Re:A moment of silence. . .
on
The Challenger
·
· Score: 1
It is an unfortunate part of life that much of the time when humanity makes strides towards things we have never acccomplished before, as often as not we find ourselves mourning the loss of the pioneers who fell trying to reach one more inch. Flight, supersonic flight, space flight, all have their own honor rolls of these people. I believe we call them heroes, not necessarily for anything they did other than to go in harm's way for a cause of value to all humanity.
I don't necessarily agree. My partner and I have been working to open and then running a company since July. In that time, we each have had at least two job offers that I would consider genuine (and other pie-in-the-sky type flights of fancy). Many techies I know routinely get offers from people with whom they interact outside the company; suppliers, contractors, etc. who try to steal them away from their present job. If this particular CTO has been doing his job well and has done the requisite networking for his company, then I'm mildly surprised that he's only gotten two offers.
I would be careful to distinguish between company loyalty and loyalty to your friends and coworkers. I think it is silly to "go down with the ship" for the company's sake. Friends are a different matter. Have you discussed the future with them? Perhaps they too see the writing on the wall? Would you be in a position to help them get jobs afterwards? Most importantly, are you really doing them any favors by prolonging their stay at an apparently doomed company? If they end up unemployed in the middle of a recession in 10 months (I don't really expect it, but hypothetically), I expect that it wouldn't have done them any good that you stuck with a failing effort when you could have pulled the plug. And you would be in the same boat.
I would sit down quietly with my coworkers and friends and gauge their assessment of the future, albeit without tipping my hand. I might even subtly point them in what I thought was the most beneficial direction. But I would not sacrifice myself for the dubious benefit of my friends; it would be better for to help them and help yourself than to valiantly help nobody at all.
Many also require user-friendly graphical and/or speech interfaces.
I think this is a key point. While I enjoy using Linux, I don't consider UI one of its strongest points. If embedded Linux is to become the thing of the future for wearable PCs and other embedded devices, there needs to be major progress in novel, Linux-compatible interfaces. It is here, I think, that Linux can distance itself from the pack. If the open source community can put together intuitive, stable and efficient interfaces, Linux will have a major advantage as embedded systems become commonplace.
So the Internet is regulated. Why should it not be? Why should cyberspace be a lawless zone where anything and everything is ok?
And most importantly, do we need it to be totally unregulated to have the Internet fulfill our purposes?
Realistically, there have to be some rules governing cyberspace. I don't know what they are, and it is evident that the world's governments don't know either. Given this, the current state of affairs seems reasonable; everyone is trying to get a piece of the pie by enforcing restrictions advantageous to him, her, or it. I don't see France fighting with Yahoo! and extrapolate to the idea that I'll be carrying my "papers" around in a decade, I see a tough argument in which I understand both sides.
Freedom cannot be absolute, and this country was certainly not founded on absolute freedom. Instead, it was founded on absolute freedom until your freedom impinges on that of another. We've struggled with that for hundreds of years, and we still haven't figured out exactly how to do it. Although we have free speech, you cannot yell "Fire" in a theater, and this seems reasonable to me. It seems reasonable that we should not be able to yell "Fire" on the Internet either. The tough part is determining the digital equivalent of that alarmist call.
Ultimately, the historical significance of the Internet may rival that of the Industrial Revolution. Pick up a history book, and you'll note that the transition to a new age wasn't so easy back then. Why do we expect to get it right on our first try now?
I hate the fact that corporations and governments have the upper hand right now, and don't know how to use it. But I am confident that the pendulum will swing. Too much of the skill, knowledge and innovation behind the digital revolution is in favor of absolute freedoms in cyberspace for us not to find a happy medium.
One wonders what their plan is. Could they be doing this to invalidate Amazon's patent? My guess is no, that they are doing it to try and fill their own wallets. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable (if potentially expensive) way for the software community to react to things like this--patent prior work and GPL it.
Hmmm. Chief Intellectual Proerty Officer. CIPO. My guess is that that is read "CHEEP o."
I am not so sure this is a bad thing. Even if the patent is granted, this guy is taking on legal departments backed by billions of corporate dollars. Whatever patent is granted will doubtless be mired in years of litigation, and it might just be enough for this country's corporate lobbyists to get Congress to knock some sense into the USPTO. Sometimes the pendulum has to go way too far before it swings back to a reasonable place...
