Think of us all as Honda mechanics, technicians and manufacturers of after-market parts. When a huge company makes a public announcement that they are switching their whole fleet to Hondas, and then reverses that decision, it goes a bit beyond "oh, what a shame, they don't like my car" and into the realms of "damn, there goes a bunch of future employment".
The reason everyone thinks this is uncharacteristic of Linus is that they think of him as the open source hero the media has made him out to be, an accessible version of RMS. But his position has always been that open source is good because it is a more effective of development than closed source, and not about free software at all. He has repeatedly stated that he is "practical" where these things are concerned, and demonstrated that he means it, Bitkeeper for example.
Linus was likely advised by a lawyer that he trusts that this is a good idea, so he's doing it. Many in the free software movement might reject a move like this on ideological grounds, but Linus' never really demonstrated that he holds tightly to any ideologies, so there's no reason to expect it from him.
If you're looking for an "Information Wants to be Free" hero, you'd better keep looking.
That, of course, depends on what you think a library is for.
If you think a library is for loaning books to people, then yes, this is a good use of DRM.
If you think a library is for making creative works available to everyone regardless of their financial means, and that the loaning books bit was just the most practical means of achieving this lofty goal, then no, this is not a good use of DRM, but rather a perversion of the very concept of what a library is, leading to its eventual irrelevance and demise.
I guess you think a library is a place for loaning books.
self-motivated == has a sense of craftsmanship and a pride in their reputation that makes them respect their own work too much to be part of doing a bad job
go-getter == entrepreneurial, has people skills, is involved in the various other business processes surrounding their position
learn independantly == doesn't need to be told to improve themselves, will become a more valuable asset the longer you deal with them, treats new tasks in unfamiliar territory as an opportunity and succeeds
These are the characteristics I want in the people I deal with. Not a certificate verifying 4 years of passing classes.
So between the two of us, there's employers out there for everyone. And they all lived happily ever after, The End.
It's a question of priorities. As in, this guy had the time to waste on these certifications, he must be desparate for a job. Why is he desparate?
Personally, I'm prejudiced against people with college degrees too... the way I see it, if you're spending years in college, you're not a self-motivated go-getter who can learn independantly, you're just another drone who paid a fortune to be spoonfed and can't be trusted to do anything more than go through the motions like he's been taught.
IT is not the profession for those who need a teacher, it is a profession for those who prefer to teach themselves, because that's what you'll spend the rest of your career doing if you're successful.
RMS' point was that it doesn't matter what it's called because the code's still there and improving. Microsoft could grab a copy, release it with source and call it Microsoft Rainbow. I could grab a copy and call it the Shieldwolf System. That's the strength of all that GPL software, and the quality of all the software is the source of the GPL's strength. He probably doesn't like seeing resources diverted to defending a trademark when they could be, in his opinion, better used in some other way. Which is a fair enough point of view.
Ahh, but professionalism, the word he was looking for, scores 7,730,000 hits, and therefore wins. Thank you, Google, for upholding the long standing champion and saving us the trouble of replacing all the paper english dictionaries on earth.
While I can understand how an IQ test might be culturally biased, I don't see how it could possibly be gender-biased. Examples?
Men have larger brains and are (supposedly) stronger in analytical thought than women. Women have more interconnects and are (supposedly) capable of seeing patterns on a broader level than men.
So it would follow that if you include pattern identification questions with a broader scope, it would be biased towards women, and if they are a narrow in scope but follow chains of logic, it would be biased towards men.
It's the whole "womens intuition" thing, which has been established as having a physiological basis.
It occurs to me that while men and women have different powerful tools for arriving at the truth of things, the means they use mean that it's easier for a man to prove to you that what he has figured out is true than it is for a woman, who might see the truth but be unable to communicate to you why it's true in a conclusive way. If that's true, the most brilliant women could perceive things and be utterly frustruated in their ability to get any recognition.
Perhaps our continual advancement in computers and the increased capacity that gives us to verify things using statistical analysis rather than logical analysis will make it easier for us to harness the unique mental capacities with more confidence.
Did it ever occur to you that managing people requires a very different set of skills than engineering, and that engineers don't like management jobs because they are not equiped to do them? If you want to hire a manager, you don't go looking for someone who is more comfortable with math and physics than with people. I imagine that engineers would dislike jobs in nursing too, because they would suck and get no respect. I for one would be leary of working for an engineer; in my experience they tend to yell a lot and think they know everything.
