The only thing that can be said to be lost is the sale's potential for existence (which was probably already quite doubtful), but isn't that like saying you lose a baby every time you use a condom?
It's exactly like that, except you kill _lots_ of babies every time you use a condom, or have a partner on the pill, or have oral or...
Unfortunately at least one major religion (over 1bn people) thinks that is a perfectly valid argument and basis to therefore ban those things. Need a better analogy - especially if **AA are catholic, you just reinforced their belief in their arguments.
RMS does not want GCC to play any part in a toolchain/process which might have non-GPL parts...
Actually, Eric Raymond quoting Chandler Carruth who is allegedly quoting RMS (the closest thing to a relevant source I could find for your undefended assertion)
Non-GPL'd software is not always the same as non-free software and the terms are not interchangeable. There are plenty of free software licenses that aren't the GPL. I doubt RMS' goal was to punish those who choose a license other than the GPL.
RMS's goal is copyleft, he will take other free software if no other choice, but he is not happy if you choose "free" over GPL - which is, after all, what LLVM/CLang did. To quote RMS directly again:
GCC vs LLVM is important mainly as an instance of fighting for copyleft.
Note, fighting for copyleft, not fighting for free software under any free licence.
And again:
The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted
- Is part of the bigger picture is that GCC doesn't make it easy to embed into an IDE?
Yes, and the fact that that is (or was) deliberate on RMS / GGC's part, therefore changing it required policy / politics not just contributing some code changes.
- If LLVM is "cleaner" under the hood so you don't need to be a compiler expert to modify / fix it, shouldn't that be a wake up call for GCC to clean up the code + architecture ?
In one sense it already has - on gnu.org there are relatively recent pages around plans for modular gcc. Unfortunately it is now years behind on this and may never catch up, as many of those interested in working on things like this will probably use CLang / LLVM rather than work on getting GCC to do the job.
There is also the issue that historically GCC architecture is deliberately unclean in order to prevent your previous (and following) suggestions. RMS does not want GCC to play any part in a toolchain/process which might have non-GPL parts, but that can't be controlled with copyright licence because simply reading / producing e.g an intermediate language does not make a derivative work. Hence GCC is locked-down technically so you can't access any of the intermediate steps. Some of it is probably historical accident of complexity and some is by design - but also by design it hasn't been cleaned up (so far).
Essentially, in order to satisfy a licencing goal that can't be achieved with a licence, GCC has been deliberately crippled.
RMS:
The GNU Project campaigns for freedom, not functionality. Sometimes freedom requires a practical sacrifice, and sometimes functionality is part of that sacrifice.
- If I want to just make a front-end for a new (programming) language why is it easier with LLVM then with GCC ?
Because LLVM IR is _much_ better documented, because that was a goal of LLVM project. For political reasons why that is, see above.
Not moving goalposts - just clarifying whether the issue was specifically with google glasses or with any (camera) glasses. Since you say it is with the latter, then there are going to be issues with aids for visually disabled people whether they are registered blind or just can't see the screen well enough without their glasses - better that this guy gets those issues out in the open now.
Normal person with google glass, when asked not to record, would take it off, fold it up and put it in pocket possibly adding an apology.
This person couldn't see the screen without the glasses - RTFA. Also, again according to TFA... they were never asked not to record or asked not to wear the glasses.
This is about someone who just could not put down recoding device in enviroment in which it is big issue.
He could not put the "recording device" down because it is also his glasses, which he needed to see the screen from his seat.
This is going to happen more and more - wearable tech which augments is going to merge with prosthetic tech which enables / replaces. In future people who are currently blind may see via retinal implants coupled to electronic glasses with cameras (which may or may not record - how would you know ?).
What are you going to say to such people in your environment "in which it is a big issue" ? What do you suggest - deny the disabled prothetics for fear of the cyberman ?
I am afraid of future where anyones life is easily pieced together from footage gathered from hundreds/thousands walking cameras
Newsflash - most of your life is already recorded by hundreds/thousands of (organic) walking cameras and always has been. Recording is imperfect and reading out the data is a bit tricky currently (organic interface...) - but we'll probably fix that soon (find that scary?). You can currently avoid these cameras though - just avoid any other people. More scary to me is the possibility of billions of flying crawling insect sized cameras so small they can essentially never be avoided - but each to their own.
I am afraid of some nice man visiting me with dosier on my life and explaining dozen different ways they can easily ruin various parts of it if I will not cooperate or if I will resist.