-db
Slashdot Mirror
It is an unfortunate part of life that much of the time when humanity makes strides towards things we have never acccomplished before, as often as not we find ourselves mourning the loss of the pioneers who fell trying to reach one more inch. Flight, supersonic flight, space flight, all have their own honor rolls of these people. I believe we call them heroes, not necessarily for anything they did other than to go in harm's way for a cause of value to all humanity.
I don't necessarily agree. My partner and I have been working to open and then running a company since July. In that time, we each have had at least two job offers that I would consider genuine (and other pie-in-the-sky type flights of fancy). Many techies I know routinely get offers from people with whom they interact outside the company; suppliers, contractors, etc. who try to steal them away from their present job. If this particular CTO has been doing his job well and has done the requisite networking for his company, then I'm mildly surprised that he's only gotten two offers.
I would be careful to distinguish between company loyalty and loyalty to your friends and coworkers. I think it is silly to "go down with the ship" for the company's sake. Friends are a different matter. Have you discussed the future with them? Perhaps they too see the writing on the wall? Would you be in a position to help them get jobs afterwards? Most importantly, are you really doing them any favors by prolonging their stay at an apparently doomed company? If they end up unemployed in the middle of a recession in 10 months (I don't really expect it, but hypothetically), I expect that it wouldn't have done them any good that you stuck with a failing effort when you could have pulled the plug. And you would be in the same boat.
I would sit down quietly with my coworkers and friends and gauge their assessment of the future, albeit without tipping my hand. I might even subtly point them in what I thought was the most beneficial direction. But I would not sacrifice myself for the dubious benefit of my friends; it would be better for to help them and help yourself than to valiantly help nobody at all.
Many also require user-friendly graphical and/or speech interfaces.
I think this is a key point. While I enjoy using Linux, I don't consider UI one of its strongest points. If embedded Linux is to become the thing of the future for wearable PCs and other embedded devices, there needs to be major progress in novel, Linux-compatible interfaces. It is here, I think, that Linux can distance itself from the pack. If the open source community can put together intuitive, stable and efficient interfaces, Linux will have a major advantage as embedded systems become commonplace.
So the Internet is regulated. Why should it not be? Why should cyberspace be a lawless zone where anything and everything is ok?
And most importantly, do we need it to be totally unregulated to have the Internet fulfill our purposes?
Realistically, there have to be some rules governing cyberspace. I don't know what they are, and it is evident that the world's governments don't know either. Given this, the current state of affairs seems reasonable; everyone is trying to get a piece of the pie by enforcing restrictions advantageous to him, her, or it. I don't see France fighting with Yahoo! and extrapolate to the idea that I'll be carrying my "papers" around in a decade, I see a tough argument in which I understand both sides.
Freedom cannot be absolute, and this country was certainly not founded on absolute freedom. Instead, it was founded on absolute freedom until your freedom impinges on that of another. We've struggled with that for hundreds of years, and we still haven't figured out exactly how to do it. Although we have free speech, you cannot yell "Fire" in a theater, and this seems reasonable to me. It seems reasonable that we should not be able to yell "Fire" on the Internet either. The tough part is determining the digital equivalent of that alarmist call.
Ultimately, the historical significance of the Internet may rival that of the Industrial Revolution. Pick up a history book, and you'll note that the transition to a new age wasn't so easy back then. Why do we expect to get it right on our first try now?
I hate the fact that corporations and governments have the upper hand right now, and don't know how to use it. But I am confident that the pendulum will swing. Too much of the skill, knowledge and innovation behind the digital revolution is in favor of absolute freedoms in cyberspace for us not to find a happy medium.
One wonders what their plan is. Could they be doing this to invalidate Amazon's patent? My guess is no, that they are doing it to try and fill their own wallets. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable (if potentially expensive) way for the software community to react to things like this--patent prior work and GPL it. Hmmm. Chief Intellectual Proerty Officer. CIPO. My guess is that that is read "CHEEP o."
-db
I am not so sure this is a bad thing. Even if the patent is granted, this guy is taking on legal departments backed by billions of corporate dollars. Whatever patent is granted will doubtless be mired in years of litigation, and it might just be enough for this country's corporate lobbyists to get Congress to knock some sense into the USPTO. Sometimes the pendulum has to go way too far before it swings back to a reasonable place... -db