The poster doesn't say if he had/has any stock
options or vested options.
If so, then there may be SEC regulations under
which his public discussions could fall.
IANAL, but I do know that "internal"
information is quite a tricky subject. One non-public company I know recently informed their
employees that they cannot discuss anything
regarding the size of the company, the head-count
growth/shrinkage, non-PR'ed contracts, etc... right now, specifically due to potential
SEC-type filings.
Slightly off topic, and not to start a flame-war,
but Bin Laden is to Islam as Karesh was
to Christianity. Both use religion as an excuse,
not a cause. Islam, which is built on
Judeo-Christian roots, is just as much (or more?)
a religion of peace as its predecesors.
It's kind of funny (but not too funny) how the
Western World is as afraid of technology they
don't understand (crypto) as they are of cultures
they don't understand.
...just because you leave. A company is much more than one person. It doesn't matter if the key architect of the product nor the original inventor nor the CEO nor the janitor leaves, the company will survive...
...unless it will die. In which case it will die whether you stay or not.
If the company is worth anything at all, they can bring in talent to get the next generation out the door, or they can cut right back on existing staff and stay in maintenance mode until the get bought up.
If the company truly is headed in the wrong direction and you haven't been given the power to steer it elsewhere, then it's going over the cliff.
My former employer has gone from an R&D staff of more than 50 to less than 10 in the past year. They were radically re-architecting the "next generation" of the product line, and wanted to be up to over 75 developers by this time.
Instead, after losing a number of KEY people, they have cut back on the next generation functionality, cut back on staffing in other parts of the company, dropped a bunch of dead-weight products. They'll keep surviving until the bucks run out. It doesn't matter who leaves.
I can't completely agree with what you are saying.
There are certainly valid reasons to be against
particular companies which is outside of the
realm of "free vs. non-free" and/or "open vs.
non-open".
Instead of it being an irrational dislike
it can be a boycot. Maybe that person
doesn't
like the fact that a particular company is
non-standards compliant (or worse,
anti-standards). Maybe they don't like other
aspects of that company, for example suppose its corporate
umbrella includes other companies which violate
human rights or environmental regulations, etc.
I'm not saying this is the case with any particular company. I'm just pointing out that there are people out there who are willing to run Linux, choose to run non-Free and/or non-Open software, and still have rationale to their decisions.
According to the submitted website, it appears that RMS said:
Do you know anyone who has an idea of what SONY's real motives are for this secrecy?
This is the crux of the entire argument regarding "free(dom)" of the project. Why, oh why, is it that Sony would not want someone to release Free code that runs on their platform?
Why?
Is it an argument for the almighty buck? Is it a historical corporate paranoia? Is it that their technology is so weak that simply seeing a bunch of API calls will allow competition to surpass them?
I am considering getting a PS2. Now I am drastically having to reconsider. And I'm not joking.
Are you saying that if we have the technology to make people's lives dramatically better, we should withhold it from some of them to add a little "flavor" for the rest of us?
I didn't get this sentiment from the article at all, though I can see this interpretation. I think Jon was highlighting that the possibility is of a world which may be homogenized.
The concern I have is that in "slightly modifying" a gene here and a gene there that we might accidentally remove traits from the population for which we don't measure (or for which we can't measure!).
By removing certain "issues" from the genetic chaos which is life, we will explicitly remove other characteristics of the human body, but we may implicitly remove characteristics of the human spirit.
We might pick up on changes to the human body (brain, brawn, whatever) and make various adjustments.
What truly concerns me is that we may remove something of the human spirit for which we could not recover.
What about setting up a Donations website for your favourite, cash-strapped charity?
The original question was about what we could do with our computer skills to help charities. Most charities have difficulties getting donations. If there was an easy (online) way to donate, then a simple ad campaign could bring in cash from the (relatively wealthy) online community.
their in the audit logs, the system logs... everywhere. The IT industry knows the importance of this concept
I guarantee you that I can configure a UNIX box
(or an NT box) that would put all of the information into the logs...and would still be impossible for someone to comprehend in a reasonable amount of time.
The ability to reverse-engineer something does not negate the need to have a documented and well-understood system.
When I ask someone how a particular feature in our product works, I do not want "read the code" as an answer, even though I am a developer on the same product.
honestly, I know of just about NO college students that "try before they buy". We use Napster, download tons of songs and burn mixes. Everyone knows that there are very few albums that contain all hit songs...
Maybe it is the hit songs that muck up the stats. I suspect that if you are downloading solely boom-chick-a-boom tunes, that you are not a "music-lover", but a fashion fanatic.
I have non-mainstream music tastes. When I started listening to downloaded music, I immediately found some stuff which I would not have otherwise given a chance in a music store. I have purchased at least 10 CDs in the past year which I only found through the 'Net (I typically only buy 2-3 CDs nowdays, since they stopped making music back in 1987...;-)
I wouldn't use a lack of purchasing of boom-boom music as being a good indicator of the overall purchasing power of people who want Good Music.
Bottom Line? Attention MBA's: Leave the IT depts alone! We know what the fuck we are doing, YOU DO NOT, if you did, youd be a member of the IT DEPT. Computer Systems have a basic 'trueness' about them that defy your 'underlying principles of operation' - they operate the same in whatever company is employing them.
