Re:R&D killed by Free software?
on
Ask Robert Young
·
· Score: 1
Granted, a fair percentage of that is "filler" for MS to spend money on in preparation for future cuts to make the numbers better, but regardless of that: 16%!!!
That's quite a percentage. For example, GM R&D was $6.6 billion in 2000 on $184 billion in revenues, or 3% of operations.
Is RedHat going to be the MS of Linux? Not unless they spend money on R&D -- and is that money down the tubes, considering the nature of Free software? That's what I'd like to hear Bob's opinion on... "Beware by whom you are called sane."
Re:R&D killed by Free software?
on
Ask Robert Young
·
· Score: 1
As much respect I have for Alan Cox, one man does not an R&D team make. Do you know how many millions MS puts into "pure" R&D?
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
My question to you is, when you allocate part of your budget to R&D, are you in fact cutting your own throat? (How's that for a loaded question?)
To expand, why should I use a RedHat distribution, since it mainly isn't terribly different from a SuSE, Debian, or Caldera, unless RedHat has something that the others don't.
But, RedHat can't develop a major system enhancement within large portions of the OS because of the nature of Free software. RedHat can only develop a proprietary userland applications (which, granted, isn't all that bad -- it leaves you plenty of room for powerful applications) because any major system enhancement that RedHat develops can almost immediately be absorbed by your "competitors". Thus, the profit-motive is significantly depressed (if not removed) from pure R&D.
I understand that RedHat doesn't make significant revenues from OS sales -- I ask the question in terms of bugetary policy within the company and how it may (or may not) affect the decision-making process. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
You're welcome to disagree, but I'm a bit amazed at your vitriol.
but mac users are knuckleheads, bar none (if this is what you meant by computer awareness, then I
do agree with you). I've listened to Mac users in CompUSA harp about how you have to have a mac if you want to play mp3s or dvds.
Bar none? Then both I and Steve Wozniak are knuckleheads? You're either one hell of an asshole or an idiot, then.
In my experience as an unofficial computer support person, I have fewer problems with Mac users than Wintel users. I can match you anecdote for anecdote, if that's your wish.
Child, they've been pulling this shit since 1984. Nothing new. The only difference is that there was free technical support.
But there was nothing to compete with it until about 1991 or so, when Windows really started to make inroads with 3.0. But, of course, you just wanted to spew venom in an unfocused rage. My mistake...
I dunno about this -- the most computer illiterate people are Wintel's primary demographic. This is why Intel promotes the Pentium III to make
your Internet faster (and gets away with it).
And this is different from selling a computer by color?
Yes, it is. The first is a lie (okay, 90% untruth, or deliberate fudge). The second is filling a desire in the marketplace.
Don't try to be cute if you're going to be wrong.
But, in my experience, the large majority of Mac users are in fact quite stupid when it comes to how
their system works.
*sigh* The large majority of any random group of computer users don't understand how their system works. This doesn't prove your point.
A *larger* majority of drivers have no *clue* how an internal combustion engine works! However, the group that drives BMWs or Mercedes tend to be savvier drivers than drive Camaros or Trans Ams or Firebirds.
I know it's dangerous to use an automobile analogy, but I'll try to head off the complaint I know you'll have:
"But those are more expensive!"
Yes, so are Macs (in general). However, I'm speaking from a quality/performance perspective. A Trans/Camaro/Firebird driver might or might not go for a BMW or Mercedes if price were not an issue, but a BMW or Mercedes driver would NEVER go to a Trans/Camaro/Bird, regardless of price. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
Did Tim Berners-Lee get peer review on his first prototypes of the Web? No, he polished it up a bit, then released. That's Next-Gen stuff -- think of it as "inventing the chair" then "sanding the chair".
The original poster was bitching that he was a good programmer -- I was partially saying that XP won't really affect him (unless he's in a shop that enforces it, of course), and partially challenging his assertion that he was a good programmer.
However, I'd be careful about making generalizations about long-term strategies for a software shop. The industry hasn't been around long enough for such statements to be made, especially when the state-of-the-art changes every 8 months or so. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
Two, I said "YOUR coding style and abilities..." If he's in a shop that enforces the XP style, then that is different. But if a shop uses it, it does not affect his chosen method of working. XP doesn't leech over the I'net to infect other hackers.
Three, I have no clue -- I do not use XP, nor do I know much beyond it other than the fluff pieces linked in this story. But, the idea that a process can be developed in the creation of code does imply that it is not in and of itself a creative act -- which may be true for certain projects (such as an accounting program for a bulk mailer), but not for ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting things like the Web. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
Apple computer has long held a
niche among the least computer-literate in the marketplace.
I dunno about this -- the most computer illiterate people are Wintel's primary demographic. This is why Intel promotes the Pentium III to make your Internet faster (and gets away with it).
Apple's demographic tends to be holier-than-thou arty types and interface nuts. My experience is that Mac OS users tend to be very computer aware, if not literate, because since 1991 or so, you have to have really loved the Mac OS to put up with expensive hardware, corporate idiocy, and really, really poor (official) technical support. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
As a (good) "programmer", your responsibilities involve developing the next-level stuff (a QuickTime, CORBA, or HTTP). It is not to produce accounting code for a bulk mail outfit.
However, accounting code for a bulk mail outfit is important, and thus it benefits from a formal, rigid, factory-style coding practice used by mindless drones (or good programmers who might be slumming for the hell of it).
Your coding style and abilities are in no way affected by Extreme Programming. Think of Extreme Programming as a method by which middling programmers (like myself) can benefit from and use to expand upon the High Art produced from good programmers such as yourself. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
An unfortunate side effect of high intelligence is a remarkable lack of patience for lesser intelligences.
Thus, a routing guru may have a very good reason for dismissing your proposal out of hand, but feels that it's beneath his intellect to talk down to you in terms you can understand.
