A classic example is probably tanks and perhaps armored personnel carriers. A tank can do a *lot* of damage even if it lacks a functional gun, as a rogue tank in San Diego(?) showed, and the cops find it impossible to stop. When's the last time you saw a tank for sale?
There are some tanks for sale at here. Admittedly, the ad is a bit sketchy but it was the first one I found and I didn't want to spend more than a couple of minutes looking.
If you follow the URL back up, you will find that there are all sorts of interesting military vehicles for sale there including some armored cars.
BTW: a friend of mine used to own a White half-track and while a half-track is a long way from a tank, it can go pretty much where you want in traffic!:-) Yes, it had the rubberized tracks for use on asphalt.
Actually, I see the same site as above has a White half-track for sale here. This one only has "4-50 cal repo machine guns" but assuming "repo" means "reproduction", you could get real machine guns if you wanted!
The Citadel wanted the benefits of tax dollars without incurring the associated obligations. Shannon Faulkner made sure that if women were going to pay for the Citadel, that women could attend.
I just don't see why acceptance by endusers is an objective that needs (or should) to be catered to.
Linux should develop in its own direction as the developers involved personally see fit. Anyone who likes this (and many seem to) can get on board. Anyone who doesn't like this can get off whenever they like.
This is not to say that there shouldn't be distributions that are "user-friendly", it is just that core development should always be motivated by technical reasons.
If there becomes a FOO distribution that forks off in an effort to become something more commercially viable and this distribution eventually becomes incompatible with mainstream Linux development, then I say that the management of FOO doesn't understand Free Software and has thrown away a primary benefit.
If you think about it, catering to endusers is what led to Windows.
In South Carolina if you buy a used car from an individual, you have to pay 5% sales tax on it when you transfer the registration, even though it is as USED car bought from an INDIVIDUAL.
Some years ago the state sales tax in South Carolina was raised 25% from 4% to 5%. They were able to convince people that this was a 1% increase in their tax burden!
The increased revenue from the higher sales tax could only be spent on education (as in Holling's latest proposal). However, a few years later they ammended the law so they could start spending the money on other things. I guess if they spent too much on education, the public might start being able to do the math!
I was researching this a little and, so far, the clearest thing I have found is at Fairfield and Woods, P.C. where they say that video surveillance is probably legal without notifying the observed so long as the "contents" of any communication are not recorded. This is talked about in a section called Video surveillance about half way down the page.
This is quite an interesting subject. I suspect that in the near future (20 minutes from now?) people will have to assume that they are being recorded most of the time.
I wonder how such laws apply to "conventional" security monitoring? Very often those cameras are positioned so as to not be obtrusive and as a result, the observed might claim to be unaware.
In some senses the "Linux Community" isn't real but merely the latest incarnation of a community of instinctive engineers (aka "hackers") whose members, and fields of interest, come and go with time.
In the 1900s we would have been flyers, in the 1920s we would have been radio operators, in the 1930s we would have been experimental rocketeers, in the 1960s and 1970s some of us were building electronic devices. I hope in the near future we will be nanotechs.
The point is that "this too shall pass". The "Linux Industry" will end up "taking over" but only because we will have voluntarily moved on to more exciting and cutting edge areas. It is illogical to worry about the inevitable. Put that energy into new hacks instead.
There is a third theory that can be considered in this case: it was all a smoke screen to hide the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup as the sweetener. By the time Coke came "back" no one remembered what the original really tasted like and so the switch was complete.
Supposedly you can still get Coke with cane sugar in containers marked as Kosher during Passover as corn products are not allowed.
Is there anyone out there familiar with Jewish traditions who can comment on this?
We should remember that MP3 is a file format. As to whether or not a particular instance of a file conforming to the MP3 format is or is not a copyright violation, that depends on the copyright associated with that instance.
Often it is forgotten that in the field of science True means "not inconsistent with currently accepted theories".
This is not a cause for confusion so long as it is remembered that the rules governing the acceptance of theories boil down to reproduciblity and simplicity.
Unfortunately, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that (for example) cause and effect are only illusions caused by something we don't yet perceive (or can't). If this suggestion is accepted, then reproducibility is a moot point.
It is also reasonable to question the metric of simplicity. The reason simplicity appeals to us is because it makes our lives easier.
For example, it is possible to design a geocentric universe but the resulting mathematics are so complicated that nothing useful can be derived (such as what trajectory to use to launch a probe to the moon). Therefore, we reject a geocentric universe as False.
