It's not illegal to call for a revolution. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, remember "We pledge our lives and our sacred honor" "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots"? Doesn't Bush call for the spilling of blood every other day, in some manichean war?
It seems reasonable that if you have a (perfectly legal) website which includes describing molotov cocktails that you actually have made these cocktails and some are in your home. As long as they are not used, you have a right to do this. Do you have a gun in your house? A gun is far more dangerous than some petrol in a bottle. Maybe we should arrest all the groups who argue against excessive govt. powers and who also stockpile arms. They also call for revolution.
And all he did was protest -- the only charges filed against him were jaywalking, not dispersing, conspiracy to not disperse, etc. The FUD about "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism" amounted to nothing more than duct tape and potting soil. Unlike the FBI, he never committed any violence, did not lie about his identity, and did not hide from any courts. Moreover he is not a terrorist. Read the trial transcripts before you're so quick to shout "terrorism" in a crazed nation.
I agree that the existence of "IP" is an interesting and often amusing debate. But that's not relevant to why certain laws are passed. I think that if you carefully review many of the different facets of IP laws, you'll find that in some cases, the dissemination of information+"creative works" is strictly protected, while in other cases it's almost completely unregulated. Plot that on a graph and realize that the big business interests are the ones who decide when something is property and when it's not.
Thought experiment: Suppose we are all imbued with a fanatical belief that information is property. However, we decide that moral rights could never be sold -- that would be akin to slavery. Suppose, further, that ownership could only reside with the direct creator -- no corporate ownership and no works for hire. Note that this just applies the same rules that many companies impose on end-users (you can rent but not own) to the companies themselves. Or, suppose that we applied the sherman act and other anti-monopolist legislation automatically to all "major" owners of patents/copyrights. Or that we taxed IP assets in the same way that we tax property.
I think that suddenly you'd find IP laws becoming much less important, and much of USC 17 slipping into obscurity. And this discussion wouldn't even be taking place here, but in some obscure german philosophical quarterly. The real debate is about protecting consumer rights, limiting competition, and controlling the distribution/sale price of goods. IP is just philosophical cover.
The government demanding a private company's source code?
next time it might be the good guys getting fucked by the government?
Since when was releasing your source code akin to losing your virginity?
I hate microsoft as much as the next guy, but this is getting out of hand.
The govt. just wants to look at it -- not own it, or take it over or mangle it. Besides, M$ will still have their own copy to play with. They can still keep all the source code they have now, and even write more in the future!
This is like saying "Its hard to imagine an auction [ebay.com] website taking over the world." ArsDigita's target market had the potential to satisfy VC's required returns many times over.
I think the market for online auctions -- basically people selling stuff, could be estimated as on the same order of magnitude as classified ads -- pretty big. How many organizations will develop these community message boards and be willing to pay for a service contract with aD?
Also, you have two "first on the market" players. Ebay has an advantage (just like slashdot) because it organizes people, so it snowballs (scales) better. People sell stuff there because its the biggest and so people buy stuff there, etc. This amplifies the advantage of being the first on the scene. The advantage of being the first on the scene with aD is a prestige factor. This doesn't scale as well as soon as, say, IBM or RedHat started offering support as well (the code is GPL'ed). So it's harder to scale and a smaller market in total.
VC's try to avoid risk like the plague. But for them the biggest risk is getting left behind by other Venture firms. So they act like lemmings, out of fear that deviating from the norm will get them in trouble
True, but this is just a finer distinction. They act like lemmings because of the risk. Just like gamblers develop strict rules of when to take an additional card. Everyone knows the rules and, apart from small personal tweaks, the rules are followed obediently because of the great risks involved.
This is not to argue with your other points, and the fact that often VC's make horrible managers and don't understand the market well. My point was that some of these decisions (getting rid of GPL software, etc.) make sense if you're willing to take any risk to for a shot at exponential profit growth. The others are just bad management.
VC's are gamblers. They're not intersted in funding the expansion of Jim's Donut Shop, even if Jim makes a good profit every month.
Their business model is that a very small fraction of their businesses hit the jackpot while the rest fail trying to get there. The real world business model is that most successful businesses are like Jim's. No jackpot. Now, what happens if, for some reason, Jim manages to get a lot of VC cash. Well, you'll see Jim opening up dozens of franchises, building donut-baking warehouses, buying trucks, etc. Odds, are, Jim will fail.