Whether this is good or not is irrelavent. It's just the way we're wired.
Personally, I think your idea has merit, but then my idea of complicated routing is getting my home and office wired together across different providers. I'm no guru.
A real guru, with the vision to see beyond your idea in totality may take the idea and run with it in a similar, if not same, direction, and come up with a great solution. I wouldn't count on it, though. I've found that really, really talented/skilled people are very, very focused on their talent/skill. Thus, as a prima donna ballerina is a great dancer but sucks at fixing your car, a routing guru may not have the right-brain capability to think outside the box of routing table rules.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
There's something to be said for bullying, though...
(bear with me here -- obviously this doesn't apply to everybody, nor every situation -- but it is a datapoint to be plotted)
My cousin had a minor speech impediment as a young child. He still does, though you can barely notice it. He went to a speech therapist, which helped, but as a stutterer myself, I know the kind of torment young kids could inflict on somebody "different". However, you develop defense mechanisms.
His mechanism (as was mine) was to not talk very much. I had a reputation for being very quiet, and as a consequence, I did a lot of *listening*, as did my cousin.
My cousin, now, is working on finishing his Aerospace engineering degree, with a 4.0 average. He is one smart dude -- and I believe it came from his youth, when he was listening, rather than talking. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
This was a 15 year old wanking a gullible adult. A real criminal (one smart enough to be making "6 figures") does not brag about his exploits, and certainly do not write diaries to be published on MSNBC.
Hell, for $250, I'll yank that reporter's chain, and give him a better diary, too. Drop me an email, guy, and I'll give you a Great Gatsby-like retelling of how I
cracked saddamscrib.iq, replaced "Death to the Imperialist Running Dogs" with "All Your Base Belong To Us"
ghosted Al Gore's email address to subscribe him to the fat-lover's listserv
stole a CC number belonging to Jeff Bezos, using it to buy "Seven Habits of Highly Successful People" from borders.com
Okay, better way of saying it -- Congress has no right to *regulate* these, based on my reading of the Constitution.
Congress has a few, well defined functions. Beyond those, it is encroachment upon the States, or the people.
The reason we have a Constitution is to prevent the "law-making body of my/our land" from declaring themselves God/King-For-Life (or other silliness). "Beware by whom you are called sane."
Whew -- I'm getting the idea that you're as worn out with this as I am... tell ya what, you can have the last word, if ya want. I've really enjoyed this thread (tho, I'll bet other/. readers have long ago skipped it...)
To summarize: in all honesty, I dunno about poaching. In the past, yes species were hunted to extiction. It is likely that we won't do so now, since we've had some 50-100 years of conservationist thought cultivated. I leave that as an excercise for the reader.
I disagree with your giving ANY animal "rights". I have no quarrells with your giving them deferential treatment based on some sliding-scale, but, in my world view, animals can't have Rights any more than they have Responsibilties. But that's an entirely separate argument.
Stigmatizing the accepting of campaign contributions does not work either. If you'll remember, John McCain, the Campaign Finance Reform poster boy, was a member of the Keating Five (w-a-y back in the S&L bailout). The Keating Five were spanked pretty darn well. Who remembers that John McCain was one of them? I guess I'm the only one who remembers. I've never heard the media mention that fact.
I believe McCain's reform platform is an attempt to re-badge himself as a reformer and not out of any idealism: but, then, I'm a die hard cynic.
But, here again is a place where we'll agree to disagree. The important thing is that we do agree that there is too much money in politics. We disagree on the way to eliminate it.
I've avoided ad hominems. Sad you can't do the same.
Hrumph. I stand by my words, and your subtle attack on my character doesn't concern me. You should strengthen your argument instead.
Your requirement that all legislation be one hundred percent effective is a straw man. I argue only that it often creates better situations than the
absence of legislation. Laws against murder have not stopped murder, and in fact murder continues unabated. Does that mean that laws
against murder are ineffective?
And you've just constructed a man of straw yourself. I do not argue that a law must be 100% effective. I argue that market forces produce the same effects as legislation (in certain situations -- your laws against murder are an excellent example of an exception), only with quicker, cleaner and longer lasting results, with less intrusion on our freedoms.
There are restrictions against poaching because poaching is a preexisting
problem. There is legal harvesting of ivory, incidentally, yet poaching remains profitable.
Wrong. There are laws against poaching because there are people who don't like the idea of hunting elephants for sport and genuinely believe in the power of legislation to stop unwanted actions. The fact that the laws against poaching don't stop it, whereas free and full trade in ivory WOULD mean nothing to you, apparently.
There is some legal harvesting of ivory. This is NOT the same as full and free trade. There is legal harvesting of marijuana at the University of Mississippi (or, there used to be, some years ago). This does not alter the market forces, because it is legislatively limited harvesting. Try again.
The very existence of elephants (in a natural habitat) requires the continued existence of large areas of undeveloped land.
And you didn't read my post. Granted it was long winded, but you can't just read a couple of paragraphs and think you know what I said.
The African elephant is an ecological nightmare -- you are right in that they need a lot of land, because they leave a path of destruction behind them. A herd of elephants is a real problem on the African savannah. However, if ivory is desired, and the trade in ivory was not restricted, Africans could "grow" ivory through the selective breeding process, where the elephant gets smaller, but the tusks are larger. The wild elephant is left alone, as there is a ready supply of ivory at competitive market prices.
I'll explain it again, if you still don't understand. You may not like the fact that elephants would be raised for their ivory (as cattle are raised for their meat), but that's irrelavant. I don't like Mara Liasson's opinions, but that doesn't give me the right to stop her from speaking.
But huge blocs of wealth would not
be giving money to candidates if they weren't getting something in return. All you have to do is follow the money and look at the legislation: the
DMCA is a fine, fine example.
We're so close to agreement here -- are campaign contributions basically legalized bribery? I'm hard pressed to disagree with that. How do we change that?
