The downside of this is that you are giving an advantage to your competitors by giving them the same codebase. Why would one aid a competing company - this does not make sense.
If your company issues stock, are the various stockholders aware that you are, in effect, giving away a competitive advantage?
This raises the question of: how do we trust the people implementing the cryptography? Sure, it's possible to implement a heavy-duty cryptography system, but how do we keep the programmers from implementing a backdoor, in a way that is verifiable by a majority of users, without having to teach them a new language?
Open Sourcing the routines is a good idea, until you have to try and explain this to the large mass of users who think an algorithm is something that only women can have.
Frankly, with the way systems are going these days, it's beginning to sound like the dead-tree version of a document is the safest way to store something (at least is verifiably destroyable in a very easy to understand manner).
I think I am about 10 years from becoming a Luddite.
I got as far as distributed storage and stopped. The idea of my files being stored on some Iowa farmhands computer does not sit well with me, regardless of how secure the software is. The only real security is hardware security, which is to say, my files on my machine, your files on your machine, and if I feel like giving you access, fine. If not, oh well.
Why is everyone so hot on distributed computing and storage? Relying on someone else to securely store data is ridiculous because the security model always fails to account for marketers, accountants, and CEOs (or anyone working for them).
I agree with those points for the most part (they may be overstated a bit much for my taste).
The economic model is so far proven to work for only a few companies and not for the industry as a whole. I suspect that basing the industry entirely on service and support is going to drive the prices for those functions much higher and frustrate most users. By offering the program for free, most users are going to expect free support.
Another relevant thought is that without closed-source companies to support the programmers who are donating software, how are these programmers going to survive? A recent article in the Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23935.html ) noted that most Open Source programmers are employed by closed source companies. If they damage their employer's ability to deploy software, what good does that do anybody?
Source code IS useless if you don't have time to look over it or modify it. It only benefits the 5% or so that are actively involved in maintaining or modifying the code. The remaining consumers get absolutely zero benefit from it.
I'm not sure I can argue either for or against the third point, except to say that once the money is removed from the equation, how do you force change without innovation? Ie., fixes instead of new features?
The nerd culture IS counterproductive, since it emphasizes an antagonism toward those who run businesses (suits) and those who sell products (marketroids). In order for Open Source to succeed, there is going to have to be a meeting of the minds on a massive level, not just a few companies here and there.
whose afraid the world is going to be taken over by giant genetically engineered killer robots or something? Probably afraid the AI will be written in C#.
The last time I checked, the Constitution of our country said nothing about software in any form or fashion. You have the right (without getting too particular here) to live your life as you see fit (mostly), worship or not as you choose (mostly), associate with whom you choose (mostly), own weapons (to an extent), and a whole raft of other things, but nowhere in there does it say that using computers and software is a right.
And who proposes those standards for businesses, pray tell? You? I think not. Me? You'd never stand for it.
The only thing we can do is set laws in place that tell us what the absolute boundaries are in business. To try and legislate ethics is a serious mistake, since there is no absolute standard.
As for a bunch of immoral fucktards running around, welcome to the 21st century. Wanna buy some GrrlSkout(TM)Luncheon Loaf? It's got pimientos in it...
Anything but what? Rich? Tell me something I don't know...
However, if you add up the total aggregate of wealth, the lower middle class is where you aim if you want to market something. To run a growing, successful company, you have to aim at that market, because it is the one that is growing. The elite computer users are going to form such a small market that you'll go broke trying to supply and support them (though they are likely to need the least support).
As for the free market failing, what would you suggest? There are no viable alternatives that don't rely on some degree of "being nice to each other" (which might be nice, but you can't count on it).
My suggestion is that you quit whining about how the free market is failing and get out do something constructive. What? I don't know. I'm going to keep working in the free market system until someone provably comes up with something better.
computer manufacturers and operating system makers are continuing to pander to the lowest common denominator
What would you rather have them do? Go broke pandering to the.05% of the market with some knowledge?
The Joe Windows crowd is the group that has the money to burn and needs someplace to spend it. One can hardly blame mfg's and os companies for wanting to give them a place to do so.