Now in the Internet Bubble there were a lot of good, sound businesses that were really more like Jim's and less like eBay. Duh. In fact, I think the internet is more suited for small profitable outfits -- it doesn't scale very well. With an office, some good coders, a few routers and you can reach the world. But you don't see enormous revenues, and getting 10x as many good coders as when you started is impossible. It's very hard to scale up on the net. But the surreal economy fooled a lot of people into shooting too high. It's hard to imagine ArsDigita -- basically some support for a community database/website -- taking over the world. So the VC's drove it into the ground.
Look, corps are given many rights of personhood, and I was taking a jab at that. In reality they are legal constructs designed to evade responsibility, so the shareholders can reap profits but if the corp is sued, the shareholders' personal assets are not at risk. Additionally, they are entitled to almost all rights that people have (except the 5th amendment) and have many rights that people do not, such paying taxes on net income only, creating their own parents, or splitting themselves into someone else.
By your logic, it would be OK to ban the New York Times because it is published by a corporation..
No, it wouldn't be OK. 1)If corps didn't have first amendment rights, then it does not follow that the govt. has the authority to silence all corporations for whatever reason. 2) Additionally, freedom of the press is explicitly stated in the first amendment. In this case the editors and reporters of the NYTimes could cite their own press credentials as a defense against censorship. Not, however, the shareholders. Moreover, newspapers as well as a lively debate took place in the US long before corps were given the rights of personhood (late 19th century). The two issues are separate.
To my knowledge, the consolidation and corporate control over media causes much more censorship than anything which occured before the advent of corporate citizenship. Censorship is too strong a word, perhaps, and a better one is that the framework of debate is limited. So limited, in fact, that some people have a hard time envisioning something like "freedom of the press" outside of a corporate context;)
the status of ownership and what rights that gives the user. When I copy -- or even buy -- digital data belonging to the RIAA, I still don't own it. I have very few rights -- which are being chipped away. Certainly no right to amalgamate CD's of the stuff, index the data thereon, and sell it as my own. Hell, I may not even be able to make a backup copy.
But my personal data becomes the property of anyone who can get it. Wether by scouring the web, or paying for it, or just spying on me. I have absolutely no control over it. That's the double standard.
in the case of corporations, who aren't people but merely abstractions. they can be censored, without violating anyone's rights.
Also, the issue isn't censorship but ownership and rights of ownership -- if you read my previous post. Most of us slashdotters don't think there should be no IP laws. Just more of a balance. I'm trying to point out the scales are tipped too far.
why is it that when the corps want to make money off of our data that "information wants to be free" -- but when the public wants to trade/make money off of their data that we need stringent IP protections??
And don't tell me that it's because there is a cottage industry bult around violating our privacy, but no cottage industry built around unauthorized copying. If the legal status of the two kinds of info were reversed, so would the industries attached to them.
I'm waiting for one of these data mining companies to patent "their" info and stick the BSA on anyone who copies it without their permission.
No end of harm has been done to those studying intelligence than the dominace of the "brain as computer" metaphor.
It is a useful metaphor, but I'm not aware of any evidence that makes it a more apporpriate metaphor than, say, the brain as a cell or the brain as a bowl of fermenting soup. The brain is an organic, chemical organ. Yes neurons are used to send signals, but so are proteins, and bare chemical compounds such as, say, LSD. There is no more meaning to the statement:"the brain runs at 20HZ" then to the statement "The brain runs at 98.6F". Actually the latter is on much more solid footing and has real predictive power.
It is a historical accident that most of those who are studying intelligence now consider themselves computer scientists, instead of the alchemists and biologists which studied the brain in earlier times. Presently, the biochemists and linguists are doing fantastic and interesting work -- but their advancements are limited to the more humble task of modelling/predicting things such as emotions, experiences, sleep patterns, etc. It's the CS guys that get the military funding for expert systems and most of the public mindshare.
There would be massive bombing in Iran, and most of the world would be behind it. Just like the U.S. would probably be bombed into a third world country if we executed Dmitry.
After everyone bombs each other a few times, countries establish embassies and laws -- or at least "norms" which basically say that we keep out of each other's hair.
That's why a French court overturned a recent ruling against Yahoo, which fined them for selling Nazi paraphenilia. So with the interent there are real jurisdiction issues which must be hammered out. It's not like opening a shop in another country. If an Iranian citizen send an http request over the wires to a server in a different country, the packets travel through 7 other countries along the way, and gets a reply which travels across the wires of another 9 states, then it's not obvious which country's laws apply to the transaction.
