G4dget said: " As far as I'm concerned, Java has stagnated and become bloated over the last few years. And I don't think Java is a good platform for open source development (since important parts of the platform are not available in open source form)."
I agree with your entire post, which I think stated very eloquently what's going on with Java, but the above line resonated with me in particular. I run pretty old equipment, and I don't tend to spend very much bread on PCs (especially laptops, one accidental drop and they're paperweights) so the bloat issue is pretty important to me.
One of the nicer things about open source software is that you can generally get it to work pretty well on older equipment. Red Hat Linux 7.3 with KDE works fine on a Pentium 166MMX with 96MB ram. Applications load pretty quickly, everything seems smooth... This is one of the strengths of Linux, for me at least. So it pains me that Java is such a memory hog (the recommended environment for Forte, for example, which was written in Java, is 512MB Ram, minimum -- my little laptops have maybe 96MB). So on my little laptops, big Linux apps run slowly, and take forever to load (if they load correctly at all). In my view, an elegant language would let you write for older machines... Java doesn't, really.
Maybe Mono will do a better job there. If they're going to use it to develop for Gnome and etc, then they're going to have to figure out how to get it to be small-machine friendly like the rest of Linux. I'm pretty sure they're already working on that... Open Source guys are pretty good about that sort of thing.
As far as IBM goes, their implementation might be a little tighter than Sun's, who knows? It'll be interesting to find out.
An enterprise application is one with multiple components, geographically distributed, using multiple protocols and techniques to integrate the activities of a number of different people and/or departments.
A good example would be an application in which clients can submit orders/requests via a web page, adding an order/request record to a database. This stage uses a web server, middleware, and a database server. The next stage is one in which an employee of one department interacts with the record using an intranet or client-server application. This stage could be repeated in several departments, like order intake, shipping, customer service, etc. Another stage is one in which whatever the client requested is actually delivered. This could be handled as part of the previous stage, or maybe be its own stage by involving an outside party like Fedex and personal handling of the order/request by a live person (a sales call, etc).
So, in my view, the basic idea is that it's a company-wide system which involves a bunch of departments, potentially more than one database, clients, employees, and interested third parties.
What do you think, guys? Is this a workable definition?
Twitter said: "I say it is entirely possible that corporate America will not stay clueless forever and will discover, free software. This will end the wasteful duplication of closed source software and indeed require local talent to oversee and develop. Those in corporate America who move in that direction first will realize many savings."
Hang on a minute. I said that corporate America is greedy, short-sighted and stupid. I didn't say clueless, and I didn't say anything about open source. I wholly agree with you that corporate America is going to latch onto open source. I think they're going to cling to it like a swollen leech, because they'll perceive it as a way of breaking out of Microsoft licensing agreements and whatnot -- it's about money for them, and always has been. Stability and security are nice, but when's the last time you met a manager who understood these things in any depth?
However, this has NOTHING to do with outsourcing. If anything, open source makes outsourcing much easier, because they can hire outsourcing companies to handle all their open source modifications, and they don't have to worry about negotiating with any software companies for rights. And, as far as requiring "local talent" to oversee and develop, I've never seen a company hire ANYONE permanantly to develop software. They hire consultants (usually from outsourcing companies like Wipro) to build out their systems, then maintain them. You're missing the whole dynamic here.
This is coming. There's nothing we can do about it. And, those of us who prepare for it by going heavily local will have a serious head start when the shoe drops.
As far as utility companies go, well, so much for THAT idea. Thanks for the heads up. On the other hand, you can make some pretty decent money by becoming a technician for a utility. My brother in law works for ConEd, and he's doing pretty well. Of course, his beat is down in the Bronx, and the utility tunnels he works in are really, really old and strange places -- he's seen rats as big as small dogs, and walls moving, where upon shining his lamp on them, tens of millions of cockroaches freaked out and ran in every direction! He said they're inches deep, like a river of bugs. Still -- it beats flipping burgers, and kind of hard to outsource!
MrResistor said: "The hole in your arguement is self defense. Killing people is illegal, but if I can prove it was self defense I won't be punished for it."
This is not a hole. While it may be true that IF someone is trying to kill me, and therefore is presenting an immediate threat to my life, THEN I am permitted to use appropriate force and possibly even kill him without getting in trouble, this has nothing whatsoever to do with some hacker kid flooding my network. A DOS attack is simply not a direct threat to your life or limb and so you cannot use self defense as a defense. This is a false analogy.