Unfortunately, we use the same words True and False in daily conversation where they have quite different meanings. For example, "Is it true that Bill Clinton is a liar?".
Science really has nothing to do with Truth, it has a lot to do with Usefulness.
My problem with this sort of thing is that, once again, it presupposes that the average consumer is too stupid to spend his money wisely and requires some sort of Big Brother to tell him (for a "small" administrative fee) what he can and cannot buy.
If consumers were really concerned about software reliability, they wouldn't buy the software that they do (I am not talking about operating systems which are largely imposed on the consumer, I am talking about applications). The fact is that consumers are relatively happy with what they are getting and regard it as reasonable value for the price. We as developers are upset about software unreliability because we know what is possible but no one else really cares.
For about a year now I have had a one year guarantee on the software I write. It says that if the consumer finds a bug during that period I will fix it for free. Guess how many people saw that guarantee and went Wow! Now that is the sort of guarantee I want! ? NONE!
Go ahead, ask any end user which they would rather have: the software they've got that crashes every once in a while or software that is guaranteed to never crash for twice the price with half the features. I have a full year's worth of empirical data that says they would rather have the cheap software (and no, my software is not twice the price and I will include any feature that does not compromise reliability).
One last thing, the reason that electrical items are required to have a UL sticker is because a faulty electrical item will kill you. A faulty game or word processor is just annoying.
#ifdef SENSE_OF_HUMOR How about everyone forwarding all the SPAM they receive to their government officials with polite requests that something be done about it? #endif
Re: point #1: You said no one would have the "itch" to write a Free ERP package. An announcement is all that is needed to disprove that. The fact that there is no code is irrelevant.
Re: point #2: is a question which asks me to engage in conjecture, not a statement with which I can agree or disagree.
Re: point #3: As to the fact that the announcement says that they are targetting small to medium sized companies is irrelevant. You are trying to narrow your original definitions.
Also, there seems to still be some confusion between "Free" and "free". "Free" means that users are not restricted in what they do with the software. "free" means for no remuneration. As I said, I write Free software that is not free.
Finally, thanks but this this not my project. When I read your original letter I thought "that can't be right" so I went to Dogpile and searched for "GPL" and "ERP". The project announcement was the first item that came up.
By the way, the first two people I mentioned this project to develop banking software during the day and have already written at least one general ledger. They are both enthusiastic about the possibilities and asked me to send them copies of the announcement.
Why are they interested? Because they see an opportunity to collaborate with others for "free" to produce a base package they don't have the resources to complete themselves which they are then "Free" to customize for paying customers.
The reason that the customer will be willing to pay for Free software from a small company rather than SAP/BAAN/PeopleSoft is that for the comparitively small price of some custom programming (and as you pointed out, all ERP packages require customization) they meet their needs and have complete control over their futures.
The fact that they have the source code frees the company from being at the mercy of a vendor. For example, support cannot be used as a lever to coerce them into pointless and expensive upgrades. Instead, the company can play one consulting firm off another to get the best deal.
The first is that ideas do not spring into the world from nowhere. At the very least there is a lost opportunity cost to the thinker as the time spent generating the idea could have been spent elsewhere. Therefore, ideas are not "free" as in "free beer". The fact that ideas can be reproduced at no cost must not overshadow the fact that they cannot be produced at no cost.
Second, ideas are often of very little use without a considerable amount of effort being put into the expression of that idea. For example, Hero demonstrated the idea of a steam engine but it took a lot more effort to make something useful from it.
I find myself in the peculiar and uncomfortable position of defending those who support the concepts of patents and copyrights. Perhaps those institutions are not completely bankrupt but can be salvaged through modification.
I suspect that the first place to seek to modify these systems is in the length of time that the protection is in place. My understanding is that the purpose of these systems is to provide reasonable compensation to those who produce the work. The issues then become "What is 'reasonable compensation'?", "How can 'reasonable compensation' be determined?", and "How can 'reasonable compensation' be delivered to the creator?".
The second place to consider modifying these systems is to be more rigorous in the care taken in defining what is being protected. The protection is to enable the creator to collect compensation on his production, not on the production of others.
On the other hand, while I think the statements above are true, it may be that the greatest compensation to the thinkers and developers of ideas is perhaps in the more abstract concept of making the world a better place for all. I.e., the "stone soup" model.
