None of these people committed perjury in front of Congress about what they said.
None of these people have curly hair and are second president in a father son line of two presidents, often gets stuck searching for a word, and has middle name that starts with "W".
Meanwhile, they all came forward with these statements.
And the third world DIES because of medicine patents.
First of all, the WTO authorizes many poor states to purchase various life saving generic drugs even if the patent is still in effect.
Secondly, If I were a drug company, and I felt that my life saving drugs were under pricing attack due to patent infringement, reimportation, etc., I might stop developing those drugs. Instead, I would focus on drugs that don't save lives, but that perform non-life saving functions, like cure your toenail fungus, or make you happy, or make your penis work. Then, because there isn't the same lifesaving value to them, I would market the hell out of them.
So are you saying that Bill Clinton was not impeached for perjury? What was it then?
Wrong! Even if he did ask her to lie, just what justice would that be obstructing?
I think you are confused about the Paula Jones case. I don't know if he influenced her supervisors to give her a hard time or not, but I believe her when she says Bill Clinton tried, in an obscene way, to have sex with her.
In order for Paula Jones to win her case, two things had to happen.
1. She has to prove Bill Clinton made these obscene gestures (the motive) 2. She has to prove the supervisors screwed her because of it.
For 1., she tries to show a pattern of such behavior. Now, if Monica Lewinsky goes to trial and says "Yeah, I screwed the president," that goes to point 1. So, if Bill Clinton gets her to lie, then it hurts the legal process. That's the obstructing justice thing.
Clinton's sex life at his job became the court's business because he took it out and asked some chick who worked for him to suck it, (paula jones). Later the woman sued in court over it and alleged retribution for scorning the guy.
Now it is obvious you are a Clinton lover (I like the fact that he never did anything as a president, and so the economy overtook govt. spending, but I hate his character).
Let me ask you, how do you feel how he tried to paint Monica Lewinsky at first, as some kind of crazed stalker?
How do you feel about Juanita Broderik?
Personally, I feel a little uncomfortable that we had an alleged rapist as the president of the united states. How do you feel about it?
It's amazing how confused people are about the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton was not impeached for having sex. He was impeached for perjury. Paula Jones initiated a trial in which she accused Clinton of making sexual advances, and as a result of her spurning him her supervisors of her government job made her life difficult. As part of the trial, Bill Clinton's sexual relationships with other employees was examined.
In the trial Bill Clinton denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.
Sounds like a lie (aka perjury). This is the thing that Bill Clinton was impeached for: not having sex with Monica Lewinsky, but lying to a judge, and potentially obstructing justice (having Monica Lewinsky lie about their affair in an attempt to escape punishment for his actions with Paula Jones). However, the collosal failing of the judge was to allow a definition of sex that *excluded* oral sex! Even the judge was surprised when the "truth" came out, if we really know what it is, that Bill Clinton only had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky or not.
Now, you may say "So what, politicians lie all the time." That may be so, though they should not lie to the judicial branch, since that violates some separation of powers concept or other. Perhaps, though, I would even agree that the impeachment was motivated by an extreme dislike for Bill Clinton's character.
However, there does appear to be something checkered in Bill Clinton's treatment of women. Juanita Broderick claims he raped her, and she appears to have no ulterior motives. I suspect Paula Jones was sexually acosted by Bill Clinton, and I believe others who have come forward with sexual harrassment claims. Is there any truth to the claims of Juanita Broderick?
Personally, the idea of having a rapist as a president of the United States bothers me a lot.
1. US tax dollars aren't doing much to keep the India/Pakistan. There is a UN observer force in Kashmir observing the adherence of the two countries to their ceasefire, but no peace-keeping force preventing another war over the zone. And since the US doesn't pay it's dues, it's not really even funding that small group
Lately it's been the US that even solves problems in Europe's backyard. Take away that stabalizing influence, and the whole region can become chaotic.
3. The US dollar is not artificially high. By and large currencies float on free market exchange. Cental banks typically have little control over this.