As far as the articles question, the reason that he is keeping his hands in everything is because he doesn't trust you. If he did, he'd drop it in your lap with confidence and find something else to do, even if that something else is golf. He's not sitting around watching you because you're so easy on the eyes. As to the question of why he doesn't trust you, and is it him being untrusting or you being untrustworthy, that is something only you and him can answer.
Actually, due to the fucked up society our forefathers left for us, we are nearing a social collapse. Within the next 10 years, all those baby boomers who were more interested in fucking for fun and spending money than having children and raising families are going to retire. When that happens, 50% of the population are going to be retired or under 18, and there won't be enough hands to keep society running, let alone care for the elderly. Enjoy the ride while it lasts, because this little social experiment is about to come to a bad end. The only thing that MAY keep it in check is a massive wave of immigration, but don't count on it.
If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. Ask a good life insurance agent, they'll know what I'm talking about.
Societies that don't breed cease to exist. Hard and fast rule, no exceptions. Welcome to reality.
If you want a partner who will leave you holding the bag when things get rough, you're on the right track. If you go out with a woman who's there to use you, she won't be there to help you get to your feet when life inevitably pulls the rug out from under you, she'll just consider you "used up" and move on, screwing you any way she must to ensure she lands on her feet.
If you're just looking to get laid, yeah, that can work. But you'd prob save money going and grabbing yourself a hooker...
Him: Remember, you don't have to be the only provider to have a monopoly, you just have to weild "monopoly power", that is the ability to control the market, and I think Google is getting damn close to that.
You: No, you have to abuse your monopoly power. MS didn't get in trouble for having one, they got in trouble for trying to keep it through nasty tactics.
Me: Like your statement that you need to abuse your monopoly to be a monopolist. So what does that make all those companies that have a monopoly and don't abuse it?
You: They are monopolies, but not abusive. They should be watched closely by regulators, but it doesn't do anyone any good to say "omg bad!"
Him: As for "support for open source" wake when they have a Linux "Desktop Search", or Linux "google deskbar" or any of a number of other technologies they implement on Windows (and don't give source code away for).
You: So, what, OSS that doesn't work on Linux isn't OSS anymore? Google releases useful code to the OSS community.
Me: And then there's the software they release, which indeed is not open source and only runs on Windows. Not to say that there's anything wrong with that, because that's entirely subjective, but it is true.
You: So? They respond to market forces. Should Ford be forced to continue making parts for Model-T cars because there are few out there? No.
Him: They're "distributing" their software via a web server, but nobody gets to see the code behind the scenes, improve it, or fix bugs, or anything else.
You: Oh, honestly. If using a Linux server meant you have to release all code running on it, no one would use it.
Me: You also tried to shoot down his comment about the fact that they are closing all their sources by distributing software as a service. This is significant enough that there was (is?) serious consideration of adapting the GPL to prevent it in the future. What exactly is the difference between releasing software-as-a-service with well documented APIs and releasing compiled code with well documented APIs? This is no better or worse than releasing closed source software.
You: If you release stuff under the GPL, companies use it entirely legally, and then you complain that the license is too free... who the hell is at fault? YOU. If you don't like that aspect of the GPL, again, USE ANOTHER LICENSE. Take the GPL and add in a clause saying "Big companies I criticize on Slashdot (but say 'not to say that there's anything wrong with that' while I do) may not use this software because it makes me sad." License it under the ShieldW0lf's Paranoia License. Whatever. Just don't bitch about people using GPL'ed software entirely within the constraints of the GPL. If you release a service, the code is still entirely under your control. Your millions of dollars of research and development are not rendered instantly worthless by 200 identical copies of your system being available. People still get the benefit, but you get to feed your kids.
I believe I've figured it out... you're not an idiot, you're schizophrenic!
Oh, and I don't use the GPL, I release my code in the public domain. Quite frankly, I don't care if or how you use my existing work... I'll still make a good living writing more regardless. Frankly, I consider a preoccupation with controlling your existing work to be a pretty sure sign that you're a two-bit hack who got lucky once and knows he can never repeat it.
That's not true at all. I have a job, they pay me, I deliver them code. I retain the right to reuse that code as I see fit, and I gave them a whole host of code I had written previously at no charge. They love my work, they have no problems with my terms, and I've turned down offers from headhunters 3 times since starting this job last December. Incidentally, all the other jobs I was offered had 2 things in common. They all insisted that I had to comply with these onerous terms that you take for granted as a fact of life, and they all paid less than I make right now working from home.