I fear that far less - in pretty much any area, as create and capture tech improves so does faking-it tech. By the time they have thousands of hours of footage of every part of everyone's life, it will also be trivial to get a few images of you and insert "you" into any video scenario they want. Most peoples' lives are way to boring to spend the time reviewing all that footage - far more likely they'll just turn up with some very convincing footage of you doing interesting things with children and/or animals and/or recreational chemicals. Who cares if it's real ? In fact, with sufficient investment, they could pretty much do that now. The future will just make it cheaper and easier. No google glasses required.
I am pretty sure they have always been doing this. Also that they have "no stop" plates, and high performance cars, cars that are armoured and probably have strange buttons you shouldn't' press unless you know exactly what they do... I suspect they don't bother with blue lights / sirens unless they particularly want to pretend to be police, in which case they probably can do that too.
All allegedly, of course.
Bigger question is why formalise it now ? Maybe Snowden has material to embarrass the UK govt by showing that MIx are (not) licensed to break traffic laws (but always did) - but is that the best he's got on the UK, surely not ?
Actually MS do decide sometimes - or at least they release required specs and checking tools (upgrade adviser) and sometimes your machine cannot be upgraded. One of my PCs is about to go there - on XP and insufficient spec to upgrade to win7. But then, the machine is 12+ years old, and although it still does everything it did when it was bought, and just as well as it did then, my phone probably has more memory and more CPU power.
The big thing that MS does do well is provide EOL dates well ahead of time for the software you have, so you at least know when the software+hardware you've got will stop being supported (if the hardware doesn't die first). http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex
As far as I know, Apple doesn't give out any information like this at all (or at least I can't find it), so you have no idea how long you've got before you have to buy a new shiny...
Yeah I think a nice, supported linux distro that has a stock guest vm install of Windows on it would scare Microsoft shitless. Although, they would probably veto that setup.
I think they'd love it - as long as you are paying a windows licence for every one of those VMs you ship (whether the user uses them or not)...
Take an estimated OEM volume windows price, multiply by number of Android shipments and add to MS's bottom line - no way would they turn that down.
In the UK, and probably across the EU, it is not illegal, but there are laws that make it practically impossible.
Over a threshold (10k GBP, 15k euros I think), there are additional reporting and documentation requirements for cash transactions. It's enough hassle, and risk, for the recipient that you will struggle to find anyone (legitimate) that will take that much in cash. You could insist that you think it's your legal right to pay that way, but then you risk them calling the police who will simply confiscate the cash, because anything over the same limits they can assume is "proceeds of crime". Sure, you can go to court and try and get it back, and some have succeeded, makes your lawyer a lot richer though, and is not exactly anonymous...
In theory, you can still carry cash, and make transactions, over the threshold level, but in practice you risk being considered a criminal for doing it, and effectively you cannot do it anonymously [which was the aim of the laws].
er, that's why they are getting ISPs to block the routes to the sites, rather than taking the sites down.
They already forced ISPs to do it for child porn, then the courts enforced blocks on "pirate" sites because the child porn filters proved that it was technically possible, next step (previously announced, due to come in soon) they are forcing every UK ISP to implement porn (_legal_ porn) filters.
And now it's "block stuff that isn't porn/child-porn/illegal-under-copyright-law, but we don't like it anyway". No surprise.
Might be time stockpile some paper copies of the anarchists cookbook - could start to go up in value faster than bitcoins...
[torn whether to mod parent up or reply - someone else please mod it up]
AC - dead right.
All the desktop API capabilities were there - because Office runs on it - but locked away because they wanted devs to write all new apps... but with no user base there is no incentive. They have forgotten that what made early Windows successful was not that it was good, but that it ran DOS apps just about good enough. XP was about the first "good" (ish) consumer Windows, and that was successful because it ran all the previous Windows & DOS apps - just about well enough.
Just being able to recompile x86 Windows apps for RT (without jailbreaking it) would have opened it up hugely, but virtualizing or translating current x86 applications would have been perfectly possible and would have made it very competitive, maybe even successful.
Years ago (last century), Windows NT ran on DEC Alphas, and MS implemented a runtime translation for x86 binaries. Those machines were (for their time) awesome (I had the, genuine, pleasure of using some for a while), and the dynamic binary translation was flawless and performance was incredible.
Technically, I believe MS could have done it and made a decent RT, but they were too busy trying to be Apple and making a mess of it.
