I think what he was saying (or should phrase it like) is that the government should not offer protections of 'intellectual property' to those who do not market/sell/use it.
With a large enough gun, any piece of physical property can be defended. Governments exist to keep us from needing guns to do that.
Intellectual property can ONLY be defended with the use of the government. By removing this government protection from IP that is not used, the market is MORE laise-fare(sp), not less.
Now, if the government were to take an active roll, such as disseminating IP that is not used, that would be wrong.
If the government is acting at the behest of the corporations, what's the difference?
Let's not forget the police who helped break up strikes. Would they have thought of that on their own without the help of the friendly local business man?
Today it's $1 for a DVD, tomorrow it is being arrested for writing a software program. Oops. Scratch that. That was yesterday.
Only a matter of time...
Re:It's a kind of intellectual arrogance.
on
Slashdot IRC Forum
·
· Score: 2
Let me paraphrase:
"[Windows XP] is a big [software project], and unless you know the details of their internal organization, you have no basis for saying what individual [functions, programs, interfaces, etc] should and should not [be like]."
The quote is wrong for software, and your statement is wrong for business. Check that. Wrong for a successful business. Clearly, VA is not a successful company. Recent actions (tip jar) are being undertaken to correct that. Too little, too late. Just like security has to be designed into software from the ground up, so profitability needs to be ingrained in every employee from the ground up.
And again, my point seems to be missed: CT MADE THE DECISION ABOUT THE SUBSCRIPTIONS!! Go back and reread the forum log. He made the decision. His decision. His alone. So either:
a) someone who doesn't know the finances is making financial decision, or, b) someone who knows the finances is lying to the users and making decisions.
Which one of these scenarios would you prefer? (Personally, I'd like a viable 3rd, 4th option, but I don't see it.)
IF, as you imply, CT or Hemos do not need to know the financial details of Slashdot, then why is CT making financial decisions?
Let me ask another question: suppose that I own stock in VA? Am I not then entitled to say what individual (and highly visible) employees should and should not know?
Did it ever occur to anyone that in the same manner that in the same way that 'a million eyes make all bugs shallow', 'a million eyes make all business plans profitable'? Even I'll admit that's an incredulous stretch, but based on publicly available information, VA, and by extension, Slashdot, don't have a freakin' clue.
I've partaken in both of these things. Somehow I managed not to kill myself? Then why do I need little plastic plugs in all of the outlets for kids these days?
Re:It's a kind of intellectual arrogance.
on
Slashdot IRC Forum
·
· Score: 2
No, slashdot is not a business. If it was a business, the department heads (CT for example) would know better how profitable his section was or was not. Hemos would have an accurate report on how overhead was applied to the division.
Slashdot, as a business, makes no attempt to appease me. I (and perhaps here, 'we' is a better term) are ridiculed and slapped down at every occasion.
Pre-andover, I didn't block ads. During andover I didn't block ads. I started blocking ads recently. I also ponied up my five bucks to 'subscribe'. Well, it turns out that's not a 'subscription', I was giving them a 'tip'. I don't tip businesses. If Disney, GM, MS, or Wal-Mart can't control their finances, I don't give them a tip; I attend the liquidation auction.
If they are running a business, it is their duty, to themselves and their shareholders, to create wealth. They won't/can't do this. What they do is try to have the best of both worlds: the lack of standards heaped on a business combined with the 'pity me and help me out' attitude of a charity.
Pick one or the other, and I'll run with it. Answer my questions without a flippant answer, and I'll subscribe; let me deduct it on my taxes, and I will donate.
I've made similar remarks in the past (most noticably during the dot-com burn). And was met with remarks like:
'MBA's don't know what they're doing' 'MBA's are the ones who got us into this mess'
No, they are the ones who sold you a raft of shit. They are ones who suckered the geeks to hell and back with promises of millions of dollars and millions of fans.
They won. You lost. You need them. They need you. Now let's all get over it.
It's okay to defend MS on/. But god forbid you defend a businessman.
Companies have multiple departments. Well, VA does, anyway. Let's say that (and I'm stretching for a name here) scoop works on both slashcode and souceforge. One week his time is split 70-30, the next it is split 50-50.
Now, to determine how profitable both sourceforge and/. are, his salary, bennies, etc. need to be split into both divisions. Not only that, but the rent on his cubicle space, the electricity for that space, the computer he uses, etc.
This is a very common and simple task to people who picked up a few odds and ends while dozing their way through business school. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject could have read my post and the parent, and figured that out.
So we see that not only do the employees and management of VA have problems with problems that GM, Wal-Mart, and IBM licked decades ago, so do the readers of slashdot.
There is a reason that middle management exists. This is what they do. Sorry that folks don't see the value in that. Perhaps when CT is standing on the street corner with a sign saying "will write obfuscated code for anime and a wedding ring" it'll make more sense.