One of my arguments was to minimize things like bombing each other, both sides tread carefully before trying to extend their control over the international network. And I think the legal system is dimly aware of this.
So then I take it that Amazon can be sued for selling the "Satanic Verses" to Iranian customers? I think the death penalty is still possible for that. And if that were to happen, and say a vice president of Amazon was executed because of it, there would be no outcry about "jurisdiction," because obviously you are bound by all of the laws in the homelands of all of your customers -- and any attempts to question jurisdiction would be "ridiculous".
More examples: In some countries certain religious books are illegal. Lets hope no executive from Barnes and Noble plans on making a vacation to Beijing. Also, those who provide anonymizers such as (now defunct) safeweb -- even for free -- could easily be arrested on a tourist trip to any number of exotic destinations. According to your logic, by providing a service to a foreigner, they are bound by his laws.
This is not meant as a flame, but really I think
that these arguments apply (predominantly) in one direction -- when a foreign entity violates a US law. So we can kidnap foreign heads of state and try them for violating US drug laws. Or freeze the assets of foreign agencies by executive order and without legal recourse. Just try reversing the situation and watch what a legal uproar would erupt. All of suddenly you'll hear about sovereignty and how international norms trump local laws in certain cases.
for software precisely because the "general to specific" heiearchy breaks down.
It's not enough for Linus to wave his hands and say "we need a new VM", and then Joe hacker writes one.
Joe hacker, on the bottom, is fixing typos and writing documentation. Actually, Joe Hacker is probably working on apps.
The brigade commander, in your analogy, is writing the VM in bits and pieces. Linus has to go through it carefully and apply the diffs or not. Software is all about details. There are ways (e.g. modularity and interfaces) of splitting up the work, but only to a certain extent.
Imagine a war fought almost entirely by the general staff, with their subordinates serving as assistants and sopport staff -- it's the reverse of your analogy: A small group of people at the very top write most of the code.
it's GW's cabinet. He appoints the people based (supposedly) on their philosophies, so he's responsible for them. You don't have to prove that. He 1) stands by their choices, or 2) overrules/fires them, or 3) is incompetent. You only need evidence to choose which of the three you believe.
There is nothing wrong with reverse engineering. Reverse engineering brought us AMD as a competitor to Intel, as well as IBM clones -- it's complicated, as AMD also pays royalties to Intel for other IP. IANAL, but I vaguely recall some federal(?) statutes which actually protect the right to reverse engineer. Any lawyers out here are welcome to correct/elaborate.
Also relevant might be that MS has only filed a trademark infringement suit against Lindows, not a claim of "illegal" reverse engineering, and I think if your post was right, MS would have brought it up a while ago.
If your goal is to switch places with "ana" in the article and yell at some other sop, then go get a degree in management, work hard, and maybe one day you will get to hold the whip.
If your goal is to improve the lot of people in general, then address the systematic incentives in our economy for these sweatshops. Atleast minimize them. Maybe change the playing field so that these types of parasitic business models are punished.
Why parastic? Well, these temp workers are not going to be buying a lot of printers. The idea of the worker who can afford his own model-T is sustainable. Having a horde of disposable temps who make stuff that only a shrinking middle class can buy is parasitic.
What are the incentives for these sweatshops?
the above hidden cost is not paid.
The big 5 accounting firms have successfully lobbied the SEC to not require reforms in reporting compensation packages. This allows management to pay themselves more, because this pay is hidden from shareholders. This (along with LBOs and management sitting on each others' boards) is a big source in shifting money from supervised to supervisory employees (total labor costs have remained constant). This can be addressed with accounting reforms.
The laws on the books protecting the rights of workers to communicate and organized are not enforced. Scared, disorganized employees are then confronted with organized management which is confident it can break the laws with impunity.
make the true owners (hp in this case) legally responsible for how their employees are treated. Let defacto employees == legal employees. Again, this is a shell game which we let the big boys play to avoid responsibility and bad p.r.
the article contains an example of clearly an illegal firing. This was done for political purposes and without cause. The employee can no go to unemployment and uncle sam foots the bill. Companies who want this kind of "flexibility" should then pay for it by paying much higher unemployment insurance. Companies who don't engage in these practices will have lower costs.
Not paying someone's paycheck is illegal. How about some enforcement on that.