There are many, many common-sense reasons to support users or contractors working from home. There are very few reasons not to. Those reasons are usually brought forth by unintelligent or old-fashioned management. After 25 years in the industry, it's nice to finally replace some of that mentality, and be put in a position to support remote workers.
If all-remote works for you that's great, but then from a business point of view you just solved all your problems with offshoring - you can now send the work anywhere, so why wouldn't you send it offshore at 10% of the price ? I'd much rather have a role where it was essential to be on-site - that's where my value is.
How come nobody has commented on this part? No matter what age you are, requiring that you work remotely is going to make things difficult, no matter your age.
Seconded. Not just "would like to work from home" but "requiring" - from the outset. I scanned the question in less time than scanning a CV and those words ("requiring to work remotely") jumped out - CV in the round filing thing in based on that alone, didn't even register the age range being complained about.
I've worked remotely in several jobs and contracts, but only after being on-site first and proving myself and establishing with the client / employer which parts of the work can be done remotely - and always being prepared to be on site when required. I am not even sure how you could work remotely doing hardware and networks - but certainly not going to find out by trialing someone who is not prepared to be on site.
At the end of the day, you are selling yourself with your CV and if no one is buying then you are selling the wrong thing or at the wrong price - and IMO "remote working only" is the wrong thing (unless you are an awful lot cheaper - i.e. India rates - and then it's usually the wrong thing but some people do buy...)
Yes, but since the hood is not welded shut, you can take your car to ANY garage: The dealer, Wal-Mart, Canadian Tire, the old scoundrel down the street... That is the freedom that you get with Free software. You can fix it yourself, or pay someone of your choosing to fix it.
Makes no sense, if the hood is welded shut and can't be opened without breaking it, then you can't take it _anywhere_ to fix it (dealer or not) - that's the point. If the welded-shut hood can be opened by a dealer and the weld re-done without breaking the car, then that same thing can also be done anywhere else.
Now if you had to have a particular key or particular tools or equipment, and you could only get them from the car mfr., and they only sold them to the dealers...
I am afraid you have obfuscated the reason and meanings of what I posted.
All I responded to was the car analogy, and why I don't think it works.
The ability to save and recycle great devices like older laptops from the scrap heaps and recycle sweat shops in Asia created by our digitally dysfunctional consumerism is of great economic importance.
I used to think so. Now I am less sure. The oldest PC I have, I can't even give away - charities and schools don't want it because it wouldn't even be economic for them, for free. Parts for it are so much more expensive than new-standard parts that it isn't worth upgrading - cheaper to buy new. Running recent desktop software (Windows _or_ OSS) on it is a chore, ditto any recent websites, running different versions of software on different devices is also a pain.
Yes, I could re-purpose it as a NAS, if I can find disks to fit, and at some time cost. But I won't, it will be thrown out, because big old PCs running 24/7 drink lots of power - it is cheaper to buy and power a dedicated NAS than run the PC I already have as a NAS. The NAS will probably run Linux of some form but the software hood will be shut, and I won't care if it works - and if it doesn't it will get returned. It only has to run for a year and it has saved me money.
Similarly in terms of helping less-rich parts of the world, I think they will be far better of with new Ponder this, using the Windows old saw "people use it because it just works" doesn't.
"It just works" is Apple, not Windows - MSFT might have tried to steal it but rarely lives up to it. Apple on the other hand does just work, provided you only want to work their way.
Also ponder this;
all the cloud really is is an excuse to shear the sheep even further.
"Cloud" is simply marketing term, for what we used to call managed services, outsourced to off-site datacenter, and piled higher and sold cheaper (with virtualization being one key enabling technology underneath it) - nothing more nothing less. Some vendors who already did off-premise managed services offerings simply re-badged them as "cloud" when that term came in. The whole thing happened because external network connections reached the point that made it physically viable, and internal IT departments grew their own bureaucracies to the point that made it financially viable to replace them.
The MSFT and Apple's vision of the future of computing
I don't think MSFT and Apple have a coherent viable vision for anything anymore, both are well behind the curve now. If they catch up again it will be through having the resource to buy someone else's vision, not their own. I would look elsewhere for the future vision of computing.
the one great rhetorical statement that always sticks in my mind and I am never going to forget is "WOULD YOU BY A CAR WITH THE HOOD WELDED SHUT?"