Oh, and companies don't have ideas. Companies are not people. To talk about a company having an idea is in no way different than talking about a government having an idea, or a football team having an idea, or a bridge club. It is ridiculous.
Well, that's an elitist attitude! This is the EXACT reason why Linux has a rough time on the desktop. Users are used to saying well I like this like that and I wish the taskbar was green instead of blue. Linux developers need to design FOR the user instead of themselves if they want to take market share from Microsoft.
Elitist:
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Ok, now what is there in this definition that matches the developers? Are they expecting favoured treatment from someone because they are developers? No. Are they making demands that they feel they have an intrinsic entitlement to because they are developers? No. Are they attempting to use their developer status to control anyone? No.
Now, lets apply this test to YOU, the user. Are you expecting favoured treatment from someone because you are a user? Yes, you're demanding that the developers should cater to your needs. Are you making demands that you feel you have an intrinsic entitlement to because you are a user? Yes, you appear to think that being the user makes you the King, and apparently you're used to being listened to when you make stupid demands like changing colors etc. Are you attempting to use your "user" status to control anyone? Well, your whole point was that there is some natural order to things that places you at the top of the heap because you are a user.
So, I guess what I'm basically saying is stop being elitist, and go learn what the word means before you use it in public.
I sure as hell wouldn't take a job there. My ideas are MINE, not some companies. I've turned down jobs before because they tried to shove this "all your ideas are belong to us" crap on me. I suggest you offer to refer them to a guy you knew in school who had a straight C average and tell them that he probably values his own ideas little enough to take the job, but you don't. It's not going to make you any new friends, but it's very amusing to watch.
This is all I could think about when I read about their "summer of code", a big company exploiting a bunch of kids who don't know any better and ripping off their best ideas. Do no evil indeed.
There's a difference between being dimwitted enough to make decisions based on stereotypes and finding ironic humour in those situations where the stereotype happens to be true.
You need to chill out dude. How do you manage to walk around with that chip on your shoulder, damn thing's the size of Texas!:P
None of which changes the fact that Google is has or is very close to having a monopoly. Do you realize that your argument amounts to "No, they're not a monopoly because they're a good monopoly. Only if they become an evil, anti-competitive monopoly will they be a monopoly."
Go do some critical thinking exercises, and perhaps some reading comprehension exercises too. Then come back and try again.
He's not being a zealot. He's pointing out the barn-door size holes in your fanboy comment, and he's right. Your statements are nonsensical.
Like your statement that you need to abuse your monopoly to be a monopolist. So what does that make all those companies that have a monopoly and don't abuse it?
And then there's the software they release, which indeed is not open source and only runs on Windows. Not to say that there's anything wrong with that, because that's entirely subjective, but it is true.
You also tried to shoot down his comment about the fact that they are closing all their sources by distributing software as a service. This is significant enough that there was (is?) serious consideration of adapting the GPL to prevent it in the future.
What exactly is the difference between releasing software-as-a-service with well documented APIs and releasing compiled code with well documented APIs? This is no better or worse than releasing closed source software.
Do your hero a favour. Don't try to defend them anymore in public forums, you're not very good at it.
Google don't make better offers. They pay less than the average. They raised the salary for new hires because they hired a whole ton of the available talent, and the other companies who need someone with those skills need to offer salaries high enough to tempt those who have moved on to other things to come back. Like around 2000 when COBOL programmers were making a ton of cash, that was all about motivating retired COBOL coders and those who had moved on to management to come back to coding for a bit.
And google are evil because they compile vast databases of personal information about everyone they can with the express purpose of using that information to manipulate them for pay. If you don't think there's anything wrong with that, then I guess you'd consider them pretty good guys. Personally, I consider it a fundamentally evil thing, and would happily douse everyone who chose a career in advertising with gasoline and light them on fire.
Now how can I tell my children that hiking, climbing, biking gives much more fun than electronic gadgets??? Do you really think such gadgets are good for children?
You can't. You have to show them. If you don't personally do these things when you have a chance rather than play with your own electronic gadgets, they're not going to be interested. If you're not going to put your money where your mouth is, don't tell your kids stuff like that. Kids are very sensitive to hypocracy, they haven't learned to doublethink yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of us all as Honda mechanics, technicians and manufacturers of after-market parts. When a huge company makes a public announcement that they are switching their whole fleet to Hondas, and then reverses that decision, it goes a bit beyond "oh, what a shame, they don't like my car" and into the realms of "damn, there goes a bunch of future employment".
Does it make a little more sense now?