That being said, this does look like a last hurrah attempt to monetize a dead OS architecture.
The theory (as I remember it) says something about programming languages being based on the spoken/written language of the creators. I don't remember all the details, so chime in with your own bits.
Niklaus Wirth spoke a language with Germanic roots, which has some pretty strong rules for construction. Thus Pascal has pretty strong rules about how and where the language constructs can be used.
C was created by Americans, a language with both strong and loose rules for sentence construction. It's a strong rule language with the ability to be very, very flexible.
If the theory holds, then the Chinese will be the first to invent a language that can adequately manage three states: yes, no, and whatever.
My guess is that they are planning of fixing only the bugs in XP and related products. Windows 95 is not supported anymore, Windows 98 will be shelved as of either this year or next, Windows 2000 goes away about a year after that. The only codebase that has any longevity are the Datacenter and Server editions of 2000 and the latest XP release for desktop and corporation.
While I dearly wish that they would fix the bugs in all of their software, anyone running Win95 is living in the stone age anyway and probably shouldn't expect much.
I suspect that most people will probably disagree with him, however.
This is/. He'll be lucky to escape with flesh remaining on his bones. Most of the Linux people here have no interest in making peace with Microsoft under any terms except total, utter physical destruction of the company, and anyone who uses MS.
Great! I await the day when some anarchist hacker decides to hack into my headspace and post messages about evil corporate conglomerates!
Excellent! I can't wait until my brain is subpoenaed by law enforcement because I've supposedly hidden warez files in my left temporal lobe:
"We're gonna have to confiscate your brain."
"Do I get a replacement brain?"
"No."
"Uh, you do know that the human body can't FUNCTION with a BRAIN, don't you?"
"Not my problem, criminal."
"I haven't been convicted yet."
"You will be. You will be."
This just gets worse and worse. First, Ashkrofft and Busche, and now this? I was gonna be funny and now I'm just scared.
I don't consider myself locked into Microsoft's products any more than I am locked into buying a particular make of car. I use Microsoft because it works for me. I recommend it because it it has the largest selection of good quality software.
Before you start rambling on about Open Source or Free Software:
1) I have used Linux (until recently it was my firewall and home web server) - replacing it with FreeBSD. More agreeable licensing.
2) I have a fundamental disagreement with RMS over his beliefs that software should be free. It conflicts with my belief that I should be allowed to charge for goods and services.
3) The issues of privacy and security in the operating system are of great concern to me, and I agree that Microsoft has been shamefully lax in this area. I believe that this will improve in the future.
Yeah, you're right - it doesn't make me feel any better.
Of course, it didn't help that despite working in IT and Graphic Design since 1987, my degree was in Drama. I think that tends to throw HR for a loop. "Uh, boss? The system's down and the sysadmin is quoting Hamlet... I think he's serious this time."
So much for a diversity of knowledge. ALL I WANTED WAS A FREAKIN' WEB DESIGNER JOB! AARRRGGGHHH!
Anyway. Back to work (I got a job as a web designer - just not where I WANTED to).
Well, there's one person who won't be getting an Xmas card from me this year.
Re:Goes down on Your Permanent Record
on
Resume Spamming Redux
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sending your resume to 28 companies can hardly be considered spamming. I had to send out over 100 during a job search three years ago. Part of the trick is to not make a mass mailing list - I sent out each one individually. It had a form cover letter, but I personalized each one as much as possible.
Not necessarily. Because a lawsuit can be a strategic weapon as well as a punitive one.
Consider: you want to know more about an opponent's business practices - get inside info, as it were. You file a lawsuit on a minor charge, subpoena ALL records, and in the process of going over the records you gain your insight. You might also find something that can ACTUALLY be used against them, leading to another, more substantiated lawsuit.
The other effects: your opponent now has to devote time, energy, and personnel to securing the records and presenting them in a readable format, costing money that could better be used elsewhere.