And yet, for every car I've had for the last 10-15 years, I have never opened the hood for anything other than putting in screen wash or checking oil (and maybe once in 20yrs to access the battery for a jump start) - put those on the outside and I would have no need. Otherwise I just open the hood and think "I don't even know where to start on this", close it again and take it to a garage. It's not that I don't know how an engine works or haven't stripped down and rebuilt one before - it's that modern ones are orders of magnitude more complicated, higher precision, lower tolerance, and shoehorned in so tight that it looks like if you don't have exactly the right tool at exactly the right angle you are going to have no arms left after about three bolts.
And yet we buy these cars (in their millions) ? Why ? Because they are ten times more reliable than the ones we had 20-30yrs ago, and getting under the hood just is not as necessary anymore. "It just works". Are we any less free because of this ?
Same goes for software, I've modified my kernel, back in the 0.99something days. I think it had about 100 KLOC. Today Linux is what, 15 MLOC ? Over 100 times the size. Sure, in theory I can still get under the hood of the kernel, but in practice at 15 MLOC I am not going to touch it - it would never be economic.
Then on the services thing, if it was cheaper to get a taxi everywhere than own a car, would I own one ? Maybe for nostalgia reasons, but then again maybe not. But would I expect to be able to open the hood of the taxi when it turns up ? Do you ? Are you less free because the taxi driver doesn't let you under the hood of his taxi ?
Every time I read an RMS opinion, it seems to start at a good position and consistently attempts to be more and more idealistic to the point that he seems to be arguing a strawman
.
Malware is common in services and proprietary software products
Ironic given that possibly the most prevalent and insidious malware that exists _in_ other products (as opposed to existing in itself and using other products as a vector) would now appear to be the backdoors placed in encryption algorithms by the NSA et al. Malware emplaced in open, free standards and widely implemented in both free and proprietary software. Free and open software spectacularly failed to prevent or detect that - as you say, it's a strawman.
To teach use of a non-free program is to implant dependence on its owner, which contradicts the social mission of the school.
Schools should _never_ teach a single _anything_ - to do so is to foster a dependence and an inability to learn. Not just "one" word processor, programming language, operating system, processor architecture, or method of multiplication. Learn one of everything and be blinkered, learn two or more of everything and the ones that come later in life you will have no problem with. Schools should teach people to learn. See Asimov's "profession" short story from way back.
You want to kick off the people who are most likely to never make that mistake ever again? That doesn't seem wise.
Pop Quiz.
Alice and Bob are in a secret club. Alice discovers that Bob has broken club procedure and re-used cipher keys resulting in Eve being able to read secret club comms. Bob says it was a mistake.
Does Alice:
a) kick Bobs arse out of the club so hard that footwear will need to be surgically removed from orifices or b) have Bob messily and permanently removed from the gene pool and the video posted online as a warning to others not to f*** up or c) grant Bob an increased level of trust because he is less likely to make the same mistake again
For bonus points, compare and contrast the vetting procedures used by [choose three letter intelligence agency] with those used by a typical open, or closed, source crypto project, and determine the likelihood that [agency] knows whether or not one of its employees works on [crypto project] in their spare time, versus the likelihood that [crypto project] knows whether or not one of its contributors works for [agency] in their spare time.
Two years for the keys plus whatever they add on for failing to comply with the questioning. Under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act in the UK, for example, you can be questioned at the border without access to a lawyer and refusal to answer is an offence. This is what they used to detain David Miranda recently, and others have been convicted for refusing to answer without a lawyer, and some appeals have recently been heard and failed.
This is the whole point of the article - you might think you have certain rights, but at a border, suddenly you don't.
In the UK, there is a specific offence of failing to hand over keys - under RIPA (2000). There already have been people imprisoned for it.
Similar laws exist elsewhere, and even where they don't there is usually some form of "contempt of court" that can lead to jail time once they have a court / judge order you to hand over the keys.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing that can be said to be lost is the sale's potential for existence (which was probably already quite doubtful), but isn't that like saying you lose a baby every time you use a condom?
It's exactly like that, except you kill _lots_ of babies every time you use a condom, or have a partner on the pill, or have oral or...
Unfortunately at least one major religion (over 1bn people) thinks that is a perfectly valid argument and basis to therefore ban those things.
Need a better analogy - especially if **AA are catholic, you just reinforced their belief in their arguments.
Cue "every sperm is sacred"....