A better analogy would be the case where someone was committing libel against you. You are entitled to get a lawyer, seek an injunction against the person, obtain a court order forcing them to stop... But (for example) If they're talking trash about you on a radio station, you're not entitled to break in at 4AM and use a baseball bat on the transmitter, or sneak up on the roof and cut down the antenna with an acetylene torch. Trying a stunt like that goes right over the line into criminal activity. Just as trying to hack a hacker is criminal activity, whether you tell yourself it's self defense or not.
It sucks, but if your ISP won't help you find another ISP. Or get a lawyer, and get a court order. Sue the hacker's ISP. Sue the hacker. Basically, DO SOMETHING (LEGAL) ABOUT IT. Running around like a villager with a coil of rope, a torch and a pitchfork isn't going to get you any satisfaction. It might get you put in jail for a while though.
I've just thought of one more thing: some sectors which might have trouble outsourcing could be the utilities, telephone and cable companies, regional ISPs, etc... So a clever IT professional might be able to find good work in such an industry. Actually, a range of jobs will probably survive in all sectors like this. So that's cool too.
It might not work out all that badly for us overall... It won't be the Great Depression again, maybe just depressing.
Interesting note: the article mentioned that as education becomes more widespread in India and conditions there improve, companies like Wipro will probably end up outsourcing to even less expensive countries like Thailand because wages in India won't be cheap anymore! How's that for irony? Work for American companies will be handled by Indian companies which contract out to, say, Cambodian companies (which may in turn subcontract elsewhere). Amazing.
First, the outsourcing trend is going to worsen. Corporate America is going to increasingly ship its IT work overseas to companies like Wipro. Mostly this is because corporate America is greedy, short-sighted, and fairly stupid, and has absolutely no problem with skewering the economy and destroying the middle class if they can squeeze a little more profit out of the system in the short term. India, which seems fairly pragmatic and which wants to improve its position, will capitalize on this and take all the work given it. This doesn't make India evil; the SITUATION is pretty rotten for the US though.
The result of this is that the U.S. IT industry is going to be gutted. As companies discover that outsourcing works, they'll outsource other jobs as well, including that of the managers who fired all the IT staff. Why have IT staff in India and not managers? Move everyone offshore except the executive, sales, and client-service staff. Hell, even some of those can go -- India is already the site of several call centers.
As a result of this trend, which will accelerate over time, the only jobs available in the US that pay well will be for executives and support staff. The only corporate IT that's going to be done in the US is going to be low-level tech support (for the executives) and some consulting (for network setup at a new location, etc). The consulting will mostly be done by -- you guessed it -- Indian representiatives of consulting firms. There may be a few Americans left, who suck it up and take the low salaries. Who knows?
There will still be a middle class, it'll just be a lot smaller. They'll be people who do things that you just can't outsource. Mechanics. Plumbers. Electricians and carpenters. Cops and Firemen. They'll be local, and they'll serve their communities. Computer repairmen might make a living doing house calls. You might be able to make some money setting up home networks and such. Government will still be strong, and lots of programmers (and a whole variety of other white-collar workers) will work at the county, state, or federal level. And, of course there's always academia, if you can stand all the backstabbing and infighting. The middle class will get a lot smaller, but it'll still be there.
The majority of people will be working class, either in retail or some sort of support function, like security or building maintenance. The economy will shrink, possibly a lot, and prices will fall because of this. Some communities will be hit harder than others.
I don't think it'll be a total disaster, it'll just be a change. Local economies will be more visible, people will be more connected to their community as a result (because jobs won't be for companies anymore, but local businesses).
I'm still not sure how I feel about all this, but I'm pretty sure this is what's going to happen. As for me, I'm staying in government, and I'm going to try and build some kind of side business doing consulting for regular joes and small businesses. Local, small, and comfortable. No worry about outsourcing there...
As I read his love-letter to the publishing industry, which basically said that the output of authors, artists, et al was "crap" which was then filtered by value-adding publishers (Puh-LEASE), I couldn't help but think that if these publishers were any good at filtering crap, we would never have heard of Mr. Kling in the first place.
I like the idea of a creative commons, though. Kudos to the crew that created it.
DancingSword said: "Dropping the packets isn't going to save me from paying for the bandwidth, or unclog my connection ( this IS assault, we're talking about ), and no matter how I makebelieve that they aren't touching my machine, therefore I have no right to touch theirs, it isn't that clear/simple ( they are obliterating my resources, for starters ):"
Yes, but the correct approach is to complain to your ISP and have them firewall the offending packets off upstream, without making you pay for them. If you're a business customer this shouldn't be a problem for the ISP.