Another reason to destroy documents is that business practices are trade secrets. While Company A may do things internally exactly the same way as Company B, A doesn't want B knowing for sure. Those old documents can be a source of information for Company B by way of disgruntled employees, theft, lawsuit, whatever.
Your assumption that the innocent have nothing to hide presumes a benign world where one is safe until one has done something wrong. This is naive - one should never assume that other companies are not out to destroy you totally.
I have no doubts whatsoever on that score. They operate in that wierd area of a legal monopoly (kind of like utility companies before Texas !@#$!@#$ deregulated them). It's one of the few monopolies that I think is a good idea.
FYI: The Post Office is a private company (still somewhat affiliated with the U.S. government as a legal monopoly). They are under a board of governors that approves postal rates and various other things, but just like a corporation, they have to turn a profit.
Doesn't exist under the law unless both parties agree to it.
Don't try to put yourself above this guy...
I don't. You apparently think I do, so the problem lies with your perception. However, to further explain: I work for a private company - the rules are completely different.
... dumpster fishing of CPU cycles...
No, I believe the original charge was based on wasting bandwidth, not CPU cycles. That's an entirely different matter.
You think it's getting off easy to pay 2100$...
Compared to what he would have got, yes.
Your definition of misappropriation would include 9 years probation for people that dumpster-fish...
MISAPPROPRIATION (law.com) the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a felony (a crime punishable by a prison sentence).
As the system administrator of a state-owned system, he fits either the first or the last definition above. It doesn't say a word about dumpster diving.
As for the proof, apparently they did have proof. Filing a false charge is a pretty severe crime in any jurisdiction and requires proof to back up the claim.
The screening might be harder, but the court trial (if they even bothered) would be much shorter. China does not give a flying rat's ass about it's citizens as human beings and will re-educate or execute anyone who happens to be Chinese who is using PGP. Anyone who uses PGP will simply be execute as a spy.
Slashdot Mirror
The downside of this is that you are giving an advantage to your competitors by giving them the same codebase. Why would one aid a competing company - this does not make sense.
If your company issues stock, are the various stockholders aware that you are, in effect, giving away a competitive advantage?
This raises the question of: how do we trust the people implementing the cryptography? Sure, it's possible to implement a heavy-duty cryptography system, but how do we keep the programmers from implementing a backdoor, in a way that is verifiable by a majority of users, without having to teach them a new language?
Open Sourcing the routines is a good idea, until you have to try and explain this to the large mass of users who think an algorithm is something that only women can have.
Frankly, with the way systems are going these days, it's beginning to sound like the dead-tree version of a document is the safest way to store something (at least is verifiably destroyable in a very easy to understand manner).
I think I am about 10 years from becoming a Luddite.
I got as far as distributed storage and stopped. The idea of my files being stored on some Iowa farmhands computer does not sit well with me, regardless of how secure the software is. The only real security is hardware security, which is to say, my files on my machine, your files on your machine, and if I feel like giving you access, fine. If not, oh well.
Why is everyone so hot on distributed computing and storage? Relying on someone else to securely store data is ridiculous because the security model always fails to account for marketers, accountants, and CEOs (or anyone working for them).
I agree with those points for the most part (they may be overstated a bit much for my taste).
l ) noted that most Open Source programmers are employed by closed source companies. If they damage their employer's ability to deploy software, what good does that do anybody?
The economic model is so far proven to work for only a few companies and not for the industry as a whole. I suspect that basing the industry entirely on service and support is going to drive the prices for those functions much higher and frustrate most users. By offering the program for free, most users are going to expect free support.
Another relevant thought is that without closed-source companies to support the programmers who are donating software, how are these programmers going to survive? A recent article in the Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/23935.htm
Source code IS useless if you don't have time to look over it or modify it. It only benefits the 5% or so that are actively involved in maintaining or modifying the code. The remaining consumers get absolutely zero benefit from it.
I'm not sure I can argue either for or against the third point, except to say that once the money is removed from the equation, how do you force change without innovation? Ie., fixes instead of new features?