Banks (particularly japanese banks) intervene to keep the dollar strong in times of crisis (see below). Furthermore, the japanese post office (basically a bank in japan) invests heavily in US treasury bills, thus returning dollars to the US and propping up the dollar artificially. It keeps the huge trade imbalance going.
Posts on japanese banks intervening to buy up US dollars:
There are several problems that I have with outsourcing.
1. It is my taxpayer dollars that pay to keep places like India relatively stable. I mean, without US military and intervention, would India/Pakistan politics make that a great place to do business?
2. Certain jobs, such as construction, service work, etc., really can't be moved to other countries, and so, since we are free to allow our jobs to migrate, but not for workers to migrate, those are the jobs that will flourish, and they will be relatively more expensive since there is a captive market. Also, they aren't the jobs that improve the trade imbalance, so the debt continues to be high/higher.
3. The dollar is artificially high. World banks conspire to keep it thus, but this just makes me artificially more expensive to an employer.
4. The average US worker has a huge government to pull around. I doubt India, for example, has laws that state you have to make all restaraunts wellchair accessible. These rules do nothing to increase productivity, but increase the cost of doing business in the US. This one example means that the cost of everything in the US is going to be higher compared to those less developed nations.
It isn't just supply and demand, I mean, I'm a great engineer, as I'm sure a lot of laid of engineers are, but the entire US position that makes outsourcing attractive. In other words, the playing field is *not* level.
Meanwhile, is outsourcing horrible? Probably not for the world as a whole, but for me it is incredibly unfair.
No, I don't misunderstand your point. I realize this is difficult, but please try to understand. This is very basic logic, and you are making a simple mistake.
The structure of the statement you object to is IF "cond" THEN "result"
The "cond" was "pirated programs often cause damage".
You want to argue you can't make pirated programs that often cause damage. I've never argued that you can or can't, just IF you can and do (pirated programs often cause damage) THEN people will stop pirating software out of fear.
I don't want to argue whether you can or can't make such programs for several reasons, so I won't.
> There's no attempt to make a matching punishment.
Unlike the current law:
When sentenced by United States District Judge Ellen Bree Burns, MYERS, KATZ, and KAPECHUK each face a possible punishment of up to five years' imprisonment, three years' supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000. WILLSEY faces a possible punishment of up to one year's imprisonment, one year's supervised release, and a fine of up to $100,000.
2. I'm an atheist. I couldn't care less about what Christians think about revenge, but my intelligence tells me randomly destroying people's data is going to backfire sooner or later, and it's wrong to begin with.
It's not random. And just because you are an atheist doesn't mean you haven't inhereted endemic Christian viewpoints.
This programmer got a *lot* of negative pubicity. Myself, I'll bookmark this to make sure I never buy anything
But I will preferentially buy things from him, so we cancel each other out.
First, it's revenge. In a civilized society, people don't exact revenge on other people in arbitrary manners.
1. What's arbitrary about it? Someone stole his stuff, and the software does something nasty to the system that allowed the thief to do it. Sounds rather straight forward to me.
2. You seem to have a Christian disdain for revenge. Look, lots of people seek revenge, mostly legally, but some times illegally. But the thing about revenge is that it is something that is usually good for society. Getting rid of piracy is good for society. Unfortunately, given the strange laws of this country, the person could be setting themselves up for lawsuits etc., so I actually think of this guy as a martyr.
We have the law for that.
Arbitrarily meting out justice? Given some cases, I would agree it is rather arbitrary. But seriously, do you really want the government that involved? It seems this guys approach could save society oodles of money.
Second, it's definitely not a proper thing to do if you want to have the slightest amount of trust from your users.
Well, I as a user welcome software that ensures all users are paying their fair share. First, it means there is more capital to develop the program. Second, it means there is a better market for the program which means it (or programs like it) will get better. Monopolies not with standing.
Nooooooooo, it means that people would DL releases from Groups they "trust" to put out quality cracks instead of just running whatever comes down the ol' Kazaa-pipeline...
