The Debian project is a community, not a corporation. Debian developers have never sought financial rewards for their work within this community. This is not to say the Debian developers don't make any money, they just make money somewhere else. Also, this does not mean that Debian developers are not rewarded by Debian. There are non-financial incentives for doing good work.
Adding financial rewards to the equation made the contract much more complex. Many companies make disastrous changes to their rewards and compensations programs after months of planning and careful execution. How much planning went into this? Whose perspectives were considered? How and when will regular developer receive financial compensation? Is project manager the only paid position? Does this mean that more people will be applying for this job? Is so, is $6,000 an attractive number? If these questions can be answered, then at least there was planning. Either way, I think that this decision will be rolled back.
First, it's not YouTube anymore, it's Google. Second, Google runs a profitable global business which requires it to run offices around the world. These offices operate under local law. The local office, therefore, would be required to get a "broadcaster license." Just recently, the Brazilian justice asked Google Brazil to delete a few hate speech Orkut communities and to produce personal data for a few Orkut members involved in hate crimes. Google Brazil refused, claiming that it had no control over the data, which was stored in the US. Eventually, Google complied. If it had not complied, it's Brazilian office could have been shut down for refusing to obey a court order. I fear that a measure similar to the one mentioned in the article could be implemented in Brazil, too. We are about to re-elect an authoritarian president who loves press control and propaganda.
Isn't this the same british phonographic industry that was criticising BBC for offering legal classical music downloads? So this means that they like legal downloads, as long as it is not free. Great.
The design of interactive systems is an entire discipline. It is as hard and as important as software engineering.
Very few software developers have even the most basic training in this area. Also, analyzing and designing interactive systems is very expensive. It takes time and it requires some sort of contact with your intended user base before you start writing code.
Many projects could use external help. What we need is to call human-computer interaction experts to the game. If a few experts could buy into the free software idea and do some free (as in beer) consulting, everyone would benefit.
How do you do free as in beer consulting? You publish every deliverable on the net, under a Creative Commons license. This way, HCI students will have access to the methods used in real projects. These students, in turn, will be even easier to draft.
I ask you all to turn you advocacy powers in this direction.
You're right, the whole system can't be auditted, but I believe that the application code can.
I did not mean that the electronic booths were problematic only for illiterates. You mention the elderly too, but that's not all./.ers may not realize that you don't have to be deficient to be technologically impaired. Too many people are just not familiar with computers and can't understand what is expected from them when they interact with electronic devices. People should be introduced to computers, but I'm not sure that the elections are the best time.
Also, I don't think that anyone has proved electronic ballots improve democracy. Brazil and India have enough democracy-related problems to keep busy for the next fifty years without having to worry about the fairness of electronic ballots.
I do not mean that they shouldn't be used. My question is only of priority and order.
Brazil's last general elections were all electronic. No big news there. There is a single Brazilian system, where a different company designs each module. Party-appointed technical representatives can audit the whole system. India and Brazil have other things in common: illiteracy and poverty. Most of the users of the electronic ballots in Brazil cannot understand what they read on the screen. Electoral candidates in small towns "teach" people to vote on them, by making them memorize the key sequences. I just wonder if these countries couldn't be spending time, money, and minds on more relevant issues.
A different title or a different curriculum takes us no closer to reliable software. First, there is no proven way to design applications correctly or to write good code. We have formal methods, CMM, and ISO, but none of those can guarantee that the whole system works as expected. Even if it works as expected, it may still not be "correct." Second, even if we teach people to use better tools, or to use tools better, every software project is a group effort. Ususally these groups are very diverse, bringing together people with different skill levels and experience. What good would it be if we had a "Sofware Enginner" signing the project if one incorrect line of code could make the whole system crash? Would you sign a "Software Project" and be personally liable for it?
It is actually a good thing that the interface hasn't changed drastically in the past 10 years. Users like stable interfaces. Also, this has allowed developers to focus on the applications.