You say, make the contributions illegal. I say, take the power to legislate outside of constitutional boundaries away from the legislators.
You didn't answer my point about the money going underground in other, less obvious ways (such as speaking fees or book deals). Your plan to make the contributions does not solve the problem of influence peddling. My plan does. Which is the better plan? "Beware by whom you are called sane."
You are trying to invent a universe where undesired actions are never beneficial, where good deeds are inherently rewarded and no one need be prohibited from doing anything. You are describing a Leibnitzian best of all possible worlds, because "in the long run" universal rational self-interest will create an acceptable equilibrium.
I argue that my "best of all possible worlds" is just as valid as your "best of all possible worlds" where legislative fiat is always done in the best interest of all (which is provably wrong). The free market works because it takes into account the nature of man (inherent selfishness and self-interest), whereas legislation tends to not work because it assumes that the legislators are working for the public good. This is sometimes true, sometimes not, and is where we get things such as the DMCA.
Or as he also said, "markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."
The current wireless technology environment is a crystal-clear example of the problems of a completely bottom-up approach towards regulatory
mechanisms, and it's one of the least damaging ones.
The free market does not promise success nor solvency, and I never claim that it did. Government control does claim that and it does not fulfill its promise.
Which wireless market are you talking about? Cell phones, wireless data, pagers, 2.4 gigahertz? You give a too general example without specifics.
The fact is that banning whale oil makes whale oil more expensive, which incentivizes alternatives.
... and also makes the black market trading of whale oil highly profitable. Go find a cocaine dealer and ask if he has a hard time finding buyers for his product.
Again, from a game theory perspective alone,
it will be more beneficial to kill the whale (remembering that careers and lifetimes are finite, and that *scarcity creates value*) unless that cost
is made greater than the cost of developing alternatives. It just *happened* that alternatives were developed to whale oil, there was nothing
necessary about human history that made it necessarily the case, and it is only laws against poaching ivory that keep the market for ivory for
exploding to such an extent that only the most desparate are willing to poach. (Do you think that deregulating the market for elephant ivory will
result in an protecting the elephant? If so, you are possessed of a faith that I can only describe as religious.)
First, I'm not talking theory, but practice. In practice, market forces are more effective than legislation.
Let's take your ivory example. Yes, I do believe that deregulating the ivory market will result in the protection of the elephant. First, to quote you, "*scarcity creates value*". Illegal ivory is scarce, thus valuable. *Legal* ivory (grown for the purpose, just like cattle for beef) is not nearly as scarce, and thus less valuable.
If ivory is deregulated, there will be ranchers in Africa breeding elephants for their ivory. (Breeding them, I might add, to increase the size of their tusks and decrease their overall size (increasing elephant density))
You might think my belief is "religious", but I can only ascribe your belief as "insane, possibly clinically retarded", because trading in ivory *is* illegal -- and yet poaching continues, and the elephant population continues to decline. To continue to believe in the power of legislation is moronic.
I invite you to spend time in a truly unregulated society, like many in the third world, before you wax too enthusiastically about it.
To call the Third World unregulated is also intellectually devoid. The Third World has nothing BUT regulation, by the government or the army (frequently these are one and the same).
Going back to the original point, campaign finance reform essentially removes the inflationary pressures on the political process, because in any
market where there is a competition between different agents for a limited resource (political loyalty), the agent that has more to offer will win.
To turn an old phrase, one person/one vote has been supplanted by one dollar/one vote, and dollars are not distributed evenly or fairly.
You're creating a philosophy around a bumper sticker (one dollar, one vote). If we banned ALL money from the political process, do you think that will eliminate the influence of the monied from the political process? The exchange of money just changes location.
For proof, I offer "soft" money itself. The "campaign finance reform" of the Nixon era (where they capped personal contributions as $1000) forced the "special interests" to contribute to the general party fund instead of individual candidates, creating the "soft" money problem we have today.
Suddenly, rather than buying Senators and congressmen individually, the "special interests" could buy the Democratic and Republican parties both by contributing to the parties rather than individual candidates.
So, you ban "soft" money. You just move the "special interest" influence even deeper underground -- lobbyists going to Senators and offering lucrative speaking fees after they retire, for example, or offering to build offices in the representative's district -- not eliminate it. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Whereas I have NO faith in the inherent goodness of man, I say "make Phillip-Morris succeed in the marketplace, where at least they have to *convice* me to smoke Camels".
Pshaw -- I'm against the Cuban embargo, but Cuba's problems most certainly are the result of Communist ideals. AFAIK, the US is the only country with an embargo -- Cuba ought to be doing just fine with the trade with France, Canado, Brazil, U.K., etc. The fact that they are not (or, at least, the people are not -- Castro himself is worth billions) is an indictment of Communism.
The way to fight Communism is with capitalism, and that's by allowing Americans to trade freely with Communists. It doesn't take long before the Communists are overthrown by default. But that's a different argument. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
Ahh, I see where you're coming from. I disagree, generally. I specifically disagree with:
I don't believe that markets exist a priori.
Ah, but they do, at least as I read my fellow man's nature.
To simplify, I'll establish givens: there are two people in the entire world, you and me. We live on separate islands. You have all the coconuts and I have all the banannas. If I want a coconut, you must give it to me, and vice versa for the banannas.
(Now, if we both had a bananna tree and a coconut tree, we could live in utopian bliss, but the reality is not this way)
Given more than a single person, and given an inequity in the natural distribution of resources, a market exists. This is how the world exists.
Even the most
primitive, personal markets rely on social 'guarantees'. As markets grow, the players come to rely on laws to enforce standards which make
impersonal trade possible.
This is the nub from which (I believe) most political argument stems from, i.e. where government's role begins in society's interactions. I believe it's place is towards the very end, where there is the least chance of totalitarianism.
My assertion is that bad standards are still more
enabling than no standards at all.