No "nooo" about it. The statement is correct.
You are arguing that you can't make software that does damage. That's a different discussion. *IF* you can make programs that often cause damage, then people won't pirate software.
Think of this person as looking out for the greater good of society (wasn't there a recent slashdot article that argues revenge is really a social mechanism that is good for society?)
His actions help society. Pirating is bad for society as I see it (if you disagree, then there can be no further discussion on this topic). If pirated programs often cause damage, then people won't pirate the software. End of story.
It also seems like a good way to keep the government out of the anti-piracy business, which inevitably would lead to the errosion of all kinds of rights.
I say there are billions being lost to piracy, and far less due to wiped out home directories.
Socialists should applaud the solution. True, occasionally a user will really lose out of proportions to their offense (most probably do lots of stealing), but it is for the betterment of society as the severe consequences will cause many others to stop illegally downloading software.
Capitalists should applaud it because you do this without increasing the power of the state.
I used to think of myself as a libertarian, until I heard about Gerald Bull.
Gerald Bull was an engineer who, since he was a child, wanted to launch satellites into outer space with artillery, but could find no first world country to fund his research. Finally, the Iraqis did, and he began creating a supergun for that purpose. Israel, feeling threatened by the gun, purportedly had the Mossad kill Dr. Bull.
So, Dr. Bull was not coercive, but he was killed, and the killing seems justified. The gun posed a threat to the state of Israel. After warning Bull to stop, the Mossad had no option but to kill Bull to prevent this threat.
So, if you agree there are instances where those who have not coerced anyone are justifiably coerced, then coersion is sometimes necessary. Therefore, isn't coersion a given, and just a matter of degree (i.e., there is no fundamental philisophical basis for the libertarian party, the conclusion which I've reluctantly drawn).
Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.
It depends on your perspective. The idea was to collect a loose coalition of states that could act together, not to create a huge and powerful federal government.
Personally, I like the idea of a bunch of semi-autonomous states competing for me, working together with a weak federal government. I mean, after all the end of a strong federal government is Soviet Russia.
I think whenever there is a huge monopoly on power, be it in a corporation or in a government, the end result is stagnation.
"...better than letting them" What arrogance.
. ..Or - yes - even nuclear weapons.
What idiocy. It's amazing someone calls this post insightful.
I say that nuclear bombs are very dangerous for all of mankind. They can cause people to die. Many people to die. Why increase the risk of nuclear catastrophy by spreading the decision process to use them to more, probably less stable, regimes?
Because you are afraid of the US being called arrogant? Or even being arrogant? [Note, there are also other adjectives you could use here, if you were even handed].
My guess is you really don't associate yourself with the current US political structure anyway, so you can feel superior in the knowledge that you know the right way to deal with this issue, and the asses in washington trying to keep the world as safe as it is are all morons.
What really gauls me is that If the technology works, a big if, it's great because developing nations such as North Korea will no longer be able to hide behind "nuclear power for energy for the peasants," when they really want to make bombs. In other words, it is good for the proletariate.
I develop software that I don't use, mostly software for embedded devices. What's the value of me developing software?
value="money/etc I get paid" + "fun algorithms" + "accomplishments of doing new stuff"
After all, I could be a manager or something else if I wanted to, so I add in coding (nerd) fun.
What's the value to me of developing a game?
value="fun algos" + "accomplishments"
I can easily buy high quality games (much cheaper than developing them), and for the most part they actually have more of what I want than I could imagine, or what I imagine is technologically not practical.
In other words, there is much less value to me todevelop open source game software than to write cool software for which someone is actually willing to pay me.
Unless there is something really missing in a game that I want, or until there is a Micro$oft of game vendors for me to hate, there really isn't enough value for me to develop open source games.
I could imagine that many years ago, before transportation brought the world so much closer, you might need to know geographical specifics in order to make a business work well, and so there was value in educated people learning geography.