We are coming to a point, though, that the amount of available information will be unbearable. We need a new model; a new interface will follow. The semantic web may be a solution. Strange as it may seem, the shift to a semantic web may happen quickest within corporations and universities, to organize enterprise information. Only after its benefits are proven within enterprises, will the common web user see the change.
Information will be available in a whole new way. Searching will be very different. Who will be the next Netscape? The next Google?
This is one of the most important steps the government can take to make good use of free software.
Evidently, most free software projects have no motivation to join government biddings and, therefore, are left out from the decision-making process.
It is only natural that the government would consider using free software just as often as it would consider using proprietary software.
This is a national PKI, guys. They are not just playing around. The Federal government will run a root CA, regional CAs and RAs will be established, and every citizen will have the right to use the system. Everyone will be able to get a key pair.
There are clear rules in Brazil which distinguish the applicability of an authenticated copy and an original document. You can get a physical, authenticated copy of your driver's license and use it for a zillion things, but you must drive with your original driver's license. The digital copies will be just as good as authenticated copies.
I have not had access to the actual documents that explain the notarization system, but I am quite sure that you will need to notorize (get a timestamp and a signature from a digital notary) each printed copy of the documents.
The BIG issue here is whether we want the Federal Governmente to operate the Root CA. Among other powers, it will hold a backup copy of each private key in the national system.
On the other hand, there is no point in discussing this, since the Federal Government has established the national PKI already. The rules are set, and they are reasonable.
What really worries me is that the government and media have made no effort to explain any of this to the people of this very poor and ignorant country.
What if this "Trusted" Computing Forum decides to patent the exploits to vulnerabilities they find? Would that be possible? Does that mean that other security experts that find the same vulnerabilities would not be allowed to publish their own implementations of the exploits, because it would accomplish, in essence, the same thing?
It's not about catching up with Windows, it's just another tool. As a matter of fact, NT 3.5 needed this badly, because NT administrators-to-be would not be able to learn how to filter a plain text log file and look out for their systems on their own. SNARE, for some linux administrators, adds convenience, for others, it adds nothing. It is, nevertheless, a promissing tool.
Why are you complainig?
Slashdot Mirror
The Debian project is a community, not a corporation. Debian developers have never sought financial rewards for their work within this community. This is not to say the Debian developers don't make any money, they just make money somewhere else. Also, this does not mean that Debian developers are not rewarded by Debian. There are non-financial incentives for doing good work.
Adding financial rewards to the equation made the contract much more complex. Many companies make disastrous changes to their rewards and compensations programs after months of planning and careful execution. How much planning went into this? Whose perspectives were considered? How and when will regular developer receive financial compensation? Is project manager the only paid position? Does this mean that more people will be applying for this job? Is so, is $6,000 an attractive number? If these questions can be answered, then at least there was planning. Either way, I think that this decision will be rolled back.
First, it's not YouTube anymore, it's Google. Second, Google runs a profitable global business which requires it to run offices around the world. These offices operate under local law. The local office, therefore, would be required to get a "broadcaster license."
Just recently, the Brazilian justice asked Google Brazil to delete a few hate speech Orkut communities and to produce personal data for a few Orkut members involved in hate crimes. Google Brazil refused, claiming that it had no control over the data, which was stored in the US. Eventually, Google complied. If it had not complied, it's Brazilian office could have been shut down for refusing to obey a court order.
I fear that a measure similar to the one mentioned in the article could be implemented in Brazil, too. We are about to re-elect an authoritarian president who loves press control and propaganda.
Isn't this the same british phonographic industry that was criticising BBC for offering legal classical music downloads? So this means that they like legal downloads, as long as it is not free. Great.
dumb dumb dumb
s/beer/speech/g
The design of interactive systems is an entire discipline. It is as hard and as important as software engineering. Very few software developers have even the most basic training in this area. Also, analyzing and designing interactive systems is very expensive. It takes time and it requires some sort of contact with your intended user base before you start writing code. Many projects could use external help. What we need is to call human-computer interaction experts to the game. If a few experts could buy into the free software idea and do some free (as in beer) consulting, everyone would benefit. How do you do free as in beer consulting? You publish every deliverable on the net, under a Creative Commons license. This way, HCI students will have access to the methods used in real projects. These students, in turn, will be even easier to draft. I ask you all to turn you advocacy powers in this direction.
