Eric, how many patents encumber MP3 and the MPEG-4 standard? Is there a reference on the web where I could look them up?
BTW: I consider the ISO's policy of allowing patented standards simply awful. The IETF will accept nothing as an internet standard that is encumbered by patents. The ISO working groups are dominated by companies and works for their benefit. There is no point in a "standard" that you are not free to implement unless you pay royalties. That's just my opinion, of course.
Well, you'll get your AT&T wish one way or the other. TCI and MediaOne are swapping some properties with the end result that all MediaOne territory in Chicago is going to become TCI (now AT&T).
When AT&T bought TCI, AOL claimed that AT&T should have to open up TCI's cable to all ISP's who wanted to provide access. Think AOL will be making the same argument if they are able to buy MediaOne? Not! It would be funny to watch them do a 180 though.
I don't work for Cygnus, but here's what it sounds like to me:
-- Cygnus is getting early specs from Intel under NDA to write their compiler now. Once the new architecture is publicly available, the NDA will expire and Cygnus can release the code. The GPL does not affect you if you keep your modifications private.
-- Cygnus is in business to sell gcc. They charge companies for it - quite a bit actually - which includes not just the gcc binaries, but also supports and regular software updates. The gcc software is still GPL'd. Though I think Cygnus does sell some proprietary add-on products. Think of them as a Red Hat for gcc, only charging a lot more money.
I don't think this about states' rights. Congress has the power to legislate on patents. This is specific and does not depend on the interstate clause, thus applies to businesses operating in only one state. (The false advertising one probably is based on commerce clause powers and then would possibly not apply to a business not engaged in interstate commerce). The issue here is whether or not you can sue a state for violation of a federal statute in federal court. The constitution says that you basically have to bring suits against states in state court. This grants the states sovereign immunity from lawsuits just like the federal government has. Part of the notion of federalism is that the state governments are not creatures of the federal government and are not subservient to it. Allowing people to bring tort claims against states in federal court essentially shatters federalism because the federal gov't could pass any number of laws that exposed the states to theoretically unlimited damages. (Of course here there is the added question of whether a state operated business enterprise is the same as the state itself).
IANAL and this is not my area of expertise so if anyone has corrections to what I just said, let me know.
Actually, I'd like to clarify one thing. I was never interested in this girl. The reason I'd want to ask her to the dance is to thumb my nose at all the assholes like I used to be. Plus, I'm sure she would be just as good a date as anyone else. I can have a good time with almost anybody.
I had a 4.0 GPA through high school. I wasn't an athlete, and I engaged in many geek-like things such as reading science fiction and playing on the computer. I was not made fun of though. Actually I had it pretty easy. I wasn't part of the ultra-popular group, but I was well liked. Partially it was because I made up for my good grades with lots of hell raising. I drank like a fish. (I used to chug half-pints of Kessler, for example). I was not above throwing eggs at teachers' houses or other bits of minor mischief. (Nothing serious though). But I was also liked because I helped the other kids out academically. Let's just say that with my assistance it was almost magical how the test answers appeared in some people's heads. Also, I attended a small, rural high school, with people who had mostly gone to school together for all 12 years. This made everybody pretty much get along.
But there were people who were mistreated severely, and I must shamefully admit that I took part in it. One day in my early 20's I reflected back on some of the ways I'd treated other people and recoiled in horror. That was the day that I truly realized I was an adult. When I understood that treating people so horribly was simply not acceptable. (Those who know me know I never tire of giving people a hard time, but it is always good natured - or behind their backs).
In sixth grade we had to transfer buses at one school to go to another. We all waited for the bus to empty before getting in. From time to time someone would yell out, "First one in the bus loves Tanya". Now Tanya was an extremely poor girl. She was also extremely thin. In retospect it is probable that she suffered from malnutrition. She always wore a random collection of worn out hand me downs. One particular outfit was an old green McDonald's uniform, that she was teased mercilously for wearing. While she wasn't terribly ugly by my recollection, for some reason she was considered the ultimate worst girl to be with. Nobody would ever admit they were in love with Tanya. So nobody would get on the bus. We would stand there for five minutes or longer while the school bus driver screamed as us to get on. Finally, Tanya herself (who was standing there the whole time) would get on, at which point someone would scream out "Last one on the bus loves Tanya" and everybody would rush the door, pushing and shoving to avoid being the last one on. Tanya was also subjected to numerous other forms of ridicule and I can only imagine how much this affected her. (I wish I could have just one more school dance so I could ask her on a date).
