Amongst other things, if you're paying me to write perl, you're not paying me to write English. If you can't read it, that's your bad lookout.
I don't mean to pick on PigleT here... but I think this attitude is absolutely terrible... even rather iconic of tech mistakes.
If I am hiring someone to write code (in whatever language, this isn't about Perl/Python specifically), I am most certainly also hiring them to write English. I just simply do not want to hire someone whose only strong language is a programming language (rather than also a natural language). If anything, for almost any real-life programming job, the natural language skills are a lot more important to doing the job well than are the programming language skills.
I have inherited a fair amount of code that suffers from just the problem I am pointing at. Programmers who really have quite poor verbal skills, but think of altogether too clever ways of doing a programming job. This is almost completely worthless six months later. And as likely as not, it winds up missing the real business requirements of a given job... since it is only clever programming; not equally clever specification and technical analysis.
Re: Jon Udell's: "A Perl Hacker in the Land of Python" (http://www.byte.com/feature/BYT20000201S0001)
Well, since someone else mentined it, here's a reaction I had to an email conversation where the Udell URL was cited. Take it or leave it... but I finally pinned down what I think is wrong with Wall's initially rather intriguing 'philosophy':
You know in Perl the motto is "there is more than one way to do it". Larry Wall takes this by way of a linguistics background, and wants to make Perl resemble a natural language. In contrast--at least at a syntactic level--Python has fairly clear rules about what something *has* to look like, and there tends to be a high degree of orthogonality (which Wall vehemently eschews). There were some remarks like this in the article. (Obviously, in terms of semantics, large-scale design, and algorithms, there are many ways to do a thing in any language).
I think Perl succeeds in what it is trying to do. For that reason, it really does often look like a "write-only" language. You can easily express your own "thoughts" fluidly and naturally... the problem is that they are then as difficult to unpack later as a poem or a complex philosophical sentence (good uses of natural language).
The thing that Wall &gang seem to miss is the distinct registers of natural language. The whole thing is very rich in expressivity, and highly non-orthogonal. But that is absolutely *NOT* the case when it comes to specialized areas of natural language where clarity and precision are at a premium. I *WANT* air-traffic controllers to speak in a highly structured, syntactically and lexically limited, and stereotypical fashion! I really *DO NOT* want them to use free verse! To a somewhat lesser extent, I also want programming specs or technical documentation to follow a rather rigid pattern. When I look in the help file, it makes my life a lot easier if the list of parameters to a function are always described under the same heading, with a consistent and fairly small subset of English words, and with an attention to consistent whitespace, layout and special characters.
The moral is that Perl is a great language for *implementing* haiku... but Python is rather better at implementing functional specs.
While I don't disagree with Jon Katz' post, I do think it is important to take care in realizing just how truly malevalent Henry Ford himself was when talking about his "positive accomplishments".
As well as the extremely violent strike-breakers he regularly employed, who murdered and mutilated a large number of his employees, Henry Ford was certainly the most infamous and most prominent anti-semite of his time. He was an extremely enthusiastic supporter of Adolf Hitler's rise (this is not Goodwin's Law in this context)... going as far as direct monetary support of that regime. As well, Henry Ford republicized and brought to prominence the hate tract _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_. Probably worst of all, Ford himself was author of the millions-selling _International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem_.
Just something to keep in mind when thinking of the basis of Fordism.
Me previously: --- The idea of getting/. discussions mirrored on to an NNTP server is the greatest idea I've heard in a long time. ---
I think auntfloyd raises several worthwhile issues following my enthusiasm for an NNTP mirror to slashdot discussions. I also think they all have reasonable answers. Let me just suggest my own preferred answers to each (if it happens, the great Taco can ultimately make the decisions he thinks are best).
| How will moderation work through a newsreader? | Or will you just killfile the ACs?
