1. With standardized hardware it is *much* easier to support users through documentation.
2. With standardized hardware it is easier build training programs for self-service.
3. Standard hardware can create a local market for replacement hardware without requiring the huge capital investment in a wide-ranging inventory.
4. Users can share relevent experiences with the hardware, with odds and ends hardware, the experience becomes less transferable.
5. This notebook is tough. I highly doubt you could ruggedize old laptops appropriately.
6. When was the last time you saw a handcrank built into a laptop? The hardware and software are custom-developed to work in a particular niche, one that is very different from the office desk for which most laptops are built.
7...
Well, you get the picture. This is the power of mass production and replacable parts. It's why IT departments buy lots of the same computer model from the same manufacturer. It's why we make standards for USB and XML.
The attendant may have been worried about security, or just wondering which of the five receipts behind the counter is yours. Heh.
Part of the reason why social engineering is regularly overlooked is that behavior is much more difficult to upgrade than software. Just try to get a clerical worker to understand why they have to change their password every 90 days and it needs a digit and punctuation mark in it, and you'll see what I mean.
Anyone else notice that the author of this article seems enthralled with Bruce Perens? I wish people would stop referring to big names in the Free and Open Source movements as 'demigods' or anything like that. We built this movement, we are the people writing the code, some of us have ended up better known, it doesn't make them more than mortals.
Anyway, I'd like to point out that two important perspectives were missing from the article. First, why didn't the author contact the author of the GPL for a comment?? I mean, it's not like RMS is tough to get in touch with. Also, there are well-known lawyers who have expertise in the GPL. Given that the author said this is a legal question, shouldn't he have talked to an expert??
Oh well, I guess quotes from a demigod of Open Source (not Free Software, which the GPL enforces) and the author is enough for that journalist. C'est la vie.
One of the best things that I've done in school is to choose a project, work on it, and get credit for it.
Work with the class to choose a project that will reinforce the AP curriculum. Then, as a class talk about the design of the application. Once you have a good modular design, create small groups to work on each small, well-defined module. Make them create the stubs so that each group can see exactly what methods they can call and what they can receive from them. Then, implement the darn thing. This teaches good design, good teamwork, and good modularity.
I think that a chat client is a good project. It involves using the network, creating a GUI, interesting data representation questions, and a plethora of different design directions they can choose from.
This was one of the most rewarding things that I did in my Intro. classes at college and it worked out very well. The key for you to remember is that it is the learning process here that is important, not the actual product. YOU are trying to get them to learn the curriculum, not to demonstrate that they already know it. If they do already know it, they will have fun coding anyway!
Solaris or SCO or HP-UX costs more than Apple's standard $90 or so liscense fee.
Heck most of the GNU Linus distros cost half of that with support.
As far as hardware . . . it depends on what you're looking for. Your average x86 user is using a bunch of GNU tools that are easily ported and have been already (think about the NetBSD or LinuxPPC distros). The people who really care about applications being ported are looking for stuff like Maya which is more expensive than a dual-proc G4.
The differences are not extreme and the benefits of being with large user base, an established and high-profile company, and the coolest hardware (how many x86 users don't have a fan in their computer?) hardware around are great.
The other posters have done a good job of rebuking your thought that code is not art. But I feel that we can take this discussion a bit further.
At issue here is whether code can be an "expressive work." I know of programs that a friend of mine wrote for his mother's birthday each year. Expressive of love.
This has been covered by other legal precedent, a program is a formal description of some idea the coder had. The act of making the "virtual sit-in" page for the WTO's page is not dissimilar to actually doing so. It is merely a strict recipe to follow, analagous to the transition of an idea from an artist's head into the final expression of their work. What is so different between a polictical cartoon satirizing copyright enforcement, an League for Programming Freedom protesting software patents, and the Freenet project. Each carries it's expression to a physical form, each is expressive of a powerful idea.
By the way I am an artist and a programmer. My life has been about creation and is rooted in that process, my code is merely an expression of my ideas, just as my monotypes and photographs and writing and sculptures are. Just as my phone calls to the people I love are. Just as each and every movement I make is.