You imply that the market has no standards, when in fact the market creates its own standards. A participant in the market (say we add a third person and a third island in our world who has an apple tree) must meet these developed standards, or they implicitly stop being a market participant. For example, I trade a bananna for an apple with the apple guy. I plan give him a good bananna, but he plans to give me a wormy apple.
There are a few ways to deal with this: we can A) hire you to mediate our exchange (escrow service) by paying you a bananna and an apple each to act as an intermediary to ensure quality, B) trust each other to do the proper thing under consequences of never doing business again, C) everybody pays a fourth party (government) to protect us from each other, at the cost of one bananna/apple/coconut a year for the government, one bananna/apple/coconut for the beauracracy to support that government, and one B/A/C for the burly guys to enforce the government's standards.
Now, we may disagree as to which is best (trust, private escrow service, government force), but to say that there are either government standards or NO standards is simply wrong.
This can be observed on the internet where parties have that choice, and time and again prefer imperfect
standards to none all.
Which standards do you mean? Protocol standards? There are no enforceable standards for protocols, as evidinced by the evolution of the HTML "standard" -- created by Tim Berners Lee, hijacked by Netscape, then Microsoft. The Internet "marketplace" decides what is the standard, not a central body. I suppose you can go to a lower level and claim that TCP/IP is a standard, but even it changed and evolved over time.
The Internet is a poor example of your point of view, since it is closer to a pure market than anything else. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
Money given to a person for political ends is political speech. Like it or not, that's what the courts have ruled. Money given to, say, a judge to make them rule in your favor is bribery. It is not political speech.
I happen to also think campaign donations are tantemount to bribery, but that is because of the power that is ascribed to Congress. Take away the power for Congress to control so many aspects of our lives and business, the campaign contributions would dry up pretty quickly.
Whether you agree with it or not, it's protected, as protected as flag-burning and other forms of non-verbal speech.
If I wanted to give $10 million to the Libertarian party so they could run a proper campaign, why shouldn't I be able to do that? You're going to tell me a) how I can spend my money, and b) what forms of political thought I can support with it? No offense, but who are you to say?
As for your second point, I think we've been derailed -- I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're complaing about "it's an excuse", I answer that here. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
sorry you're living in a fantasy land on this point. "i gotta compete" is an excuse? its not an excuse its simple economics. if company A uses
child labor and makes a product 3 times cheaper than company B and both companies are within the law then company B simply cannot survive.
its true they *can* hire more expensive labor but they cannot do that *and* stay in business unless their competition does the same.
If competing products must be created in exactly the same way, then where the hell did Linux come from?
If a company doesn't want to use child labor (I don't like this example, because it makes it look like I'm in favor of child labor, which I'm not. But, that's what I'm given, so I'll run with it) they can either:
A) Hire more expensive labor. The labor is three times the cost of children, but they can do three times the work
B) Upgrade the plant to automate more of the work (i.e. spend money on R & D)
C) Replace the children (1 to 1 ratio) with adult labor, but cut costs elsewhere (for example, executive salaries)
There are other ways that I can think of, but that's enough to prove the point. The difference is that it's easier to get the legislation passed than to do real work.
Child labor is a poor example, since it's easy to come down against child labor.
I distrust legislation as a means by which to effect social change, because it's so easily politicized. Child labor laws happened to work out fairly well, but what if we took the same tact with whale oil to protect the whales? Say we made whale oil illegal to sell. A black market would have sprung up overnight to sell whale oil. Black market prices are generally obscene and high-profit. Every whale found would be killed for it's oil.
Instead, petroleum by-products were created that became cheaper than whale oil, and plastics replaced whale bone for corset stays. The market for whale oil dried up on it's own, without the intervention of governments or legislation. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
Mostly, I think, you'll find that it's true. Truisms are that way, I've found. If you give a group of people the power to control commerce, the lords of commerce will do everything in their power to influence those in control of commerce.
Is a pure free market perfect? No. Would there be imbalances? Yes. Does legislation change that? No, it just moves the imbalances around a bit. At least in the free market, you don't already have to be rich in order to get rich.
(Russia post Perestroika is a perfect examlpe of this. Suddenly 'free' markets, but without any laws and institutions to support it -- no, the old
regime was not "in the way", please, it was on the floor -- and BOOM, the economy didn't take off, it fell through the floor.)
I know very little about Russia, except what I read and hear about. I'm willing to bet that you don't have much first-hand knowledge either (or you'll lie and say you do).
But what I've read from people who have been to Russia before, during, and after the fall of Communism find that it's better now. Granted, they tend to be free-marketeers themselves, but at least they've been there.
However, please don't confuse yourself and think that the Communists were giving out accurate economic numbers when they were in power. You're comparing free(ish) market numbers to Communist Politburo numbers, which is ridiculous. You don't know what the economy was before the free(ish) market, so don't tell me it fell through the floor.
Ok, I bit. I think my point is relevant to the entire uninformative post.
You "bit". You think I'm a troll? Oh, I see, if I attack your dogma, I'm a troll. If I agree with you, I'm "Informative". I take it you're all for Communism, then? Cuba's got lots of room, I hear, with all those people risking their lives to escape it.
I simply posit that to put your faith in legislation to make the world safer, healthier, shinier is to buy into the worst sorts of totalinarianism fantasy. If you cluster power in one place, that place spawns corruption in equal parts. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
Well, you're right about UCITA. I got my panties in a knot and went overboard. Bleargh, I hate it when I make obvious mistakes...
Congress had no right to pass these laws in the first place, except for the occasional 10th Amendment nut.
The tenth amendment neither expands nor contracts federal (congressional) or state powers. It just says that governmental privileges not explicitly
granted to the federal congress and not explicitly denied the states, is granted to the states. Thus, it certainly doesn't expand the powers of the
federal congress, as you suggest.