I would suggest leaving the From: field as indicating 'Anonymous Coward' where it was. Most newsreaders should be able to filter on the From: field... and if someone wishes, she can killfile that From: value.
| And Slashdot is ad-supported. How would that | work in an environment like Usenet?
Well... text ads in sigs are one thing. But like another poster said, the ads aren't exactly a *feature* from the POV of discussants. Personally though, I'm not suggesting the NNTP mirror to completely replace/., but just as an adjunct. I would still probably want to read the articles first in a browser, and then look at selected threads in my (more flexible) newsreader.
Btw. I think the arrangement of broad categories should be in terms of the same broad categories stories fall into. So there might be newsgroups like: slashdot.rights-online, slashdot.BSD (and so on). That way I could subscribe to only those groups that most interested me, but not bother with the others.
| And what about user accounts? And wouldn't | using Usenet open it up to a lot more spam than | we've ever seen before?
I would think there would certainly have to be some automated moderation criteria for accepted posts via the NNTP gateway. Another poster suggested a PGP signature, but I think that would be overly cumbersome. Better might be a special header field (X-user-account: ?), which might not be unbreakable, but would certainly eliminate the more-or-less random and blanket spam. Or maybe even more forgiving of less versatile newsreaders would be to require a special form of the Subject: field ( Re:Please, please...). This special form could be stripped out before it made it to an actual post, but it would similarly eliminate blanket spammers).
| I could see using a single, centerally- | controlled NNTP server (or set of servers) | which would me modified to disallow posting to | the discussions, so that you could read | Slashdot via a newsreader, but not post.
That's a possibility, but I don't think it's necessary. I *do* think that the aim should be a specific hierarchy on a limited set of machines, rather than an RFC for a whole new hierarchy. But lots of companies and organizations host their own private hierarchy... and that pretty well has the same advantages of general Usenet groups.
But as indicated above, I think posting could be automatically moderated by the types of means above. The moderation of a post provided via NNTP would still have to occur via the regular web page (or possibly via an email-robot, using Message-ID's and appropriate moderation codes). But a suitable X-user-account: should be able to post just like that same person could via the web-board (with the same karma, etc.).
The idea of getting/. discussions mirrored on to an NNTP server is the greatest idea I've heard in a long time. I sure hope this improvement makes it.
I first started reading/. in mid-1998, which puts me fairly near the start of the usage curve. My user # is certainly in the top 10%, and by now maybe in the top 1% (this is hardly to brag: I only contribute to threads occassionally, and have only a moderate karma thereby).
Anyway, one of the main hesitations I had in spending much time on/. at the beginning was that the discussion capabilities were *SO FAR* behind the Usenet in terms of speed, usability (in my favorite news client), archivability, searchability, and in all the other things that make NNTP great. Over the last year,/. has added some nice features (the moderation, for a big one). But even still, it doesn't come anywhere close to Usenet in terms of convenience. (slashdot is still occassionally way too slow, and there is no way to browse discussion, respond, etc. offline).
This was discussed recently in the "death of Usenet" thread, and I guess a lot of correct points were made there. But I really think the *open* and distributed format of NNTP is the very best thing the internet has created. It is open in a lot of ways, too. The discussion is inherently public (if not unambiguously "public-domain") in a way even/. style boards are not. And it is an open standard that allows everyone to have their favorite newsreader that encorporates all the features they find most useful (again unlike a web-board). News feeds are easily searchable plain-ASCII, which is wonderful (which web-boards are not, even for comments posted as ASCII).
A distant second here would be a majordomo or listserv type mirror of/.. But all else pales next to NNTP.
Word misuse by the word-sleuth
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 1
For someone who is so clever about forensic linguistics, it is a bit surprising for Foster to rather blatently misuse words. It almost makes me doubt just how meritorious is his braggadocio.
Foster writes that it was the famous Unabomber Manifesto, "Industrial Society and Its Future," completed and mailed in June 1995 that ultimately led the Unabomber Task Force to Kaczynski's Montana cabin. "I believe," he writes, "that the same wonderfully verbose document, partly written in California libraries, could have led agents to Ted Kaczynski even without David Kaczynski's invaluable assistance."
