don't see anyone challenging the viability of print, television, or radio ads. But I can't remember a single time when I saw something advertised, dropped everything I was doing, and ran out immediately and bought that item.
So why is it that you expect that I'm going to buy something just because I see a link to it from some webpage I'm visiting?
I also don't buy products in order to reward them for sponsoring a content provider I happen to like. Advertisers think they subsidize popular entertainment, which
If I buy something, I buy it because I need it or because I want it and also because I know it exists. Advertising can't tell me if I need something. Most advertising does a lousy job in telling me why I should want something. Aside from infomercials, most advertising these days doesn't try to tell me why I should want something at all. But one thing that advertising does a pretty good job of is letting me know that some product exists.
Advertisers should also know that the world was saturated with advertising and people clamoring for my money long before the internet ever came into existance, and simply providing more room for advertising via the invention of cyberspace won't give me any more dollars in my wallet to spend on stuff. I'm already spending at the highest rate that I can sustain with my income. You've got to learn that there's a such thing as diminishing returns.
Great idea. Next time the boss tucks two grand in my pocket and sends me off to asia I'll be sure to pick up a new wardrobe. Maybe I can even bring back some nice servant girls to keep around the house.
Dress according to the new dress code. But wear the most hideous examples of what fits their code you can find.
Ask Elton John if you can borrow his '70's wardrobe. Hire a colorblind fashion consultant. You're geeks, dress like geeks! Look like complete losers with no fashion sense. That'll show the PHBs.
Make sure everyone else does the same. And make sure they can't figure out who initiated the undermining of the dress code.
A better reason to quarantine the samples would be to preserve them from earth-bound contaminants. If you don't seal your Mars dust and a few weeks after it arrives on earth you see stuff growing in it, you think, "Oh, my Mars dust now has Earth mold on it." But if it's in a sealed and quarantined container and grows something, you think, "Aha! So Mars has living things on it!"
One of your better book reviews, Jon. Nice going. You've summarized FFN quite well. But hey, everyone, it's still worth going out and reading. Don't settle for just the soundbites. They're the fast-food equivalent of thinking... or something.
My pain's in my neck... going through a bout of it right now in fact. Lots of rest, sometimes painkillers and muscle relaxers, and I'll spend a few days in a neck brace to take the strain off. Probably should exercise to strengthen the muscles in my neck, but no one will pay me to do that, and I never have any time to do things unless I'm being paid for it... It's a shame that I can't take care of my own body, but being at peak physical health isn't in the best interests of the collective...
As long as it's a non-exclusive license, who cares? I mean, if they didn't have the ability to do this, then how could they archive usenet? As long as Google doesn't try to tell other archivers that they can't keep copies for their own purposes, I don't see a problem here.
Still, I wonder what would happen if someone tried to assert copyright and ownership over their own usenet posts. Could you append a (C) notice in your.sig and expect that to stand up in a court somewhere? Could you fire off a cease and desist order to Usenet servers and archives the world over demanding that your posts be removed and deleted? What about individuals who might happen to keep a personal copy of your post for whatever reason?
I guess the really big question is how much are they going to charge you for the service of erasing the historical record of your public speech? And, once this sort of revisionism becomes a commodity that anyone can buy, who'll be the biggest spenders?
----
At least we still have the NASA probe...
on
Voyager Eulogy
·
· Score: 1
When I first caught this headline, I thought it was about the death of the NASA probe of the same name. I'm pleased to hear that it's just the TV show that's going bye-bye.
I think that the old arguments in defense of music sharing were best.
The music industry is a bunch of blood-sucking leeches who exploit and destroy artistic talent.
The music industry is a bunch of blood-sucking leeches who exploit the mass market by keeping prices way above what they should be if the market was open.
Copyright laws have been corrupted so that the benefit private/corporate interests, not the public interest. Our modern culture is increasingly, almost entirely, owned and controlled by an elite who hold power by virtue of the unnatural scarcity created by copyright law.
In accordance with the audio home recording act, I am allowed to copy and use the content of my CD collection for personal use, including copying and giving the copy to a friend. Thanks to the internet, I now have a lot of friends.