However, computers do not operate the same way when either (a) poor admins, or (b) multiple admins work on the systems without proper procedure.
A formal procedure is necessary in any organization that wants reliable, reproducible results. The process may not need a 4-letter buzz-acronym thingy, but it needs to be something that everyone in your group knows, appreciates and follows.
You can be UNIX-god, or whatever, but the ultimate risk in any group (including IT departments) is Bus Risk: The risk of lost time and energy if someone key to your organization is hit by a Bus.
Learn to lower the Bus Risk. If things aren't documented and/or procedures not followed, then everything that someone does needs to be reverse-engineered if that Bus comes along. (Bus, of course, needn't be a big metallic object...it could be a head-hunter...or worse!)
Slashdot Mirror
If so, then there may be SEC regulations under which his public discussions could fall.
IANAL, but I do know that "internal" information is quite a tricky subject. One non-public company I know recently informed their employees that they cannot discuss anything regarding the size of the company, the head-count growth/shrinkage, non-PR'ed contracts, etc... right now, specifically due to potential SEC-type filings.
It's kind of funny (but not too funny) how the Western World is as afraid of technology they don't understand (crypto) as they are of cultures they don't understand.
If the company is worth anything at all, they can bring in talent to get the next generation out the door, or they can cut right back on existing staff and stay in maintenance mode until the get bought up.
If the company truly is headed in the wrong direction and you haven't been given the power to steer it elsewhere, then it's going over the cliff.
My former employer has gone from an R&D staff of more than 50 to less than 10 in the past year. They were radically re-architecting the "next generation" of the product line, and wanted to be up to over 75 developers by this time.
Instead, after losing a number of KEY people, they have cut back on the next generation functionality, cut back on staffing in other parts of the company, dropped a bunch of dead-weight products. They'll keep surviving until the bucks run out. It doesn't matter who leaves.
Get out if that is what is best for YOU.
Instead of it being an irrational dislike it can be a boycot. Maybe that person doesn't like the fact that a particular company is non-standards compliant (or worse, anti-standards). Maybe they don't like other aspects of that company, for example suppose its corporate umbrella includes other companies which violate human rights or environmental regulations, etc.
I'm not saying this is the case with any particular company. I'm just pointing out that there are people out there who are willing to run Linux, choose to run non-Free and/or non-Open software, and still have rationale to their decisions.
This is the crux of the entire argument regarding "free(dom)" of the project. Why, oh why, is it that Sony would not want someone to release Free code that runs on their platform?
Why?
Is it an argument for the almighty buck?
Is it a historical corporate paranoia?
Is it that their technology is so weak that simply seeing a bunch of API calls will allow competition to surpass them?
I am considering getting a PS2. Now I am drastically having to reconsider. And I'm not joking.
I didn't get this sentiment from the article at all, though I can see this interpretation. I think Jon was highlighting that the possibility is of a world which may be homogenized.
The concern I have is that in "slightly modifying" a gene here and a gene there that we might accidentally remove traits from the population for which we don't measure (or for which we can't measure!).
By removing certain "issues" from the genetic chaos which is life, we will explicitly remove other characteristics of the human body, but we may implicitly remove characteristics of the human spirit.
We might pick up on changes to the human body (brain, brawn, whatever) and make various adjustments.
What truly concerns me is that we may remove something of the human spirit for which we could not recover.
The original question was about what we could do with our computer skills to help charities. Most charities have difficulties getting donations. If there was an easy (online) way to donate, then a simple ad campaign could bring in cash from the (relatively wealthy) online community.
I guarantee you that I can configure a UNIX box (or an NT box) that would put all of the information into the logs...and would still be impossible for someone to comprehend in a reasonable amount of time.
The ability to reverse-engineer something does not negate the need to have a documented and well-understood system.
When I ask someone how a particular feature in our product works, I do not want "read the code" as an answer, even though I am a developer on the same product.
Maybe it is the hit songs that muck up the stats. I suspect that if you are downloading solely boom-chick-a-boom tunes, that you are not a "music-lover", but a fashion fanatic.
I have non-mainstream music tastes. When I started listening to downloaded music, I immediately found some stuff which I would not have otherwise given a chance in a music store. I have purchased at least 10 CDs in the past year which I only found through the 'Net (I typically only buy 2-3 CDs nowdays, since they stopped making music back in 1987... ;-)
I wouldn't use a lack of purchasing of boom-boom music as being a good indicator of the overall purchasing power of people who want Good Music.
However, computers do not operate the same way when either (a) poor admins, or (b) multiple admins work on the systems without proper procedure.
A formal procedure is necessary in any organization that wants reliable, reproducible results. The process may not need a 4-letter buzz-acronym thingy, but it needs to be something that everyone in your group knows, appreciates and follows .
You can be UNIX-god, or whatever, but the ultimate risk in any group (including IT departments) is Bus Risk: The risk of lost time and energy if someone key to your organization is hit by a Bus.
Learn to lower the Bus Risk. If things aren't documented and/or procedures not followed, then everything that someone does needs to be reverse-engineered if that Bus comes along. (Bus, of course, needn't be a big metallic object...it could be a head-hunter...or worse!)