In high school there was a real classic nerdy guy named Wilbert. With a name like Wilbert, you know you're in trouble right off. He wore glasses. He read science fiction. His hair frizzed out all over the place. He was totally into computers. In retrospect, this guy should have been my best friend! But instead I was one of the ringleaders in making fun of him. (I even recall once getting a specific talking to from a teacher about this). I saw him at the 10 year reunion last summer. He was still a geek - and a successful one at that. He didn't appear to harbor any ill will - at least none that he cared to share with us.
Of course there were more. Mostly it was the girls who got mistreated. Particularly the fat ones. If you were a guy you could always make up for any deficiency in natural popularity by doubling up on the alcohol consumption. That's a sure fire route to respect.
I don't regret much in life. Well, I mean I regret things, but there are few things I would go back and change if I could. Who I am today depends as much on the bad decisions I made as the good. But if I could I would go back and treat certain people a lot better than I did. I'm not proud of the way I was as a kid, and I hope that I do a much better job of avoiding gratuitous cruelty to others today.
It is shocking to see the way the principal'a and teachers treated students, especially in the aftermath of the Colorado killings. It reminds me almost exactly of the treatment Balint Vazsonyi received when he was a student in Hungary under both the Nazis and the communists. Think the wrong thoughts and you get "counseling" or kicked out or worse. (He describes this experience in his book "America's Thirty Year's War").
But while it offends, it is not surprising. Years of Supreme Court rulings have basically stripped students of anything resembling rights. It is legal for the school to force them to go through metal detectors to enter the building. Or to randomly search their lockers without cause. Or to censor their articles in the school newspaper. Or to install camers to monitor their every move. Or to force them to submit to drug tests if they want to participate in any extracirricular activity. For someone who spends 12 years in a school with armed police guards, cameras everywhere, random searches of their possession, metal detectors, and administrators with dictatorial powers, how will they every grow up into adults who behave as though they have freedom and rights? If you spend years with school guards who can search your locker at will, why would not think the police can search your car or home at will when you get older? It is very scary what is going on. (My description is accurate for many urban schools. Soon to be more suburban schools if I read things right).
And of course that one letter sent home by the principal encouraging students to rat on friends they think are acting "suspicious". That's also a tactic straight out of the Soviet Union, where children were invited to inform on their peers and their parents. Witness the DARE program as well (a program that is proven not to reduce drug abuse at all, BTW) where in some schools the students are told to inform the cops on their parents if they see drugs. (Included are lies about how the parent will simply get help - no mention of arrest) What kind of a message is that? The government is putting itself up as the ultimate authority figure in children's lives, supplanting the primary role of the parents in shaping their children's values.
There there are the "zero tolerance" policies. This is shorthand for zero intelligence in my opinion. Teachers can simply say bring a steak knife to school to cut the chicken breast your Mom packed for lunch, you're expelled (this happened in Indianapolis). It's so much easier than using judgement. You see, judgement requires intelligence, which is something far too few teachers and adminstrators have. With rare exceptions I was both smarter and more knowledgable than the teachers in my high school. Look at the average SAT scores of education students. I rest my case.
Of course teachers also value conformity to their way of thinking. It's makes their life so much simpler when they don't have to deal with the unexpected.
I am genuinely afraid for the future. I cannot even imagine sending my children to public schools.
BTW, you're in America now, it's "check" not "cheque". Also, I do not believe that utility companies report late payments to credit bureaus here. I have a disputed gas bill from several years ago. The gas company failed to disconnect my service after I moved out of an apartment. (The gas company in question is notorious for not showing up for appointments then claiming "We beat on the door but you weren't home". I suspect their installers hang out in the bar all day. This has happened to a shockingly large number of people I know). They kept sending me threatening letters (all of which contradicted each other, very amusing), and I told them it would be a cold day in hell when I paid the gas bill for the next two months usage after I moved out. They sent a collection agency after me, whom I likewise told to go to hell, but the disputed payment has never showed up on my credit history. I've got all the documentation from this still in case they ever come after me.
If you think providing facilities for the disabled and the often legally mandated assistants that must be hired to help them don't cost anything, you are delusional. There is a lot more to the cost than lawsuits.