You're right, the whole system can't be auditted, but I believe that the application code can. /.ers may not realize that you don't have to be deficient to be technologically impaired. Too many people are just not familiar with computers and can't understand what is expected from them when they interact with electronic devices. People should be introduced to computers, but I'm not sure that the elections are the best time.
I did not mean that the electronic booths were problematic only for illiterates. You mention the elderly too, but that's not all.
Also, I don't think that anyone has proved electronic ballots improve democracy. Brazil and India have enough democracy-related problems to keep busy for the next fifty years without having to worry about the fairness of electronic ballots. I do not mean that they shouldn't be used. My question is only of priority and order.
Brazil's last general elections were all electronic. No big news there. There is a single Brazilian system, where a different company designs each module. Party-appointed technical representatives can audit the whole system.
India and Brazil have other things in common: illiteracy and poverty. Most of the users of the electronic ballots in Brazil cannot understand what they read on the screen. Electoral candidates in small towns "teach" people to vote on them, by making them memorize the key sequences.
I just wonder if these countries couldn't be spending time, money, and minds on more relevant issues.
A different title or a different curriculum takes us no closer to reliable software.
First, there is no proven way to design applications correctly or to write good code. We have formal methods, CMM, and ISO, but none of those can guarantee that the whole system works as expected. Even if it works as expected, it may still not be "correct."
Second, even if we teach people to use better tools, or to use tools better, every software project is a group effort. Ususally these groups are very diverse, bringing together people with different skill levels and experience. What good would it be if we had a "Sofware Enginner" signing the project if one incorrect line of code could make the whole system crash? Would you sign a "Software Project" and be personally liable for it?
It is actually a good thing that the interface hasn't changed drastically in the past 10 years. Users like stable interfaces. Also, this has allowed developers to focus on the applications.
We are coming to a point, though, that the amount of available information will be unbearable. We need a new model; a new interface will follow.
The semantic web may be a solution. Strange as it may seem, the shift to a semantic web may happen quickest within corporations and universities, to organize enterprise information. Only after its benefits are proven within enterprises, will the common web user see the change.
Information will be available in a whole new way. Searching will be very different. Who will be the next Netscape? The next Google?
This is one of the most important steps the government can take to make good use of free software. Evidently, most free software projects have no motivation to join government biddings and, therefore, are left out from the decision-making process. It is only natural that the government would consider using free software just as often as it would consider using proprietary software.
This is a national PKI, guys. They are not just playing around. The Federal government will run a root CA, regional CAs and RAs will be established, and every citizen will have the right to use the system. Everyone will be able to get a key pair.
There are clear rules in Brazil which distinguish the applicability of an authenticated copy and an original document. You can get a physical, authenticated copy of your driver's license and use it for a zillion things, but you must drive with your original driver's license. The digital copies will be just as good as authenticated copies.
I have not had access to the actual documents that explain the notarization system, but I am quite sure that you will need to notorize (get a timestamp and a signature from a digital notary) each printed copy of the documents.
The BIG issue here is whether we want the Federal Governmente to operate the Root CA. Among other powers, it will hold a backup copy of each private key in the national system.
On the other hand, there is no point in discussing this, since the Federal Government has established the national PKI already. The rules are set, and they are reasonable.
What really worries me is that the government and media have made no effort to explain any of this to the people of this very poor and ignorant country.
What if this "Trusted" Computing Forum decides to patent the exploits to vulnerabilities they find? Would that be possible? Does that mean that other security experts that find the same vulnerabilities would not be allowed to publish their own implementations of the exploits, because it would accomplish, in essence, the same thing?
It's not about catching up with Windows, it's just another tool. As a matter of fact, NT 3.5 needed this badly, because NT administrators-to-be would not be able to learn how to filter a plain text log file and look out for their systems on their own. SNARE, for some linux administrators, adds convenience, for others, it adds nothing. It is, nevertheless, a promissing tool.
Why are you complainig?