But today? I just don't see how rote knowledge of geography helps the day to day lives of most Americans, other than to know where some Canadian lives. I mean, who cares? It's just a physical location: so what.
For the sake of argument, let's assume it is true that women in general aren't as good at men at science/engineering/other complex field just for the sake of argument.
If you are good, then you should really shake your tail: you must be extremely good compared to others of your sex and so are extremely special.
It seems pretty clear after reading the article that he is talking about a file system (perhaps directory system aware of content formats) that would be interesting if it could work. Want to find a document? Type in some key words and there it is. This is certainly an improvement over Explorer, and a definite improvement over *nix search methods.
Bringing some automagic searching capabilities to my desktop would be a good thing. Trouble is, to get his article published he had to color it with grounded opinions on the anti-trust trial and Linux, which it appears some on/. find unsettling.
Because of this, his ideas have to be attacked, but they seem worthy of an attempt and relevent.
If the request for bids specifies that the
program must be delivered under the terms of
an open source license, then open source is,
by definition, a requirement for landing that
contract.
Most of this discussion is using "require" in the sense of "have a compelling need for," not "to impose a compulsion or command on."
In other words, we all know that the government is thinking of commanding vendors to deliver software with open source terms, but the question we are contemplating here is "do they really have a compelling need to"?
The government doesn't often need access to source code. A secretary doesn't need to be able to fix bugs in Linux, for instance. He needs a word-processor that works, the output of the word processor needs to be in a format that is compatible with future versions, etc.
Open source is a category of licenses under
which the the program is delivered.
Isn't "open source" actually a term used to describe computer code subject to certain license agreements?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if the requirement is that the "pusher" is in orbit. Pushing then cancels out pushes from 180 degrees before.
None of these people committed perjury in front of Congress about what they said.
None of these people have curly hair and are second president in a father son line of two presidents, often gets stuck searching for a word, and has middle name that starts with "W".
Meanwhile, they all came forward with these statements.
And the third world DIES because of medicine patents.
First of all, the WTO authorizes many poor states to purchase various life saving generic drugs even if the patent is still in effect.
Secondly, If I were a drug company, and I felt that my life saving drugs were under pricing attack due to patent infringement, reimportation, etc., I might stop developing those drugs. Instead, I would focus on drugs that don't save lives, but that perform non-life saving functions, like cure your toenail fungus, or make you happy, or make your penis work. Then, because there isn't the same lifesaving value to them, I would market the hell out of them.
If you knew this already, then wtf are you saying Clinton committed perjury when you already know that he did not?
I didn't say he committed perjury. I said that it sounded like he did, in an attempt to show how the impeachment process started.
Wrong!
So are you saying that Bill Clinton was not impeached for perjury? What was it then?
Wrong! Even if he did ask her to lie, just what justice would that be obstructing?
I think you are confused about the Paula Jones case. I don't know if he influenced her supervisors to give her a hard time or not, but I believe her when she says Bill Clinton tried, in an obscene way, to have sex with her.
In order for Paula Jones to win her case, two things had to happen.
1. She has to prove Bill Clinton made these obscene gestures (the motive)
2. She has to prove the supervisors screwed her because of it.
For 1., she tries to show a pattern of such behavior. Now, if Monica Lewinsky goes to trial and says "Yeah, I screwed the president," that goes to point 1. So, if Bill Clinton gets her to lie, then it hurts the legal process. That's the obstructing justice thing.
Clinton's sex life at his job became the court's business because he took it out and asked some chick who worked for him to suck it, (paula jones). Later the woman sued in court over it and alleged retribution for scorning the guy.
Now it is obvious you are a Clinton lover (I like the fact that he never did anything as a president, and so the economy overtook govt. spending, but I hate his character).
Let me ask you, how do you feel how he tried to paint Monica Lewinsky at first, as some kind of crazed stalker?
How do you feel about Juanita Broderik?
Personally, I feel a little uncomfortable that we had an alleged rapist as the president of the united states. How do you feel about it?