Here in Chicago, the Chicago Transit Authority claims it is spending 25% of its capital budget on ADA retrofits. This is for a system that is in horrible condition and requires a lot of capital money just to keep it running at all. I happen to think that the CTA overstates what it spends on ADA compliance, but there is no doubt that elevators at L stations cost money, wheelchair lifts for buses cost money, paratransit services cost money, etc. This is a public, not a private example, but it should demonstrate plainly that ADA compliance costs money.
By saying that Muni could have avoided the lawsuit by providing an alternate format, you only prove my point. If the web format isn't accessible, no one can have it. To put up text would require additional money to both assess the requirements for the blind, create the files, and then maintain them. They would probably take the easy way out and produce text only documents, thus taking away a potentially useful graphical feature from the vast majority of the people who are not blind. (Actually, I oppose PDF myself, but that's because I think the format sucks).
As for not wanting my charity, the disabled certainly don't want to be labeled as receiving charity, but in fact they do want to force me to spend money providing facilities for them. They want the law to force businesses to provide these facilities - again, regardless of any demonstrated need - then the business passes the cost along to its customers and owners. I guess technically it isn't charity since it's not voluntary, so we'll have to label it a tax.
To say that because each and every disabled activist isn't a radical is just a dodge. It's certainly a valid criticism of the free software community that it has a large percentage of flamers in it. It is no less valid to say that there are a large number of extremists among the disabled activists. Of course disagree with them (as I do) and you'll be labeled "able-ist", a version of the "race card" I notice that you couldn't resist trotting out at the earliest opportunity.
Like I say, we should build facilities for the disabled where they make sense. Curb cuts are cost effective. Ground level ramps at buildings are usually cost effective. If demand for disabled services are there, other less cost effective services might be warranted. But it is ridiculous to say that every facility constructed everywhere must be fully accessible to the disabled without regard to cost or whether or not they will be used (which is what the ADA requires) it simply wrong.
Other services (such as paratransit) for the extremely disabled should be provided by government agencies out of social service funds.
Actually, there is a nice provision in copyright law for books. I believe that if the original publisher of a book does not produce a braille edition with a specified period of time, then a braille publisher is allowed to create one without having to negotiate a contract with the publisher/author. This is the sort of legislation that makes a great deal of sense.
While blind people may not be able to use the web to its fullest, I never cease to be amazed at how well the blind (and the deaf) manage to live such normal and productive lives in the ordinary world without much in the way of assistance. It is truly a tribute to the human spirit.
This is a major trend. There has already been a lawsuit against Muni (the SF transit agency) for using PDF graphics on their site. Disabled activists claimed that devices for the blind can work with them as easliy as with text.
While I think we should provide for the truly disabled (which compose only a tiny fraction of the outrageously large number of people the government classifies as disabled), the ADA is a terrible piece of legislation. It is rooted in the philosophy of a twelve year old kid, who whines when "Jimmy gets to have a BB gun" and wonders why he can't have one too. Fundamentally, the premise behind this law is that if each and every person can't have something, nobody should have it.
Of course the proponents call it "civil rights" legislation. But real civil rights don't require other people to spend huge amounts of their own money. The ADA is really a huge tax bill. It forces private America to spend large amounts of money on facilities and assistants for the disabled without regard to benefit/cost, how many people will actually use them, etc. If the government had actually passed a huge tax increase and used it to pay for these things, the people would have rebelled. So instead, the government just passes a law the makes businesses pay for it, which gets passed on to consumers as a hidden tax.
Make no mistake, taking care of the disabled is a matter of charity, not civil rights. The disabled advocates demand that (often hurling vicious insults that would never be tolerated from anyone else at government officials who won't do what they demand. I know, I've sat through public meeting on this) this be treated as a civil rights issue so they can have "dignity". It's just a way to disguise the handouts they receive.
Don't get me wrong, for those people who are truly disabled (such as those who are paralyzed) I fully believe that the government should raise funds via taxes to provide services and accomodations for them. Many of these people suffer a tremendous drop in quality of life as a result of their disability and any compassionate society would do what it can to help these people. The mentally ill should receive treatment. Businesses should get tax breaks and assistance for employing disabled individuals. Reasonable facilities such as accessible restroom and curb cuts should be provided. But these should be provided as matter of charity and kindness, not entitlement. Making it an entitlement only leads to ever more demands and ridiculous claims and lawsuits (the list is endless, examples on request).