You can't stop someone from listening to the radio and recording radio broadcasts for free. The same principal is involved with internet-based P2P filesharing. Perhaps the people who run servers should have to pay royalties to the artists, just as radio stations do, but the people who actually download the songs and save them to their HDD or burn them to CD-R ought to be able to do so free of charge. It's up to those who run the servers, then, to find a way to generate income from the trafic visiting the site. Commercial endorsement has worked with radio; it's just a matter of finding a means of getting it to work with the internet, and then making sure that the artists are compensated fairly, then there should be nothing objectionable about P2P sharing of copyrighted materials.
Some (though probably not many) of the songs traded are in the public domain.
It's a great way to promote music on a grassroots level, and probably helps the industry rather than harms it.
First thing I'm going to do is map Ctrl-Alt-Del to the muscle movements involved in me giving someone "the finger." Now, when I get the BSOD, I won't have to do anything special to get it to restart.
They present you with an agreement they want you to sign, saying that they won't pay you what they're already obligated by contract to pay, and that by signing the agreement you agree not to sue them for further breaches of contract?
Gee, I guess maybe you better think twice before signing it. I'd tell them to shove the contract up their ass, then turn around and sue them for what they owe you and for breach of contract. Then I'd go hunting for a new business partner. Good luck.
The only way they can prevent you from seizing their assets is if they file for bankruptcy. Which, it sounds as though they'll probably do that soon. But don't sign something amounting to a forgiveness of all future debts. Hold them to the contract you already have with them. And if they go out of business, well that's business.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey managers, take a fucking clue. This is what happens when you don't train: You end up with a work crew of once basically competant guys who've given up on fighting tooth and nail for the training to learn how to do their job right, and who instead settle for half-right, half-assed work.
I don't care, I get paid by the hour, not by the job, or by how well the job is accomplished. I don't get a share of the profits. And I don't get anything close to a fair raise based on my performance. Why should I care if the company does well or take any pride in my work?
I feel myself growing stupider day by day...
Beware! Running it will bring about the end of the world!
* Well, that and the big headline at the top of the page...
Whereas, in English, such things are only conveyed through diction and tone of voice. Thank god we're so much better!
Quote from the article:
What, you mean, like calling people "mister/missus" or "sir/ma'am"?
OK, maybe we don't go quite so far as to engrain it into our grammar but there is a "polite language" with which children (at least until recently) were expected to address adults, which could easily be labeled "deferential".
I can still remember being a kid and being taken to task for addressing adults as though they were equals. We got called brats, smart-asses and worse, sometimes physically disciplined.
So when did the US become an enlightened egalitarian anarchist society?
They must be big George Lucas fans, if they're adopting Ewok technology to fight the evil empire...
Maybe now Robert Johnson can sue the RIAA for all the artists who have ever ripped off the blues to make commercia rock n roll.
I'm pretty sure I got the point...
If I pay someone to develop some piece of code for me, and we consider that a work-for-hire, then I shouldn't have to pay for that code again, ever. I *own* that code. If I'm a real swell guy, I don't care if he gives that code away to other people. I'm magnanimous, but not stupid, so I tell the guy, look, you can only give this source code away if you make everyone you give it to promise that they will keep the code free. Now, if the people who take this free software and then try to sell it back to me, I'm going to take offense. If they want to sell me stuff that they developed at their own expense, that's their business. But if they want to use what I paid to develop, then they have to let me in on whatever improvements they add to it. Because, after all, I'm being nice and letting them use my source for free. I expect turnaround to be fair play.
If I pay taxes, and that tax money goes to pay for the development of some piece of code, then all taxpayers should never have to pay for that code again, ever. If someone develops Open/Free code using federal funds, I (and every other taxpayer) owns the code. It's a lot like all the public school teachers, the police, fire department, army, and whoever else's salary is paid for by my tax dollars.
In a non-commodity, non-commercial development model, the benefit that the software gives you is not your ability to reap profits from the masses by repackaging and selling that software, but rather your ability to use that software to do something useful.
Software is designed to do something useful. What useful thing the software is designed to do is subtly, but crucially, different in a closed-source/commercial model as opposed to an open/free model.