Immigration reform. If you come here you can work for anyone. Companies who decide to use the INS as their personal manpower recruiter should then pay some of the INS's budget, no? While those who don't shouldn't pay this cost.
openness. No secret meetings, no policies of "we can't tell you if a list exists, and if it does, wether your name is on it." Documents relating to your employment should be accessible to you. More inspectors, more news coverage. HP, Amazon, IBM, know the power of goodwill in the marketplace.
There's nothing wrong or shameful with washing dishes, carrying boxes, loading packages, or seasonal employment. It's possible to treat these employees well, have everything above board, and enforce their rights. Many countries manage to do it, and it's more a matter of political power and organization which prevents it happening here. Remember, there is nothing inherently more indispensible or rare in another kind of seasonal work: the business consultant. But the latter has powerful (non-"market") institutions which protect his interests: academia, networks of friends, cultural prestige, congressional lobbyists. These interests tweak the business climate to support him.
Just think:
You want to shut down a plant, but can cover your ass if some fancy name consultant recommends it. Guaranteed income for Anderson Consulting!
Or
A ceo (say for Cisco) gets stock options. If the business goes up, he gets 700 million, if it goes down he pays..nothing. The utility function doesn't dip below the x-axis. That's called, in economics, a "moral hazard".
These examples are due to institutional policies which benefit these two groups. Nothing at all to do with working hard, free markets, or improving yourself. Everything to do with culture, the legal system, accounting rules, and business practices. In short -- power. And there are ways for dishwashers and assembly workers to be powerful, too. Not artificial ways, but natural ones, since everyone needs/wants dishwashers and loaders. Poeple have to be forced into hiring lawyers and consultants. Simple power of the vote, of organizing, of information can be enough to make the life of the seasonal worker much better.
Well leaving just because you don't like your boss is cocky
There's a difference between a personal dislike for your boss and being opposed to your employers' vision. SSCA, DMCA, DRM -- these are things that Time Warner has been pushing and Cox opposes them. It's not a matter of going out for beers. You know those sections in resumes that talk about "goals"? Some people have 'em and want to find work which doesn't conflict with them.
...all the pens you stole the day before...too lazy to take your kid school shoppin.
hmm. Sounds like you have a great opinion of your coworkers. Some people demand docile, obedient employees who don't question anything and do what they're told. Why would anyone like that hire a kernel hacker?
AOL HASN'T BOUGHT RED HAT YET
True, and maybe because of these comments they wont. Certainly in mergers we (often) hear the opinions of investors, of management, sometimes of the Feds. Many such float balloons through press conferences or leaks to the papers. Are you saying the employees are the only ones who should shut up and not have a voice in the buyout?
AOL has yet to put massive controls on a company that they've acquired..
Ahh, so now we leave the argument of "be glad you have a job" to "is the buyout a good thing?". Well, all I'm saying is that Cox should be able to form his opinion on this and post that opinion on a mailing list -- just like you do above. I think there's more at stake for him.
Cox really needs to look at who puts food on the table
Everyone does. But some people also have other things in their heads beyond stealing pencils and drinking beer. It's true that most people don't have enough autonomy to work for a company they really believe in, let alone don't despise. There is a power imbalance. Corps can require urine samples, personality tests, multiple interviews to see if you are the right 'fit' for them. But when an employee has enough currency to actually choose not to work for a company he doesn't believe in, you seem to hate his freedom for doing so.
Chess is all about raising one's ego, and dominating the ego of the opponent.
That's mostly the attitude I encounter when playing A or B level players on ICC. These are the same people (guys, typically) who disconnect if they're losing a match.
Chess is also about cleverness, improvisation, cat-and-mouse games, and lots of study and preparation. Ever see some of Karpov's draws? They're beautiful. Most games end in a draw, actually.
At the higher levels, the distinction between determination, strength of will on the one hand and crushing egos and being a prick on the other becomes pronounced. Most of the testosterone driven, inflated (and therefore fragile) egos don't survive very well when there are hundreds players better than you, and you have to make many sacrifices to continue your chess career.
Re:TROLLS DEMAND EQUALITY
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Which country do you live in?
It's not illegal to call for a revolution. That's what Thomas Jefferson did, remember "We pledge our lives and our sacred honor" "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots"? Doesn't Bush call for the spilling of blood every other day, in some manichean war?