I must say, somebody should send this guy to an econ course. He is basically saying that high prices are good for consumers in the long run because they help businesses stay afloat. What garbage. Prices for most goods are set in a relatively competitive marketplace. Supply and demand determines price. You can believe that if a given price were not profitable (or at least more than covering the variable costs of production), people would quickly stop supplying computers at that price. This will cause the price to rise. A complete discussion of this is beyond what I can do here, but suffice it to say that this person is crazy. In a competitive environment, some businesses will fail, but that doesn't mean the industry is not healthy.
Let me clarify. I'm not suggesting we use gzip to compress audio. I'm saying we a program that does for audio compression what gzip did for file compression. That is, it should work to read files generated under the proprietary MP3 format, but also have it's own native free format as well for which we have free encoders.
The anti-copying features don't have to do much. Even a simple one would be enough to trigger the federal law on "circumvention" of a security mechanism and subject the violator to 5 years in prison. Under normal copyright law, only civil penalties would have applied in most cases.
You've already admitted you don't think anti-trust laws apply in this case. I can't help but thinking that doesn't color your arguments. Fine are ridiculous. Clearly no fine would be sufficient to curb Microsoft. It would take a fine nearing $10 billion just to deplete their cash reserves, but more money keeps flowing in every day! Injunctions are likely to be useless. The ban on forcing computer makers to pay for Windows regardless of whether they install it or not (found in the original Microsoft consent decreee) is functionally equivalent to an injunction, but accomplished nothing. You are basically arguing that Microsoft should get a slap on the wrist and be sent on its way. I'd recommend arguing from first principles: namely, stick with your argument that anti-trust laws are bogus.
To the best of my knowledge, all of the compressed audio formats are proprietary. Read Audio is proprietary, Microsoft's is proprietary, MP3 is proprietary. (I don't know about some of the other MPEG compression schemes). Now it may be true that the MP3 file format is published and that anyone can write a decoder for it, but last I checked there is no way to write an encoder for MP3 without infringing on patents. This makes the format proprietary and thus prohibits a truly free software implementation of it.
If the MS format is as good as they claim (which I doubt) and we can find out the format and algorithm and there are no patents on it, then the MS format might actually be a good choice. So long as we can get a free implementation of it.
We need a compressed audio version of gzip. It starts the migration towards a free format, but has decoder support for existing MP3's and thus is backward compatible.
Do we really need a book on servlet programming? I've been using Java servlets (via the Apache jserv module) for sometime and they are quite simple to use. Plugging JDBC into it to access a database is pretty straightforward. I guess I just don't see that there is anything complicated enough to justify writing an entire book on it. Am I missing something?
The stats are large software project failures is amazing. I seem to recall from Capers Jones' Applied Software Measurement (an excellent book BTW) that 40% of "large" projects fail. (I can't remember, but I think that a large project is one with more than 1000 function points. I don't have the book with me). That is, they are never actually put into production for even one day.
When I worked as a consultant a client had some questions about the quality of the work that was performed. I did some research into software quality and discovered that despite the problems my project had, we had actually performed far above average. (The system was successful has been in production for some time). Two of the keys to our success were good scope control and aggressive defect containment program.
Scope control is an obvious success factor, but finding and correcting defects as close to the time of occurrence is absolutely critical as well. (We tried to "contain" our defects within the project stage where they originated via a long list of formal exit criteria for a given development stage). It's obvious, but worth repeating, errors in requirements are many, many, many times more costly to correct than simple programming errors. Of course you'd still better "plan to throw one away". But the key is to make sure you do a good enough job at requirements definition and system design that one is it!
The message I replied to specifically made issue of posting private email message. (Which Bruce did not do, BTW). However, you are correct that things should not be taken out of context in order to mislead.
It only seems to be a breach of "netiquette" if someone decides later they are embarrassed by an email message they sent. At least that is only time I ever hear people complain. There are a number of people (Richard Stallman is one, for example), who have never bought into your definition of netiquette. I fundamentally don't believe someone can send me an email full of threats and flames and legitimately expect me to keep that private.
Slashdot Mirror
Eric, how many patents encumber MP3 and the MPEG-4 standard? Is there a reference on the web where I could look them up?