It's amazing how confused people are about the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton was not impeached for having sex. He was impeached for perjury. Paula Jones initiated a trial in which she accused Clinton of making sexual advances, and as a result of her spurning him her supervisors of her government job made her life difficult. As part of the trial, Bill Clinton's sexual relationships with other employees was examined.
In the trial Bill Clinton denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky.
Sounds like a lie (aka perjury). This is the thing that Bill Clinton was impeached for: not having sex with Monica Lewinsky, but lying to a judge, and potentially obstructing justice (having Monica Lewinsky lie about their affair in an attempt to escape punishment for his actions with Paula Jones). However, the collosal failing of the judge was to allow a definition of sex that *excluded* oral sex! Even the judge was surprised when the "truth" came out, if we really know what it is, that Bill Clinton only had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky or not.
Now, you may say "So what, politicians lie all the time." That may be so, though they should not lie to the judicial branch, since that violates some separation of powers concept or other. Perhaps, though, I would even agree that the impeachment was motivated by an extreme dislike for Bill Clinton's character.
However, there does appear to be something checkered in Bill Clinton's treatment of women. Juanita Broderick claims he raped her, and she appears to have no ulterior motives. I suspect Paula Jones was sexually acosted by Bill Clinton, and I believe others who have come forward with sexual harrassment claims. Is there any truth to the claims of Juanita Broderick?
Personally, the idea of having a rapist as a president of the United States bothers me a lot.
It's trivial to actually find the answer on the net, and so not a good indicator that you have any applicable skills.
Maybe they are trying to find people curious enough to see the problem through.
1. US tax dollars aren't doing much to keep the India/Pakistan. There is a UN observer force in Kashmir observing the adherence of the two countries to their ceasefire, but no peace-keeping force preventing another war over the zone. And since the US doesn't pay it's dues, it's not really even funding that small group
/ 44 6683.stm
& q= %22buy+US+dollars%22+bank+japanese+intervene&btnG= Search
Lately it's been the US that even solves problems in Europe's backyard. Take away that stabalizing influence, and the whole region can become chaotic.
3. The US dollar is not artificially high. By and large currencies float on free market exchange. Cental banks typically have little control over this.
Banks (particularly japanese banks) intervene to keep the dollar strong in times of crisis (see below). Furthermore, the japanese post office (basically a bank in japan) invests heavily in US treasury bills, thus returning dollars to the US and propping up the dollar artificially. It keeps the huge trade imbalance going.
Posts on japanese banks intervening to buy up US dollars:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the_economy
or better yet:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
Computer Systems Design and Related services
$ pr .txt
c la ra.htm
41,500 current, down 1% over last month, down 5% for the year. (August 2004)
http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/file/lfmonth/sanj
Computer Systems Design and Related Services
63,300 Peak in February of '01
41,500 Current, August of '04
http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/htmlfile/county/s
Well, at least the traffic is better.
There are several problems that I have with outsourcing.
1. It is my taxpayer dollars that pay to keep places like India relatively stable. I mean, without US military and intervention, would India/Pakistan politics make that a great place to do business?
2. Certain jobs, such as construction, service work, etc., really can't be moved to other countries, and so, since we are free to allow our jobs to migrate, but not for workers to migrate, those are the jobs that will flourish, and they will be relatively more expensive since there is a captive market. Also, they aren't the jobs that improve the trade imbalance, so the debt continues to be high/higher.
3. The dollar is artificially high. World banks conspire to keep it thus, but this just makes me artificially more expensive to an employer.
4. The average US worker has a huge government to pull around. I doubt India, for example, has laws that state you have to make all restaraunts wellchair accessible. These rules do nothing to increase productivity, but increase the cost of doing business in the US. This one example means that the cost of everything in the US is going to be higher compared to those less developed nations.
It isn't just supply and demand, I mean, I'm a great engineer, as I'm sure a lot of laid of engineers are, but the entire US position that makes outsourcing attractive. In other words, the playing field is *not* level.