I was quite certain that I was right so I went out and searched on the web. Eventually I found this URL where it says: The labs made the software available to academic institutions at a very small charge. For example, John Lions, a faculty member in the Department of Computer Science at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, reported that his school was able to acquire a copy of research UNIX Edition 5 for $150 ($110 Australian) in December, 1974, including tape and manuals. (See "An Interview with John Lions," in Unix Review, October, 1985, pg. 51)
Hear! Hear! Also, wasn't the "nominal fee" for getting an AT&T UNIX license about $100,000 (not to mention inflationary adjustments) even for a university? That is hardly "Free"!
ESR has a strange attitude about all of this. When OpenSource.Org first advertised that they wanted to hear from companies providing Linux support I wrote to him about my company. He asked why I had written. I pointed out that he had asked about companies like mine. At that point he wrote back and basically said "I meant real companies -- those with more than $10M/year in revenues".
There is little doubt that ESR's agenda is self promotion whereas RMS's has always been software and the betterment of the world.
Many people try to re-write history. We need to be vigilent.
I don't think it necessarily solves the problem for binaries-only software releases the article was addressing.
That having been said, I have to take this opportunity to say that I also like the FreeBSD approach. From what I have seen it gives you the most flexibility and control. I like its source-oriented approach (ah, the Good Old Days when everything was source only!). I would prefer a FreeBSD-like Linux distribution to those currently available.
Yes, the actual "meat" of the article (or at least, the part I thought most interesting) was only in paragraphs 8 through 10 which referred to the ideas of Dr. Frederick of the U. of Pittsbugh.
I thought that some of the extrapolation by Petzinger of those ideas was a little far fetched.
Very interesting article. Seen WSJ page B1 today?
on
World Without Walls
·
· Score: 1
The question raised in response to this article by many readers here is "What walls should come down?".
Interestingly enough, the "Wall Street Journal" on page B1 today has an article that is relevant (especially starting with paragraph 8). In the article it is postulated that the fundamental guiding force for all organisms (organic and others such as corporations and societies) is energy efficiency (i.e., losing the battle against entropy as slowly as possible).
While I may disagree with some of the details in the WSJ article, it does raise the interesting question "Can we use energy efficiency as a metric for consciously organizing our society?".
How is this relevant to the article "Word Without Walls"? Isn't the Internet changing the energy consumption profile of the world?
I can get information for very little energy cost to society (compared to a printed book) that helps me achieve my objectives. Therefore, the freer the flow of information at the reduced energy cost the Internet affords, the more efficient society is in general.
Is there information for which the freer flow leads to greater energy costs? It may be that the answer is "yes". For example, perhaps the energy cost to society (both actual and lost opportunity costs) of restricting the instructions for building nuclear devices is less than the cost of dealing with nuclear devices.
Finally, efficiency is gain/cost. For lower organisms gain is simple reproduction. However, for rational humans what is it that we seek to gain? Population? Continued existence of humanity? Something called "happiness"? This question should be considered.
If I remember correctly, "Earth Shoes" were designed in 1957 by a Scandanavian yoga instructor. They were first sold in the U.S. in 1970 and they reached their peak of popularity in 1974. The company went bankrupt in 1977.
They were made with low heels and wide toes and were intended to more closely conform to the "natural" requirements of the foot.
It is so '90s that the '70s are being rehashed for profit by corporations with uptight lawyers.
I've never understood the American obsession with hating lawyers and then giving them loads of money at every turn. Very strange...
What's not to understand? The system is rigged so the "loads of money" is screwed out of you at every turn, hence the hatred. On top of that, the laws are written by lawyers who work hard to maintain the status quo.
In South Carolina the bar exam is written so that you pretty much have to have attended the only law school in the state in order to pass. You must attend that school full-time. You cannot have a job while attending.
This largely limits potential students to those whose parents are rich enough to support them while they go to school.
The situation is controlled by the state legislators (USC law school is a state school), the majority of whom are SC lawyers with an interest in maintaining the set up for the benefit of their children.
Developers would also make a lot of money if it were required that they attend post-undergrad schools with artificial enrollment limits before taking their state-required license exam.
This is nothing new. I worked for seven years for a company developing banking software and this sort of capability was a prime selling feature.
Consider this scenario: you are a consultant who has so many clients you can't remember them all. Some actually pay their bills, some are always fishing for free support. Wouldn't you like to know which ones are which?