"Deciding for oneself how to run one's life is one thing. Deciding how others should run their lives is elitism." This definition of elitism ignores the social context in which you run your life. No one decides how to run their life independently, despite what your notions of free will might suggest. Even an offhand comment like "Nice shirt" is an elitist judgement as it carries notions of acceptability and other forms of social force. More importantly, how does the notion of free will work when the choice is starve or work. Or, historically, be abused by a spouse or move into the streets with four children. Your ideal that one can decide for oneself becomes muddier in these situations. How does it work for a mentally ill person?
hrrmph. I'm sorry that you don't understand the importance of humanity in capitalism. However, i would like to see what these companies would say if the government decided to stop regulating the economy. I guess socialism might have it's points, including a stable economy promoting basic human rights (free speech, guaruntees against starvation, safety from 'white-collar' violence). I'd suggest that ou head off to Kentucky where the land has been mined so much, the minig companies are now tearing off the tops of mountains and hills, but I'm sure you'd say that a flat Appalachia is a Good Thing. Maybe instead you'd like to live below one of the clearcuts in Oregon that is in danger of turning into a deadly mudslide in the spring. We've been down that old road before, it didn't work out very well.
Joey
p.s. I don't know why you give a shit about coporate rights, especially when they consistently work against individual's rights.
"I *did* notice that *one* of the flight attendants gave it up willingly. THAT instance was a case of stupid voluntary cooperation."
That instance was not "voluntary cooperation" he was under court order from a *federal judge* and as you say ""Discovery" or "fact finding" includes having to show a judge there's reasonable grounds..." Note however that it is not a warrant they receive, as you seem to believe, instead, they are ordered to surrender certain goods by the authority of the court. You are found in contempt if you do not comply (although IANAL). In other words, it's not the "company's reach" that is extending into the individual's home, it's the government's. I don't agree with your analysis of the article (as if that wasn't clear;) mostly because I don't agree that the big deal really is the corporation's ability to get access to things in a person's home (although their ability to hire good lawyers and keep control of giant proportions of wealth from the *people* and the laborers is a concern of mine but not immediatly related) The big deal is that they're going after the specific item email. This is a new ground in the legal world and will define the difference between what is wiretapping and isn't (see other reply to my post FMI)
No one showed up at their door demanding their computers. If you read the article you would have noticed the fact that one of the flight attendents surrendured his laptop and desktop to the Ernst and Young consultants (note to self: don't work for them) who would be examining them. The key to this is that it isn't quite a 'seizure' i.e. they didn't bust down the door and take stuff. It's what's called 'discovery' where they show a judge that there is reason to believe that information is contained in files someone else has to prove they committed some crime against you. In this case organizing a sickout. While I completely disagree with NW's lawyer, as all speech is political, especially business speech. Excuse me for a quick rant: BIG BUSINESSES ARE POLITICAL. EVER HEARD OF SOFT MONEY!? WHAT % OF PEOPLE WORK FOR A BUSINESS? THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL!! Phew. (sorry, it's been an angsty day) Back to what I was saying: It's all very legal it's only that the reach is extending from the ability to look at your files in your desk to the files on your computer. Granted there are numerous ways in which this can be abused, the flight attendents must place full trust and have no oversight into Ernst & Young's handling of their equipment, that business control of evidence has extreme potential for abuse. So, I would encourage you to read (or reread) the story and note the part about 'discovery' and how the evidence was turned over. Whether or not I agree with the way the judicial system works for this . . . another day, it jsut makes me angry:)
Hmmm.... I'm curious as to your emphasis on the courts as the final arbiter of the validity of the patent, it seems that you are not only saying that this is the way it currently works, but are also in tacit agreement with that situation. While you cite personal knowledge of a few small entrepeneurs who have successfully created patents, citing a few businesses doesn't make your view valid, industry-wide comparisons might. Importantly, I disagree with your implicit acceptance of the patent, then battle in court methodology for determining validity. I suggest that there is a skew in that process towards larger companies (especially ones with patent lawyers on retainer) who can mount a larger and more lengthy legal process than may be economically feasible for a smaller company. Furthermore, it places the burden for determination of spurious patents on the courts thus turning the USPTO into more of a 'rubber-stamp' organization. This seems contrary to the point of having an organization to research and weed out these spurious claims earlier in the process. Plus, while the budget for the USPTO may be less, it adds needless cases to a different part of the government. I think that the spirit in which many of the comments that sent you on a rant was in doing what I just did, imagining a different way, expanding the boundaries of the problem space by offering alternate solutions. Instead of ranting, I ask you to come out from behind the safety of fact and instead use your greater understanding of patents to further our discussion by providing your own analysis of the facts and risk a little to bring something to the table.