It seems reasonable that if you have a (perfectly legal) website which includes describing molotov cocktails that you actually have made these cocktails and some are in your home. As long as they are not used, you have a right to do this. Do you have a gun in your house? A gun is far more dangerous than some petrol in a bottle. Maybe we should arrest all the groups who argue against excessive govt. powers and who also stockpile arms. They also call for revolution.
And all he did was protest -- the only charges filed against him were jaywalking, not dispersing, conspiracy to not disperse, etc. The FUD about "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism" amounted to nothing more than duct tape and potting soil. Unlike the FBI, he never committed any violence, did not lie about his identity, and did not hide from any courts. Moreover he is not a terrorist. Read the trial transcripts before you're so quick to shout "terrorism" in a crazed nation.
I agree that the existence of "IP" is an interesting and often amusing debate. But that's not relevant to why certain laws are passed. I think that if you carefully review many of the different facets of IP laws, you'll find that in some cases, the dissemination of information+"creative works" is strictly protected, while in other cases it's almost completely unregulated. Plot that on a graph and realize that the big business interests are the ones who decide when something is property and when it's not.
Thought experiment: Suppose we are all imbued with a fanatical belief that information is property. However, we decide that moral rights could never be sold -- that would be akin to slavery. Suppose, further, that ownership could only reside with the direct creator -- no corporate ownership and no works for hire. Note that this just applies the same rules that many companies impose on end-users (you can rent but not own) to the companies themselves. Or, suppose that we applied the sherman act and other anti-monopolist legislation automatically to all "major" owners of patents/copyrights. Or that we taxed IP assets in the same way that we tax property.
I think that suddenly you'd find IP laws becoming much less important, and much of USC 17 slipping into obscurity. And this discussion wouldn't even be taking place here, but in some obscure german philosophical quarterly. The real debate is about protecting consumer rights, limiting competition, and controlling the distribution/sale price of goods. IP is just philosophical cover.
The government demanding a private company's source code?
next time it might be the good guys getting fucked by the government?
Since when was releasing your source code akin to losing your virginity?
I hate microsoft as much as the next guy, but this is getting out of hand.
The govt. just wants to look at it -- not own it, or take it over or mangle it. Besides, M$ will still have their own copy to play with. They can still keep all the source code they have now, and even write more in the future!
MS wrote IE.
MS wrote Messenger.
MS wants to bundle the two together into their OS.
A browser is not a server.
Linux is a kernel, not a distro.
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 9.1).
This is like saying "Its hard to imagine an auction [ebay.com] website taking over the world." ArsDigita's target market had the potential to satisfy VC's required returns many times over.
I think the market for online auctions -- basically people selling stuff, could be estimated as on the same order of magnitude as classified ads -- pretty big. How many organizations will develop these community message boards and be willing to pay for a service contract with aD?
Also, you have two "first on the market" players. Ebay has an advantage (just like slashdot) because it organizes people, so it snowballs (scales) better. People sell stuff there because its the biggest and so people buy stuff there, etc. This amplifies the advantage of being the first on the scene. The advantage of being the first on the scene with aD is a prestige factor. This doesn't scale as well as soon as, say, IBM or RedHat started offering support as well (the code is GPL'ed). So it's harder to scale and a smaller market in total.
VC's try to avoid risk like the plague. But for them the biggest risk is getting left behind by other Venture firms. So they act like lemmings, out of fear that deviating from the norm will get them in trouble
True, but this is just a finer distinction. They act like lemmings because of the risk. Just like gamblers develop strict rules of when to take an additional card. Everyone knows the rules and, apart from small personal tweaks, the rules are followed obediently because of the great risks involved.
This is not to argue with your other points, and the fact that often VC's make horrible managers and don't understand the market well. My point was that some of these decisions (getting rid of GPL software, etc.) make sense if you're willing to take any risk to for a shot at exponential profit growth. The others are just bad management.
You're right. I was very sleepy when I made the new sig and got the quote wrong.
they hada good buisiness model, once...
You mean the VC's?
;)
VC's are gamblers. They're not intersted in funding the expansion of Jim's Donut Shop, even if Jim makes a good profit every month.
Their business model is that a very small fraction of their businesses hit the jackpot while the rest fail trying to get there. The real world business model is that most successful businesses are like Jim's. No jackpot. Now, what happens if, for some reason, Jim manages to get a lot of VC cash. Well, you'll see Jim opening up dozens of franchises, building donut-baking warehouses, buying trucks, etc. Odds, are, Jim will fail.