Actually, Eric Raymond quoting Chandler Carruth who is allegedly quoting RMS (the closest thing to a relevant source I could find for your undefended assertion)
I am going by what RMS has said himself. Try RMS's posts on gnu.org threads regarding rejecting interoperability features. e.g. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/..., https://lists.gnu.org/archive/..., https://lists.gnu.org/archive/...
Or see Joe Buck here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007...
Non-GPL'd software is not always the same as non-free software and the terms are not interchangeable. There are plenty of free software licenses that aren't the GPL. I doubt RMS' goal was to punish those who choose a license other than the GPL.
RMS's goal is copyleft, he will take other free software if no other choice, but he is not happy if you choose "free" over GPL - which is, after all, what LLVM/CLang did. To quote RMS directly again:
GCC vs LLVM is important mainly as an instance of fighting for copyleft.
Note, fighting for copyleft, not fighting for free software under any free licence.
And again:
The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted
- Is part of the bigger picture is that GCC doesn't make it easy to embed into an IDE?
Yes, and the fact that that is (or was) deliberate on RMS / GGC's part, therefore changing it required policy / politics not just contributing some code changes.
- If LLVM is "cleaner" under the hood so you don't need to be a compiler expert to modify / fix it, shouldn't that be a wake up call for GCC to clean up the code + architecture ?
In one sense it already has - on gnu.org there are relatively recent pages around plans for modular gcc. Unfortunately it is now years behind on this and may never catch up, as many of those interested in working on things like this will probably use CLang / LLVM rather than work on getting GCC to do the job.
There is also the issue that historically GCC architecture is deliberately unclean in order to prevent your previous (and following) suggestions. RMS does not want GCC to play any part in a toolchain/process which might have non-GPL parts, but that can't be controlled with copyright licence because simply reading / producing e.g an intermediate language does not make a derivative work. Hence GCC is locked-down technically so you can't access any of the intermediate steps. Some of it is probably historical accident of complexity and some is by design - but also by design it hasn't been cleaned up (so far).
Essentially, in order to satisfy a licencing goal that can't be achieved with a licence, GCC has been deliberately crippled.
RMS:
- If I want to just make a front-end for a new (programming) language why is it easier with LLVM then with GCC ?
Because LLVM IR is _much_ better documented, because that was a goal of LLVM project. For political reasons why that is, see above.
Not moving goalposts - just clarifying whether the issue was specifically with google glasses or with any (camera) glasses. Since you say it is with the latter, then there are going to be issues with aids for visually disabled people whether they are registered blind or just can't see the screen well enough without their glasses - better that this guy gets those issues out in the open now.
by bringing his (google glass) camera into the theater, he became responsible for proving that he wasn't using the camera during the movie..
I am not sure he has to prove anything, however he was apparently happy to do so, but they apparently refused to let him.
Are you responsible for proving you weren't using your phone during a movie ? How are you intending to do it when someone has taken your phone ?
the same applies to any kind of video-recording device (glasses, shoes, pens, phones, etc)
And therefore would apply to camera glasses connected to retinal implants for the blind, like e.g. http://www.dvice.com/2013-8-6/...
i dont see how asking people to wear regular non-video-recording glasses would be against such a law
I do, see above.
And the *private* business can say "take of your google glasses while on our premises or leave"
Can they say "take of (sic) your _glasses_ or leave" without falling foul of disability discrimination laws ?
Why is it just "google" glasses that are the problem (especially when they are prescription) ? [there are plenty of other glasses with cameras in]
Normal person with google glass, when asked not to record, would take it off, fold it up and put it in pocket possibly adding an apology.
This person couldn't see the screen without the glasses - RTFA. Also, again according to TFA... they were never asked not to record or asked not to wear the glasses.
Oh come on.
This is about someone who just could not put down recoding device in enviroment in which it is big issue.
He could not put the "recording device" down because it is also his glasses, which he needed to see the screen from his seat.
This is going to happen more and more - wearable tech which augments is going to merge with prosthetic tech which enables / replaces. In future people who are currently blind may see via retinal implants coupled to electronic glasses with cameras (which may or may not record - how would you know ?).
What are you going to say to such people in your environment "in which it is a big issue" ? What do you suggest - deny the disabled prothetics for fear of the cyberman ?
I am afraid of future where anyones life is easily pieced together from footage gathered from hundreds/thousands walking cameras
Newsflash - most of your life is already recorded by hundreds/thousands of (organic) walking cameras and always has been. Recording is imperfect and reading out the data is a bit tricky currently (organic interface...) - but we'll probably fix that soon (find that scary?). You can currently avoid these cameras though - just avoid any other people. More scary to me is the possibility of billions of flying crawling insect sized cameras so small they can essentially never be avoided - but each to their own.