I am heartened to see that some people out there are actually willing consider action against corporations as a possibility. I would say that cynicism is the disease of a part of my generation, seen so often here in the knee-jerk reaction to anything suggesting hinting of influence from such countercultural groups as feminists, environmentalists, labor, civil rights, etc. Or there may be a retreat into the cry of insignificance. (ironic, as I wonder if more than two people will read this) However, as was the battle cry of feminists in the 60's "The Personal is the political!" YOu can do exactly what Hnice says, tell everyone you know, when doors are accidentally unlocked, peek inside, take notes.
Overall, however, there was a key point I think that Katz missed: the tendency of consumerism/coporatism (as they are sides of the same coin) to accentuate the individual while destroying the sense of membership to a larger group. The power of the corporation over the individual is great, bring an immense amount of pressure to bear on a single person and (almost) inevitably, they will crack. A single person has no one to share experiences with, to be supported by, they are alone in their experience and we all know how loneliness feels especially the powerlessness of it. However, as a member of a group there is much greater power, sharing of information, support, humor, understanding. It is this isolation that allows a corporation to operate in a democracy while all the while maintaining power over the individual.
Now, I realize that I haven't clarified why capitalism/consumerism breeds individualism. That structure requires the concept of ownership. "This is mine!" is the implicit statement when you buy any thing, from a postcard to a house. At a personal level this works out alright, there are some people who post "Private Property" signs and shoot any unknown person they see (remember the Japenese foreign exchange student who was shot??) but more likely we have all learned to share and the neighbor kids play on our lawn and we take the shortcut across Farmer Johns field without problem. However, few corporations feel the same way and, possibly because they are removed from the personal by shareholders and direct ownership, little breakins and "curiosity" becomes a much different thing.
Look, I know that you feel like violence would be "over the line" and would turn protesters into something for you to vilify, however, I would like to point out that no matter what small amount of rioting occurs, it will nowhere near the institutionalized violence visited on a much larger part of the world. Don't fear the wrath of people bent on creating a more perfect world, fear those whose goals center on maximized profits.
Oh yeah and shouts out to my boy Jesse in Seattle!
While I appreciate the support meant by your post, The very fact that you can argue any point that you want shows that there is not a an order of magnitude difference between one product and the other in terms of what it can offer. Any time a position can be supported factually while another position in the same argument holds water just shows that 'from a distance, there is peace and harmony' and it doesn't matter *that* much. You'll never see the MacOS in server OS tests because it doesn't fit in the world of servers, but in the world of big-time servers, you can do all the things you need to lots of different ways.
Ah, but it is not a United States government policy position, it's a general International policy making body in a position that seems mostly 'sponsored' by the Commerce Dep't. Still I see your point, as I was suprised to learn that it was a part of the Commerce Dep't. Maybe the U.N. needs a new body?? Internet and Computing Comittee. The ICC, not a bad acronym. At least that would help get this thing farther into the realm of politics and away from business; still, who can tell the difference anymore?
I like the idea of letting the U.S. be a little under-represented. Often, the largest and most powerful member of a comittee will find it easy to 'ignore' others concerns (see business practices of any powerful corporation (Microsoft)) A large, diverse group is generally a plus for promoting the most open and free standards. Also, I think that this sort of international representation might be part of the key for taking the internet to the global level that it lacks now. For example, naming practices right now are pretty odd, with most sites outside the U.S. using country codes while many in the U.S don't use them at all. This sort of implicit arrogance is exactly what a global network like the Internet doesn't need.
My reservation is that too much representation is given to large companies whose interests are focused in an even poorer direction, economic gain. If anything, the 'net needs advocates that look beyond the.com e-commerce evereything-you-need--and-more-in-a-superstore model of internet use. There is a difficulty here because most people qualified to be on this board are working for companies or have started their own, government service being about as glam as my footwear (old sneakers (although both are very rewarding (most of the time (hmmm..nested parens maybe too much Scheme??:))))
Ah well, this beast is damn impossible to control anyway, good luck to the board!