I most certainly did NOT suggest any such thing. Read it again -- I was saying that I had not heard anybody except 10 Amendment nuts (I mean that in a nice way) saying that the Federal Congress had no business making any such laws.
"Don't worry, I'm writing a NEW law that sucks differently!"
Rep. Boucher actually does want to amend the DMCA and reaffirm the fact that fair use trumps DMCA protections. Give him some credit --
what he suggests is a significant improvement over the status quo.
I will not give any federal representative credit when the fix they propose is no better than the original mess it made.
The best thing is for the DMCA to be tested by the courts, and for them to strike the law down. The way checks and balances work is that Congress can pass any damn fool law they want, but the courts run clean-up behind them. At least, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
If Boucher wants to fix it, he needs to work to repeal the law altogether -- and while he's at it, spend his time keeping Congress from doing MORE damage.
Instead, he's posting answers to Slashdot questions, and the prole-feed he's feeding us is being swallowed whole by a scary majority of readers. I would have figured the Slashdot crowd to be a rather cynical bunch, but they're falling over themselves to worship at the alter of Boucher. I took a look at Boucher's legislative record on his own site: tobacco giveaways, fiddling with bankruptcy laws, health insurace giveaways to children, prescription medicine for seniors, and a partridge in a pear tree.
I'm very difficult to please, I guess, but I'm not impressed. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
I have heard this excuse used repeatedly, but unfortunately doesn't hold water on multiple levels.
One, political speech is a sacred and protected right in our Constitution. The donation of money has been upheld as a form of speech. It is protected speech.
Two, politics is one place where idealism can hold sway. A person or party who believes in something should stand on that platform and demonstrate a little leadership. In your child labor example, the factory owners can most certainly hire non-child labor. They use the "I gotta compete" excuse as just that: an excuse.
Three, the flavor of campaign finance reform changed radically this election cycle as the Democrats raised as much "soft" money as the Republicans. Suddenly, Dems aren't the Finance Reform Firebrands they were a year ago.
Four, if you think that our Congress REALLY wants less money to play with, try talking to them about tax cuts. "Beware by whom you are called sane."
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, a fair percentage of that is "filler" for MS to spend money on in preparation for future cuts to make the numbers better, but regardless of that: 16%!!!
That's quite a percentage. For example, GM R&D was $6.6 billion in 2000 on $184 billion in revenues, or 3% of operations.
Is RedHat going to be the MS of Linux? Not unless they spend money on R&D -- and is that money down the tubes, considering the nature of Free software? That's what I'd like to hear Bob's opinion on...
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
As much respect I have for Alan Cox, one man does not an R&D team make. Do you know how many millions MS puts into "pure" R&D?
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Hi Bob!
My question to you is, when you allocate part of your budget to R&D, are you in fact cutting your own throat? (How's that for a loaded question?)
To expand, why should I use a RedHat distribution, since it mainly isn't terribly different from a SuSE, Debian, or Caldera, unless RedHat has something that the others don't.
But, RedHat can't develop a major system enhancement within large portions of the OS because of the nature of Free software. RedHat can only develop a proprietary userland applications (which, granted, isn't all that bad -- it leaves you plenty of room for powerful applications) because any major system enhancement that RedHat develops can almost immediately be absorbed by your "competitors". Thus, the profit-motive is significantly depressed (if not removed) from pure R&D.
I understand that RedHat doesn't make significant revenues from OS sales -- I ask the question in terms of bugetary policy within the company and how it may (or may not) affect the decision-making process.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
You're welcome to disagree, but I'm a bit amazed at your vitriol.
Bar none? Then both I and Steve Wozniak are knuckleheads? You're either one hell of an asshole or an idiot, then.
In my experience as an unofficial computer support person, I have fewer problems with Mac users than Wintel users. I can match you anecdote for anecdote, if that's your wish.
But there was nothing to compete with it until about 1991 or so, when Windows really started to make inroads with 3.0. But, of course, you just wanted to spew venom in an unfocused rage. My mistake...
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Yes, it is. The first is a lie (okay, 90% untruth, or deliberate fudge). The second is filling a desire in the marketplace.
Don't try to be cute if you're going to be wrong.
*sigh* The large majority of any random group of computer users don't understand how their system works. This doesn't prove your point.
A *larger* majority of drivers have no *clue* how an internal combustion engine works! However, the group that drives BMWs or Mercedes tend to be savvier drivers than drive Camaros or Trans Ams or Firebirds.
I know it's dangerous to use an automobile analogy, but I'll try to head off the complaint I know you'll have:
"But those are more expensive!"
Yes, so are Macs (in general). However, I'm speaking from a quality/performance perspective. A Trans/Camaro/Firebird driver might or might not go for a BMW or Mercedes if price were not an issue, but a BMW or Mercedes driver would NEVER go to a Trans/Camaro/Bird, regardless of price.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Did Tim Berners-Lee get peer review on his first prototypes of the Web? No, he polished it up a bit, then released. That's Next-Gen stuff -- think of it as "inventing the chair" then "sanding the chair".
The original poster was bitching that he was a good programmer -- I was partially saying that XP won't really affect him (unless he's in a shop that enforces it, of course), and partially challenging his assertion that he was a good programmer.
However, I'd be careful about making generalizations about long-term strategies for a software shop. The industry hasn't been around long enough for such statements to be made, especially when the state-of-the-art changes every 8 months or so.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Okay, in your order:
One, no, not sarcasm.
Two, I said "YOUR coding style and abilities ..." If he's in a shop that enforces the XP style, then that is different. But if a shop uses it, it does not affect his chosen method of working. XP doesn't leech over the I'net to infect other hackers.
Three, I have no clue -- I do not use XP, nor do I know much beyond it other than the fluff pieces linked in this story. But, the idea that a process can be developed in the creation of code does imply that it is not in and of itself a creative act -- which may be true for certain projects (such as an accounting program for a bulk mailer), but not for ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting things like the Web.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
I dunno about this -- the most computer illiterate people are Wintel's primary demographic. This is why Intel promotes the Pentium III to make your Internet faster (and gets away with it).