I am afraid of some nice man visiting me with dosier on my life and explaining dozen different ways they can easily ruin various parts of it if I will not cooperate or if I will resist.
I fear that far less - in pretty much any area, as create and capture tech improves so does faking-it tech. By the time they have thousands of hours of footage of every part of everyone's life, it will also be trivial to get a few images of you and insert "you" into any video scenario they want. Most peoples' lives are way to boring to spend the time reviewing all that footage - far more likely they'll just turn up with some very convincing footage of you doing interesting things with children and/or animals and/or recreational chemicals. Who cares if it's real ? In fact, with sufficient investment, they could pretty much do that now. The future will just make it cheaper and easier. No google glasses required.
I am pretty sure they have always been doing this. Also that they have "no stop" plates, and high performance cars, cars that are armoured and probably have strange buttons you shouldn't' press unless you know exactly what they do... I suspect they don't bother with blue lights / sirens unless they particularly want to pretend to be police, in which case they probably can do that too.
All allegedly, of course.
Bigger question is why formalise it now ? Maybe Snowden has material to embarrass the UK govt by showing that MIx are (not) licensed to break traffic laws (but always did) - but is that the best he's got on the UK, surely not ?
Actually MS do decide sometimes - or at least they release required specs and checking tools (upgrade adviser) and sometimes your machine cannot be upgraded.
One of my PCs is about to go there - on XP and insufficient spec to upgrade to win7. But then, the machine is 12+ years old, and although it still does everything it did when it was bought, and just as well as it did then, my phone probably has more memory and more CPU power.
The big thing that MS does do well is provide EOL dates well ahead of time for the software you have, so you at least know when the software+hardware you've got will stop being supported (if the hardware doesn't die first). http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex
As far as I know, Apple doesn't give out any information like this at all (or at least I can't find it), so you have no idea how long you've got before you have to buy a new shiny...
Yeah I think a nice, supported linux distro that has a stock guest vm install of Windows on it would scare Microsoft shitless. Although, they would probably veto that setup.
I think they'd love it - as long as you are paying a windows licence for every one of those VMs you ship (whether the user uses them or not)...
Take an estimated OEM volume windows price, multiply by number of Android shipments and add to MS's bottom line - no way would they turn that down.
In the UK, and probably across the EU, it is not illegal, but there are laws that make it practically impossible.
Over a threshold (10k GBP, 15k euros I think), there are additional reporting and documentation requirements for cash transactions. It's enough hassle, and risk, for the recipient that you will struggle to find anyone (legitimate) that will take that much in cash. You could insist that you think it's your legal right to pay that way, but then you risk them calling the police who will simply confiscate the cash, because anything over the same limits they can assume is "proceeds of crime". Sure, you can go to court and try and get it back, and some have succeeded, makes your lawyer a lot richer though, and is not exactly anonymous...
In theory, you can still carry cash, and make transactions, over the threshold level, but in practice you risk being considered a criminal for doing it, and effectively you cannot do it anonymously [which was the aim of the laws].
er, that's why they are getting ISPs to block the routes to the sites, rather than taking the sites down.
They already forced ISPs to do it for child porn, then the courts enforced blocks on "pirate" sites because the child porn filters proved that it was technically possible, next step (previously announced, due to come in soon) they are forcing every UK ISP to implement porn (_legal_ porn) filters.
And now it's "block stuff that isn't porn/child-porn/illegal-under-copyright-law, but we don't like it anyway". No surprise.
Might be time stockpile some paper copies of the anarchists cookbook - could start to go up in value faster than bitcoins...
[torn whether to mod parent up or reply - someone else please mod it up]
AC - dead right.
All the desktop API capabilities were there - because Office runs on it - but locked away because they wanted devs to write all new apps... but with no user base there is no incentive. They have forgotten that what made early Windows successful was not that it was good, but that it ran DOS apps just about good enough. XP was about the first "good" (ish) consumer Windows, and that was successful because it ran all the previous Windows & DOS apps - just about well enough.
Just being able to recompile x86 Windows apps for RT (without jailbreaking it) would have opened it up hugely, but virtualizing or translating current x86 applications would have been perfectly possible and would have made it very competitive, maybe even successful.