BTW: I consider the ISO's policy of allowing patented standards simply awful. The IETF will accept nothing as an internet standard that is encumbered by patents. The ISO working groups are dominated by companies and works for their benefit. There is no point in a "standard" that you are not free to implement unless you pay royalties. That's just my opinion, of course.
Well, you'll get your AT&T wish one way or the other. TCI and MediaOne are swapping some properties with the end result that all MediaOne territory in Chicago is going to become TCI (now AT&T).
When AT&T bought TCI, AOL claimed that AT&T should have to open up TCI's cable to all ISP's who wanted to provide access. Think AOL will be making the same argument if they are able to buy MediaOne? Not! It would be funny to watch them do a 180 though.
I don't work for Cygnus, but here's what it sounds like to me:
-- Cygnus is getting early specs from Intel under NDA to write their compiler now. Once the new architecture is publicly available, the NDA will expire and Cygnus can release the code. The GPL does not affect you if you keep your modifications private.
-- Cygnus is in business to sell gcc. They charge companies for it - quite a bit actually - which includes not just the gcc binaries, but also supports and regular software updates. The gcc software is still GPL'd. Though I think Cygnus does sell some proprietary add-on products. Think of them as a Red Hat for gcc, only charging a lot more money.
This is one case where the FSF was able to negotiate a solution without without going to court.
I don't think this about states' rights. Congress has the power to legislate on patents. This is specific and does not depend on the interstate clause, thus applies to businesses operating in only one state. (The false advertising one probably is based on commerce clause powers and then would possibly not apply to a business not engaged in interstate commerce). The issue here is whether or not you can sue a state for violation of a federal statute in federal court. The constitution says that you basically have to bring suits against states in state court. This grants the states sovereign immunity from lawsuits just like the federal government has. Part of the notion of federalism is that the state governments are not creatures of the federal government and are not subservient to it. Allowing people to bring tort claims against states in federal court essentially shatters federalism because the federal gov't could pass any number of laws that exposed the states to theoretically unlimited damages. (Of course here there is the added question of whether a state operated business enterprise is the same as the state itself).
IANAL and this is not my area of expertise so if anyone has corrections to what I just said, let me know.
Actually, I'd like to clarify one thing. I was never interested in this girl. The reason I'd want to ask her to the dance is to thumb my nose at all the assholes like I used to be. Plus, I'm sure she would be just as good a date as anyone else. I can have a good time with almost anybody.
I had a 4.0 GPA through high school. I wasn't an athlete, and I engaged in many geek-like things such as reading science fiction and playing on the computer. I was not made fun of though. Actually I had it pretty easy. I wasn't part of the ultra-popular group, but I was well liked. Partially it was because I made up for my good grades with lots of hell raising. I drank like a fish. (I used to chug half-pints of Kessler, for example). I was not above throwing eggs at teachers' houses or other bits of minor mischief. (Nothing serious though). But I was also liked because I helped the other kids out academically. Let's just say that with my assistance it was almost magical how the test answers appeared in some people's heads. Also, I attended a small, rural high school, with people who had mostly gone to school together for all 12 years. This made everybody pretty much get along.
But there were people who were mistreated severely, and I must shamefully admit that I took part in it. One day in my early 20's I reflected back on some of the ways I'd treated other people and recoiled in horror. That was the day that I truly realized I was an adult. When I understood that treating people so horribly was simply not acceptable. (Those who know me know I never tire of giving people a hard time, but it is always good natured - or behind their backs).
In sixth grade we had to transfer buses at one school to go to another. We all waited for the bus to empty before getting in. From time to time someone would yell out, "First one in the bus loves Tanya". Now Tanya was an extremely poor girl. She was also extremely thin. In retospect it is probable that she suffered from malnutrition. She always wore a random collection of worn out hand me downs. One particular outfit was an old green McDonald's uniform, that she was teased mercilously for wearing. While she wasn't terribly ugly by my recollection, for some reason she was considered the ultimate worst girl to be with. Nobody would ever admit they were in love with Tanya. So nobody would get on the bus. We would stand there for five minutes or longer while the school bus driver screamed as us to get on. Finally, Tanya herself (who was standing there the whole time) would get on, at which point someone would scream out "Last one on the bus loves Tanya" and everybody would rush the door, pushing and shoving to avoid being the last one on. Tanya was also subjected to numerous other forms of ridicule and I can only imagine how much this affected her. (I wish I could have just one more school dance so I could ask her on a date).