Now in the Internet Bubble there were a lot of good, sound businesses that were really more like Jim's and less like eBay. Duh. In fact, I think the internet is more suited for small profitable outfits -- it doesn't scale very well. With an office, some good coders, a few routers and you can reach the world. But you don't see enormous revenues, and getting 10x as many good coders as when you started is impossible. It's very hard to scale up on the net. But the surreal economy fooled a lot of people into shooting too high. It's hard to imagine ArsDigita -- basically some support for a community database/website -- taking over the world. So the VC's drove it into the ground.
rant:
..
Look, corps are given many rights of personhood, and I was taking a jab at that. In reality they are legal constructs designed to evade responsibility, so the shareholders can reap profits but if the corp is sued, the shareholders' personal assets are not at risk. Additionally, they are entitled to almost all rights that people have (except the 5th amendment) and have many rights that people do not, such paying taxes on net income only, creating their own parents, or splitting themselves into someone else.
By your logic, it would be OK to ban the New York Times because it is published by a corporation
No, it wouldn't be OK. 1)If corps didn't have first amendment rights, then it does not follow that the govt. has the authority to silence all corporations for whatever reason. 2) Additionally, freedom of the press is explicitly stated in the first amendment. In this case the editors and reporters of the NYTimes could cite their own press credentials as a defense against censorship. Not, however, the shareholders. Moreover, newspapers as well as a lively debate took place in the US long before corps were given the rights of personhood (late 19th century). The two issues are separate.
To my knowledge, the consolidation and corporate control over media causes much more censorship than anything which occured before the advent of corporate citizenship. Censorship is too strong a word, perhaps, and a better one is that the framework of debate is limited. So limited, in fact, that some people have a hard time envisioning something like "freedom of the press" outside of a corporate context;)
the status of ownership and what rights that gives the user. When I copy -- or even buy -- digital data belonging to the RIAA, I still don't own it. I have very few rights -- which are being chipped away. Certainly no right to amalgamate CD's of the stuff, index the data thereon, and sell it as my own. Hell, I may not even be able to make a backup copy.
But my personal data becomes the property of anyone who can get it. Wether by scouring the web, or paying for it, or just spying on me. I have absolutely no control over it. That's the double standard.
in the case of corporations, who aren't people but merely abstractions. they can be censored, without violating anyone's rights.
Also, the issue isn't censorship but ownership and rights of ownership -- if you read my previous post. Most of us slashdotters don't think there should be no IP laws. Just more of a balance. I'm trying to point out the scales are tipped too far.
I've asked it before and I'll ask it again:
why is it that when the corps want to make money off of our data that "information wants to be free" -- but when the public wants to trade/make money off of their data that we need stringent IP protections??
And don't tell me that it's because there is a cottage industry bult around violating our privacy, but no cottage industry built around unauthorized copying. If the legal status of the two kinds of info were reversed, so would the industries attached to them.
I'm waiting for one of these data mining companies to patent "their" info and stick the BSA on anyone who copies it without their permission.
now just disclose the name of your company. A BSA audit should be a breeze, no?
No end of harm has been done to those studying intelligence than the dominace of the "brain as computer" metaphor.
:"the brain runs at 20HZ" then to the statement "The brain runs at 98.6F". Actually the latter is on much more solid footing and has real predictive power.
It is a useful metaphor, but I'm not aware of any evidence that makes it a more apporpriate metaphor than, say, the brain as a cell or the brain as a bowl of fermenting soup. The brain is an organic, chemical organ. Yes neurons are used to send signals, but so are proteins, and bare chemical compounds such as, say, LSD. There is no more meaning to the statement
It is a historical accident that most of those who are studying intelligence now consider themselves computer scientists, instead of the alchemists and biologists which studied the brain in earlier times. Presently, the biochemists and linguists are doing fantastic and interesting work -- but their advancements are limited to the more humble task of modelling/predicting things such as emotions, experiences, sleep patterns, etc. It's the CS guys that get the military funding for expert systems and most of the public mindshare.
is still a language that's much easier/quicker to code in than C++,
and that has all the portability of the old Java, in addition to this (still vaporware) extra feature.
of notions such as jurisdiction:
There would be massive bombing in Iran, and most of the world would be behind it. Just like the U.S. would probably be bombed into a third world country if we executed Dmitry.
After everyone bombs each other a few times, countries establish embassies and laws -- or at least "norms" which basically say that we keep out of each other's hair.