In point of fact, if Ted Kaczynski could have been found even without his brother's assistance, David Kaczynski's help may have been valuable... but it was not invaluable.
I've read several articles and the slashdot comments on this matter of CBS electronically changing a billboard of NBC's during the former's New Years Eve coverage.
Frankly, I just do not see what the problem is. I am probably as sensitive as anyone here about the danger to journalistic integrity posed by advertising pressure. But this simply did not raise any flags in my mind in that regard.
Journalists have a responsibility not to distort, misrepresent, or mischaracterize news events. But it is a pathetic diminishment of the notion of news to act as if the fact that NBC had a billboard in Times Square as a news event deserving such concern for veracity (Unless the billboard itself was in some manner controversial or newsworthy). Adverstising, whether by NBC or CBS, just simply does not rise to the level of news, and misrepresentation of background advertising simply does not change the character of the events reported on (in the case at issue, the celebrations in Times Square, which are a fairly fluffy sort of news to start with).
The mistake, IMO, made by critics of the video editing at issue is a supposition that pictures *EVER* present a literal and complete truth. ANY news shot is inevitably subject to cinematic framing conventions and selective presentation. I suppose Warhol's _24 Hours_ or some Godard films were notable in trying to resist such conventionality... but in basic terms, you ALREADY must rely on journalists to present an accurate SENSE of what the story is. No picture in itself tells you what is outside its frame, or what preceeded or followed it. By taking one scene over another (and one angle, lens, etc.) the journalists are exercising editorial judgement in CREATING truths. A picture just simply IS NOT the *world itself*.
If you trust your journalists already, you should trust them no less is video editing changes entirely incidental aspects of the picture presented. Obviously, there are bad journalists (and bad owners, especially) who will not have such integrity. But video editing is nothing special here. As an example, look at war reporting where you might be presented with pictures of bodies or destruction... the pictures in themselves do not tell you *who* did *what* exactly, but simply that *something* awful happened. The bad journalists of all sides are quite happy to lie just as effectively using unaltered footage.
Just to add to the published list of locations for DeCSS, I hereby announce that the file may also be found on my web site:
http://www.gnosis.cx/download/DeCSS.zip
I will send this notice to the DVD assoc lawyers so that they may incur the cost of obtaining a restraining order against me as well. I encourage everyone else with a web site to do the same. I have no money or time to fight such a restraining order, and should it be obatined, I will naturally have to remove the file. But let's keep them busy with this, at least.
This is a bit of a "me too" post... but I think it is important for everyone to get a sense of how important this issue is.
Like some other posters, I had already emailed Amazon letting them now that I would not do business with them until they stopped the patent nonsense. Prior to that I had done quite a bit of business... and I'm sure I was among the first 1% (or 0.01%) of their customers. Probably the note just got thrown away and ignored. But if they start seeing this message many times every day, it might start to sink in.
I have been a college professor at times (although now I write computer programs, mostly). I was absolutely shocked and dismayed by the actions described of the UC schools to try to "lock down" *knowledge*. This is completely antithetical to the purpose of universities.
I agree the resale-for-profit of student notes is a little bit crass. But no big deal in the end. But the greater point is that it shows people actually WANT to look at the ideas described in professor's classes, and discuss them and share them beyond the confines of the classroom. As a professor, I can imagine no greater flattery of my teaching than having students bring them forth in such a manner. If they do, it shows I've done my job right.
Those other professors who get their panties bunched up over the "loss" of their ideas to the world at large are just simply *bad* people. That's not the nature of ideas, and sure as hell isn't what universities should be for. It is so sad that that's the direction things are taking.
Yours, Lulu...
P.S. Of course, I teach in the humanities, and what I teach is not rote discourses on narrow technical procedures. Good teaching in other areas isn't either; but it is easier for an engineering prof (to fail by) teaching by rote than it is for a humanities prof.