In high school there was a real classic nerdy guy named Wilbert. With a name like Wilbert, you know you're in trouble right off. He wore glasses. He read science fiction. His hair frizzed out all over the place. He was totally into computers. In retrospect, this guy should have been my best friend! But instead I was one of the ringleaders in making fun of him. (I even recall once getting a specific talking to from a teacher about this). I saw him at the 10 year reunion last summer. He was still a geek - and a successful one at that. He didn't appear to harbor any ill will - at least none that he cared to share with us.
Of course there were more. Mostly it was the girls who got mistreated. Particularly the fat ones. If you were a guy you could always make up for any deficiency in natural popularity by doubling up on the alcohol consumption. That's a sure fire route to respect.
I don't regret much in life. Well, I mean I regret things, but there are few things I would go back and change if I could. Who I am today depends as much on the bad decisions I made as the good. But if I could I would go back and treat certain people a lot better than I did. I'm not proud of the way I was as a kid, and I hope that I do a much better job of avoiding gratuitous cruelty to others today.
It is shocking to see the way the principal'a and teachers treated students, especially in the aftermath of the Colorado killings. It reminds me almost exactly of the treatment Balint Vazsonyi received when he was a student in Hungary under both the Nazis and the communists. Think the wrong thoughts and you get "counseling" or kicked out or worse. (He describes this experience in his book "America's Thirty Year's War").
But while it offends, it is not surprising. Years of Supreme Court rulings have basically stripped students of anything resembling rights. It is legal for the school to force them to go through metal detectors to enter the building. Or to randomly search their lockers without cause. Or to censor their articles in the school newspaper. Or to install camers to monitor their every move. Or to force them to submit to drug tests if they want to participate in any extracirricular activity. For someone who spends 12 years in a school with armed police guards, cameras everywhere, random searches of their possession, metal detectors, and administrators with dictatorial powers, how will they every grow up into adults who behave as though they have freedom and rights? If you spend years with school guards who can search your locker at will, why would not think the police can search your car or home at will when you get older? It is very scary what is going on. (My description is accurate for many urban schools. Soon to be more suburban schools if I read things right).
And of course that one letter sent home by the principal encouraging students to rat on friends they think are acting "suspicious". That's also a tactic straight out of the Soviet Union, where children were invited to inform on their peers and their parents. Witness the DARE program as well (a program that is proven not to reduce drug abuse at all, BTW) where in some schools the students are told to inform the cops on their parents if they see drugs. (Included are lies about how the parent will simply get help - no mention of arrest) What kind of a message is that? The government is putting itself up as the ultimate authority figure in children's lives, supplanting the primary role of the parents in shaping their children's values.
There there are the "zero tolerance" policies. This is shorthand for zero intelligence in my opinion. Teachers can simply say bring a steak knife to school to cut the chicken breast your Mom packed for lunch, you're expelled (this happened in Indianapolis). It's so much easier than using judgement. You see, judgement requires intelligence, which is something far too few teachers and adminstrators have. With rare exceptions I was both smarter and more knowledgable than the teachers in my high school. Look at the average SAT scores of education students. I rest my case.
Of course teachers also value conformity to their way of thinking. It's makes their life so much simpler when they don't have to deal with the unexpected.
I am genuinely afraid for the future. I cannot even imagine sending my children to public schools.
BTW, you're in America now, it's "check" not "cheque". Also, I do not believe that utility companies report late payments to credit bureaus here. I have a disputed gas bill from several years ago. The gas company failed to disconnect my service after I moved out of an apartment. (The gas company in question is notorious for not showing up for appointments then claiming "We beat on the door but you weren't home". I suspect their installers hang out in the bar all day. This has happened to a shockingly large number of people I know). They kept sending me threatening letters (all of which contradicted each other, very amusing), and I told them it would be a cold day in hell when I paid the gas bill for the next two months usage after I moved out. They sent a collection agency after me, whom I likewise told to go to hell, but the disputed payment has never showed up on my credit history. I've got all the documentation from this still in case they ever come after me.
Citing its similarity to Windows as a primary reason for choosing KDE is damning with faint praise.
If you think providing facilities for the disabled and the often legally mandated assistants that must be hired to help them don't cost anything, you are delusional. There is a lot more to the cost than lawsuits.