False advertising and breach of contract perhaps?
The reason everyone thinks this is uncharacteristic of Linus is that they think of him as the open source hero the media has made him out to be, an accessible version of RMS. But his position has always been that open source is good because it is a more effective of development than closed source, and not about free software at all. He has repeatedly stated that he is "practical" where these things are concerned, and demonstrated that he means it, Bitkeeper for example.
Linus was likely advised by a lawyer that he trusts that this is a good idea, so he's doing it. Many in the free software movement might reject a move like this on ideological grounds, but Linus' never really demonstrated that he holds tightly to any ideologies, so there's no reason to expect it from him.
If you're looking for an "Information Wants to be Free" hero, you'd better keep looking.
That, of course, depends on what you think a library is for.
If you think a library is for loaning books to people, then yes, this is a good use of DRM.
If you think a library is for making creative works available to everyone regardless of their financial means, and that the loaning books bit was just the most practical means of achieving this lofty goal, then no, this is not a good use of DRM, but rather a perversion of the very concept of what a library is, leading to its eventual irrelevance and demise.
I guess you think a library is a place for loaning books.
self-motivated == has a sense of craftsmanship and a pride in their reputation that makes them respect their own work too much to be part of doing a bad job
go-getter == entrepreneurial, has people skills, is involved in the various other business processes surrounding their position
learn independantly == doesn't need to be told to improve themselves, will become a more valuable asset the longer you deal with them, treats new tasks in unfamiliar territory as an opportunity and succeeds
These are the characteristics I want in the people I deal with. Not a certificate verifying 4 years of passing classes.
So between the two of us, there's employers out there for everyone. And they all lived happily ever after, The End.
It's a question of priorities. As in, this guy had the time to waste on these certifications, he must be desparate for a job. Why is he desparate?
Personally, I'm prejudiced against people with college degrees too... the way I see it, if you're spending years in college, you're not a self-motivated go-getter who can learn independantly, you're just another drone who paid a fortune to be spoonfed and can't be trusted to do anything more than go through the motions like he's been taught.
IT is not the profession for those who need a teacher, it is a profession for those who prefer to teach themselves, because that's what you'll spend the rest of your career doing if you're successful.
RMS' point was that it doesn't matter what it's called because the code's still there and improving. Microsoft could grab a copy, release it with source and call it Microsoft Rainbow. I could grab a copy and call it the Shieldwolf System. That's the strength of all that GPL software, and the quality of all the software is the source of the GPL's strength. He probably doesn't like seeing resources diverted to defending a trademark when they could be, in his opinion, better used in some other way. Which is a fair enough point of view.
Ahh, but professionalism, the word he was looking for, scores 7,730,000 hits, and therefore wins. Thank you, Google, for upholding the long standing champion and saving us the trouble of replacing all the paper english dictionaries on earth.
While I can understand how an IQ test might be culturally biased, I don't see how it could possibly be gender-biased. Examples?
Men have larger brains and are (supposedly) stronger in analytical thought than women. Women have more interconnects and are (supposedly) capable of seeing patterns on a broader level than men.
So it would follow that if you include pattern identification questions with a broader scope, it would be biased towards women, and if they are a narrow in scope but follow chains of logic, it would be biased towards men.
It's the whole "womens intuition" thing, which has been established as having a physiological basis.
It occurs to me that while men and women have different powerful tools for arriving at the truth of things, the means they use mean that it's easier for a man to prove to you that what he has figured out is true than it is for a woman, who might see the truth but be unable to communicate to you why it's true in a conclusive way. If that's true, the most brilliant women could perceive things and be utterly frustruated in their ability to get any recognition.
Perhaps our continual advancement in computers and the increased capacity that gives us to verify things using statistical analysis rather than logical analysis will make it easier for us to harness the unique mental capacities with more confidence.
Did it ever occur to you that managing people requires a very different set of skills than engineering, and that engineers don't like management jobs because they are not equiped to do them? If you want to hire a manager, you don't go looking for someone who is more comfortable with math and physics than with people. I imagine that engineers would dislike jobs in nursing too, because they would suck and get no respect. I for one would be leary of working for an engineer; in my experience they tend to yell a lot and think they know everything.
As far as the articles question, the reason that he is keeping his hands in everything is because he doesn't trust you. If he did, he'd drop it in your lap with confidence and find something else to do, even if that something else is golf. He's not sitting around watching you because you're so easy on the eyes. As to the question of why he doesn't trust you, and is it him being untrusting or you being untrustworthy, that is something only you and him can answer.