Apple's demographic tends to be holier-than-thou arty types and interface nuts. My experience is that Mac OS users tend to be very computer aware, if not literate, because since 1991 or so, you have to have really loved the Mac OS to put up with expensive hardware, corporate idiocy, and really, really poor (official) technical support.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
As a (good) "programmer", your responsibilities involve developing the next-level stuff (a QuickTime, CORBA, or HTTP). It is not to produce accounting code for a bulk mail outfit.
However, accounting code for a bulk mail outfit is important, and thus it benefits from a formal, rigid, factory-style coding practice used by mindless drones (or good programmers who might be slumming for the hell of it).
Your coding style and abilities are in no way affected by Extreme Programming. Think of Extreme Programming as a method by which middling programmers (like myself) can benefit from and use to expand upon the High Art produced from good programmers such as yourself.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
An unfortunate side effect of high intelligence is a remarkable lack of patience for lesser intelligences.
Thus, a routing guru may have a very good reason for dismissing your proposal out of hand, but feels that it's beneath his intellect to talk down to you in terms you can understand.
Whether this is good or not is irrelavent. It's just the way we're wired.
Personally, I think your idea has merit, but then my idea of complicated routing is getting my home and office wired together across different providers. I'm no guru.
A real guru, with the vision to see beyond your idea in totality may take the idea and run with it in a similar, if not same, direction, and come up with a great solution. I wouldn't count on it, though. I've found that really, really talented/skilled people are very, very focused on their talent/skill. Thus, as a prima donna ballerina is a great dancer but sucks at fixing your car, a routing guru may not have the right-brain capability to think outside the box of routing table rules.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Absolutely true, and absolutely unfortunate.
I only mention it to make people who may not be aware that it *can* happen, not that it *always* happens.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
There's something to be said for bullying, though...
(bear with me here -- obviously this doesn't apply to everybody, nor every situation -- but it is a datapoint to be plotted)
My cousin had a minor speech impediment as a young child. He still does, though you can barely notice it. He went to a speech therapist, which helped, but as a stutterer myself, I know the kind of torment young kids could inflict on somebody "different". However, you develop defense mechanisms.
His mechanism (as was mine) was to not talk very much. I had a reputation for being very quiet, and as a consequence, I did a lot of *listening*, as did my cousin.
My cousin, now, is working on finishing his Aerospace engineering degree, with a 4.0 average. He is one smart dude -- and I believe it came from his youth, when he was listening, rather than talking.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
If that joker is a leet haxor, then so am I.
This was a 15 year old wanking a gullible adult. A real criminal (one smart enough to be making "6 figures") does not brag about his exploits, and certainly do not write diaries to be published on MSNBC.
Hell, for $250, I'll yank that reporter's chain, and give him a better diary, too. Drop me an email, guy, and I'll give you a Great Gatsby-like retelling of how I
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Okay, better way of saying it -- Congress has no right to *regulate* these, based on my reading of the Constitution.
Congress has a few, well defined functions. Beyond those, it is encroachment upon the States, or the people.
The reason we have a Constitution is to prevent the "law-making body of my/our land" from declaring themselves God/King-For-Life (or other silliness).
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Whew -- I'm getting the idea that you're as worn out with this as I am... tell ya what, you can have the last word, if ya want. I've really enjoyed this thread (tho, I'll bet other /. readers have long ago skipped it...)
To summarize: in all honesty, I dunno about poaching. In the past, yes species were hunted to extiction. It is likely that we won't do so now, since we've had some 50-100 years of conservationist thought cultivated. I leave that as an excercise for the reader.
I disagree with your giving ANY animal "rights". I have no quarrells with your giving them deferential treatment based on some sliding-scale, but, in my world view, animals can't have Rights any more than they have Responsibilties. But that's an entirely separate argument.
Stigmatizing the accepting of campaign contributions does not work either. If you'll remember, John McCain, the Campaign Finance Reform poster boy, was a member of the Keating Five (w-a-y back in the S&L bailout). The Keating Five were spanked pretty darn well. Who remembers that John McCain was one of them? I guess I'm the only one who remembers. I've never heard the media mention that fact.
I believe McCain's reform platform is an attempt to re-badge himself as a reformer and not out of any idealism: but, then, I'm a die hard cynic.
But, here again is a place where we'll agree to disagree. The important thing is that we do agree that there is too much money in politics. We disagree on the way to eliminate it.
Maybe we can let the market sort it out? :)
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Hrumph. I stand by my words, and your subtle attack on my character doesn't concern me. You should strengthen your argument instead.
And you've just constructed a man of straw yourself. I do not argue that a law must be 100% effective. I argue that market forces produce the same effects as legislation (in certain situations -- your laws against murder are an excellent example of an exception), only with quicker, cleaner and longer lasting results, with less intrusion on our freedoms.
Wrong. There are laws against poaching because there are people who don't like the idea of hunting elephants for sport and genuinely believe in the power of legislation to stop unwanted actions. The fact that the laws against poaching don't stop it, whereas free and full trade in ivory WOULD mean nothing to you, apparently.
There is some legal harvesting of ivory. This is NOT the same as full and free trade. There is legal harvesting of marijuana at the University of Mississippi (or, there used to be, some years ago). This does not alter the market forces, because it is legislatively limited harvesting. Try again.
And you didn't read my post. Granted it was long winded, but you can't just read a couple of paragraphs and think you know what I said.
The African elephant is an ecological nightmare -- you are right in that they need a lot of land, because they leave a path of destruction behind them. A herd of elephants is a real problem on the African savannah. However, if ivory is desired, and the trade in ivory was not restricted, Africans could "grow" ivory through the selective breeding process, where the elephant gets smaller, but the tusks are larger. The wild elephant is left alone, as there is a ready supply of ivory at competitive market prices.