To be fair in the comparison, you'd have to consider not just using a C CGI (with the Fork overhead), but also FastCGI.
To my mind (which is one that want to write Python rather than Perl), FastCGI is a nice *general* mechanism for avoiding one significant time overhead in CGI processing. mod_perl solves the same problem, but it only applies to CGI's in Perl. FastCGI works with any-old language.
Of course, I've only just got my feet wet in these issues, so maybe others can add more about the comparative benefits of various Apache mods (mod_perl, mod_py, mod_fcgi, PHP, whatever).
I thought Bezroukov's article was fairly well written... and was probably mostly *correct* at that. But the one thing that rather bugged me was the number of times that he attempted to diminish Raymond's arguments by casting the aspersion that they were Marxist (and therefore wrong).
This is bothersome on many levels. For one, I am a real Marxist academic. Real Marxists are not the straw puppets warned about at the Heritage Institute or the _Skeptical Inquirer_. We are not touchy-feely-and-yet-totalitarian as the outline seems to run in Bezroukov's mind. So obviously I don't care fore 'Marxist' used as an aspersion (especially without understanding what it means).
On the other hand, Raymond's writing just aren't Marxist in tone or content. I suppose that, yes, they are a little left-wing in bent. And they do have a couple themes that are also talked about by Marxists (in different ways). But overall, it just ain't Marxism. That doesn't in itself make it either more or less interesting... but one should read them as what they are. I have no idea how Raymond thinks of himself politically or intellectually, but I *do* know what his writings say.
After you put aside the common red-scare cannard of Bezroukov, the bits about understanding a rather longstanding scientific cooperative process are well taken... and definitely help to round out some of the simplification in Raymond.
I have also experienced some repetitive stress injury problems in my hands in the past. Although I was not terribly happy with my attempts to get advise from doctors, I think my problem was tendinitis that had not yet progressed to CTS. Either way, there are similar things to look at.
As a number of other posters have written, you should REALLY consider theraputic approaches before trying to have surgical treatment. The surgery won't prevent recurrence if you continue the same repetitive actions afterwards, just delay it. And even if you have some injury currently, you can often alleviate it over time with theraputic approaches.
Different posters have posted somewhat contradictory advice in terms of what equipment is likely to help. I think different people just have different bodies and different habits, and so the same equipment might not work equally well for everyone. The key is to TRY different keyboards, pointing-devices, chairs, and desks, UNTIL you find ones that cause less damage to YOU. Of course, that's not to say you should not pay attention to postural and activity recommendations that you can find in resources about RSIs. Take pauses, stretch, shift positions, do all that. If you are able to, it might help to alternate use of your pointing device between hands every once in a while (I am ambidextrous enough to do this, but some other people have difficulty with this).
But also be willing to invest some in your health. Try a new keyboard. If you don't like that one, get rid of it and try another. Whatever you might have spent isn't worth as much as your hands are. Same with a new chair, pointer, etc. When I had problems, I went through a few peices of equipment that turned out just not to be for me. But after finding a good setup, my problems went away within a couple months. I've since had to work in some other spaces... but in each case I try to be conscious of the ergonomics of my work environment, and CHANGE what I'm not happy with.
And DEMAND of your employer that they change anything causing you injury, if this is applicable. Whatever job you have is also not worth as much as your health. Although it should, hopefully, not have to come to this, you should be willing to quit a job that isn't willing to provide an ergonomic workspace suitable to you.
When I read the quandry, it seemed to me there is an obvious way to avoid the issue. Why not just NOT hardcode the output-included bits in the GPL main program. Instead, standardize on an external supplementary data file that contains all the inclusions, say 'proprietary_bits'. The main program can just read the relevant parts of proprietary_bits into variables, then use those dynamic contents instead of anything in the object code itself.