Then he said: "If A PROCESS among their machine is attacking me & costing me, then have I the right to kill that process's action..?"
No; you're not killing an action by firewalling their traffic. You are blocking it, just as you have the right to put a lock on your front door to block a thief from entering your house. You're not tying the thief to a telephone pole; he still has his liberty -- you're just keeping him out of YOUR house, which is YOUR right. See? Your rights end where the thief's rights begin, and vice versa.
Then he said: "If not, then assaulting/damaging others' ( by losing them their ISP/connection, or costing them thousands of dollars in bandwidth, or obliterating their livelihood's function ) is a right, and neither one's-own-resources, nor defensive-action is *equal* a right."
Now, you're using a non sequitur. You cannot proceed from the other proposition to this conclusion; it just doesn't work. Here is what I think the "rights" situation is (just to be clear):
I have the right to take action on MY OWN MACHINE, to prevent your machine from interfering with me. Thus, I can firewall your machine off from me, and I can ask my ISP to put in an upstream firewall to protect my business. This only affects MY machine, so it doesn't impact any legitimate rights of the attacker.
Even if an attacker is DOS'ing your server, you do not have the right to attempt to counter-hack him. Your rights end where his begin, you see: he has the right to expect privacy and noninterference on his system just as YOU do on yours.
The only appropriate action is to involve your ISP and the authorities. They can then take LEGAL action against the source of the attacks.
Mirko said: "You should not interact with other's machines : Let them fix their worm problems themselves or they may not appreciate it. It is normal and nice to tell them they have a problem but your work stops here !"
I agree with you that one should never, ever interfere with the operation of another machine or site. I also agree that the best course of action would be to notify them of the problem, and let them fix their own machines. However, I would take an additional step: I would adjust the firewalls on my own machines so that traffic from the affected machines was completely blocked off until the worm/portscans/whatever stopped completely.
I think this approach is a fair compromise; it protects my machines (my responsibility) and it doesn't interfere with other people's machines (which is probably illegal anyway). And, I've done them the favor of letting them know about the problem, in a gentlemanly, polite way.
One Caveat: if I was working for an ISP, and my machines included routers which their machines depended upon for their internet connection, it would be a little more sticky. In that case, I think I'd prevent traffic from that machine from going TO my machines, but I might allow forwarding on the routers... I'd have to crack open my firewall book, it's been a while -- this would work, wouldn't it? If there was some way of identifying the worm/etc's packets, I could just firewall off the worm, too, maybe.
I didn't see anything on their website about patent lawsuits, but I did see a link to this item about "SCO Linux 4"... Seems a little weird to demand a patent fee on Linux, while releasing your own Linux distro, doesn't it? Besides, they mention other distros (red hat specifically) as competition but don't mention any patent issue.
You said: "Actually, I'm saying something a little different. I'm saying that people are all idiots. The tools we build should reflect that."
You're wrong here: all people are not idiots, and tools should NOT reflect this way of thinking. I think there is a clear spectrum between complete idiots and true geniuses. No matter what type of compiler you build, or how well you build it, sooner or later an idiot is going to get his hands on it and hurt himself. You can't do anything about that, and anyway, it's the idiot's problem, not yours. It's better to build a compiler for the brilliant people who will be able to make the best use out of it, and the competent people who will be able to make good use out of it -- empower THESE people, and don't put arbitrary limitations on what they can do with your tool. Build for the wise, in other words. And, let managers who think they can drag Sophia in from the steno pool for a quick VB class and a promotion, get hoist on their own petard.
"...So VB is (or at least was last I used it) like a golf cart inflated to SUV size. It is really only safe for tooling around your subdivision, but it sure looks like it should be able to handle the autobahns."
I disagree. VB6 is capable of very serious development. However, you have to use it where it makes sense. It's an applications programming language. It's good for applications programming. Database frontends, transactional dlls, stuff like that. Banks, government agencies, etc, all make very good use of VB. Would you write a game engine in it? Of course not. The very idea is ridiculous. But a large, distributed client-server application turns out just fine (I maintain a couple of them myself).