Now if they can get the airport business to work that will be incredible. I'm already drooling for the day when I can carry my G4 Powerbook to the breakfast table to the couch to my bedroom while surfing the web at LAN speed.
Honestly though, other than as a pure toy, and interesting application, I don't see that this will have too much of an impact on Linux. Now if a G4 with the Apple Cinema Display on it was working in Linux, we'd really be able to break into some new markets (like graphics). Maybe support for tablets.
I agree with this 100% I am a computer science major at a small liberal arts college and as much as I grumble at times, there is beauty in differences between me and my friends. And, if you find a good school, they will support 'crazy' ideas (my school has a 15 million dollar Fund for Excellence) I'm waiting for grad school to give me the crazy fun research, the cutting edge ideas. For the time being, I'm learning the fundmentals damn well as well as challenging and extending myself in unpredictable ways.
I think that I would ask HR to first distribute a reminder to the effect that ofice email is not private and that porn is not an acceptable use of company computing resources. Personally, this would help me feel better about this sort of privacy violation as I am of the same persuaion as you: I know that companies can legally do it but I question the ethics involved. It also removes the feel of snooping that reeks of poor management. I believe in the value of monitoring at-work behavior, however, I feel that to do so secretly is not acceptable.
--If we added up all of the 2 cents that Slashdot readers gave, I wonder how much sense vs. cents wed have.
You're right, the main culpability here lies with CyberPatorl. However, the ISP has a responsibility to its customers to inform them that CyberPatrol is indiscriminatly blocking their sites and to try and work a way around that. If it's web content for a few users they can just buy a cheap pc, put FreeBSD on there and move those few users with adult content onto that server. Set up redirects to a different domain in their old addresses and after a few months it'll all be perf. The ISP is providing a web hosting service in order for their customers to reach an audience and when they know about things that are preventing access to their site, they should fix that.
Whether or not "the open source movement could blink out pretty quickly" there is no reason why we should not record our stories. The sharing and records of a culture are some of the most important ways to educate others about your history and to provide a key to the culture, just ask an anthropologist. For example, the Hacker's Dictionary is a great piece of history, written at a time when computers didn't even have close to the amount of influence they do now. Yet that document has helped me become acquainted with the spirit that was geeks of yore as well as informing me of its influence on hacker culture today.
It is actually even more important to record the history if it is so short-lived, as you claim is a possibility. If one believes in the ideals (I know this word is somewhat touchy, if you prefer insert purpose or fun or whatever else you want) of the open source movement that might die it would be useful to record a history so that others who believe in the same sorts of things will see what made this die.
Anyway, by the time that we 'know' our place in history and have 'perspective' it will be too late to do the recording of the history. This would be an important document in the history of the development of the internet, computing, etc.
Watched BBC 5 recently, I dont think even Digital TV can improve the quality of that channel.;)
Seriously though, the structure and size of our public television systems are so different that they can't even be compared. You can buy digital TVs here too but only a few markets have digital TV yet.
Umm.. a G3 300 is about as fast as a PII 400 especially when it comes to graphics computations (BTYEMark Integer tests anyone??). Honestly, I would much rather have minimum requirements be a little too high than see what the game manufacturers do with their min. requirements.
Well, although I'm sure I'll later stick my foot in my mouth, this time it's in yours. Jordan is an Arab country. 96% Arab and 4% Christian according to the CIA factbook (1997). I'm not noticing much Jewishness in those numbers. Try to remember that the Middle East has little in common with the Midwest (thousands of years of holy wars don't make for friendly neighbors).
The Japanese Internment Camps were a real thing and were not a fun place to be. However, they were not concentration camps. It was racist policy and paranoia that caused them to be set up but the implicit connection by using "concetration camp" is unwarranted.
Really folks, a little history, maybe some research, can't hurt that much, heck you're already on the web!
Slashdot Mirror
There are so many reasons:
...