I suppose this approach might have a slight performance penalty, but it should not be extreme. Even if proprietary_bits rarely or never ACTUALLY gets changed, it could in principle, so it really is data rather than code. And data doesn't get contaminated by the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean to pick on PigleT here... but I think this attitude is absolutely terrible... even rather iconic of tech mistakes.
If I am hiring someone to write code (in whatever language, this isn't about Perl/Python specifically), I am most certainly also hiring them to write English. I just simply do not want to hire someone whose only strong language is a programming language (rather than also a natural language). If anything, for almost any real-life programming job, the natural language skills are a lot more important to doing the job well than are the programming language skills.
I have inherited a fair amount of code that suffers from just the problem I am pointing at. Programmers who really have quite poor verbal skills, but think of altogether too clever ways of doing a programming job. This is almost completely worthless six months later. And as likely as not, it winds up missing the real business requirements of a given job... since it is only clever programming; not equally clever specification and technical analysis.
Re: Jon Udell's: "A Perl Hacker in the Land of Python" (http://www.byte.com/feature/BYT20000201S0001)
Well, since someone else mentined it, here's a reaction I had to an
email conversation where the Udell URL was cited. Take it or leave
it... but I finally pinned down what I think is wrong with Wall's
initially rather intriguing 'philosophy':
You know in Perl the motto is "there is more than one way to do it".
Larry Wall takes this by way of a linguistics background, and wants
to make Perl resemble a natural language. In contrast--at least at a
syntactic level--Python has fairly clear rules about what something
*has* to look like, and there tends to be a high degree of
orthogonality (which Wall vehemently eschews). There were some
remarks like this in the article. (Obviously, in terms of semantics,
large-scale design, and algorithms, there are many ways to do a thing
in any language).
I think Perl succeeds in what it is trying to do. For that reason,
it really does often look like a "write-only" language. You can
easily express your own "thoughts" fluidly and naturally... the
problem is that they are then as difficult to unpack later as a poem
or a complex philosophical sentence (good uses of natural language).
The thing that Wall &gang seem to miss is the distinct registers of
natural language. The whole thing is very rich in expressivity, and
highly non-orthogonal. But that is absolutely *NOT* the case when it
comes to specialized areas of natural language where clarity and
precision are at a premium. I *WANT* air-traffic controllers to
speak in a highly structured, syntactically and lexically limited,
and stereotypical fashion! I really *DO NOT* want them to use free
verse! To a somewhat lesser extent, I also want programming specs or
technical documentation to follow a rather rigid pattern. When I
look in the help file, it makes my life a lot easier if the list of
parameters to a function are always described under the same heading,
with a consistent and fairly small subset of English words, and with
an attention to consistent whitespace, layout and special characters.
The moral is that Perl is a great language for *implementing*
haiku... but Python is rather better at implementing functional
specs.
Yours, Lulu...
While I don't disagree with Jon Katz' post, I do think it is important to take care in realizing just how truly malevalent Henry Ford himself was when talking about his "positive accomplishments".
As well as the extremely violent strike-breakers he regularly employed, who murdered and mutilated a large number of his employees, Henry Ford was certainly the most infamous and most prominent anti-semite of his time. He was an extremely enthusiastic supporter of Adolf Hitler's rise (this is not Goodwin's Law in this context)... going as far as direct monetary support of that regime. As well, Henry Ford republicized and brought to prominence the hate tract _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_. Probably worst of all, Ford himself was author of the millions-selling _International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem_.
Just something to keep in mind when thinking of the basis of Fordism.
Me previously: /. discussions mirrored on to an NNTP server is the greatest idea I've heard in a long time.
/., but just as an adjunct. I would still probably want to read the articles first in a browser, and then look at selected threads in my (more flexible) newsreader.