As far as your car analogy goes, well, I don't think it fits. However, I agree with you about cars. I think it comes down to the fact that most students don't take physics, and don't understand what happens in a crash. An SUV will protect you from injuries due to the crushing of the vehicle -- because the vehicle probably won't crush easily. However, if you flip it, or you slam into something like a tree, the car's coming to a sudden stop, and YOU are NOT. Seatbelts and airbags only go so far, and it's SO easy to break your neck, or slam your head into the window or side pillar...
Ah... Sorry, I should have realized you'd have that covered. I was trying to look for a potential cause of your problem when someone posted something amazingly informative about it -- but he posted as an A/C so I can't be his fan (what a drag). It's a great post though. I wish I could mod it up.
dubl-u said: "Alas, programming is done by real humans, ambulatory sacks of meat, albeit with occasional fits of brilliance. Good toolsmiths know this, and make appropriate tools. People who make bad tools (like VB) are either fools or inhumanly cruel. I can never decide which explanation I prefer."
Yes, but are you saying that given two idiots of equal stupidity, one with VB and one with gcc, the idiot armed with VB will do a worse job? I submit to you my theory that neither idiot will create anything functional, BUT, the idiot armed with gcc will be unlikely to even figure out how to run the compiler. The idiot armed with VB will probably at least have a weird little form built while the idiot armed with gcc is stuck wondering whether to use vi, emacs, or pico. This may be a Good Thing.
My point is: no tool can save an idiot, or even make him useful. Therefore, complaining about VB because there are idiots in the world isn't fair.;)
Vadem_t said: "ActiveX. Major pain in the arse. For some reason references to ActiveX objects that work just fine on one computer might disappear if you move the source to another."
I've run into something like this, and I found that in my case, it was because the libraries weren't installed on the target computer, but they HAD been installed on MY computer because I'm a developer and had Visual Studio. This is actually a giant pain in the ass not limited to Active X, because you can't really predict what's going to be available on the target machine when your company (like mine) has people running some machines so old they have IE 3.3 on them (really!).
Microsoft put out an extension to Visual Studio called Visual Studio Installer, which you can download from their site (I don't remember the URL, but you can search the site). Basically, it works almost like an interdev project and it creates a windows installer (msi) file which covers all your dependencies. You can see which files are being brought in to handle dependencies, where you might have a conflict, etc. It's kind of neat. It might help you; it helped me with my problem, at least.
Wow, you really hate VB. Before I answer your post, let me say that I hate VB's syntax, the fact that it's not truly object oriented, and the weird, back-asswards way it does things. So I'm not totally against you on this. I'd rather be working in C++ or even C, so take the following in context, ok?
VB *CAN* be used for relatively larger projects, BUT, it depends on what kind of programmer is involved. I've inherited some semi-large VB projects, including a three-tier client-server setup built from VB programs, MTS dlls, ASP pages, and a pretty big database, with a lot of lines of code (not just a page). Luckily for me, the original programmer had an engineering background, so his code was pretty tight and the project was in pretty good shape. I made beaucoup changes to it, updating it to account for a number of policy changes. I had to totally redesign chunks of it because of changes in the way a number of pieces of data were going to be handled in the future, etc, and of course I had a great deal of bug-hunting to do. But, overall, despite the fact that this was a big, complex project, it all went pretty well. We're now moving into a phase where the system's going to be expanded again, to add features. It's growing, in other words -- bigger and bigger. And, it's not giving us that much trouble in the process.
I think where large projects run into trouble with VB is when they are run by people who do NOT have a solid computer science background. All too often, a secretary or clerk is sent off to a VB class, baptized as a programmer, and handed a copy of VB, Professional Edition. Then this clueless person is expected to be able to handle a large project. No knowledge of data or file structures, no knowledge of relational database design or algorithms, but they're given the tools and admin access to a test database, plus a big project. Naturally, the person A) shits his pants and runs to Border's to buy a VB picture-cook-book with lots of yummy recipes in it, B) makes a good faith effort and totally fucks it up, and C) doesn't know what the hell hit him when the project implodes the day before the deadline (or am I being too harsh here?).
But don't blame VB for it; blame the manager who's too stupid to know that computer programming is an engineering task requiring more than a six-week VB course to learn how to do properly. I feel sorry for the poor noob who gets flattered into thinking he's a programmer; he's the one that takes it in the shorts, generally.