Re:It's a kind of intellectual arrogance.
on
Slashdot IRC Forum
·
· Score: 2
If department managers (and Rob is one) do not have some access to how their department's income and expenses are generated, the managers cannot do an effective job.
Go back and read the forum. The part where CT says that the whole thing was his idea. Now, if he doesn't know the situation and isn't a money wonk, why is he coming up with these strategies? Why not someone with a little more knowledge on the finances? Similarly, how could he make a reasonable decision given his lack of knowledge of the net income of his division? If he does know the situation (and I don't think he does), then why does he lie about it repeatedly (remember, I said IF. I don't think this is the case. I think he added the subscription/tips system without full knowledge of the finances.)
Re:It's a kind of intellectual arrogance.
on
Slashdot IRC Forum
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If they want a donation from me, they can go non-profit so that I can get a deduction. If they insist on calling themselves a business, then they provide value for my money. So far, the ad/experience equation was okay for me. But the experience is not offset by the new-ads, and it certainly isn't offset by the subscription.
Re:It's a kind of intellectual arrogance.
on
Slashdot IRC Forum
·
· Score: 2
I asked a question (that never got sent on, unless asked by someone else). Essentially:
How can you know 12% of viewers read and post, 3% only post, 4% only read, and 80% only look at front page (for example) yet you can't do something as fundamental as apply overhead? I work for a $3 million business with ~50 employees, and it only takes one or two people to maintain that, and only 3-4 who UNDERSTAND THE COMPANY to make the initial decisions. It's not rocket science. It is something that MBA'S ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO DO. Oh, Gasp! Value from an MBA? I'm shocked. Totally shocked.
Let me also state that we have a hell of a lot more bills than you do, and a hell of a lot more sources of income. If we can do it, so can you (you meaning/. eds).
The kill files allow all sorts of regexp matching. I'm sure you can do much more with it than I can (which is mostly killing based on specific user name, and upmodding certain topics)
Irony: The same people who decry the power that Disney/M$/foo have to elected officials whose votes were bought have the brilliant idea to grant more power and higher visibility to those on/. who are willing to pay.
There are aspects of all three political parties that are attractive. In general, I try to vote for candidates, not parties.
But the answer to the broader question is that I would vote for a party that HAS a political philosophy; the Republicans and Democrats have none. They have a monetary philosophy, which is, I'll sell out to the highest bidder. (Yes, there are individual exceptions, but I'm talking about the rule.)
FWIW, I think the Libertarians have some good ideas. However, I also see that if the government functions as a buffer (think acid buffer) during economic sways, things can be better.
That said, you are largely correct: less gov't interference, the better. However, there is one problem: being such a large customer makes the government a disproportionate market force. Perfect competition, Adam Smith, etc. rely on a market where no one buyer or seller can effect (or is that affect?) the market. The US Gov't easily can. If they say "all US Gov't computers use Windows" it is the same as passing a state sponsored religion.
The actions WRT the monopoly hearings should be taken to offset this market power by the Gov't.
Any rational person should be long past the point of giving up on changing the one^H^H^Htwo parties who are in office. There is more difference between Windows '98 and Win '98 SE than there is between the Democratic and Republican parties. Both worship only money.
Now, so do the Libertarians, but at least they believe in a level playing field (no handouts OR boots on the back).
As for me... I'm strongly considered voting a straight Green Party ballot next time. Unless the Republicans put up a serious candidate against the heir apparant to the Glendening throne (MD politics).
Not sure if you are in the US, so I'll assume not. Does it really appear to people outside the US that the Republicans and Democrats are two separate parties? Both are essentially the same party, beholden to business interests (certainly the stories on/. should indicate that). I just read a book that has a few choice points about this kind of thinking. Don't believe the hype. We do NOT have a multi or even two party system. We have a one party system. There were two reasonable candidates for US Pres. other than the Republican and the Democrat. Neither were allowed access to public debates. Neither was given much face time on television. Both had ideas that, while almost diametrically imposed, were intended to help the citizenry, largely at the expense of the corporations.
Hmmm. Upon rereading your comment, it seems you probably are a US citizen. Not too many French/German/Italian/etc. know that much about Hollings. At least I wouldn't think so. Of course, maybe that is me being a parochial American again.
That's acceptable if just referring to 'the arguments'. But when a specific argument is cited in a footnote as backing a particular point... It is a little more than 'bad attribution'. Especially considering this a document by/for lawyers. Attribution is everything.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what he was saying (or should phrase it like) is that the government should not offer protections of 'intellectual property' to those who do not market/sell/use it.
With a large enough gun, any piece of physical property can be defended. Governments exist to keep us from needing guns to do that.