I'll explain it again, if you still don't understand. You may not like the fact that elephants would be raised for their ivory (as cattle are raised for their meat), but that's irrelavant. I don't like Mara Liasson's opinions, but that doesn't give me the right to stop her from speaking.
We're so close to agreement here -- are campaign contributions basically legalized bribery? I'm hard pressed to disagree with that. How do we change that?
You say, make the contributions illegal. I say, take the power to legislate outside of constitutional boundaries away from the legislators.
You didn't answer my point about the money going underground in other, less obvious ways (such as speaking fees or book deals). Your plan to make the contributions does not solve the problem of influence peddling. My plan does. Which is the better plan?
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
I argue that my "best of all possible worlds" is just as valid as your "best of all possible worlds" where legislative fiat is always done in the best interest of all (which is provably wrong). The free market works because it takes into account the nature of man (inherent selfishness and self-interest), whereas legislation tends to not work because it assumes that the legislators are working for the public good. This is sometimes true, sometimes not, and is where we get things such as the DMCA.
The free market does not promise success nor solvency, and I never claim that it did. Government control does claim that and it does not fulfill its promise.
Which wireless market are you talking about? Cell phones, wireless data, pagers, 2.4 gigahertz? You give a too general example without specifics.
... and also makes the black market trading of whale oil highly profitable. Go find a cocaine dealer and ask if he has a hard time finding buyers for his product.
First, I'm not talking theory, but practice. In practice, market forces are more effective than legislation.
Let's take your ivory example. Yes, I do believe that deregulating the ivory market will result in the protection of the elephant. First, to quote you, "*scarcity creates value*". Illegal ivory is scarce, thus valuable. *Legal* ivory (grown for the purpose, just like cattle for beef) is not nearly as scarce, and thus less valuable.
If ivory is deregulated, there will be ranchers in Africa breeding elephants for their ivory. (Breeding them, I might add, to increase the size of their tusks and decrease their overall size (increasing elephant density))
You might think my belief is "religious", but I can only ascribe your belief as "insane, possibly clinically retarded", because trading in ivory *is* illegal -- and yet poaching continues, and the elephant population continues to decline. To continue to believe in the power of legislation is moronic.
To call the Third World unregulated is also intellectually devoid. The Third World has nothing BUT regulation, by the government or the army (frequently these are one and the same).
You're creating a philosophy around a bumper sticker (one dollar, one vote). If we banned ALL money from the political process, do you think that will eliminate the influence of the monied from the political process? The exchange of money just changes location.
For proof, I offer "soft" money itself. The "campaign finance reform" of the Nixon era (where they capped personal contributions as $1000) forced the "special interests" to contribute to the general party fund instead of individual candidates, creating the "soft" money problem we have today.
Suddenly, rather than buying Senators and congressmen individually, the "special interests" could buy the Democratic and Republican parties both by contributing to the parties rather than individual candidates.
So, you ban "soft" money. You just move the "special interest" influence even deeper underground -- lobbyists going to Senators and offering lucrative speaking fees after they retire, for example, or offering to build offices in the representative's district -- not eliminate it. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Whereas I have NO faith in the inherent goodness of man, I say "make Phillip-Morris succeed in the marketplace, where at least they have to *convice* me to smoke Camels".
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Pshaw -- I'm against the Cuban embargo, but Cuba's problems most certainly are the result of Communist ideals. AFAIK, the US is the only country with an embargo -- Cuba ought to be doing just fine with the trade with France, Canado, Brazil, U.K., etc. The fact that they are not (or, at least, the people are not -- Castro himself is worth billions) is an indictment of Communism.
The way to fight Communism is with capitalism, and that's by allowing Americans to trade freely with Communists. It doesn't take long before the Communists are overthrown by default. But that's a different argument.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Ahh, I see where you're coming from. I disagree, generally. I specifically disagree with:
Ah, but they do, at least as I read my fellow man's nature.
To simplify, I'll establish givens: there are two people in the entire world, you and me. We live on separate islands. You have all the coconuts and I have all the banannas. If I want a coconut, you must give it to me, and vice versa for the banannas.
(Now, if we both had a bananna tree and a coconut tree, we could live in utopian bliss, but the reality is not this way)
Given more than a single person, and given an inequity in the natural distribution of resources, a market exists. This is how the world exists.
This is the nub from which (I believe) most political argument stems from, i.e. where government's role begins in society's interactions. I believe it's place is towards the very end, where there is the least chance of totalitarianism.
You imply that the market has no standards, when in fact the market creates its own standards. A participant in the market (say we add a third person and a third island in our world who has an apple tree) must meet these developed standards, or they implicitly stop being a market participant. For example, I trade a bananna for an apple with the apple guy. I plan give him a good bananna, but he plans to give me a wormy apple.
There are a few ways to deal with this: we can A) hire you to mediate our exchange (escrow service) by paying you a bananna and an apple each to act as an intermediary to ensure quality, B) trust each other to do the proper thing under consequences of never doing business again, C) everybody pays a fourth party (government) to protect us from each other, at the cost of one bananna/apple/coconut a year for the government, one bananna/apple/coconut for the beauracracy to support that government, and one B/A/C for the burly guys to enforce the government's standards.
Now, we may disagree as to which is best (trust, private escrow service, government force), but to say that there are either government standards or NO standards is simply wrong.
Which standards do you mean? Protocol standards? There are no enforceable standards for protocols, as evidinced by the evolution of the HTML "standard" -- created by Tim Berners Lee, hijacked by Netscape, then Microsoft. The Internet "marketplace" decides what is the standard, not a central body. I suppose you can go to a lower level and claim that TCP/IP is a standard, but even it changed and evolved over time.