Here in Chicago, the Chicago Transit Authority claims it is spending 25% of its capital budget on ADA retrofits. This is for a system that is in horrible condition and requires a lot of capital money just to keep it running at all. I happen to think that the CTA overstates what it spends on ADA compliance, but there is no doubt that elevators at L stations cost money, wheelchair lifts for buses cost money, paratransit services cost money, etc. This is a public, not a private example, but it should demonstrate plainly that ADA compliance costs money.
By saying that Muni could have avoided the lawsuit by providing an alternate format, you only prove my point. If the web format isn't accessible, no one can have it. To put up text would require additional money to both assess the requirements for the blind, create the files, and then maintain them. They would probably take the easy way out and produce text only documents, thus taking away a potentially useful graphical feature from the vast majority of the people who are not blind. (Actually, I oppose PDF myself, but that's because I think the format sucks).
As for not wanting my charity, the disabled certainly don't want to be labeled as receiving charity, but in fact they do want to force me to spend money providing facilities for them. They want the law to force businesses to provide these facilities - again, regardless of any demonstrated need - then the business passes the cost along to its customers and owners. I guess technically it isn't charity since it's not voluntary, so we'll have to label it a tax.
To say that because each and every disabled activist isn't a radical is just a dodge. It's certainly a valid criticism of the free software community that it has a large percentage of flamers in it. It is no less valid to say that there are a large number of extremists among the disabled activists. Of course disagree with them (as I do) and you'll be labeled "able-ist", a version of the "race card" I notice that you couldn't resist trotting out at the earliest opportunity.
Like I say, we should build facilities for the disabled where they make sense. Curb cuts are cost effective. Ground level ramps at buildings are usually cost effective. If demand for disabled services are there, other less cost effective services might be warranted. But it is ridiculous to say that every facility constructed everywhere must be fully accessible to the disabled without regard to cost or whether or not they will be used (which is what the ADA requires) it simply wrong.
Other services (such as paratransit) for the extremely disabled should be provided by government agencies out of social service funds.
It's unfair to blame Stallman for this. There's plenty of venom on the xemacs side of the house as well.
Actually, there is a nice provision in copyright law for books. I believe that if the original publisher of a book does not produce a braille edition with a specified period of time, then a braille publisher is allowed to create one without having to negotiate a contract with the publisher/author. This is the sort of legislation that makes a great deal of sense.
While blind people may not be able to use the web to its fullest, I never cease to be amazed at how well the blind (and the deaf) manage to live such normal and productive lives in the ordinary world without much in the way of assistance. It is truly a tribute to the human spirit.
This is a major trend. There has already been a lawsuit against Muni (the SF transit agency) for using PDF graphics on their site. Disabled activists claimed that devices for the blind can work with them as easliy as with text.
While I think we should provide for the truly disabled (which compose only a tiny fraction of the outrageously large number of people the government classifies as disabled), the ADA is a terrible piece of legislation. It is rooted in the philosophy of a twelve year old kid, who whines when "Jimmy gets to have a BB gun" and wonders why he can't have one too. Fundamentally, the premise behind this law is that if each and every person can't have something, nobody should have it.
Of course the proponents call it "civil rights" legislation. But real civil rights don't require other people to spend huge amounts of their own money. The ADA is really a huge tax bill. It forces private America to spend large amounts of money on facilities and assistants for the disabled without regard to benefit/cost, how many people will actually use them, etc. If the government had actually passed a huge tax increase and used it to pay for these things, the people would have rebelled. So instead, the government just passes a law the makes businesses pay for it, which gets passed on to consumers as a hidden tax.
Make no mistake, taking care of the disabled is a matter of charity, not civil rights. The disabled advocates demand that (often hurling vicious insults that would never be tolerated from anyone else at government officials who won't do what they demand. I know, I've sat through public meeting on this) this be treated as a civil rights issue so they can have "dignity". It's just a way to disguise the handouts they receive.
Don't get me wrong, for those people who are truly disabled (such as those who are paralyzed) I fully believe that the government should raise funds via taxes to provide services and accomodations for them. Many of these people suffer a tremendous drop in quality of life as a result of their disability and any compassionate society would do what it can to help these people. The mentally ill should receive treatment. Businesses should get tax breaks and assistance for employing disabled individuals. Reasonable facilities such as accessible restroom and curb cuts should be provided. But these should be provided as matter of charity and kindness, not entitlement. Making it an entitlement only leads to ever more demands and ridiculous claims and lawsuits (the list is endless, examples on request).