Banks are not doing this because they are evil. It is their only rational course of action. Banks don't care who you are or what you do EXCEPT for how it affects their bottom line.
For anyone who feels that they are getting the short end of the stick, the solution is in no one's hands but your own. You should go out and make enough money to get the respect of your banker.
Most of the posting here descibe fairly well how to become as SysAdmin so I won't rehash them.
First, some background. I am now "Manager of Systems, Networks, and Release Control" for a company that develops banking software for the international market. I have over ten years of SysAdmin experience.
My advice to you on how to become as SysAdmin is: DON'T DO IT.
The work is fascinating but the old adage "as SysAdmin you are either invisible or in trouble" is completely true. SysAdmins are generally regarded by other employees as some sort of janitor that you call when the "toilet" backs up.
I STRONGLY suggest that you go into programming instead. As a programmer you will be able to lurk and participate in the more interesting SysAdmin tasks but you will not have the stigma attached to you. Because what a programmer produces is clearly linked to the "bottom line" they get respect and money and promotions that SysAdmins don't.
The SysAdmin may have saved the company from oblivion a dozen times in the course of a year but it won't be remembered at the annual review. If you fail the company goes bust and there is no annual review. If you succeed no one notices that it happened.
Programmers have an almost unlimited career path from programmer, to systems-analyst, to team leader, to project leader, and on up eventually to CIO/CTO/CEO.
The only path for promotion for a SysAdmin is to get to a bigger site with more systems. At the bigger sites you don't get more money or respect, you just get more problems.
I really enjoy the work as I get to "play" with a lot of interesting stuff. However, I would not do it this way again. If you REALLY have the urge to SysAdmin, run your home LAN when you get home from your Career With A Future.
Please remember: I have over ten years of experience and I know quite a few SysAdmins who would agree with me.
A final comment: 90% of users (including developers) are every bit as stupid as you might have heard. I know a programmer who has used "vi" for five years and just discovered ":10,20!sort" (and only because I told him). It isn't maliciousness on their part, for them computers are a job and at quitting time they stop thinking about computers. They don't want to know anything beyond the requirements of the job.
Slashdot Mirror
There are some tanks for sale at here. Admittedly, the ad is a bit sketchy but it was the first one I found and I didn't want to spend more than a couple of minutes looking.
If you follow the URL back up, you will find that there are all sorts of interesting military vehicles for sale there including some armored cars.
BTW: a friend of mine used to own a White half-track and while a half-track is a long way from a tank, it can go pretty much where you want in traffic! :-) Yes, it had the rubberized tracks for use on asphalt.
Actually, I see the same site as above has a White half-track for sale here. This one only has "4-50 cal repo machine guns" but assuming "repo" means "reproduction", you could get real machine guns if you wanted!
The Citadel wanted the benefits of tax dollars without incurring the associated obligations. Shannon Faulkner made sure that if women were going to pay for the Citadel, that women could attend.
Anyone who can afford it (and it is not really that expensive) can fly military aircraft.
For example, see this site.
I just don't see why acceptance by endusers is an objective that needs (or should) to be catered to.
Linux should develop in its own direction as the developers involved personally see fit. Anyone who likes this (and many seem to) can get on board. Anyone who doesn't like this can get off whenever they like.
This is not to say that there shouldn't be distributions that are "user-friendly", it is just that core development should always be motivated by technical reasons.
If there becomes a FOO distribution that forks off in an effort to become something more commercially viable and this distribution eventually becomes incompatible with mainstream Linux development, then I say that the management of FOO doesn't understand Free Software and has thrown away a primary benefit.
If you think about it, catering to endusers is what led to Windows.
In South Carolina if you buy a used car from an individual, you have to pay 5% sales tax on it when you transfer the registration, even though it is as USED car bought from an INDIVIDUAL.
Some years ago the state sales tax in South Carolina was raised 25% from 4% to 5%. They were able to convince people that this was a 1% increase in their tax burden!
The increased revenue from the higher sales tax could only be spent on education (as in Holling's latest proposal). However, a few years later they ammended the law so they could start spending the money on other things. I guess if they spent too much on education, the public might start being able to do the math!
I was researching this a little and, so far, the clearest thing I have found is at Fairfield and Woods, P.C. where they say that video surveillance is probably legal without notifying the observed so long as the "contents" of any communication are not recorded. This is talked about in a section called Video surveillance about half way down the page.