---
The idea of getting
---
I think auntfloyd raises several worthwhile issues following my enthusiasm for an NNTP mirror to slashdot discussions. I also think they all have reasonable answers. Let me just suggest my own preferred answers to each (if it happens, the great Taco can ultimately make the decisions he thinks are best).
| How will moderation work through a newsreader?
| Or will you just killfile the ACs?
I would suggest leaving the From: field as indicating 'Anonymous Coward' where it was. Most newsreaders should be able to filter on the From: field... and if someone wishes, she can killfile that From: value.
| And Slashdot is ad-supported. How would that
| work in an environment like Usenet?
Well... text ads in sigs are one thing. But like another poster said, the ads aren't exactly a *feature* from the POV of discussants. Personally though, I'm not suggesting the NNTP mirror to completely replace
Btw. I think the arrangement of broad categories should be in terms of the same broad categories stories fall into. So there might be newsgroups like: slashdot.rights-online, slashdot.BSD (and so on). That way I could subscribe to only those groups that most interested me, but not bother with the others.
| And what about user accounts? And wouldn't
| using Usenet open it up to a lot more spam than | we've ever seen before?
I would think there would certainly have to be some automated moderation criteria for accepted posts via the NNTP gateway. Another poster suggested a PGP signature, but I think that would be overly cumbersome. Better might be a special header field (X-user-account: ?), which might not be unbreakable, but would certainly eliminate the more-or-less random and blanket spam. Or maybe even more forgiving of less versatile newsreaders would be to require a special form of the Subject: field ( Re:Please, please...). This special form could be stripped out before it made it to an actual post, but it would similarly eliminate blanket spammers).
| I could see using a single, centerally-
| controlled NNTP server (or set of servers)
| which would me modified to disallow posting to
| the discussions, so that you could read
| Slashdot via a newsreader, but not post.
That's a possibility, but I don't think it's necessary. I *do* think that the aim should be a specific hierarchy on a limited set of machines, rather than an RFC for a whole new hierarchy. But lots of companies and organizations host their own private hierarchy... and that pretty well has the same advantages of general Usenet groups.
But as indicated above, I think posting could be automatically moderated by the types of means above. The moderation of a post provided via NNTP would still have to occur via the regular web page (or possibly via an email-robot, using Message-ID's and appropriate moderation codes). But a suitable X-user-account: should be able to post just like that same person could via the web-board (with the same karma, etc.).
The idea of getting /. discussions mirrored on to an NNTP server is the greatest idea I've heard in a long time. I sure hope this improvement makes it.
/. in mid-1998, which puts me fairly near the start of the usage curve. My user # is certainly in the top 10%, and by now maybe in the top 1% (this is hardly to brag: I only contribute to threads occassionally, and have only a moderate karma thereby).
/. at the beginning was that the discussion capabilities were *SO FAR* behind the Usenet in terms of speed, usability (in my favorite news client), archivability, searchability, and in all the other things that make NNTP great. Over the last year, /. has added some nice features (the moderation, for a big one). But even still, it doesn't come anywhere close to Usenet in terms of convenience. (slashdot is still occassionally way too slow, and there is no way to browse discussion, respond, etc. offline).
/. style boards are not. And it is an open standard that allows everyone to have their favorite newsreader that encorporates all the features they find most useful (again unlike a web-board). News feeds are easily searchable plain-ASCII, which is wonderful (which web-boards are not, even for comments posted as ASCII).
/.. But all else pales next to NNTP.
I first started reading
Anyway, one of the main hesitations I had in spending much time on
This was discussed recently in the "death of Usenet" thread, and I guess a lot of correct points were made there. But I really think the *open* and distributed format of NNTP is the very best thing the internet has created. It is open in a lot of ways, too. The discussion is inherently public (if not unambiguously "public-domain") in a way even
A distant second here would be a majordomo or listserv type mirror of
For someone who is so clever about forensic linguistics, it is a bit surprising for Foster to rather blatently misuse words. It almost makes me doubt just how meritorious is his braggadocio.