In other words, StarOffice (as an example) is a piece of software designed to allow you to produce word processing documents. By contrast Micro$oft Office is a piece of software designed to earn Microsoft lots of money, but as an afterthought or side-effect of that, it allows people who pay Microsoft for the privilege to use it to create word processing documents. Microsoft says there's no point to making Office if it doesn't make them money. The people who hack for StarOffice say that the point to StarOffice is to increase office productivity, and there is still a point for them to work on this project even if it doesn't earn money.
If tax dollars are being spent to fund the development of software, that benefit should be freely accessible to all who use it. Or at the very least, all who use it and pay taxes. But extending this benefit to those who don't pay taxes doesn't cost any more than the cost of a download and some blank media.
Let's see how this analogy grabs you: if I went to one of our National Parks and saw that some company had set up an admission booth just outside the entrance, and was charging people to get in at this particular entrance. Maybe you could still get in to the park through another entrance. And maybe the pay entrance entitled you to special services or additional products that the company offers you. But if all the company is selling is admission to a free park, and nothing more than that, then it's wrong. And it's extra wrong if they try to work out some arrangement whereby people who don't pay to get in at their entrance can't use the free entrances, either.
Or, maybe it's like this: I landscape my house, then I set up a toll booth on the road in front of my house, which was paved with public money, and then I charge everyone who drives by, to pay for the landscaping because everyone who drives by my house "benefits" from seeing my pretty terraces and flowers and shrubs.
And while I'm at it, since the neighbor's property values go up too, why the hell shouldn't I charge them a "living near me" fee?
Companies can use Open-Source models; however, most (not all, remember Red Hat is a company after all) decide not to because they've decided that it's not in their interests to do so.
Companies like M$ don't take the public's interests into account here. Unless, that is, a concern over the public's interest in paying for software counts.
Look at it this way: Would the opposite of what Ballmer said be true? If government gave funding to private companies to develop closed-source software, would *that* software be available to all?
If you're shrewd enough, you could say, "Sure closed source software available to all. You just have to be willing/able to pay for it. And not want access to anything more than just the binaries."
If you're really shrewd, you'll say that if good software is available for free to everyone, it'll undermine capitalism and disrupt the economy, putting professional programmers out of work. But what's the correct answer to that problem? Are we to expect the government to prop up a software industry that is not able to come up with a viable business model without stomping all over open-source/non-commercial business models? I guess they should continue to subsidize the buggy whip industry, too.
So then, let's recap, which benefits the people the most?
I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. It'd be downright WRONG for the government to fund ANYTHING BUT open source software. With the possible exception of code that is classified as a military secret for national security reasons.
If the government is funding some project, then it doesn't have to make a profit in order to continue to improve. Because, duh, profits aren't fueling the development -- the government funding is.
The quote at the bottom of this page reads, "One planet is all you get."
Ballmer justifies this belief by saying that "open source software is not available to companies." The hell it isn't! They can look at the source (and even use it!) just like anyone else can! They just can't take GPL'd code and add their own stuff to it without sharing those additions.
What a bunch of bull.
I'm so proud to be human. We can actually build a monument to our shame, letting all future generations know that we realized we were dumbasses. When did we become so enlightened? Usually we take care of shameful things by cover-ups and denial.
So, then, I guess it's OK to harass small groups of people who are enthusiastically into some hobby, but if a lot of people like to do it, then it's OK? Wouldn't it make sense to try to enact legislation to stop "mainstream" "harmful matter", as it affects a much greater proportion of the people? Going after "cults" is only going to address a very small amount of the harm being done.
Let's look at the activity itself, identify who, if anyone, it harms, and whether that harm is something that legislation could (and also whether it should) be used to stop that harm, or if the risk of harm is "reasonable" or outweighed by the benefits of that activity.
Then make sure that the legislation to prevent the harm isn't worse than the harm that it's supposed to prevent.
The best argument to make on the behalf of video games is that they are not harmful. Argue that people are responsible for their own decisions and actions. Punish murderers; not the publisher of "Murder for Dummies".
For more stupidity, be sure to read This.
Does advertising work? It depends on what you want it to achieve.