This is quite an interesting subject. I suspect that in the near future (20 minutes from now?) people will have to assume that they are being recorded most of the time.
I wonder how such laws apply to "conventional" security monitoring? Very often those cameras are positioned so as to not be obtrusive and as a result, the observed might claim to be unaware.
In some senses the "Linux Community" isn't real but merely the latest incarnation of a community of instinctive engineers (aka "hackers") whose members, and fields of interest, come and go with time.
In the 1900s we would have been flyers, in the 1920s we would have been radio operators, in the 1930s we would have been experimental rocketeers, in the 1960s and 1970s some of us were building electronic devices. I hope in the near future we will be nanotechs.
The point is that "this too shall pass". The "Linux Industry" will end up "taking over" but only because we will have voluntarily moved on to more exciting and cutting edge areas. It is illogical to worry about the inevitable. Put that energy into new hacks instead.
Warning: Hearsay ahead...
There is a third theory that can be considered in this case: it was all a smoke screen to hide the switch from cane sugar to corn syrup as the sweetener. By the time Coke came "back" no one remembered what the original really tasted like and so the switch was complete.
Supposedly you can still get Coke with cane sugar in containers marked as Kosher during Passover as corn products are not allowed.
Is there anyone out there familiar with Jewish traditions who can comment on this?
We should remember that MP3 is a file format. As to whether or not a particular instance of a file conforming to the MP3 format is or is not a copyright violation, that depends on the copyright associated with that instance.
Often it is forgotten that in the field of science True means "not inconsistent with currently accepted theories".
This is not a cause for confusion so long as it is remembered that the rules governing the acceptance of theories boil down to reproduciblity and simplicity.
Unfortunately, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that (for example) cause and effect are only illusions caused by something we don't yet perceive (or can't). If this suggestion is accepted, then reproducibility is a moot point.
It is also reasonable to question the metric of simplicity. The reason simplicity appeals to us is because it makes our lives easier.
For example, it is possible to design a geocentric universe but the resulting mathematics are so complicated that nothing useful can be derived (such as what trajectory to use to launch a probe to the moon). Therefore, we reject a geocentric universe as False.
Unfortunately, we use the same words True and False in daily conversation where they have quite different meanings. For example, "Is it true that Bill Clinton is a liar?".
Science really has nothing to do with Truth, it has a lot to do with Usefulness.
My problem with this sort of thing is that, once again, it presupposes that the average consumer is too stupid to spend his money wisely and requires some sort of Big Brother to tell him (for a "small" administrative fee) what he can and cannot buy.
If consumers were really concerned about software reliability, they wouldn't buy the software that they do (I am not talking about operating systems which are largely imposed on the consumer, I am talking about applications). The fact is that consumers are relatively happy with what they are getting and regard it as reasonable value for the price. We as developers are upset about software unreliability because we know what is possible but no one else really cares.
For about a year now I have had a one year guarantee on the software I write. It says that if the consumer finds a bug during that period I will fix it for free. Guess how many people saw that guarantee and went Wow! Now that is the sort of guarantee I want! ? NONE!
Go ahead, ask any end user which they would rather have: the software they've got that crashes every once in a while or software that is guaranteed to never crash for twice the price with half the features. I have a full year's worth of empirical data that says they would rather have the cheap software (and no, my software is not twice the price and I will include any feature that does not compromise reliability).
One last thing, the reason that electrical items are required to have a UL sticker is because a faulty electrical item will kill you. A faulty game or word processor is just annoying.
#ifdef SENSE_OF_HUMOR
How about everyone forwarding all the SPAM they receive to their government officials with polite requests that something be done about it?
#endif
Re: point #1: You said no one would have the "itch" to write a Free ERP package. An announcement is all that is needed to disprove that. The fact that there is no code is irrelevant.
Re: point #2: is a question which asks me to engage in conjecture, not a statement with which I can agree or disagree.
Re: point #3: As to the fact that the announcement says that they are targetting small to medium sized companies is irrelevant. You are trying to narrow your original definitions.
Also, there seems to still be some confusion between "Free" and "free". "Free" means that users are not restricted in what they do with the software. "free" means for no remuneration. As I said, I write Free software that is not free.
Finally, thanks but this this not my project. When I read your original letter I thought "that can't be right" so I went to Dogpile and searched for "GPL" and "ERP". The project announcement was the first item that came up.