1. With standardized hardware it is *much* easier to support users through documentation.
2. With standardized hardware it is easier build training programs for self-service.
3. Standard hardware can create a local market for replacement hardware without requiring the huge capital investment in a wide-ranging inventory.
4. Users can share relevent experiences with the hardware, with odds and ends hardware, the experience becomes less transferable.
5. This notebook is tough. I highly doubt you could ruggedize old laptops appropriately.
6. When was the last time you saw a handcrank built into a laptop? The hardware and software are custom-developed to work in a particular niche, one that is very different from the office desk for which most laptops are built.
7
Well, you get the picture. This is the power of mass production and replacable parts. It's why IT departments buy lots of the same computer model from the same manufacturer. It's why we make standards for USB and XML.
The attendant may have been worried about security, or just wondering which of the five receipts behind the counter is yours. Heh.
Part of the reason why social engineering is regularly overlooked is that behavior is much more difficult to upgrade than software. Just try to get a clerical worker to understand why they have to change their password every 90 days and it needs a digit and punctuation mark in it, and you'll see what I mean.
Anyone else notice that the author of this article seems enthralled with Bruce Perens? I wish people would stop referring to big names in the Free and Open Source movements as 'demigods' or anything like that. We built this movement, we are the people writing the code, some of us have ended up better known, it doesn't make them more than mortals.
Anyway, I'd like to point out that two important perspectives were missing from the article. First, why didn't the author contact the author of the GPL for a comment?? I mean, it's not like RMS is tough to get in touch with. Also, there are well-known lawyers who have expertise in the GPL. Given that the author said this is a legal question, shouldn't he have talked to an expert??
Oh well, I guess quotes from a demigod of Open Source (not Free Software, which the GPL enforces) and the author is enough for that journalist. C'est la vie.
One of the best things that I've done in school is to choose a project, work on it, and get credit for it.
Work with the class to choose a project that will reinforce the AP curriculum. Then, as a class talk about the design of the application. Once you have a good modular design, create small groups to work on each small, well-defined module. Make them create the stubs so that each group can see exactly what methods they can call and what they can receive from them. Then, implement the darn thing. This teaches good design, good teamwork, and good modularity.
I think that a chat client is a good project. It involves using the network, creating a GUI, interesting data representation questions, and a plethora of different design directions they can choose from.
This was one of the most rewarding things that I did in my Intro. classes at college and it worked out very well. The key for you to remember is that it is the learning process here that is important, not the actual product. YOU are trying to get them to learn the curriculum, not to demonstrate that they already know it. If they do already know it, they will have fun coding anyway!
More expensive eh?
Solaris or SCO or HP-UX costs more than Apple's standard $90 or so liscense fee.
Heck most of the GNU Linus distros cost half of that with support.
As far as hardware . . . it depends on what you're looking for. Your average x86 user is using a bunch of GNU tools that are easily ported and have been already (think about the NetBSD or LinuxPPC distros). The people who really care about applications being ported are looking for stuff like Maya which is more expensive than a dual-proc G4.
The differences are not extreme and the benefits of being with large user base, an established and high-profile company, and the coolest hardware (how many x86 users don't have a fan in their computer?) hardware around are great.
joey
The other posters have done a good job of rebuking your thought that code is not art. But I feel that we can take this discussion a bit further.
At issue here is whether code can be an "expressive work." I know of programs that a friend of mine wrote for his mother's birthday each year. Expressive of love.
This has been covered by other legal precedent, a program is a formal description of some idea the coder had. The act of making the "virtual sit-in" page for the WTO's page is not dissimilar to actually doing so. It is merely a strict recipe to follow, analagous to the transition of an idea from an artist's head into the final expression of their work. What is so different between a polictical cartoon satirizing copyright enforcement, an League for Programming Freedom protesting software patents, and the Freenet project. Each carries it's expression to a physical form, each is expressive of a powerful idea.
By the way I am an artist and a programmer. My life has been about creation and is rooted in that process, my code is merely an expression of my ideas, just as my monotypes and photographs and writing and sculptures are. Just as my phone calls to the people I love are. Just as each and every movement I make is.