The nerd culture IS counterproductive, since it emphasizes an antagonism toward those who run businesses (suits) and those who sell products (marketroids). In order for Open Source to succeed, there is going to have to be a meeting of the minds on a massive level, not just a few companies here and there.
whose afraid the world is going to be taken over by giant genetically engineered killer robots or something? Probably afraid the AI will be written in C#.
Since when did software become a right?
The last time I checked, the Constitution of our country said nothing about software in any form or fashion. You have the right (without getting too particular here) to live your life as you see fit (mostly), worship or not as you choose (mostly), associate with whom you choose (mostly), own weapons (to an extent), and a whole raft of other things, but nowhere in there does it say that using computers and software is a right.
So where did this idea come from?
RMS could play the guy who sits in the pit for silence
I, for one, wish he would.
And who proposes those standards for businesses, pray tell? You? I think not. Me? You'd never stand for it.
The only thing we can do is set laws in place that tell us what the absolute boundaries are in business. To try and legislate ethics is a serious mistake, since there is no absolute standard.
As for a bunch of immoral fucktards running around, welcome to the 21st century. Wanna buy some GrrlSkout(TM)Luncheon Loaf? It's got pimientos in it ...
Nah. No money in it.
Anything but what? Rich? Tell me something I don't know ...
However, if you add up the total aggregate of wealth, the lower middle class is where you aim if you want to market something. To run a growing, successful company, you have to aim at that market, because it is the one that is growing. The elite computer users are going to form such a small market that you'll go broke trying to supply and support them (though they are likely to need the least support).
As for the free market failing, what would you suggest? There are no viable alternatives that don't rely on some degree of "being nice to each other" (which might be nice, but you can't count on it).
My suggestion is that you quit whining about how the free market is failing and get out do something constructive. What? I don't know. I'm going to keep working in the free market system until someone provably comes up with something better.
computer manufacturers and operating system makers are continuing to pander to the lowest common denominator
What would you rather have them do? Go broke pandering to the .05% of the market with some knowledge?
The Joe Windows crowd is the group that has the money to burn and needs someplace to spend it. One can hardly blame mfg's and os companies for wanting to give them a place to do so.
That being said, this does look like a last hurrah attempt to monetize a dead OS architecture.
The theory (as I remember it) says something about programming languages being based on the spoken/written language of the creators. I don't remember all the details, so chime in with your own bits.
Niklaus Wirth spoke a language with Germanic roots, which has some pretty strong rules for construction. Thus Pascal has pretty strong rules about how and where the language constructs can be used.
C was created by Americans, a language with both strong and loose rules for sentence construction. It's a strong rule language with the ability to be very, very flexible.
If the theory holds, then the Chinese will be the first to invent a language that can adequately manage three states: yes, no, and whatever.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
My guess is that they are planning of fixing only the bugs in XP and related products. Windows 95 is not supported anymore, Windows 98 will be shelved as of either this year or next, Windows 2000 goes away about a year after that. The only codebase that has any longevity are the Datacenter and Server editions of 2000 and the latest XP release for desktop and corporation.
While I dearly wish that they would fix the bugs in all of their software, anyone running Win95 is living in the stone age anyway and probably shouldn't expect much.
I suspect that most people will probably disagree with him, however.
This is /. He'll be lucky to escape with flesh remaining on his bones. Most of the Linux people here have no interest in making peace with Microsoft under any terms except total, utter physical destruction of the company, and anyone who uses MS.
Geez, someone has way too much free time on his hands.
Great! I await the day when some anarchist hacker decides to hack into my headspace and post messages about evil corporate conglomerates!
Excellent! I can't wait until my brain is subpoenaed by law enforcement because I've supposedly hidden warez files in my left temporal lobe:
"We're gonna have to confiscate your brain."
"Do I get a replacement brain?"
"No."
"Uh, you do know that the human body can't FUNCTION with a BRAIN, don't you?"
"Not my problem, criminal."
"I haven't been convicted yet."
"You will be. You will be."
This just gets worse and worse. First, Ashkrofft and Busche, and now this? I was gonna be funny and now I'm just scared.