I don't see anyone challenging the viability of print, television, or radio ads. But I can't remember a single time when I saw something advertised, dropped everything I was doing, and ran out immediately and bought that item.
So why is it that you expect that I'm going to buy something just because I see a link to it from some webpage I'm visiting?
I also don't buy products in order to reward them for sponsoring a content provider I happen to like. Advertisers think they subsidize popular entertainment, which
If I buy something, I buy it because I need it or because I want it and also because I know it exists. Advertising can't tell me if I need something. Most advertising does a lousy job in telling me why I should want something. Aside from infomercials, most advertising these days doesn't try to tell me why I should want something at all. But one thing that advertising does a pretty good job of is letting me know that some product exists.
Advertisers should also know that the world was saturated with advertising and people clamoring for my money long before the internet ever came into existance, and simply providing more room for advertising via the invention of cyberspace won't give me any more dollars in my wallet to spend on stuff. I'm already spending at the highest rate that I can sustain with my income. You've got to learn that there's a such thing as diminishing returns.
Great idea. Next time the boss tucks two grand in my pocket and sends me off to asia I'll be sure to pick up a new wardrobe. Maybe I can even bring back some nice servant girls to keep around the house.
Ask Elton John if you can borrow his '70's wardrobe. Hire a colorblind fashion consultant. You're geeks, dress like geeks! Look like complete losers with no fashion sense. That'll show the PHBs.
Make sure everyone else does the same. And make sure they can't figure out who initiated the undermining of the dress code.
A better reason to quarantine the samples would be to preserve them from earth-bound contaminants. If you don't seal your Mars dust and a few weeks after it arrives on earth you see stuff growing in it, you think, "Oh, my Mars dust now has Earth mold on it." But if it's in a sealed and quarantined container and grows something, you think, "Aha! So Mars has living things on it!"
One of your better book reviews, Jon. Nice going. You've summarized FFN quite well. But hey, everyone, it's still worth going out and reading. Don't settle for just the soundbites. They're the fast-food equivalent of thinking... or something.
My pain's in my neck... going through a bout of it right now in fact. Lots of rest, sometimes painkillers and muscle relaxers, and I'll spend a few days in a neck brace to take the strain off. Probably should exercise to strengthen the muscles in my neck, but no one will pay me to do that, and I never have any time to do things unless I'm being paid for it... It's a shame that I can't take care of my own body, but being at peak physical health isn't in the best interests of the collective...
As long as it's a non-exclusive license, who cares? I mean, if they didn't have the ability to do this, then how could they archive usenet? As long as Google doesn't try to tell other archivers that they can't keep copies for their own purposes, I don't see a problem here.
Still, I wonder what would happen if someone tried to assert copyright and ownership over their own usenet posts. Could you append a (C) notice in your .sig and expect that to stand up in a court somewhere? Could you fire off a cease and desist order to Usenet servers and archives the world over demanding that your posts be removed and deleted? What about individuals who might happen to keep a personal copy of your post for whatever reason?
I guess the really big question is how much are they going to charge you for the service of erasing the historical record of your public speech? And, once this sort of revisionism becomes a commodity that anyone can buy, who'll be the biggest spenders?
----
When I first caught this headline, I thought it was about the death of the NASA probe of the same name. I'm pleased to hear that it's just the TV show that's going bye-bye.
Capitalism + Communism = ...Dynamic Pricing?
Each customer pays according to his ability in order to get the hardware that each customer needs.
Hmm, I think I just killed Dynamic Pricing in the Western Hemisphere.
I think that the old arguments in defense of music sharing were best.
First thing I'm going to do is map Ctrl-Alt-Del to the muscle movements involved in me giving someone "the finger." Now, when I get the BSOD, I won't have to do anything special to get it to restart.
Gee, I guess maybe you better think twice before signing it. I'd tell them to shove the contract up their ass, then turn around and sue them for what they owe you and for breach of contract. Then I'd go hunting for a new business partner. Good luck.
The only way they can prevent you from seizing their assets is if they file for bankruptcy. Which, it sounds as though they'll probably do that soon. But don't sign something amounting to a forgiveness of all future debts. Hold them to the contract you already have with them. And if they go out of business, well that's business.
That's no tenth planet... that's a battlestation!