"Deciding for oneself how to run one's life is one thing. Deciding how others should run their lives is elitism." This definition of elitism ignores the social context in which you run your life. No one decides how to run their life independently, despite what your notions of free will might suggest. Even an offhand comment like "Nice shirt" is an elitist judgement as it carries notions of acceptability and other forms of social force. More importantly, how does the notion of free will work when the choice is starve or work. Or, historically, be abused by a spouse or move into the streets with four children. Your ideal that one can decide for oneself becomes muddier in these situations. How does it work for a mentally ill person?
This trend toward hardware as commodity with it being easily interchangeable is the way for the future. hip hip hooray!
joey
hrrmph. I'm sorry that you don't understand the importance of humanity in capitalism. However, i would like to see what these companies would say if the government decided to stop regulating the economy. I guess socialism might have it's points, including a stable economy promoting basic human rights (free speech, guaruntees against starvation, safety from 'white-collar' violence). I'd suggest that ou head off to Kentucky where the land has been mined so much, the minig companies are now tearing off the tops of mountains and hills, but I'm sure you'd say that a flat Appalachia is a Good Thing. Maybe instead you'd like to live below one of the clearcuts in Oregon that is in danger of turning into a deadly mudslide in the spring. We've been down that old road before, it didn't work out very well.
Joey
p.s. I don't know why you give a shit about coporate rights, especially when they consistently work against individual's rights.
"I *did* notice that *one* of the flight attendants gave it up willingly. THAT instance was a case of stupid voluntary cooperation."
;) mostly because I don't agree that the big deal really is the corporation's ability to get access to things in a person's home (although their ability to hire good lawyers and keep control of giant proportions of wealth from the *people* and the laborers is a concern of mine but not immediatly related) The big deal is that they're going after the specific item email. This is a new ground in the legal world and will define the difference between what is wiretapping and isn't (see other reply to my post FMI)
That instance was not "voluntary cooperation" he was under court order from a *federal judge* and as you say ""Discovery" or "fact finding" includes having to show a judge there's reasonable grounds..." Note however that it is not a warrant they receive, as you seem to believe, instead, they are ordered to surrender certain goods by the authority of the court. You are found in contempt if you do not comply (although IANAL). In other words, it's not the "company's reach" that is extending into the individual's home, it's the government's. I don't agree with your analysis of the article (as if that wasn't clear
No one showed up at their door demanding their computers. If you read the article you would have noticed the fact that one of the flight attendents surrendured his laptop and desktop to the Ernst and Young consultants (note to self: don't work for them) who would be examining them. The key to this is that it isn't quite a 'seizure' i.e. they didn't bust down the door and take stuff. It's what's called 'discovery' where they show a judge that there is reason to believe that information is contained in files someone else has to prove they committed some crime against you. In this case organizing a sickout. While I completely disagree with NW's lawyer, as all speech is political, especially business speech. Excuse me for a quick rant: BIG BUSINESSES ARE POLITICAL. EVER HEARD OF SOFT MONEY!? WHAT % OF PEOPLE WORK FOR A BUSINESS? THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL!! Phew. (sorry, it's been an angsty day) Back to what I was saying: It's all very legal it's only that the reach is extending from the ability to look at your files in your desk to the files on your computer. Granted there are numerous ways in which this can be abused, the flight attendents must place full trust and have no oversight into Ernst & Young's handling of their equipment, that business control of evidence has extreme potential for abuse. So, I would encourage you to read (or reread) the story and note the part about 'discovery' and how the evidence was turned over. Whether or not I agree with the way the judicial system works for this . . . another day, it jsut makes me angry :)
Joey
Hmmm.... I'm curious as to your emphasis on the courts as the final arbiter of the validity of the patent, it seems that you are not only saying that this is the way it currently works, but are also in tacit agreement with that situation. While you cite personal knowledge of a few small entrepeneurs who have successfully created patents, citing a few businesses doesn't make your view valid, industry-wide comparisons might. Importantly, I disagree with your implicit acceptance of the patent, then battle in court methodology for determining validity. I suggest that there is a skew in that process towards larger companies (especially ones with patent lawyers on retainer) who can mount a larger and more lengthy legal process than may be economically feasible for a smaller company. Furthermore, it places the burden for determination of spurious patents on the courts thus turning the USPTO into more of a 'rubber-stamp' organization. This seems contrary to the point of having an organization to research and weed out these spurious claims earlier in the process. Plus, while the budget for the USPTO may be less, it adds needless cases to a different part of the government. I think that the spirit in which many of the comments that sent you on a rant was in doing what I just did, imagining a different way, expanding the boundaries of the problem space by offering alternate solutions. Instead of ranting, I ask you to come out from behind the safety of fact and instead use your greater understanding of patents to further our discussion by providing your own analysis of the facts and risk a little to bring something to the table.