Meanwhile, is outsourcing horrible? Probably not for the world as a whole, but for me it is incredibly unfair.
You misunderstood my point.
No, I don't misunderstand your point. I realize this is difficult, but please try to understand. This is very basic logic, and you are making a simple mistake.
The structure of the statement you object to is IF "cond" THEN "result"
The "cond" was "pirated programs often cause damage".
You want to argue you can't make pirated programs that often cause damage. I've never argued that you can or can't, just IF you can and do (pirated programs often cause damage) THEN people will stop pirating software out of fear.
I don't want to argue whether you can or can't make such programs for several reasons, so I won't.
Unlike the current law:
2. I'm an atheist. I couldn't care less about what Christians think about revenge, but my intelligence tells me randomly destroying people's data is going to backfire sooner or later, and it's wrong to begin with.
It's not random. And just because you are an atheist doesn't mean you haven't inhereted endemic Christian viewpoints.
This programmer got a *lot* of negative pubicity. Myself, I'll bookmark this to make sure I never buy anything
But I will preferentially buy things from him, so we cancel each other out.
First, it's revenge. In a civilized society, people don't exact revenge on other people in arbitrary manners.
1. What's arbitrary about it? Someone stole his stuff, and the software does something nasty to the system that allowed the thief to do it. Sounds rather straight forward to me.
2. You seem to have a Christian disdain for revenge. Look, lots of people seek revenge, mostly legally, but some times illegally. But the thing about revenge is that it is something that is usually good for society. Getting rid of piracy is good for society. Unfortunately, given the strange laws of this country, the person could be setting themselves up for lawsuits etc., so I actually think of this guy as a martyr.
We have the law for that.
Arbitrarily meting out justice? Given some cases, I would agree it is rather arbitrary. But seriously, do you really want the government that involved? It seems this guys approach could save society oodles of money.
Second, it's definitely not a proper thing to do if you want to have the slightest amount of trust from your users.
Well, I as a user welcome software that ensures all users are paying their fair share. First, it means there is more capital to develop the program. Second, it means there is a better market for the program which means it (or programs like it) will get better. Monopolies not with standing.
Nooooooooo, it means that people would DL releases from Groups they "trust" to put out quality cracks instead of just running whatever comes down the ol' Kazaa-pipeline...
No "nooo" about it. The statement is correct.
You are arguing that you can't make software that does damage. That's a different discussion. *IF* you can make programs that often cause damage, then people won't pirate software.
but I see no way to excuse this person's behavior
Think of this person as looking out for the greater good of society (wasn't there a recent slashdot article that argues revenge is really a social mechanism that is good for society?)
His actions help society. Pirating is bad for society as I see it (if you disagree, then there can be no further discussion on this topic). If pirated programs often cause damage, then people won't pirate the software. End of story.
It also seems like a good way to keep the government out of the anti-piracy business, which inevitably would lead to the errosion of all kinds of rights.
I say there are billions being lost to piracy, and far less due to wiped out home directories.
Socialists should applaud the solution. True, occasionally a user will really lose out of proportions to their offense (most probably do lots of stealing), but it is for the betterment of society as the severe consequences will cause many others to stop illegally downloading software.
Capitalists should applaud it because you do this without increasing the power of the state.
The only losers appear to be the theives.
I used to think of myself as a libertarian, until I heard about Gerald Bull.
Gerald Bull was an engineer who, since he was a child, wanted to launch satellites into outer space with artillery, but could find no first world country to fund his research. Finally, the Iraqis did, and he began creating a supergun for that purpose. Israel, feeling threatened by the gun, purportedly had the Mossad kill Dr. Bull.
So, Dr. Bull was not coercive, but he was killed, and the killing seems justified. The gun posed a threat to the state of Israel. After warning Bull to stop, the Mossad had no option but to kill Bull to prevent this threat.
So, if you agree there are instances where those who have not coerced anyone are justifiably coerced, then coersion is sometimes necessary. Therefore, isn't coersion a given, and just a matter of degree (i.e., there is no fundamental philisophical basis for the libertarian party, the conclusion which I've reluctantly drawn).
