>Those of you who sent those e-mails don't need >to apologize. I already did, profusely, >on your behalf. And the person to whom I >apologized most humbly was not Starr, but >Cheryl, the low-paid secretary who had to read >all the filth.
I take extreme exception to this. While I agree with the principle that vulger emails are not productive for our cause, the idea that we are somehow offending a company representative is unacceptable.
Like it or not, Cheryl represents a company that has ticked off a lot of people. It is her _job_ to listen to the tirades her company's policy has triggered. That is her _job_. If she doesn't like it in this economy she can pack it up and go elsewhere - maybe to a company less inclined to tick off people, in which case her job might be a sight more pleasant. But she is still _paid_ to represent her company, even to people her company has grossly offended with their idiocy.
And you, Sir, have no cause to be issuing apologies on anyone's behalf but your own.
>but she is the person whose job it is to >read all the abusive e-mail sent to Unisys via >the e-mail address on the relevant corporate Web >page.
When one is working for an unpleasant company one expects to have to deal with people being unpleasant right back. I learned it at Cabletron. Cheryl now understands it - but everyone _should_ understand it from the start.
When you front for a company in _whatever_ capacity, you _represent_ that company. You'll take whatever kudos or brickbats come your way _for_ the company. If the company gets more of the latter than the former - leave! It's not a good place to work.
I think you need to spend some quality time with Thoreau's Essay on Civil Disobedience. When the day comes that I need to lie to "authorities" to protect my rights or those of others, I will do so - knowing full well that this is just a step toward the day when I will have to take up arms to accomplish the same purpose.
When I saw antionline home page describe itself as the "National Enquirer of Cyberspace" I had all the information I needed to make a judgement. Now I'm sure the National Enquirer NOT in cyber- space is right about 1 time in 5000, but life is short and I'm betting short odds.
Personally, I like the idea of trying to save "hacker"...but I also suspect it's a lost cause. Once "the media" have an idea in their heads there is no shifting it - unless they want to, which in this case they don't. Even though they are prepared to use a new name for "black people" every seven or eight years.
One tactic not discussed: leave both hacker AND cracker behind. With the current media fascination for the "cyber" prefix, "cybervandal" seems an apt name for what the media calls a hacker and we a cracker. In light of an earlier suggestion, I rather like "sourceror" - a pun on sorceror, suggestive of mysterious knowledge, and also a pun on open source! Not to mentions a worthy successor to "wizard" - which is, I think, the word that would most logically succeed hacker.
Personally, being in QA now, I go by "software entomologist". But I'm a sourceror when I get home.
Maybe we could get some pointy hats. Maybe we could get Linus to put on on Tux... =)
>You do realize this has the >potential to kill WINE and Samba, right?
Nay, nay. The license provisions only apply to those who install and use the software. That would have to be proven in court in order to invoke the reverse engineering clause. This is only a danger if we are not aware of it when founding such projects. Pay attention to your clean room, and this law is nothing but good news for open source.
According to the latest info presented to us at a Tru64 Unix QA dept meeting, that is very much what we are going to do. As of recently, we consider Linux to _be_ the entry-level Tru- 64 Unix, it is a high priority to support it with hardware and software, some even open source, with an eye toward migrating customers needing more than Linux being able to move up to Tru 64. Whether and how we follow through on that policy remains to be seen, but it's not for nothing that Compaq employs Jon "maddog" Hall, president of Linux International.
The problem here is not that losing one's internet connection is on par with losing one's fellow citizens - the problem is that losing one's internet connection means you can no longer tell anyone on the net that you are losing your fellow citizens. Let's be frank, atrocities are far easier to commit when the victim can't complain to anyone.