That's why a French court overturned a recent ruling against Yahoo, which fined them for selling Nazi paraphenilia. So with the interent there are real jurisdiction issues which must be hammered out. It's not like opening a shop in another country. If an Iranian citizen send an http request over the wires to a server in a different country, the packets travel through 7 other countries along the way, and gets a reply which travels across the wires of another 9 states, then it's not obvious which country's laws apply to the transaction.
One of my arguments was to minimize things like bombing each other, both sides tread carefully before trying to extend their control over the international network. And I think the legal system is dimly aware of this.
So then I take it that Amazon can be sued for selling the "Satanic Verses" to Iranian customers? I think the death penalty is still possible for that. And if that were to happen, and say a vice president of Amazon was executed because of it, there would be no outcry about "jurisdiction," because obviously you are bound by all of the laws in the homelands of all of your customers -- and any attempts to question jurisdiction would be "ridiculous".
More examples: In some countries certain religious books are illegal. Lets hope no executive from Barnes and Noble plans on making a vacation to Beijing. Also, those who provide anonymizers such as (now defunct) safeweb -- even for free -- could easily be arrested on a tourist trip to any number of exotic destinations. According to your logic, by providing a service to a foreigner, they are bound by his laws.
This is not meant as a flame, but really I think that these arguments apply (predominantly) in one direction -- when a foreign entity violates a US law. So we can kidnap foreign heads of state and try them for violating US drug laws. Or freeze the assets of foreign agencies by executive order and without legal recourse. Just try reversing the situation and watch what a legal uproar would erupt. All of suddenly you'll hear about sovereignty and how international norms trump local laws in certain cases.
Suddenly, the objection wont seem so ridiculous.
for software precisely because the "general to specific" heiearchy breaks down.
It's not enough for Linus to wave his hands and say "we need a new VM", and then Joe hacker writes one.
Joe hacker, on the bottom, is fixing typos and writing documentation. Actually, Joe Hacker is probably working on apps.
The brigade commander, in your analogy, is writing the VM in bits and pieces. Linus has to go through it carefully and apply the diffs or not. Software is all about details. There are ways (e.g. modularity and interfaces) of splitting up the work, but only to a certain extent.
Imagine a war fought almost entirely by the general staff, with their subordinates serving as assistants and sopport staff -- it's the reverse of your analogy: A small group of people at the very top write most of the code.
it's GW's cabinet. He appoints the people based (supposedly) on their philosophies, so he's responsible for them. You don't have to prove that. He 1) stands by their choices, or 2) overrules/fires them, or 3) is incompetent. You only need evidence to choose which of the three you believe.
There is nothing wrong with reverse engineering. Reverse engineering brought us AMD as a competitor to Intel, as well as IBM clones -- it's complicated, as AMD also pays royalties to Intel for other IP. IANAL, but I vaguely recall some federal(?) statutes which actually protect the right to reverse engineer. Any lawyers out here are welcome to correct/elaborate.
Also relevant might be that MS has only filed a trademark infringement suit against Lindows, not a claim of "illegal" reverse engineering, and I think if your post was right, MS would have brought it up a while ago.
b
If your goal is to switch places with "ana" in the article and yell at some other sop, then go get a degree in management, work hard, and maybe one day you will get to hold the whip.
If your goal is to improve the lot of people in general, then address the systematic incentives in our economy for these sweatshops. Atleast minimize them. Maybe change the playing field so that these types of parasitic business models are punished.
Why parastic? Well, these temp workers are not going to be buying a lot of printers. The idea of the worker who can afford his own model-T is sustainable. Having a horde of disposable temps who make stuff that only a shrinking middle class can buy is parasitic.
What are the incentives for these sweatshops?
the above hidden cost is not paid.
The big 5 accounting firms have successfully lobbied the SEC to not require reforms in reporting compensation packages. This allows management to pay themselves more, because this pay is hidden from shareholders. This (along with LBOs and management sitting on each others' boards) is a big source in shifting money from supervised to supervisory employees (total labor costs have remained constant). This can be addressed with accounting reforms.
The laws on the books protecting the rights of workers to communicate and organized are not enforced. Scared, disorganized employees are then confronted with organized management which is confident it can break the laws with impunity.
make the true owners (hp in this case) legally responsible for how their employees are treated. Let defacto employees == legal employees. Again, this is a shell game which we let the big boys play to avoid responsibility and bad p.r.
the article contains an example of clearly an illegal firing. This was done for political purposes and without cause. The employee can no go to unemployment and uncle sam foots the bill. Companies who want this kind of "flexibility" should then pay for it by paying much higher unemployment insurance. Companies who don't engage in these practices will have lower costs.