In point of fact, if Ted Kaczynski could have been found even without his brother's assistance, David Kaczynski's help may have been valuable... but it was not invaluable.
I've read several articles and the slashdot comments on this matter of CBS electronically changing a billboard of NBC's during the former's New Years Eve coverage.
Frankly, I just do not see what the problem is. I am probably as sensitive as anyone here about the danger to journalistic integrity posed by advertising pressure. But this simply did not raise any flags in my mind in that regard.
Journalists have a responsibility not to distort, misrepresent, or mischaracterize news events. But it is a pathetic diminishment of the notion of news to act as if the fact that NBC had a billboard in Times Square as a news event deserving such concern for veracity (Unless the billboard itself was in some manner controversial or newsworthy). Adverstising, whether by NBC or CBS, just simply does not rise to the level of news, and misrepresentation of background advertising simply does not change the character of the events reported on (in the case at issue, the celebrations in Times Square, which are a fairly fluffy sort of news to start with).
The mistake, IMO, made by critics of the video editing at issue is a supposition that pictures *EVER* present a literal and complete truth. ANY news shot is inevitably subject to cinematic framing conventions and selective presentation. I suppose Warhol's _24 Hours_ or some Godard films were notable in trying to resist such conventionality... but in basic terms, you ALREADY must rely on journalists to present an accurate SENSE of what the story is. No picture in itself tells you what is outside its frame, or what preceeded or followed it. By taking one scene over another (and one angle, lens, etc.) the journalists are exercising editorial judgement in CREATING truths. A picture just simply IS NOT the *world itself*.
If you trust your journalists already, you should trust them no less is video editing changes entirely incidental aspects of the picture presented. Obviously, there are bad journalists (and bad owners, especially) who will not have such integrity. But video editing is nothing special here. As an example, look at war reporting where you might be presented with pictures of bodies or destruction... the pictures in themselves do not tell you *who* did *what* exactly, but simply that *something* awful happened. The bad journalists of all sides are quite happy to lie just as effectively using unaltered footage.
Just to add to the published list of locations for DeCSS, I hereby announce that the file may also be found on my web site:
http://www.gnosis.cx/download/DeCSS.zip
I will send this notice to the DVD assoc lawyers so that they may incur the cost of obtaining a restraining order against me as well. I encourage everyone else with a web site to do the same. I have no money or time to fight such a restraining order, and should it be obatined, I will naturally have to remove the file. But let's keep them busy with this, at least.
This is a bit of a "me too" post... but I think it is important for everyone to get a sense of how important this issue is.
Like some other posters, I had already emailed Amazon letting them now that I would not do business with them until they stopped the patent nonsense. Prior to that I had done quite a bit of business... and I'm sure I was among the first 1% (or 0.01%) of their customers. Probably the note just got thrown away and ignored. But if they start seeing this message many times every day, it might start to sink in.
I have been a college professor at times (although now I write computer programs, mostly). I was absolutely shocked and dismayed by the actions described of the UC schools to try to "lock down" *knowledge*. This is completely antithetical to the purpose of universities.
I agree the resale-for-profit of student notes is a little bit crass. But no big deal in the end. But the greater point is that it shows people actually WANT to look at the ideas described in professor's classes, and discuss them and share them beyond the confines of the classroom. As a professor, I can imagine no greater flattery of my teaching than having students bring them forth in such a manner. If they do, it shows I've done my job right.
Those other professors who get their panties bunched up over the "loss" of their ideas to the world at large are just simply *bad* people. That's not the nature of ideas, and sure as hell isn't what universities should be for. It is so sad that that's the direction things are taking.
Yours, Lulu...
P.S. Of course, I teach in the humanities, and what I teach is not rote discourses on narrow technical procedures. Good teaching in other areas isn't either; but it is easier for an engineering prof (to fail by) teaching by rote than it is for a humanities prof.
To be fair in the comparison, you'd have to consider not just using a C CGI (with the Fork overhead), but also FastCGI.