Years ago (last century), Windows NT ran on DEC Alphas, and MS implemented a runtime translation for x86 binaries. Those machines were (for their time) awesome (I had the, genuine, pleasure of using some for a while), and the dynamic binary translation was flawless and performance was incredible.
Technically, I believe MS could have done it and made a decent RT, but they were too busy trying to be Apple and making a mess of it.
There are many, many common-sense reasons to support users or contractors working from home. There are very few reasons not to. Those reasons are usually brought forth by unintelligent or old-fashioned management. After 25 years in the industry, it's nice to finally replace some of that mentality, and be put in a position to support remote workers.
If all-remote works for you that's great, but then from a business point of view you just solved all your problems with offshoring - you can now send the work anywhere, so why wouldn't you send it offshore at 10% of the price ? I'd much rather have a role where it was essential to be on-site - that's where my value is.
How come nobody has commented on this part? No matter what age you are, requiring that you work remotely is going to make things difficult, no matter your age.
Seconded. Not just "would like to work from home" but "requiring" - from the outset. I scanned the question in less time than scanning a CV and those words ("requiring to work remotely") jumped out - CV in the round filing thing in based on that alone, didn't even register the age range being complained about.
I've worked remotely in several jobs and contracts, but only after being on-site first and proving myself and establishing with the client / employer which parts of the work can be done remotely - and always being prepared to be on site when required. I am not even sure how you could work remotely doing hardware and networks - but certainly not going to find out by trialing someone who is not prepared to be on site.
At the end of the day, you are selling yourself with your CV and if no one is buying then you are selling the wrong thing or at the wrong price - and IMO "remote working only" is the wrong thing (unless you are an awful lot cheaper - i.e. India rates - and then it's usually the wrong thing but some people do buy...)
Yes, but since the hood is not welded shut, you can take your car to ANY garage: The dealer, Wal-Mart, Canadian Tire, the old scoundrel down the street... That is the freedom that you get with Free software. You can fix it yourself, or pay someone of your choosing to fix it.
Makes no sense, if the hood is welded shut and can't be opened without breaking it, then you can't take it _anywhere_ to fix it (dealer or not) - that's the point.
If the welded-shut hood can be opened by a dealer and the weld re-done without breaking the car, then that same thing can also be done anywhere else.
Now if you had to have a particular key or particular tools or equipment, and you could only get them from the car mfr., and they only sold them to the dealers...
I am afraid you have obfuscated the reason and meanings of what I posted.
All I responded to was the car analogy, and why I don't think it works.
The ability to save and recycle great devices like older laptops from the scrap heaps and recycle sweat shops in Asia created by our digitally dysfunctional consumerism is of great economic importance.
I used to think so. Now I am less sure. The oldest PC I have, I can't even give away - charities and schools don't want it because it wouldn't even be economic for them, for free. Parts for it are so much more expensive than new-standard parts that it isn't worth upgrading - cheaper to buy new. Running recent desktop software (Windows _or_ OSS) on it is a chore, ditto any recent websites, running different versions of software on different devices is also a pain.
Yes, I could re-purpose it as a NAS, if I can find disks to fit, and at some time cost. But I won't, it will be thrown out, because big old PCs running 24/7 drink lots of power - it is cheaper to buy and power a dedicated NAS than run the PC I already have as a NAS. The NAS will probably run Linux of some form but the software hood will be shut, and I won't care if it works - and if it doesn't it will get returned. It only has to run for a year and it has saved me money.
Similarly in terms of helping less-rich parts of the world, I think they will be far better of with new Ponder this, using the Windows old saw "people use it because it just works" doesn't.
"It just works" is Apple, not Windows - MSFT might have tried to steal it but rarely lives up to it. Apple on the other hand does just work, provided you only want to work their way.
Also ponder this;
all the cloud really is is an excuse to shear the sheep even further.
"Cloud" is simply marketing term, for what we used to call managed services, outsourced to off-site datacenter, and piled higher and sold cheaper (with virtualization being one key enabling technology underneath it) - nothing more nothing less. Some vendors who already did off-premise managed services offerings simply re-badged them as "cloud" when that term came in. The whole thing happened because external network connections reached the point that made it physically viable, and internal IT departments grew their own bureaucracies to the point that made it financially viable to replace them.
The MSFT and Apple's vision of the future of computing
I don't think MSFT and Apple have a coherent viable vision for anything anymore, both are well behind the curve now. If they catch up again it will be through having the resource to buy someone else's vision, not their own. I would look elsewhere for the future vision of computing.
the one great rhetorical statement that always sticks in my mind and I am never going to forget is "WOULD YOU BY A CAR WITH THE HOOD WELDED SHUT?"