Not paying someone's paycheck is illegal. How about some enforcement on that.
Immigration reform. If you come here you can work for anyone. Companies who decide to use the INS as their personal manpower recruiter should then pay some of the INS's budget, no? While those who don't shouldn't pay this cost.
openness. No secret meetings, no policies of "we can't tell you if a list exists, and if it does, wether your name is on it." Documents relating to your employment should be accessible to you. More inspectors, more news coverage. HP, Amazon, IBM, know the power of goodwill in the marketplace.
There's nothing wrong or shameful with washing dishes, carrying boxes, loading packages, or seasonal employment. It's possible to treat these employees well, have everything above board, and enforce their rights. Many countries manage to do it, and it's more a matter of political power and organization which prevents it happening here. Remember, there is nothing inherently more indispensible or rare in another kind of seasonal work: the business consultant. But the latter has powerful (non-"market") institutions which protect his interests: academia, networks of friends, cultural prestige, congressional lobbyists. These interests tweak the business climate to support him.
Just think:
You want to shut down a plant, but can cover your ass if some fancy name consultant recommends it. Guaranteed income for Anderson Consulting!
Or
A ceo (say for Cisco) gets stock options. If the business goes up, he gets 700 million, if it goes down he pays..nothing. The utility function doesn't dip below the x-axis. That's called, in economics, a "moral hazard".
These examples are due to institutional policies which benefit these two groups. Nothing at all to do with working hard, free markets, or improving yourself. Everything to do with culture, the legal system, accounting rules, and business practices. In short -- power. And there are ways for dishwashers and assembly workers to be powerful, too. Not artificial ways, but natural ones, since everyone needs/wants dishwashers and loaders. Poeple have to be forced into hiring lawyers and consultants. Simple power of the vote, of organizing, of information can be enough to make the life of the seasonal worker much better.
of what happened to date.
You can read the original mix of hurt feelings, screams of piglethood, and resentment here
Well leaving just because you don't like your boss is cocky
...all the pens you stole the day before...too lazy to take your kid school shoppin.
There's a difference between a personal dislike for your boss and being opposed to your employers' vision. SSCA, DMCA, DRM -- these are things that Time Warner has been pushing and Cox opposes them. It's not a matter of going out for beers. You know those sections in resumes that talk about "goals"? Some people have 'em and want to find work which doesn't conflict with them.
hmm. Sounds like you have a great opinion of your coworkers. Some people demand docile, obedient employees who don't question anything and do what they're told. Why would anyone like that hire a kernel hacker?
AOL HASN'T BOUGHT RED HAT YET
True, and maybe because of these comments they wont. Certainly in mergers we (often) hear the opinions of investors, of management, sometimes of the Feds. Many such float balloons through press conferences or leaks to the papers. Are you saying the employees are the only ones who should shut up and not have a voice in the buyout?
AOL has yet to put massive controls on a company that they've acquired..
Ahh, so now we leave the argument of "be glad you have a job" to "is the buyout a good thing?". Well, all I'm saying is that Cox should be able to form his opinion on this and post that opinion on a mailing list -- just like you do above. I think there's more at stake for him.
Cox really needs to look at who puts food on the table
Everyone does. But some people also have other things in their heads beyond stealing pencils and drinking beer. It's true that most people don't have enough autonomy to work for a company they really believe in, let alone don't despise. There is a power imbalance. Corps can require urine samples, personality tests, multiple interviews to see if you are the right 'fit' for them. But when an employee has enough currency to actually choose not to work for a company he doesn't believe in, you seem to hate his freedom for doing so.
Chess is all about raising one's ego, and dominating the ego of the opponent.
That's mostly the attitude I encounter when playing A or B level players on ICC. These are the same people (guys, typically) who disconnect if they're losing a match.
Chess is also about cleverness, improvisation, cat-and-mouse games, and lots of study and preparation. Ever see some of Karpov's draws? They're beautiful. Most games end in a draw, actually.
At the higher levels, the distinction between determination, strength of will on the one hand and crushing egos and being a prick on the other becomes pronounced. Most of the testosterone driven, inflated (and therefore fragile) egos don't survive very well when there are hundreds players better than you, and you have to make many sacrifices to continue your chess career.
sounds like a great idea.