I don't buy this. Property rights are a method for regulating access to scarce resources. Anyone bypassing such regulation is committing some form of coercion against the owner of that resource, hence is violating their rights, i.e. committing a crime. That does not apply with information, information is not a scarce resource, the fact that I have a piece of information and you acquire it (by whatever means) diminishes me in no way. All it can do is diminish the worth of the information in question, something that was granted by monopoly power in the first place. Information itself has no value since it is not a scarce resource. In short, no right has been violated, I have not been harmed. Only by granting me a monopoly allowing me to control YOUR acquisition of MY information - even post facto - does information acquire market value - and it does so at the cost of YOUR freedom to use what is already in your head. It grants me rights to control your speech, a coercion - and anathema to Libertarians (or should be).
As for your contention that there would be no movies, I have to point out that by this same logic there would never be world-class server operating systems for free, either. Linux is an object proof that large projects can come into being without intellectual property support. Quite bluntly, there are more man-hours invested in Red Hat or Debian than in any movie - or even in a whole trilogy of them. That Linux was done one way and Star Wars another is simply a consequence of their environments: Star Wars was done that way because that's the only way we can do movies today. Linux was done its way because we had a choice - and Windows had already shown us how the other way worked.
This same argument applies in even more force back the other way. You think Star Wars was good? How good COULD it have been had it been done openly? Perhaps as good as Linux is compared to Windows?
There is a principle in law with some obscure Latin name that states that one cannot give up basic rights in a contract. You cannot, for example, sign a contract allowing someone to kill you...it's still murder if they do it.
With "rights" defined (implicitly) as they are in this essay, your right to use information would be on par with your right to life - such contracts would be unenforcable.
And this is not a bad thing. In such a world, authors are paid by information brokers for the rights to get their works into the market _first_, the price of a work declines as more and more distributors pick it up, and if you want a quality hard copy you contract with some publishing house to print and bind one for you - most of which would likely make it a feature that they support the original author, the same way Red Hat supports open source software. Authors are still compensated - not to the ridiculous lengths that people like Tom Clancy, Michael Crichton, or Steven Spielberg are used to - but much more in line with what _most_ producers of intellectual work actually make in the real world. The monopoly removed, such works will float to their natural value in the marketplace - with vastly more derived works generating even more value for more authors into the bargain. That's the fundamental point in this essay.
There are people who never will understand this. They are simply incapable of it. Not necessarily because they lack empathy - though the empathic ones will at least sense your pain - but because they so utterly lack any kind of frame of reference. Virtually all of them were either part of the "in" crowd, or were the wallpaper, not popular, but never targetted to the same extent. From your description, your wife is very much the former, who will never get it because she lacks the empathy to realize what impact she has on others. I suspect that because it is clear from your post that she is _still_ like that - and I'm sorry to say that I also suspect your marriage might face some long-term trouble over such a basic divide. Whether you can bridge that, I can't tell - but I do think you very well might have to to have a happy marriage.
Let's talk about the media's propensity for using undocumented statistics. Let's talk about that 5000 children harmed by guns last year. Just where did that statistic come from, and are they reliable? I don't think even the handgun control people have nerve enough to quote this one, 5000 children harmed by guns a year would mean that in less than five years every single one of us would personally know a child harmed by a gun. Funny, I don't know any. Am I that statistically unlikely - or is the author using precisely the same tactic he's deploring?
Technically, it isn't perjury if the lie has no effect on the outcome of the trial. This is why Clinton had to settle Clinton v. Jones before her appeal sent it back to court, it was the entire legal figleaf he needed to avoid the perjury charge.
However, what you described sure DOES sound like contempt of court - and removing the neck brace sure looks like evidence of fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
>Those of you who sent those e-mails don't need
>to apologize. I already did, profusely,
>on your behalf. And the person to whom I
>apologized most humbly was not Starr, but
>Cheryl, the low-paid secretary who had to read
>all the filth.
I take extreme exception to this. While I agree
with the principle that vulger emails are not
productive for our cause, the idea that we are
somehow offending a company representative is
unacceptable.