Fundamentally, however, I think any system in which one candidate can get 500,000 more votes than his opponent and still lose is somehow, fundamentally, messed up.
It depends on your perspective. The idea was to collect a loose coalition of states that could act together, not to create a huge and powerful federal government.
Personally, I like the idea of a bunch of semi-autonomous states competing for me, working together with a weak federal government. I mean, after all the end of a strong federal government is Soviet Russia.
I think whenever there is a huge monopoly on power, be it in a corporation or in a government, the end result is stagnation.
"...better than letting them" What arrogance. .Or - yes - even nuclear weapons.
. .
What idiocy. It's amazing someone calls this post insightful.
I say that nuclear bombs are very dangerous for all of mankind. They can cause people to die. Many people to die. Why increase the risk of nuclear catastrophy by spreading the decision process to use them to more, probably less stable, regimes?
Because you are afraid of the US being called arrogant? Or even being arrogant? [Note, there are also other adjectives you could use here, if you were even handed].
My guess is you really don't associate yourself with the current US political structure anyway, so you can feel superior in the knowledge that you know the right way to deal with this issue, and the asses in washington trying to keep the world as safe as it is are all morons.
What really gauls me is that If the technology works, a big if, it's great because developing nations such as North Korea will no longer be able to hide behind "nuclear power for energy for the peasants," when they really want to make bombs. In other words, it is good for the proletariate.
I develop software that I don't use, mostly software for embedded devices. What's the value of me developing software?
value="money/etc I get paid" + "fun algorithms" + "accomplishments of doing new stuff"
After all, I could be a manager or something else if I wanted to, so I add in coding (nerd) fun.
What's the value to me of developing a game?
value="fun algos" + "accomplishments"
I can easily buy high quality games (much cheaper than developing them), and for the most part they actually have more of what I want than I could imagine, or what I imagine is technologically not practical.
In other words, there is much less value to me todevelop open source game software than to write cool software for which someone is actually willing to pay me.
Unless there is something really missing in a game that I want, or until there is a Micro$oft of game vendors for me to hate, there really isn't enough value for me to develop open source games.
I could imagine that many years ago, before transportation brought the world so much closer, you might need to know geographical specifics in order to make a business work well, and so there was value in educated people learning geography.
But today? I just don't see how rote knowledge of geography helps the day to day lives of most Americans, other than to know where some Canadian lives. I mean, who cares? It's just a physical location: so what.
For the sake of argument, let's assume it is true that women in general aren't as good at men at science/engineering/other complex field just for the sake of argument.
If you are good, then you should really shake your tail: you must be extremely good compared to others of your sex and so are extremely special.
It seems pretty clear after reading the article that he is talking about a file system (perhaps directory system aware of content formats) that would be interesting if it could work. Want to find a document? Type in some key words and there it is. This is certainly an improvement over Explorer, and a definite improvement over *nix search methods.
Bringing some automagic searching capabilities to my desktop would be a good thing. Trouble is, to get his article published he had to color it with grounded opinions on the anti-trust trial and Linux, which it appears some on
Because of this, his ideas have to be attacked, but they seem worthy of an attempt and relevent.
If the request for bids specifies that the
program must be delivered under the terms of
an open source license, then open source is,
by definition, a requirement for landing that
contract.
Most of this discussion is using "require" in the sense of "have a compelling need for," not "to impose a compulsion or command on."
In other words, we all know that the government is thinking of commanding vendors to deliver software with open source terms, but the question we are contemplating here is "do they really have a compelling need to"?
The government doesn't often need access to source code. A secretary doesn't need to be able to fix bugs in Linux, for instance. He needs a word-processor that works, the output of the word processor needs to be in a format that is compatible with future versions, etc.
Open source is a category of licenses under
which the the program is delivered.
Isn't "open source" actually a term used to describe computer code subject to certain license agreements?