Actually, due to the fucked up society our forefathers left for us, we are nearing a social collapse. Within the next 10 years, all those baby boomers who were more interested in fucking for fun and spending money than having children and raising families are going to retire. When that happens, 50% of the population are going to be retired or under 18, and there won't be enough hands to keep society running, let alone care for the elderly. Enjoy the ride while it lasts, because this little social experiment is about to come to a bad end. The only thing that MAY keep it in check is a massive wave of immigration, but don't count on it.
If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. Ask a good life insurance agent, they'll know what I'm talking about.
Societies that don't breed cease to exist. Hard and fast rule, no exceptions. Welcome to reality.
If you want a partner who will leave you holding the bag when things get rough, you're on the right track. If you go out with a woman who's there to use you, she won't be there to help you get to your feet when life inevitably pulls the rug out from under you, she'll just consider you "used up" and move on, screwing you any way she must to ensure she lands on her feet.
If you're just looking to get laid, yeah, that can work. But you'd prob save money going and grabbing yourself a hooker...
Hmm...
Him: Remember, you don't have to be the only provider to have a monopoly, you just have to weild "monopoly power", that is the ability to control the market, and I think Google is getting damn close to that.
You: No, you have to abuse your monopoly power. MS didn't get in trouble for having one, they got in trouble for trying to keep it through nasty tactics.
Me: Like your statement that you need to abuse your monopoly to be a monopolist. So what does that make all those companies that have a monopoly and don't abuse it?
You: They are monopolies, but not abusive. They should be watched closely by regulators, but it doesn't do anyone any good to say "omg bad!"
Him: As for "support for open source" wake when they have a Linux "Desktop Search", or Linux "google deskbar" or any of a number of other technologies they implement on Windows (and don't give source code away for).
You: So, what, OSS that doesn't work on Linux isn't OSS anymore? Google releases useful code to the OSS community.
Me: And then there's the software they release, which indeed is not open source and only runs on Windows. Not to say that there's anything wrong with that, because that's entirely subjective, but it is true.
You: So? They respond to market forces. Should Ford be forced to continue making parts for Model-T cars because there are few out there? No.
Him: They're "distributing" their software via a web server, but nobody gets to see the code behind the scenes, improve it, or fix bugs, or anything else.
You: Oh, honestly. If using a Linux server meant you have to release all code running on it, no one would use it.
Me: You also tried to shoot down his comment about the fact that they are closing all their sources by distributing software as a service. This is significant enough that there was (is?) serious consideration of adapting the GPL to prevent it in the future. What exactly is the difference between releasing software-as-a-service with well documented APIs and releasing compiled code with well documented APIs? This is no better or worse than releasing closed source software.
You: If you release stuff under the GPL, companies use it entirely legally, and then you complain that the license is too free... who the hell is at fault? YOU. If you don't like that aspect of the GPL, again, USE ANOTHER LICENSE. Take the GPL and add in a clause saying "Big companies I criticize on Slashdot (but say 'not to say that there's anything wrong with that' while I do) may not use this software because it makes me sad." License it under the ShieldW0lf's Paranoia License. Whatever. Just don't bitch about people using GPL'ed software entirely within the constraints of the GPL. If you release a service, the code is still entirely under your control. Your millions of dollars of research and development are not rendered instantly worthless by 200 identical copies of your system being available. People still get the benefit, but you get to feed your kids.
I believe I've figured it out... you're not an idiot, you're schizophrenic!
Oh, and I don't use the GPL, I release my code in the public domain. Quite frankly, I don't care if or how you use my existing work... I'll still make a good living writing more regardless. Frankly, I consider a preoccupation with controlling your existing work to be a pretty sure sign that you're a two-bit hack who got lucky once and knows he can never repeat it.
That's not true at all. I have a job, they pay me, I deliver them code. I retain the right to reuse that code as I see fit, and I gave them a whole host of code I had written previously at no charge. They love my work, they have no problems with my terms, and I've turned down offers from headhunters 3 times since starting this job last December. Incidentally, all the other jobs I was offered had 2 things in common. They all insisted that I had to comply with these onerous terms that you take for granted as a fact of life, and they all paid less than I make right now working from home.
Oh, and companies don't have ideas. Companies are not people. To talk about a company having an idea is in no way different than talking about a government having an idea, or a football team having an idea, or a bridge club. It is ridiculous.