To my mind (which is one that want to write Python rather than Perl), FastCGI is a nice *general* mechanism for avoiding one significant time overhead in CGI processing. mod_perl solves the same problem, but it only applies to CGI's in Perl. FastCGI works with any-old language.
Of course, I've only just got my feet wet in these issues, so maybe others can add more about the comparative benefits of various Apache mods (mod_perl, mod_py, mod_fcgi, PHP, whatever).
I thought Bezroukov's article was fairly well written... and was probably mostly *correct* at that. But the one thing that rather bugged me was the number of times that he attempted to diminish Raymond's arguments by casting the aspersion that they were Marxist (and therefore wrong).
This is bothersome on many levels. For one, I am a real Marxist academic. Real Marxists are not the straw puppets warned about at the Heritage Institute or the _Skeptical Inquirer_. We are not touchy-feely-and-yet-totalitarian as the outline seems to run in Bezroukov's mind. So obviously I don't care fore 'Marxist' used as an aspersion (especially without understanding what it means).
On the other hand, Raymond's writing just aren't Marxist in tone or content. I suppose that, yes, they are a little left-wing in bent. And they do have a couple themes that are also talked about by Marxists (in different ways). But overall, it just ain't Marxism. That doesn't in itself make it either more or less interesting... but one should read them as what they are. I have no idea how Raymond thinks of himself politically or intellectually, but I *do* know what his writings say.
After you put aside the common red-scare cannard of Bezroukov, the bits about understanding a rather longstanding scientific cooperative process are well taken... and definitely help to round out some of the simplification in Raymond.
I have also experienced some repetitive stress injury problems in my hands in the past. Although I was not terribly happy with my attempts to get advise from doctors, I think my problem was tendinitis that had not yet progressed to CTS. Either way, there are similar things to look at.
As a number of other posters have written, you should REALLY consider theraputic approaches before trying to have surgical treatment. The surgery won't prevent recurrence if you continue the same repetitive actions afterwards, just delay it. And even if you have some injury currently, you can often alleviate it over time with theraputic approaches.
Different posters have posted somewhat contradictory advice in terms of what equipment is likely to help. I think different people just have different bodies and different habits, and so the same equipment might not work equally well for everyone. The key is to TRY different keyboards, pointing-devices, chairs, and desks, UNTIL you find ones that cause less damage to YOU. Of course, that's not to say you should not pay attention to postural and activity recommendations that you can find in resources about RSIs. Take pauses, stretch, shift positions, do all that. If you are able to, it might help to alternate use of your pointing device between hands every once in a while (I am ambidextrous enough to do this, but some other people have difficulty with this).
But also be willing to invest some in your health. Try a new keyboard. If you don't like that one, get rid of it and try another. Whatever you might have spent isn't worth as much as your hands are. Same with a new chair, pointer, etc. When I had problems, I went through a few peices of equipment that turned out just not to be for me. But after finding a good setup, my problems went away within a couple months. I've since had to work in some other spaces... but in each case I try to be conscious of the ergonomics of my work environment, and CHANGE what I'm not happy with.
And DEMAND of your employer that they change anything causing you injury, if this is applicable. Whatever job you have is also not worth as much as your health. Although it should, hopefully, not have to come to this, you should be willing to quit a job that isn't willing to provide an ergonomic workspace suitable to you.
When I read the quandry, it seemed to me there is an obvious way to avoid the issue. Why not just NOT hardcode the output-included bits in the GPL main program. Instead, standardize on an external supplementary data file that contains all the inclusions, say 'proprietary_bits'. The main program can just read the relevant parts of proprietary_bits into variables, then use those dynamic contents instead of anything in the object code itself.
I suppose this approach might have a slight performance penalty, but it should not be extreme. Even if proprietary_bits rarely or never ACTUALLY gets changed, it could in principle, so it really is data rather than code. And data doesn't get contaminated by the GPL.
Yours, Lulu...