I'm gonna go hide under a rock for a while.
I don't consider myself locked into Microsoft's products any more than I am locked into buying a particular make of car. I use Microsoft because it works for me. I recommend it because it it has the largest selection of good quality software.
Before you start rambling on about Open Source or Free Software:
1) I have used Linux (until recently it was my firewall and home web server) - replacing it with FreeBSD. More agreeable licensing.
2) I have a fundamental disagreement with RMS over his beliefs that software should be free. It conflicts with my belief that I should be allowed to charge for goods and services.
3) The issues of privacy and security in the operating system are of great concern to me, and I agree that Microsoft has been shamefully lax in this area. I believe that this will improve in the future.
Yeah, you're right - it doesn't make me feel any better.
... I think he's serious this time."
Of course, it didn't help that despite working in IT and Graphic Design since 1987, my degree was in Drama. I think that tends to throw HR for a loop. "Uh, boss? The system's down and the sysadmin is quoting Hamlet
So much for a diversity of knowledge. ALL I WANTED WAS A FREAKIN' WEB DESIGNER JOB! AARRRGGGHHH!
Anyway. Back to work (I got a job as a web designer - just not where I WANTED to).
Well, there's one person who won't be getting an Xmas card from me this year.
Sending your resume to 28 companies can hardly be considered spamming. I had to send out over 100 during a job search three years ago. Part of the trick is to not make a mass mailing list - I sent out each one individually. It had a form cover letter, but I personalized each one as much as possible.
Not necessarily. Because a lawsuit can be a strategic weapon as well as a punitive one.
Consider: you want to know more about an opponent's business practices - get inside info, as it were. You file a lawsuit on a minor charge, subpoena ALL records, and in the process of going over the records you gain your insight. You might also find something that can ACTUALLY be used against them, leading to another, more substantiated lawsuit.
The other effects: your opponent now has to devote time, energy, and personnel to securing the records and presenting them in a readable format, costing money that could better be used elsewhere.
Another reason to destroy documents is that business practices are trade secrets. While Company A may do things internally exactly the same way as Company B, A doesn't want B knowing for sure. Those old documents can be a source of information for Company B by way of disgruntled employees, theft, lawsuit, whatever.
Your assumption that the innocent have nothing to hide presumes a benign world where one is safe until one has done something wrong. This is naive - one should never assume that other companies are not out to destroy you totally.
I have no doubts whatsoever on that score. They operate in that wierd area of a legal monopoly (kind of like utility companies before Texas !@#$!@#$ deregulated them). It's one of the few monopolies that I think is a good idea.
FYI: The Post Office is a private company (still somewhat affiliated with the U.S. government as a legal monopoly). They are under a board of governors that approves postal rates and various other things, but just like a corporation, they have to turn a profit.
What ever happened to no harm no foul?
Doesn't exist under the law unless both parties agree to it.
Don't try to put yourself above this guy ...
I don't. You apparently think I do, so the problem lies with your perception. However, to further explain: I work for a private company - the rules are completely different.
No, I believe the original charge was based on wasting bandwidth, not CPU cycles. That's an entirely different matter.
You think it's getting off easy to pay 2100$ ...
Compared to what he would have got, yes.
Your definition of misappropriation would include 9 years probation for people that dumpster-fish ...
MISAPPROPRIATION (law.com) the intentional, illegal use of the property or funds of another person for one's own use or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust, an executor or administrator of a dead person's estate or by any person with a responsibility to care for and protect another's assets (a fiduciary duty). It is a felony (a crime punishable by a prison sentence).
As the system administrator of a state-owned system, he fits either the first or the last definition above. It doesn't say a word about dumpster diving.
As for the proof, apparently they did have proof. Filing a false charge is a pretty severe crime in any jurisdiction and requires proof to back up the claim.
Have a nice day.
The screening might be harder, but the court trial (if they even bothered) would be much shorter. China does not give a flying rat's ass about it's citizens as human beings and will re-educate or execute anyone who happens to be Chinese who is using PGP. Anyone who uses PGP will simply be execute as a spy.