Like it or not, Cheryl represents a company that
has ticked off a lot of people. It is her _job_
to listen to the tirades her company's policy
has triggered. That is her _job_. If she doesn't
like it in this economy she can pack it up and go
elsewhere - maybe to a company less inclined to
tick off people, in which case her job might be
a sight more pleasant. But she is still _paid_
to represent her company, even to people her
company has grossly offended with their idiocy.
And you, Sir, have no cause to be issuing
apologies on anyone's behalf but your own.
>but she is the person whose job it is to
>read all the abusive e-mail sent to Unisys via
>the e-mail address on the relevant corporate Web
>page.
When one is working for an unpleasant company one
expects to have to deal with people being
unpleasant right back. I learned it at Cabletron.
Cheryl now understands it - but everyone _should_
understand it from the start.
When you front for a company in _whatever_
capacity, you _represent_ that company. You'll
take whatever kudos or brickbats come your way
_for_ the company. If the company gets more of
the latter than the former - leave! It's not a
good place to work.
I think you need to spend some quality time
with Thoreau's Essay on Civil Disobedience.
When the day comes that I need to lie to
"authorities" to protect my rights or those
of others, I will do so - knowing full well
that this is just a step toward the day when
I will have to take up arms to accomplish the
same purpose.
You know, it occurs to me that a genetic
algorithm could very likely generate a
plausible fingerprint that would map to
almost any id.
When I saw antionline home page describe itself
as the "National Enquirer of Cyberspace" I had
all the information I needed to make a judgement.
Now I'm sure the National Enquirer NOT in cyber-
space is right about 1 time in 5000, but life is
short and I'm betting short odds.
Personally, I like the idea of trying to save
"hacker"...but I also suspect it's a lost cause.
Once "the media" have an idea in their heads
there is no shifting it - unless they want to,
which in this case they don't. Even though they
are prepared to use a new name for "black people"
every seven or eight years.
One tactic not discussed: leave both hacker AND
cracker behind. With the current media
fascination for the "cyber" prefix, "cybervandal"
seems an apt name for what the media calls a
hacker and we a cracker. In light of an earlier
suggestion, I rather like "sourceror" - a pun on
sorceror, suggestive of mysterious knowledge, and
also a pun on open source! Not to mentions a
worthy successor to "wizard" - which is, I think,
the word that would most logically succeed hacker.
Personally, being in QA now, I go by "software
entomologist". But I'm a sourceror when I get
home.
Maybe we could get some pointy hats. Maybe we
could get Linus to put on on Tux... =)
>You do realize this has the
>potential to kill WINE and Samba, right?
Nay, nay. The license provisions only apply to
those who install and use the software. That
would have to be proven in court in order to
invoke the reverse engineering clause. This is
only a danger if we are not aware of it when
founding such projects. Pay attention to your
clean room, and this law is nothing but good
news for open source.
I interpret Jon's usage as an attempt to
re-assert the word's proper use.
According to the latest info presented to us
at a Tru64 Unix QA dept meeting, that is very
much what we are going to do. As of recently,
we consider Linux to _be_ the entry-level Tru-
64 Unix, it is a high priority to support it
with hardware and software, some even open
source, with an eye toward migrating customers
needing more than Linux being able to move up
to Tru 64. Whether and how we follow through
on that policy remains to be seen, but it's not
for nothing that Compaq employs Jon "maddog" Hall,
president of Linux International.
The problem here is not that losing one's
internet connection is on par with losing
one's fellow citizens - the problem is that
losing one's internet connection means you
can no longer tell anyone on the net that
you are losing your fellow citizens. Let's
be frank, atrocities are far easier to
commit when the victim can't complain to
anyone.
I don't buy this. Property rights are a method
for regulating access to scarce resources. Anyone
bypassing such regulation is committing some form
of coercion against the owner of that resource,
hence is violating their rights, i.e. committing
a crime. That does not apply with information,
information is not a scarce resource, the fact
that I have a piece of information and you acquire
it (by whatever means) diminishes me in no way.