Joey
I am heartened to see that some people out there are actually willing consider action against corporations as a possibility. I would say that cynicism is the disease of a part of my generation, seen so often here in the knee-jerk reaction to anything suggesting hinting of influence from such countercultural groups as feminists, environmentalists, labor, civil rights, etc. Or there may be a retreat into the cry of insignificance. (ironic, as I wonder if more than two people will read this) However, as was the battle cry of feminists in the 60's "The Personal is the political!" YOu can do exactly what Hnice says, tell everyone you know, when doors are accidentally unlocked, peek inside, take notes.
:)
Overall, however, there was a key point I think that Katz missed: the tendency of consumerism/coporatism (as they are sides of the same coin) to accentuate the individual while destroying the sense of membership to a larger group. The power of the corporation over the individual is great, bring an immense amount of pressure to bear on a single person and (almost) inevitably, they will crack. A single person has no one to share experiences with, to be supported by, they are alone in their experience and we all know how loneliness feels especially the powerlessness of it. However, as a member of a group there is much greater power, sharing of information, support, humor, understanding. It is this isolation that allows a corporation to operate in a democracy while all the while maintaining power over the individual.
Now, I realize that I haven't clarified why capitalism/consumerism breeds individualism. That structure requires the concept of ownership. "This is mine!" is the implicit statement when you buy any thing, from a postcard to a house. At a personal level this works out alright, there are some people who post "Private Property" signs and shoot any unknown person they see (remember the Japenese foreign exchange student who was shot??) but more likely we have all learned to share and the neighbor kids play on our lawn and we take the shortcut across Farmer Johns field without problem. However, few corporations feel the same way and, possibly because they are removed from the personal by shareholders and direct ownership, little breakins and "curiosity" becomes a much different thing.
Arggh.. I have to go now, check back for more
joey
Look, I know that you feel like violence would be "over the line" and would turn protesters into something for you to vilify, however, I would like to point out that no matter what small amount of rioting occurs, it will nowhere near the institutionalized violence visited on a much larger part of the world. Don't fear the wrath of people bent on creating a more perfect world, fear those whose goals center on maximized profits.
Oh yeah and shouts out to my boy Jesse in Seattle!
joey
While I appreciate the support meant by your post, The very fact that you can argue any point that you want shows that there is not a an order of magnitude difference between one product and the other in terms of what it can offer. Any time a position can be supported factually while another position in the same argument holds water just shows that 'from a distance, there is peace and harmony' and it doesn't matter *that* much. You'll never see the MacOS in server OS tests because it doesn't fit in the world of servers, but in the world of big-time servers, you can do all the things you need to lots of different ways.
Ah, but it is not a United States government policy position, it's a general International policy making body in a position that seems mostly 'sponsored' by the Commerce Dep't. Still I see your point, as I was suprised to learn that it was a part of the Commerce Dep't. Maybe the U.N. needs a new body?? Internet and Computing Comittee. The ICC, not a bad acronym. At least that would help get this thing farther into the realm of politics and away from business; still, who can tell the difference anymore?
joey
I like the idea of letting the U.S. be a little under-represented. Often, the largest and most powerful member of a comittee will find it easy to 'ignore' others concerns (see business practices of any powerful corporation (Microsoft)) A large, diverse group is generally a plus for promoting the most open and free standards. Also, I think that this sort of international representation might be part of the key for taking the internet to the global level that it lacks now. For example, naming practices right now are pretty odd, with most sites outside the U.S. using country codes while many in the U.S don't use them at all. This sort of implicit arrogance is exactly what a global network like the Internet doesn't need.