Intellectual property can ONLY be defended with the use of the government. By removing this government protection from IP that is not used, the market is MORE laise-fare(sp), not less.
Now, if the government were to take an active roll, such as disseminating IP that is not used, that would be wrong.
If the government is acting at the behest of the corporations, what's the difference?
Let's not forget the police who helped break up strikes. Would they have thought of that on their own without the help of the friendly local business man?
Today it's $1 for a DVD, tomorrow it is being arrested for writing a software program. Oops. Scratch that. That was yesterday.
Only a matter of time...
The quote is wrong for software, and your statement is wrong for business. Check that. Wrong for a successful business. Clearly, VA is not a successful company. Recent actions (tip jar) are being undertaken to correct that. Too little, too late. Just like security has to be designed into software from the ground up, so profitability needs to be ingrained in every employee from the ground up.
And again, my point seems to be missed: CT MADE THE DECISION ABOUT THE SUBSCRIPTIONS!! Go back and reread the forum log. He made the decision. His decision. His alone. So either:
a) someone who doesn't know the finances is making financial decision, or,
b) someone who knows the finances is lying to the users and making decisions.
Which one of these scenarios would you prefer? (Personally, I'd like a viable 3rd, 4th option, but I don't see it.)
IF, as you imply, CT or Hemos do not need to know the financial details of Slashdot, then why is CT making financial decisions?
Let me ask another question: suppose that I own stock in VA? Am I not then entitled to say what individual (and highly visible) employees should and should not know?
Did it ever occur to anyone that in the same manner that in the same way that 'a million eyes make all bugs shallow', 'a million eyes make all business plans profitable'? Even I'll admit that's an incredulous stretch, but based on publicly available information, VA, and by extension, Slashdot, don't have a freakin' clue.
I've partaken in both of these things. Somehow I managed not to kill myself? Then why do I need little plastic plugs in all of the outlets for kids these days?
No, slashdot is not a business. If it was a business, the department heads (CT for example) would know better how profitable his section was or was not. Hemos would have an accurate report on how overhead was applied to the division.
Slashdot, as a business, makes no attempt to appease me. I (and perhaps here, 'we' is a better term) are ridiculed and slapped down at every occasion.
Pre-andover, I didn't block ads. During andover I didn't block ads. I started blocking ads recently. I also ponied up my five bucks to 'subscribe'. Well, it turns out that's not a 'subscription', I was giving them a 'tip'. I don't tip businesses. If Disney, GM, MS, or Wal-Mart can't control their finances, I don't give them a tip; I attend the liquidation auction.
If they are running a business, it is their duty, to themselves and their shareholders, to create wealth. They won't/can't do this. What they do is try to have the best of both worlds: the lack of standards heaped on a business combined with the 'pity me and help me out' attitude of a charity.
Pick one or the other, and I'll run with it. Answer my questions without a flippant answer, and I'll subscribe; let me deduct it on my taxes, and I will donate.
Sorry. They don't get to go both ways.
I've made similar remarks in the past (most noticably during the dot-com burn). And was met with remarks like:
/. But god forbid you defend a businessman.
'MBA's don't know what they're doing'
'MBA's are the ones who got us into this mess'
No, they are the ones who sold you a raft of shit. They are ones who suckered the geeks to hell and back with promises of millions of dollars and millions of fans.
They won. You lost. You need them. They need you. Now let's all get over it.
It's okay to defend MS on
They're already stretched trying to fill a regular CD with Britney's pap. How the heck are they going to fill some longer format?
I rather hope this was joking...
Go back and reread the Federalist papers, Declaration of Independence, etc, etc. The US was founded by a bunch of whiners and complainers.
The difference is, they did something about it. So the correct answer to complaints is not "GET OUT", but "fix the problem".
Companies have multiple departments. Well, VA does, anyway. Let's say that (and I'm stretching for a name here) scoop works on both slashcode and souceforge. One week his time is split 70-30, the next it is split 50-50.
/. are, his salary, bennies, etc. need to be split into both divisions. Not only that, but the rent on his cubicle space, the electricity for that space, the computer he uses, etc.
Now, to determine how profitable both sourceforge and
This is a very common and simple task to people who picked up a few odds and ends while dozing their way through business school. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject could have read my post and the parent, and figured that out.
So we see that not only do the employees and management of VA have problems with problems that GM, Wal-Mart, and IBM licked decades ago, so do the readers of slashdot.
There is a reason that middle management exists. This is what they do. Sorry that folks don't see the value in that. Perhaps when CT is standing on the street corner with a sign saying "will write obfuscated code for anime and a wedding ring" it'll make more sense.
If department managers (and Rob is one) do not have some access to how their department's income and expenses are generated, the managers cannot do an effective job.