And yet, for every car I've had for the last 10-15 years, I have never opened the hood for anything other than putting in screen wash or checking oil (and maybe once in 20yrs to access the battery for a jump start) - put those on the outside and I would have no need. Otherwise I just open the hood and think "I don't even know where to start on this", close it again and take it to a garage. It's not that I don't know how an engine works or haven't stripped down and rebuilt one before - it's that modern ones are orders of magnitude more complicated, higher precision, lower tolerance, and shoehorned in so tight that it looks like if you don't have exactly the right tool at exactly the right angle you are going to have no arms left after about three bolts.
And yet we buy these cars (in their millions) ? Why ? Because they are ten times more reliable than the ones we had 20-30yrs ago, and getting under the hood just is not as necessary anymore. "It just works". Are we any less free because of this ?
Same goes for software, I've modified my kernel, back in the 0.99something days. I think it had about 100 KLOC. Today Linux is what, 15 MLOC ? Over 100 times the size. Sure, in theory I can still get under the hood of the kernel, but in practice at 15 MLOC I am not going to touch it - it would never be economic.
Then on the services thing, if it was cheaper to get a taxi everywhere than own a car, would I own one ? Maybe for nostalgia reasons, but then again maybe not.
But would I expect to be able to open the hood of the taxi when it turns up ? Do you ? Are you less free because the taxi driver doesn't let you under the hood of his taxi ?
Every time I read an RMS opinion, it seems to start at a good position and consistently attempts to be more and more idealistic to the point that he seems to be arguing a strawman
.
Malware is common in services and proprietary software products
Ironic given that possibly the most prevalent and insidious malware that exists _in_ other products (as opposed to existing in itself and using other products as a vector) would now appear to be the backdoors placed in encryption algorithms by the NSA et al. Malware emplaced in open, free standards and widely implemented in both free and proprietary software. Free and open software spectacularly failed to prevent or detect that - as you say, it's a strawman.
To teach use of a non-free program is to implant dependence on its owner, which contradicts the social mission of the school.
Schools should _never_ teach a single _anything_ - to do so is to foster a dependence and an inability to learn. Not just "one" word processor, programming language, operating system, processor architecture, or method of multiplication. Learn one of everything and be blinkered, learn two or more of everything and the ones that come later in life you will have no problem with. Schools should teach people to learn. See Asimov's "profession" short story from way back.
Not talking about the breaking-bad Lego meth-lab set by any chance ?
i.e. the one where some sections of the media are all up in arms about how could anyone sell such _adult_ themed content made from a kids toy ?
[ spoiler: it's not official lego, and it's sold out, looks like a nice build tho ] link: http://shop.citizenbrick.com/Superlab-Playset-CB720570.htm
You want to kick off the people who are most likely to never make that mistake ever again? That doesn't seem wise.
Pop Quiz.
Alice and Bob are in a secret club. Alice discovers that Bob has broken club procedure and re-used cipher keys resulting in Eve being able to read secret club comms. Bob says it was a mistake.
Does Alice:
a) kick Bobs arse out of the club so hard that footwear will need to be surgically removed from orifices
or
b) have Bob messily and permanently removed from the gene pool and the video posted online as a warning to others not to f*** up
or
c) grant Bob an increased level of trust because he is less likely to make the same mistake again
For bonus points, compare and contrast the vetting procedures used by [choose three letter intelligence agency] with those used by a typical open, or closed, source crypto project, and determine the likelihood that [agency] knows whether or not one of its employees works on [crypto project] in their spare time, versus the likelihood that [crypto project] knows whether or not one of its contributors works for [agency] in their spare time.
Two years for the keys plus whatever they add on for failing to comply with the questioning. Under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act in the UK, for example, you can be questioned at the border without access to a lawyer and refusal to answer is an offence. This is what they used to detain David Miranda recently, and others have been convicted for refusing to answer without a lawyer, and some appeals have recently been heard and failed.
This is the whole point of the article - you might think you have certain rights, but at a border, suddenly you don't.
In the UK, there is a specific offence of failing to hand over keys - under RIPA (2000). There already have been people imprisoned for it.
Similar laws exist elsewhere, and even where they don't there is usually some form of "contempt of court" that can lead to jail time once they have a court / judge order you to hand over the keys.