.com e-commerce evereything-you-need--and-more-in-a-superstore model of internet use. There is a difficulty here because most people qualified to be on this board are working for companies or have started their own, government service being about as glam as my footwear (old sneakers (although both are very rewarding (most of the time (hmmm..nested parens maybe too much Scheme?? :))))
My reservation is that too much representation is given to large companies whose interests are focused in an even poorer direction, economic gain. If anything, the 'net needs advocates that look beyond the
Ah well, this beast is damn impossible to control anyway, good luck to the board!
joey
Now if they can get the airport business to work that will be incredible. I'm already drooling for the day when I can carry my G4 Powerbook to the breakfast table to the couch to my bedroom while surfing the web at LAN speed.
Honestly though, other than as a pure toy, and interesting application, I don't see that this will have too much of an impact on Linux. Now if a G4 with the Apple Cinema Display on it was working in Linux, we'd really be able to break into some new markets (like graphics). Maybe support for tablets.
Joey
I agree with this 100% I am a computer science major at a small liberal arts college and as much as I grumble at times, there is beauty in differences between me and my friends. And, if you find a good school, they will support 'crazy' ideas (my school has a 15 million dollar Fund for Excellence) I'm waiting for grad school to give me the crazy fun research, the cutting edge ideas. For the time being, I'm learning the fundmentals damn well as well as challenging and extending myself in unpredictable ways.
I think that I would ask HR to first distribute a reminder to the effect that ofice email is not private and that porn is not an acceptable use of company computing resources. Personally, this would help me feel better about this sort of privacy violation as I am of the same persuaion as you: I know that companies can legally do it but I question the ethics involved. It also removes the feel of snooping that reeks of poor management. I believe in the value of monitoring at-work behavior, however, I feel that to do so secretly is not acceptable.
--If we added up all of the 2 cents that Slashdot readers gave, I wonder how much sense vs. cents wed have.
joey
You're right, the main culpability here lies with CyberPatorl. However, the ISP has a responsibility to its customers to inform them that CyberPatrol is indiscriminatly blocking their sites and to try and work a way around that. If it's web content for a few users they can just buy a cheap pc, put FreeBSD on there and move those few users with adult content onto that server. Set up redirects to a different domain in their old addresses and after a few months it'll all be perf. The ISP is providing a web hosting service in order for their customers to reach an audience and when they know about things that are preventing access to their site, they should fix that.
Whether or not "the open source movement could blink out pretty quickly" there is no reason why we should not record our stories. The sharing and records of a culture are some of the most important ways to educate others about your history and to provide a key to the culture, just ask an anthropologist. For example, the Hacker's Dictionary is a great piece of history, written at a time when computers didn't even have close to the amount of influence they do now. Yet that document has helped me become acquainted with the spirit that was geeks of yore as well as informing me of its influence on hacker culture today.
It is actually even more important to record the history if it is so short-lived, as you claim is a possibility. If one believes in the ideals (I know this word is somewhat touchy, if you prefer insert purpose or fun or whatever else you want) of the open source movement that might die it would be useful to record a history so that others who believe in the same sorts of things will see what made this die.
Anyway, by the time that we 'know' our place in history and have 'perspective' it will be too late to do the recording of the history. This would be an important document in the history of the development of the internet, computing, etc.
joey
Watched BBC 5 recently, I dont think even Digital TV can improve the quality of that channel. ;)
Seriously though, the structure and size of our public television systems are so different that they can't even be compared. You can buy digital TVs here too but only a few markets have digital TV yet.
Umm.. a G3 300 is about as fast as a PII 400 especially when it comes to graphics computations (BTYEMark Integer tests anyone??). Honestly, I would much rather have minimum requirements be a little too high than see what the game manufacturers do with their min. requirements.
Well, although I'm sure I'll later stick my foot in my mouth, this time it's in yours. Jordan is an Arab country. 96% Arab and 4% Christian according to the CIA factbook (1997). I'm not noticing much Jewishness in those numbers. Try to remember that the Middle East has little in common with the Midwest (thousands of years of holy wars don't make for friendly neighbors).
The Japanese Internment Camps were a real thing and were not a fun place to be. However, they were not concentration camps. It was racist policy and paranoia that caused them to be set up but the implicit connection by using "concetration camp" is unwarranted.
Really folks, a little history, maybe some research, can't hurt that much, heck you're already on the web!