By the way, the first two people I mentioned this project to develop banking software during the day and have already written at least one general ledger. They are both enthusiastic about the possibilities and asked me to send them copies of the announcement.
Why are they interested? Because they see an opportunity to collaborate with others for "free" to produce a base package they don't have the resources to complete themselves which they are then "Free" to customize for paying customers.
The reason that the customer will be willing to pay for Free software from a small company rather than SAP/BAAN/PeopleSoft is that for the comparitively small price of some custom programming (and as you pointed out, all ERP packages require customization) they meet their needs and have complete control over their futures.
The fact that they have the source code frees the company from being at the mercy of a vendor. For example, support cannot be used as a lever to coerce them into pointless and expensive upgrades. Instead, the company can play one consulting firm off another to get the best deal.
See http://acsys.anu.edu.au/~tpot/hypermail/cola/1334. html for an announcement of a free ERP project.
Also, "Free Software" doesn't mean "no charge software". All the code my company writes is Free Software but we charge for it.
There are a couple of points to cover here.
The first is that ideas do not spring into the world from nowhere. At the very least there is a lost opportunity cost to the thinker as the time spent generating the idea could have been spent elsewhere. Therefore, ideas are not "free" as in "free beer". The fact that ideas can be reproduced at no cost must not overshadow the fact that they cannot be produced at no cost.
Second, ideas are often of very little use without a considerable amount of effort being put into the expression of that idea. For example, Hero demonstrated the idea of a steam engine but it took a lot more effort to make something useful from it.
I find myself in the peculiar and uncomfortable position of defending those who support the concepts of patents and copyrights. Perhaps those institutions are not completely bankrupt but can be salvaged through modification.
I suspect that the first place to seek to modify these systems is in the length of time that the protection is in place. My understanding is that the purpose of these systems is to provide reasonable compensation to those who produce the work. The issues then become "What is 'reasonable compensation'?", "How can 'reasonable compensation' be determined?", and "How can 'reasonable compensation' be delivered to the creator?".
The second place to consider modifying these systems is to be more rigorous in the care taken in defining what is being protected. The protection is to enable the creator to collect compensation on his production, not on the production of others.
On the other hand, while I think the statements above are true, it may be that the greatest compensation to the thinkers and developers of ideas is perhaps in the more abstract concept of making the world a better place for all. I.e., the "stone soup" model.
I stand corrected!
I was quite certain that I was right so I went out and searched on the web. Eventually I found this URL where it says: The labs made the software available to academic institutions at a very small charge. For example, John Lions, a faculty member in the Department of Computer Science at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, reported that his school was able to acquire a copy of research UNIX Edition 5 for $150 ($110 Australian) in December, 1974, including tape and manuals. (See "An Interview with John Lions," in Unix Review, October, 1985, pg. 51)
Hear! Hear! Also, wasn't the "nominal fee" for getting an AT&T UNIX license about $100,000 (not to mention inflationary adjustments) even for a university? That is hardly "Free"!
ESR has a strange attitude about all of this. When OpenSource.Org first advertised that they wanted to hear from companies providing Linux support I wrote to him about my company. He asked why I had written. I pointed out that he had asked about companies like mine. At that point he wrote back and basically said "I meant real companies -- those with more than $10M/year in revenues".
There is little doubt that ESR's agenda is self promotion whereas RMS's has always been software and the betterment of the world.
Many people try to re-write history. We need to be vigilent.
I don't think it necessarily solves the problem for binaries-only software releases the article was addressing.
That having been said, I have to take this opportunity to say that I also like the FreeBSD approach. From what I have seen it gives you the most flexibility and control. I like its source-oriented approach (ah, the Good Old Days when everything was source only!). I would prefer a FreeBSD-like Linux distribution to those currently available.
Yes, the actual "meat" of the article (or at least, the part I thought most interesting) was only in paragraphs 8 through 10 which referred to the ideas of Dr. Frederick of the U. of Pittsbugh.
I thought that some of the extrapolation by Petzinger of those ideas was a little far fetched.
The question raised in response to this article by many readers here is "What walls should come down?".
Interestingly enough, the "Wall Street Journal" on page B1 today has an article that is relevant (especially starting with paragraph 8). In the article it is postulated that the fundamental guiding force for all organisms (organic and others such as corporations and societies) is energy efficiency (i.e., losing the battle against entropy as slowly as possible).