I don't think there is a capital-M "meaning of life". I think the general idea is, try to be nice to other people, try to live well, be satisfied with a comfortable, modest life and leave the Earth a little bit nicer than it was when you found it. At least, I think that's the idea. You seem to be on the right track; cops generally tend to protect things, and prevent them from lapsing into chaos. It's a pretty solid contribution.;)
I think you're missing the point of the argument. A company that started in America, using American labor to bootstrap itself into existence, owes a certain duty of loyalty to the people who created its products and infrastructure. It is disloyal and petty to use people to build your company, and then discard them when it is convenient for you. Furthermore, there is another issue at hand. If you employ, say, 500 people to man your manufacturing, engineering design, and IT departments for x number of years while your firm is growing, then you are returning that number of salaries to the communities that fostered your growth. In other words, you are supporting your local community, and by extension, your nation. If you then turn around and fuck your community and nation over by taking those jobs overseas to gain an Indian Discount(TM) you're demonstrating that you're not worthy of the trust that was placed in you by your community when they allowed you to grow large in the first place (for example, many manufacturing firms are granted tax breaks, assistance in setting up their infrastructure like power cables, data lines, and phone lines, water and sewage, and so on).
Do you see my point: it's not that there's anything wrong with Indian engineers. An engineer is an engineer. But there are basic issues of right and wrong involved -- moral issues, if you will. Socrates would consider this a question of piety. Which is the more pious action? Lining your pockets with an extra 10% profit and destroying the livelihoods of the very people that made you who you are? Or supporting your community, showing gratitude for what they've given you? Think about it.
Having said that, Wired ran an article in which people in India's government and educational system were interviewed, and they said they were deliberately targeting the IT industries of first world nations in hopes of making the world dependent upon them. So you can also look at this as an economic war. Perhaps exporting jobs to India should be considered an act of treason?
I don't know about you guys, but I'm planning on a blissful week of doing "NOTHING". I'm going to fart around on my Playstation II, and on my brand, spanking new XBox, and open up a can of whoop ass.
I may drink a little too. But so far that's just a rumor. And we just got done having a stuffed Christmas Goose! Wonderful, delicious, yum.
If only my slightly deranged (it's cute when they go mad), oversexed ex girlfriend were here, I could have a truly lovely time. I'd have to hide the knives, of course, but I'm used to that.
Merry Christmas, everyone! And, a happy New Years, too!
Kin_Korn_Karn said: "I spent a year after a breakup without wanting to fool with the whole dating thing. I know where you're coming from. but dude.. not trying to be a smartass here but you need some therapy. That's some scary shit."
I get that a lot.;)
Actually, I've thought about therapy, but like sex, I find it better in concept than implementation. You know, psychologists have the ability to involuntarily commit you if they think you're crazy enough? It only takes a few sessions for them to build up a thick enough folder to send you to the Funny Farm (TM). Man, that'd be all I'd need. I mean, the electroshock looks interesting, and the drugs are free and legal, but having to wear pyjamas all day and no computer access? No, no no, that just won't work for me.
Besides, being a little crazy is fun. I don't want some psyche mechanic stealing my crazy! I worked long and hard to construct my madness and they'll pry it from my cold, dead head before I give it up.
Having said that, I think you might have a point; my ex was a little alarming, and my current dating situation could be viewed by an outsider as a little weird. But it's cool -- I've got a Playstation II and I'm getting an XBox for Christmas! With a setup like that, who needs sex?;):):P
Kin Korn Karn said "asexual means without sexual desire, not without sex. I've been there, too.. it ends eventually"
Ah, but you misapprehend my situation. My ex girlfriend was completely bent. Also, she had been a gymnast growing up, so she was very physically strong and was only an inch or so shorter than me. ALSO, she knew perfectly well that I'd never, ever hit her, even in retaliation, so that gave her a tactical advantage. Basically, if she ever got P.O.ed enough, she could have really opened up a can of whoop ass.
I finally told her I didn't want to go out with her anymore, and wasn't going to have sex with her anymore, and by the way, she can sleep on the couch and I'll give her a lift in the morning. She LOST IT. Went completely ballistic. She leaped up and down, nearly caving in my living room, scared the piss out of me and then, broke my favorite art deco lamp. Just threw it on the ground and busted it.
So, it's been nearly two years because although I find the CONCEPT of sex interesting, the actual IMPLEMENTATION is something I leave to others. I figure, who knows what kind of nut I'll end up with next? Look what happened to that poor Bobbitt guy. I find women kind of alarming these days.
I think my problem is, I'm attracted to tall, physically tough women who could potentially kick my ass. However, I'm also concerned that they might actually DECIDE to kick my ass. