Anarchists of the world unite! I must applaud this sentiment, for personal and professional reasons.
Anarchism is such an attractive political system because it involves organisation from below, which assumes that even those at the lowest level (however you choose to define *that*) are sensible, responsible human beings. The antithesis is organisation imposed from above, which assumes that everyone except the PHB at the top of the heap is a know-nothing-Bozo.
Which assumption makes *you* feel better? Which assumption makes you snarl and write vituperative posts to Your Online Forum Of Choice? Which assumption underlies the actions of, say, various governments who enact odd legislation regarding electronic transactions, whether p0rn, music copyright, SW licensing, or whatever? Or *do* they, like Daddy, really know best after all?
I would suggest that your freedom to do what you like with your code stops once you give it to me: if I agree to a license of whatever form, then I can be legally bound by that, but if not, then it's now mineminemineminemine, and I can do what *I* like with it. If you don't want me to paint it pink and call it Horace, then stipulate that in a legal agreement (ie license), but don't try to tell me that the end of punitive copyright laws will spell the end of Software As We Know It.
This sums it up far better than I could. There's one extra proviso, too, at least here in Oz: the professional bodies (eg IEEE) can *revoke* certification of a university course if they believe it no longer provides the appropriate level of knowledge and experience. So engineering degrees in general tend to be far more useful than many computing degrees, simply because a faculty that loses certification can lose students. Computing faculties that don't need to worry can do any old thing.
And I don't think that cutting code == software design/development. After all, has anyone seen the piles of sh!te that undergrads can construct simply because they neither know nor care about inconvenient concepts like design (or testing. Or QA. Or documentation or commenting or...). A certification process should ensure that all courses provide suitable exposure to rigorous design/testing/QA processes.
Aaaaaand another thing: a certification might make being a geek a bit more sexy (in social terms). It would at least set us apart from all those "I use computers too" tossers who claim equal parity because they use M$Word...
Well, there's anarchism, which is difficult to implement, but not impossible. The major problem is that anarchist "states" (I know, a contradiction in terms, but y'know what I mean) tend to be crushed mercilessly by others states, be they capitalist, socialist, or fascist. There's nothing that can unify so many different political thinkers like a bunch of anarchists.
I'd also dispute that the USSR demonstrated communism (I'd say authoritarian socialism, which is way different), or that socialist states necessarily have poor social services and eat up everyone's money (after all, the reason they're called socialist is because they consider social welfare to be of importance).
And I think it's laissez faire capitalism: if I remember rightly, it means something like unrestricted capitalism, and to be honest I can't see how it differs from the free market that all the politicians seem so enamoured of. But then I'm no economist...
Disclaimer: I don't live in the US, so I've got a little safe distance from many of these US issues (for now: Australia looks set to become a suburb of the US any day now...).
Anyway, I think the issue with FBI surveillance is not so much that we're concerned about Them spying on Us, and finding out all of Our secrets: after all, if that were the only problem, then some of you would be quite right, and we needn't worry if we're not doing anything wrong.
No, the worry is more about who's monitoring and what they're doing with it. Can the watchers, given this degree of access to our private communications, *really* be trusted to be as dispassionate and unbiased as we hope?
The problem with *any* abrogation of authority, surveillance, administrative or enforcement powers is that they then have the ability to use if for their purposes. Okay, rooting out terrorists is a worthy aim, but can we trust that they'll stick to that? Do we know that *Their* definition of "terrorist" matches *Ours*?
My definition of terrorist includes stuff like "blowing up as many people as possible". How do I know that theirs *doesn't* include stuff like "belongs to a subversive organisation like Amnesty International"?
Check this article on the work of the NSA during the cold war. I'm tempted to buy the book, depressing as it may be, but I'm not sure how much of it hasn't already been covered in the selection of Chomsky books on my shelves. The NSA *may* have been protecting what they thought of as American freedoms, but if those schemes were enacted, how many Americans (and others) would have suffered? Is *that* justifiable?
And as for the "who's a terrorist" question, well, how about the Reclaim the Streets crowd? How about Women in Black, recent nominees for a Nobel Peace Prize? When the definition of "terrorist" stretches that far, how many of us are innocent?
Given that there are at least 2 countries right now who are using the "War on Terrorism" excuse to launch a greater offensive against their enemies, I'm not overly confident that this surveillance would be used *solely* to find and bring to justice those guilty of the Spetember 11th bombing. Anyone criticising current US government policy could be considered a suspected terrorist. Anyone protesting the
indefinite detention of material witnesses could be considered a terrorist. What then? Who's made any safer by this, and who suffers?
> This 'cycle of violence' cliche is total horse shit, a product of ivory-tower intellectuals whose wish is father to the thought. If it had any validity, we would dissolve our police forces, lest they incite a 'cycle of violence' among the friends and families of any criminals they might kill.
Uhh, sorry, but you only have to look at thousands of years of human history to see that you're wrong. How do you think the terms "feud" and "vendetta" came about: just someone pissing with the dictionary on a slow day?
Please note that this has nothing to do with the politics of the observer: it should be obvious to all that there are areas of the world where conflict has continued for centuries, regardless of what you think of the participants, and each side has some people claiming that their violence is in repsonse to that of the other side. Look at Ireland, the Middle East, the Balkans, many African countries, etc etc.
If you understand (note that I do *not* say "condone" or "excuse" or anything remotely similar) what makes people commit these acts, then you have some chance of preventing them in the future. This is particularly so when they claim to be doing it out of a strong feeling of injustice: chances are that some actions will only exacerbate this feeling of injustice.
Note again, before I get ten thousand shouty emails, that I'm *not* suggesting excusing terrorism or giving sweeties to hijackers or any other gross generalisations: I'm simply pointing out that retaliation with force does *not* necessarily result in capitulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Anarchism is such an attractive political system because it involves organisation from below, which assumes that even those at the lowest level (however you choose to define *that*) are sensible, responsible human beings. The antithesis is organisation imposed from above, which assumes that everyone except the PHB at the top of the heap is a know-nothing-Bozo.
Which assumption makes *you* feel better? Which assumption makes you snarl and write vituperative posts to Your Online Forum Of Choice? Which assumption underlies the actions of, say, various governments who enact odd legislation regarding electronic transactions, whether p0rn, music copyright, SW licensing, or whatever? Or *do* they, like Daddy, really know best after all?
I would suggest that your freedom to do what you like with your code stops once you give it to me: if I agree to a license of whatever form, then I can be legally bound by that, but if not, then it's now mineminemineminemine, and I can do what *I* like with it. If you don't want me to paint it pink and call it Horace, then stipulate that in a legal agreement (ie license), but don't try to tell me that the end of punitive copyright laws will spell the end of Software As We Know It.
Except that your girlfriend isn't *yours*, she's hers. And she can do what she likes with herself.
This sums it up far better than I could. There's one extra proviso, too, at least here in Oz: the professional bodies (eg IEEE) can *revoke* certification of a university course if they believe it no longer provides the appropriate level of knowledge and experience. So engineering degrees in general tend to be far more useful than many computing degrees, simply because a faculty that loses certification can lose students. Computing faculties that don't need to worry can do any old thing.
And I don't think that cutting code == software design/development. After all, has anyone seen the piles of sh!te that undergrads can construct simply because they neither know nor care about inconvenient concepts like design (or testing. Or QA. Or documentation or commenting or
Aaaaaand another thing: a certification might make being a geek a bit more sexy (in social terms). It would at least set us apart from all those "I use computers too" tossers who claim equal parity because they use M$Word...
Well, there's anarchism, which is difficult to implement, but not impossible. The major problem is that anarchist "states" (I know, a contradiction in terms, but y'know what I mean) tend to be crushed mercilessly by others states, be they capitalist, socialist, or fascist. There's nothing that can unify so many different political thinkers like a bunch of anarchists.
I'd also dispute that the USSR demonstrated communism (I'd say authoritarian socialism, which is way different), or that socialist states necessarily have poor social services and eat up everyone's money (after all, the reason they're called socialist is because they consider social welfare to be of importance).
And I think it's laissez faire capitalism: if I remember rightly, it means something like unrestricted capitalism, and to be honest I can't see how it differs from the free market that all the politicians seem so enamoured of. But then I'm no economist...
Disclaimer: I don't live in the US, so I've got a little safe distance from many of these US issues (for now: Australia looks set to become a suburb of the US any day now...).
Anyway, I think the issue with FBI surveillance is not so much that we're concerned about Them spying on Us, and finding out all of Our secrets: after all, if that were the only problem, then some of you would be quite right, and we needn't worry if we're not doing anything wrong.
No, the worry is more about who's monitoring and what they're doing with it. Can the watchers, given this degree of access to our private communications, *really* be trusted to be as dispassionate and unbiased as we hope?
The problem with *any* abrogation of authority, surveillance, administrative or enforcement powers is that they then have the ability to use if for their purposes. Okay, rooting out terrorists is a worthy aim, but can we trust that they'll stick to that? Do we know that *Their* definition of "terrorist" matches *Ours*?
My definition of terrorist includes stuff like "blowing up as many people as possible". How do I know that theirs *doesn't* include stuff like "belongs to a subversive organisation like Amnesty International"?
Check this article on the work of the NSA during the cold war. I'm tempted to buy the book, depressing as it may be, but I'm not sure how much of it hasn't already been covered in the selection of Chomsky books on my shelves. The NSA *may* have been protecting what they thought of as American freedoms, but if those schemes were enacted, how many Americans (and others) would have suffered? Is *that* justifiable?
And as for the "who's a terrorist" question, well, how about the Reclaim the Streets crowd? How about Women in Black, recent nominees for a Nobel Peace Prize? When the definition of "terrorist" stretches that far, how many of us are innocent?
Given that there are at least 2 countries right now who are using the "War on Terrorism" excuse to launch a greater offensive against their enemies, I'm not overly confident that this surveillance would be used *solely* to find and bring to justice those guilty of the Spetember 11th bombing. Anyone criticising current US government policy could be considered a suspected terrorist. Anyone protesting the indefinite detention of material witnesses could be considered a terrorist. What then? Who's made any safer by this, and who suffers?
> This 'cycle of violence' cliche is total horse shit, a product of ivory-tower intellectuals whose wish is father to the thought. If it had any validity, we would dissolve our police forces, lest they incite a 'cycle of violence' among the friends and families of any criminals they might kill.
Uhh, sorry, but you only have to look at thousands of years of human history to see that you're wrong. How do you think the terms "feud" and "vendetta" came about: just someone pissing with the dictionary on a slow day?
Please note that this has nothing to do with the politics of the observer: it should be obvious to all that there are areas of the world where conflict has continued for centuries, regardless of what you think of the participants, and each side has some people claiming that their violence is in repsonse to that of the other side. Look at Ireland, the Middle East, the Balkans, many African countries, etc etc.
If you understand (note that I do *not* say "condone" or "excuse" or anything remotely similar) what makes people commit these acts, then you have some chance of preventing them in the future. This is particularly so when they claim to be doing it out of a strong feeling of injustice: chances are that some actions will only exacerbate this feeling of injustice.
Note again, before I get ten thousand shouty emails, that I'm *not* suggesting excusing terrorism or giving sweeties to hijackers or any other gross generalisations: I'm simply pointing out that retaliation with force does *not* necessarily result in capitulation.