Go back and read the forum. The part where CT says that the whole thing was his idea. Now, if he doesn't know the situation and isn't a money wonk, why is he coming up with these strategies? Why not someone with a little more knowledge on the finances? Similarly, how could he make a reasonable decision given his lack of knowledge of the net income of his division? If he does know the situation (and I don't think he does), then why does he lie about it repeatedly (remember, I said IF. I don't think this is the case. I think he added the subscription/tips system without full knowledge of the finances.)
If they want a donation from me, they can go non-profit so that I can get a deduction. If they insist on calling themselves a business, then they provide value for my money. So far, the ad/experience equation was okay for me. But the experience is not offset by the new-ads, and it certainly isn't offset by the subscription.
I asked a question (that never got sent on, unless asked by someone else). Essentially:
/. eds).
How can you know 12% of viewers read and post, 3% only post, 4% only read, and 80% only look at front page (for example) yet you can't do something as fundamental as apply overhead? I work for a $3 million business with ~50 employees, and it only takes one or two people to maintain that, and only 3-4 who UNDERSTAND THE COMPANY to make the initial decisions. It's not rocket science. It is something that MBA'S ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO DO. Oh, Gasp! Value from an MBA? I'm shocked. Totally shocked.
Let me also state that we have a hell of a lot more bills than you do, and a hell of a lot more sources of income. If we can do it, so can you (you meaning
Sat in for some of the irc, and basically, there ain't no way in hell they are going to delay things for non-subscribers.
slrn
The kill files allow all sorts of regexp matching. I'm sure you can do much more with it than I can (which is mostly killing based on specific user name, and upmodding certain topics)
Let me just jab a pointy stick into that bastard's eyes...
There we go. Secure again.
Fuckin' teddy bears. Knew I couldn't trust 'em after they decimated a few companies of stormtroopers...
Here is one journal on the topic. To see my settings and a few other comments, go here and here.
Anyway, I thought the whole point was "what I'm willing to pay for". If NNTP access is a premium only service, then so be it.
Irony: The same people who decry the power that Disney/M$/foo have to elected officials whose votes were bought have the brilliant idea to grant more power and higher visibility to those on /. who are willing to pay.
What newsreader are you using? I've got much more power in my killfile than in my preferences on slashdot.
Kill all stories from jamie and michael unless they are about goatse.cx and/or have a comment from Bill Gates.
No problem.
There are aspects of all three political parties that are attractive. In general, I try to vote for candidates, not parties.
But the answer to the broader question is that I would vote for a party that HAS a political philosophy; the Republicans and Democrats have none. They have a monetary philosophy, which is, I'll sell out to the highest bidder. (Yes, there are individual exceptions, but I'm talking about the rule.)
FWIW, I think the Libertarians have some good ideas. However, I also see that if the government functions as a buffer (think acid buffer) during economic sways, things can be better.
That said, you are largely correct: less gov't interference, the better. However, there is one problem: being such a large customer makes the government a disproportionate market force. Perfect competition, Adam Smith, etc. rely on a market where no one buyer or seller can effect (or is that affect?) the market. The US Gov't easily can. If they say "all US Gov't computers use Windows" it is the same as passing a state sponsored religion.
The actions WRT the monopoly hearings should be taken to offset this market power by the Gov't.
Any rational person should be long past the point of giving up on changing the one^H^H^Htwo parties who are in office. There is more difference between Windows '98 and Win '98 SE than there is between the Democratic and Republican parties. Both worship only money.
Now, so do the Libertarians, but at least they believe in a level playing field (no handouts OR boots on the back).
As for me... I'm strongly considered voting a straight Green Party ballot next time. Unless the Republicans put up a serious candidate against the heir apparant to the Glendening throne (MD politics).
Not sure if you are in the US, so I'll assume not. Does it really appear to people outside the US that the Republicans and Democrats are two separate parties? Both are essentially the same party, beholden to business interests (certainly the stories on /. should indicate that). I just read a book that has a few choice points about this kind of thinking. Don't believe the hype. We do NOT have a multi or even two party system. We have a one party system. There were two reasonable candidates for US Pres. other than the Republican and the Democrat. Neither were allowed access to public debates. Neither was given much face time on television. Both had ideas that, while almost diametrically imposed, were intended to help the citizenry, largely at the expense of the corporations.
Hmmm. Upon rereading your comment, it seems you probably are a US citizen. Not too many French/German/Italian/etc. know that much about Hollings. At least I wouldn't think so. Of course, maybe that is me being a parochial American again.
What prevents an indian tribe from growing hemp? I thought they were sovereign nations.
That's acceptable if just referring to 'the arguments'. But when a specific argument is cited in a footnote as backing a particular point... It is a little more than 'bad attribution'. Especially considering this a document by/for lawyers. Attribution is everything.
Because teddy bears with five port hubs crammed into them generate more hits.