While I may disagree with some of the details in the WSJ article, it does raise the interesting question "Can we use energy efficiency as a metric for consciously organizing our society?".
How is this relevant to the article "Word Without Walls"? Isn't the Internet changing the energy consumption profile of the world?
I can get information for very little energy cost to society (compared to a printed book) that helps me achieve my objectives. Therefore, the freer the flow of information at the reduced energy cost the Internet affords, the more efficient society is in general.
Is there information for which the freer flow leads to greater energy costs? It may be that the answer is "yes". For example, perhaps the energy cost to society (both actual and lost opportunity costs) of restricting the instructions for building nuclear devices is less than the cost of dealing with nuclear devices.
Finally, efficiency is gain/cost. For lower organisms gain is simple reproduction. However, for rational humans what is it that we seek to gain? Population? Continued existence of humanity? Something called "happiness"? This question should be considered.
If I remember correctly, "Earth Shoes" were designed in 1957 by a Scandanavian yoga instructor. They were first sold in the U.S. in 1970 and they reached their peak of popularity in 1974. The company went bankrupt in 1977.
They were made with low heels and wide toes and were intended to more closely conform to the "natural" requirements of the foot.
It is so '90s that the '70s are being rehashed for profit by corporations with uptight lawyers.
I've never understood the American obsession with hating lawyers and then giving them loads of money at every turn. Very strange...
What's not to understand? The system is rigged so the "loads of money" is screwed out of you at every turn, hence the hatred. On top of that, the laws are written by lawyers who work hard to maintain the status quo.
In South Carolina the bar exam is written so that you pretty much have to have attended the only law school in the state in order to pass. You must attend that school full-time. You cannot have a job while attending.
This largely limits potential students to those whose parents are rich enough to support them while they go to school.
The situation is controlled by the state legislators (USC law school is a state school), the majority of whom are SC lawyers with an interest in maintaining the set up for the benefit of their children.
Developers would also make a lot of money if it were required that they attend post-undergrad schools with artificial enrollment limits before taking their state-required license exam.
This is nothing new. I worked for seven years for a company developing banking software and this sort of capability was a prime selling feature.
Consider this scenario: you are a consultant who has so many clients you can't remember them all. Some actually pay their bills, some are always fishing for free support. Wouldn't you like to know which ones are which?
Banks are not doing this because they are evil. It is their only rational course of action. Banks don't care who you are or what you do EXCEPT for how it affects their bottom line.
For anyone who feels that they are getting the short end of the stick, the solution is in no one's hands but your own. You should go out and make enough money to get the respect of your banker.
Most of the posting here descibe fairly well how to become as SysAdmin so I won't rehash them.
First, some background. I am now "Manager of Systems, Networks, and Release Control" for a company that develops banking software for the international market. I have over ten years of SysAdmin experience.
My advice to you on how to become as SysAdmin is: DON'T DO IT.
The work is fascinating but the old adage "as SysAdmin you are either invisible or in trouble" is completely true. SysAdmins are generally regarded by other employees as some sort of janitor that you call when the "toilet" backs up.
I STRONGLY suggest that you go into programming instead. As a programmer you will be able to lurk and participate in the more interesting SysAdmin tasks but you will not have the stigma attached to you. Because what a programmer produces is clearly linked to the "bottom line" they get respect and money and promotions that SysAdmins don't.
The SysAdmin may have saved the company from oblivion a dozen times in the course of a year but it won't be remembered at the annual review. If you fail the company goes bust and there is no annual review. If you succeed no one notices that it happened.
Programmers have an almost unlimited career path from programmer, to systems-analyst, to team leader, to project leader, and on up eventually to CIO/CTO/CEO.
The only path for promotion for a SysAdmin is to get to a bigger site with more systems. At the bigger sites you don't get more money or respect, you just get more problems.
I really enjoy the work as I get to "play" with a lot of interesting stuff. However, I would not do it this way again. If you REALLY have the urge to SysAdmin, run your home LAN when you get home from your Career With A Future.
Please remember: I have over ten years of experience and I know quite a few SysAdmins who would agree with me.
A final comment: 90% of users (including developers) are every bit as stupid as you might have heard. I know a programmer who has used "vi" for five years and just discovered ":10,20!sort" (and only because I told him). It isn't maliciousness on their part, for them computers are a job and at quitting time they stop thinking about computers. They don't want to know anything beyond the requirements of the job.