I must say, somebody should send this guy to an econ course. He is basically saying that high prices are good for consumers in the long run because they help businesses stay afloat. What garbage. Prices for most goods are set in a relatively competitive marketplace. Supply and demand determines price. You can believe that if a given price were not profitable (or at least more than covering the variable costs of production), people would quickly stop supplying computers at that price. This will cause the price to rise. A complete discussion of this is beyond what I can do here, but suffice it to say that this person is crazy. In a competitive environment, some businesses will fail, but that doesn't mean the industry is not healthy.
Let me clarify. I'm not suggesting we use gzip to compress audio. I'm saying we a program that does for audio compression what gzip did for file compression. That is, it should work to read files generated under the proprietary MP3 format, but also have it's own native free format as well for which we have free encoders.
I already had trouble getting through, so here's a mirror:
/script-kiddie.txt
http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn
The anti-copying features don't have to do much. Even a simple one would be enough to trigger the federal law on "circumvention" of a security mechanism and subject the violator to 5 years in prison. Under normal copyright law, only civil penalties would have applied in most cases.
You've already admitted you don't think anti-trust laws apply in this case. I can't help but thinking that doesn't color your arguments. Fine are ridiculous. Clearly no fine would be sufficient to curb Microsoft. It would take a fine nearing $10 billion just to deplete their cash reserves, but more money keeps flowing in every day! Injunctions are likely to be useless. The ban on forcing computer makers to pay for Windows regardless of whether they install it or not (found in the original Microsoft consent decreee) is functionally equivalent to an injunction, but accomplished nothing. You are basically arguing that Microsoft should get a slap on the wrist and be sent on its way. I'd recommend arguing from first principles: namely, stick with your argument that anti-trust laws are bogus.
To the best of my knowledge, all of the compressed audio formats are proprietary. Read Audio is proprietary, Microsoft's is proprietary, MP3 is proprietary. (I don't know about some of the other MPEG compression schemes). Now it may be true that the MP3 file format is published and that anyone can write a decoder for it, but last I checked there is no way to write an encoder for MP3 without infringing on patents. This makes the format proprietary and thus prohibits a truly free software implementation of it.
If the MS format is as good as they claim (which I doubt) and we can find out the format and algorithm and there are no patents on it, then the MS format might actually be a good choice. So long as we can get a free implementation of it.
We need a compressed audio version of gzip. It starts the migration towards a free format, but has decoder support for existing MP3's and thus is backward compatible.
Do we really need a book on servlet programming? I've been using Java servlets (via the Apache jserv module) for sometime and they are quite simple to use. Plugging JDBC into it to access a database is pretty straightforward. I guess I just don't see that there is anything complicated enough to justify writing an entire book on it. Am I missing something?
The stats are large software project failures is amazing. I seem to recall from Capers Jones' Applied Software Measurement (an excellent book BTW) that 40% of "large" projects fail. (I can't remember, but I think that a large project is one with more than 1000 function points. I don't have the book with me). That is, they are never actually put into production for even one day.
When I worked as a consultant a client had some questions about the quality of the work that was performed. I did some research into software quality and discovered that despite the problems my project had, we had actually performed far above average. (The system was successful has been in production for some time). Two of the keys to our success were good scope control and aggressive defect containment program.
Scope control is an obvious success factor, but finding and correcting defects as close to the time of occurrence is absolutely critical as well. (We tried to "contain" our defects within the project stage where they originated via a long list of formal exit criteria for a given development stage). It's obvious, but worth repeating, errors in requirements are many, many, many times more costly to correct than simple programming errors. Of course you'd still better "plan to throw one away". But the key is to make sure you do a good enough job at requirements definition and system design that one is it!
The message I replied to specifically made issue of posting private email message. (Which Bruce did not do, BTW). However, you are correct that things should not be taken out of context in order to mislead.
It only seems to be a breach of "netiquette" if someone decides later they are embarrassed by an email message they sent. At least that is only time I ever hear people complain. There are a number of people (Richard Stallman is one, for example), who have never bought into your definition of netiquette. I fundamentally don't believe someone can send me an email full of threats and flames and legitimately expect me to keep that private.