Well, that's an elitist attitude! This is the EXACT reason why Linux has a rough time on the desktop. Users are used to saying well I like this like that and I wish the taskbar was green instead of blue. Linux developers need to design FOR the user instead of themselves if they want to take market share from Microsoft.
Elitist:
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Ok, now what is there in this definition that matches the developers? Are they expecting favoured treatment from someone because they are developers? No. Are they making demands that they feel they have an intrinsic entitlement to because they are developers? No. Are they attempting to use their developer status to control anyone? No.
Now, lets apply this test to YOU, the user. Are you expecting favoured treatment from someone because you are a user? Yes, you're demanding that the developers should cater to your needs. Are you making demands that you feel you have an intrinsic entitlement to because you are a user? Yes, you appear to think that being the user makes you the King, and apparently you're used to being listened to when you make stupid demands like changing colors etc. Are you attempting to use your "user" status to control anyone? Well, your whole point was that there is some natural order to things that places you at the top of the heap because you are a user.
So, I guess what I'm basically saying is stop being elitist, and go learn what the word means before you use it in public.
Now THAT is insightful, and significant as hell.
I sure as hell wouldn't take a job there. My ideas are MINE, not some companies. I've turned down jobs before because they tried to shove this "all your ideas are belong to us" crap on me. I suggest you offer to refer them to a guy you knew in school who had a straight C average and tell them that he probably values his own ideas little enough to take the job, but you don't. It's not going to make you any new friends, but it's very amusing to watch.
This is all I could think about when I read about their "summer of code", a big company exploiting a bunch of kids who don't know any better and ripping off their best ideas. Do no evil indeed.
Here, let me try!
:D
Um... hmm... is it because the Texans don't get the joke and will thus not take offense?
There's a difference between being dimwitted enough to make decisions based on stereotypes and finding ironic humour in those situations where the stereotype happens to be true.
:P
You need to chill out dude. How do you manage to walk around with that chip on your shoulder, damn thing's the size of Texas!
None of which changes the fact that Google is has or is very close to having a monopoly. Do you realize that your argument amounts to "No, they're not a monopoly because they're a good monopoly. Only if they become an evil, anti-competitive monopoly will they be a monopoly."
Go do some critical thinking exercises, and perhaps some reading comprehension exercises too. Then come back and try again.
He's not being a zealot. He's pointing out the barn-door size holes in your fanboy comment, and he's right. Your statements are nonsensical.
Like your statement that you need to abuse your monopoly to be a monopolist. So what does that make all those companies that have a monopoly and don't abuse it?
And then there's the software they release, which indeed is not open source and only runs on Windows. Not to say that there's anything wrong with that, because that's entirely subjective, but it is true.
You also tried to shoot down his comment about the fact that they are closing all their sources by distributing software as a service. This is significant enough that there was (is?) serious consideration of adapting the GPL to prevent it in the future.
What exactly is the difference between releasing software-as-a-service with well documented APIs and releasing compiled code with well documented APIs? This is no better or worse than releasing closed source software.
Do your hero a favour. Don't try to defend them anymore in public forums, you're not very good at it.
Google don't make better offers. They pay less than the average. They raised the salary for new hires because they hired a whole ton of the available talent, and the other companies who need someone with those skills need to offer salaries high enough to tempt those who have moved on to other things to come back. Like around 2000 when COBOL programmers were making a ton of cash, that was all about motivating retired COBOL coders and those who had moved on to management to come back to coding for a bit.
And google are evil because they compile vast databases of personal information about everyone they can with the express purpose of using that information to manipulate them for pay. If you don't think there's anything wrong with that, then I guess you'd consider them pretty good guys. Personally, I consider it a fundamentally evil thing, and would happily douse everyone who chose a career in advertising with gasoline and light them on fire.
after all, I can keep 10,000 ebooks stored safely in my house, but less than 200 real books.
That's what the DRM is for.
Now how can I tell my children that hiking, climbing, biking gives much more fun than electronic gadgets??? Do you really think such gadgets are good for children?
You can't. You have to show them. If you don't personally do these things when you have a chance rather than play with your own electronic gadgets, they're not going to be interested. If you're not going to put your money where your mouth is, don't tell your kids stuff like that. Kids are very sensitive to hypocracy, they haven't learned to doublethink yet.
It's easier to rewrite history when there are no books. It all happened just like in the Hollywood movies, right?
Man, and you thought Americans were undereducated and brainwashed before, wait till this takes off!
And it's starting in Texas, how poetic.
What is, a RAVE?
A place people go to lose 30 pounds more than they can afford, grow pasty white and become bisexual?