All it can do is diminish the worth of the
information in question, something that was
granted by monopoly power in the first place.
Information itself has no value since it is not
a scarce resource. In short, no right has been
violated, I have not been harmed. Only by
granting me a monopoly allowing me to control
YOUR acquisition of MY information - even post
facto - does information acquire market value -
and it does so at the cost of YOUR freedom to
use what is already in your head. It grants me
rights to control your speech, a coercion - and
anathema to Libertarians (or should be).
As for your contention that there would be no
movies, I have to point out that by this same
logic there would never be world-class server
operating systems for free, either. Linux is
an object proof that large projects can come
into being without intellectual property support.
Quite bluntly, there are more man-hours invested
in Red Hat or Debian than in any movie - or even
in a whole trilogy of them. That Linux was done
one way and Star Wars another is simply a
consequence of their environments: Star Wars was
done that way because that's the only way we can
do movies today. Linux was done its way because
we had a choice - and Windows had already shown
us how the other way worked.
This same argument applies in even more force
back the other way. You think Star Wars was
good? How good COULD it have been had it been
done openly? Perhaps as good as Linux is compared
to Windows?
>There's still contract law, though
There is a principle in law with some obscure
Latin name that states that one cannot give up
basic rights in a contract. You cannot, for
example, sign a contract allowing someone to
kill you...it's still murder if they do it.
With "rights" defined (implicitly) as they are
in this essay, your right to use information
would be on par with your right to life - such
contracts would be unenforcable.
And this is not a bad thing. In such a world,
authors are paid by information brokers for the
rights to get their works into the market _first_,
the price of a work declines as more and more
distributors pick it up, and if you want a quality
hard copy you contract with some publishing house
to print and bind one for you - most of which
would likely make it a feature that they support
the original author, the same way Red Hat supports
open source software. Authors are still
compensated - not to the ridiculous lengths that
people like Tom Clancy, Michael Crichton, or
Steven Spielberg are used to - but much more in
line with what _most_ producers of intellectual
work actually make in the real world. The
monopoly removed, such works will float to their
natural value in the marketplace - with vastly
more derived works generating even more value for
more authors into the bargain. That's the
fundamental point in this essay.
>Darwin for the theory of evolution by natural
>selection (which, if you ask me, clearly does
>not apply)
Why isn't a programmer's fitness evaluator
natural? I've always wanted to be a natural
force. =)
There are people who never will understand this.
They are simply incapable of it. Not necessarily
because they lack empathy - though the empathic
ones will at least sense your pain - but because
they so utterly lack any kind of frame of
reference. Virtually all of them were either
part of the "in" crowd, or were the wallpaper,
not popular, but never targetted to the same
extent. From your description, your wife is
very much the former, who will never get it
because she lacks the empathy to realize what
impact she has on others. I suspect that because
it is clear from your post that she is _still_
like that - and I'm sorry to say that I also
suspect your marriage might face some long-term
trouble over such a basic divide. Whether you
can bridge that, I can't tell - but I do think
you very well might have to to have a happy
marriage.
Let's talk about the media's propensity for
using undocumented statistics. Let's talk
about that 5000 children harmed by guns last
year. Just where did that statistic come
from, and are they reliable? I don't think
even the handgun control people have nerve
enough to quote this one, 5000 children harmed
by guns a year would mean that in less than
five years every single one of us would personally
know a child harmed by a gun. Funny, I don't
know any. Am I that statistically unlikely - or
is the author using precisely the same tactic he's
deploring?
Technically, it isn't perjury if the lie has no
effect on the outcome of the trial. This is why
Clinton had to settle Clinton v. Jones before her
appeal sent it back to court, it was the entire
legal figleaf he needed to avoid the perjury
charge.
However, what you described sure DOES sound like
contempt of court - and removing the neck brace
sure looks like evidence of fraud.