The Internet is a poor example of your point of view, since it is closer to a pure market than anything else.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Money given to a person for political ends is political speech. Like it or not, that's what the courts have ruled. Money given to, say, a judge to make them rule in your favor is bribery. It is not political speech.
I happen to also think campaign donations are tantemount to bribery, but that is because of the power that is ascribed to Congress. Take away the power for Congress to control so many aspects of our lives and business, the campaign contributions would dry up pretty quickly.
Whether you agree with it or not, it's protected, as protected as flag-burning and other forms of non-verbal speech.
If I wanted to give $10 million to the Libertarian party so they could run a proper campaign, why shouldn't I be able to do that? You're going to tell me a) how I can spend my money, and b) what forms of political thought I can support with it? No offense, but who are you to say?
As for your second point, I think we've been derailed -- I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're complaing about "it's an excuse", I answer that here.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
If competing products must be created in exactly the same way, then where the hell did Linux come from?
If a company doesn't want to use child labor (I don't like this example, because it makes it look like I'm in favor of child labor, which I'm not. But, that's what I'm given, so I'll run with it) they can either:
A) Hire more expensive labor. The labor is three times the cost of children, but they can do three times the work
B) Upgrade the plant to automate more of the work (i.e. spend money on R & D)
C) Replace the children (1 to 1 ratio) with adult labor, but cut costs elsewhere (for example, executive salaries)
There are other ways that I can think of, but that's enough to prove the point. The difference is that it's easier to get the legislation passed than to do real work.
Child labor is a poor example, since it's easy to come down against child labor.
I distrust legislation as a means by which to effect social change, because it's so easily politicized. Child labor laws happened to work out fairly well, but what if we took the same tact with whale oil to protect the whales? Say we made whale oil illegal to sell. A black market would have sprung up overnight to sell whale oil. Black market prices are generally obscene and high-profit. Every whale found would be killed for it's oil.
Instead, petroleum by-products were created that became cheaper than whale oil, and plastics replaced whale bone for corset stays. The market for whale oil dried up on it's own, without the intervention of governments or legislation.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
I'm with you all the way to the end, where you say
"Progressive" scares me, as much as "conservative" does. Progressive for who or for what?
If they'd just leave us alone, we'll figure it out ourselves, and without all the hassle.
I'm sorry you're in Helm's land, but I've got you beat -- I'm in MS, so I have to claim Trent Lott and Thad Cochran. Bleargh...
(disclaimer: I voted for Browne in 1996 and 2000)
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
I dunno -- people who think it's insightful/informative? Who are you to second-guess other's opinions? As we shall see, a fan of Communism....
I'll agree it's ideological, but myopic? Please explain how, I'm curious.
Mostly, I think, you'll find that it's true. Truisms are that way, I've found. If you give a group of people the power to control commerce, the lords of commerce will do everything in their power to influence those in control of commerce.
Is a pure free market perfect? No. Would there be imbalances? Yes. Does legislation change that? No, it just moves the imbalances around a bit. At least in the free market, you don't already have to be rich in order to get rich.
I know very little about Russia, except what I read and hear about. I'm willing to bet that you don't have much first-hand knowledge either (or you'll lie and say you do).
But what I've read from people who have been to Russia before, during, and after the fall of Communism find that it's better now. Granted, they tend to be free-marketeers themselves, but at least they've been there.
However, please don't confuse yourself and think that the Communists were giving out accurate economic numbers when they were in power. You're comparing free(ish) market numbers to Communist Politburo numbers, which is ridiculous. You don't know what the economy was before the free(ish) market, so don't tell me it fell through the floor.
You "bit". You think I'm a troll? Oh, I see, if I attack your dogma, I'm a troll. If I agree with you, I'm "Informative". I take it you're all for Communism, then? Cuba's got lots of room, I hear, with all those people risking their lives to escape it.
I simply posit that to put your faith in legislation to make the world safer, healthier, shinier is to buy into the worst sorts of totalinarianism fantasy. If you cluster power in one place, that place spawns corruption in equal parts.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Well, you're right about UCITA. I got my panties in a knot and went overboard. Bleargh, I hate it when I make obvious mistakes...
I most certainly did NOT suggest any such thing. Read it again -- I was saying that I had not heard anybody except 10 Amendment nuts (I mean that in a nice way) saying that the Federal Congress had no business making any such laws.
I will not give any federal representative credit when the fix they propose is no better than the original mess it made.
The best thing is for the DMCA to be tested by the courts, and for them to strike the law down. The way checks and balances work is that Congress can pass any damn fool law they want, but the courts run clean-up behind them. At least, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
If Boucher wants to fix it, he needs to work to repeal the law altogether -- and while he's at it, spend his time keeping Congress from doing MORE damage.
Instead, he's posting answers to Slashdot questions, and the prole-feed he's feeding us is being swallowed whole by a scary majority of readers. I would have figured the Slashdot crowd to be a rather cynical bunch, but they're falling over themselves to worship at the alter of Boucher. I took a look at Boucher's legislative record on his own site: tobacco giveaways, fiddling with bankruptcy laws, health insurace giveaways to children, prescription medicine for seniors, and a partridge in a pear tree.
I'm very difficult to please, I guess, but I'm not impressed.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
I have heard this excuse used repeatedly, but unfortunately doesn't hold water on multiple levels.
One, political speech is a sacred and protected right in our Constitution. The donation of money has been upheld as a form of speech. It is protected speech.
Two, politics is one place where idealism can hold sway. A person or party who believes in something should stand on that platform and demonstrate a little leadership. In your child labor example, the factory owners can most certainly hire non-child labor. They use the "I gotta compete" excuse as just that: an excuse.
Three, the flavor of campaign finance reform changed radically this election cycle as the Democrats raised as much "soft" money as the Republicans. Suddenly, Dems aren't the Finance Reform Firebrands they were a year ago.
Four, if you think that our Congress REALLY wants less money to play with, try talking to them about tax cuts.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."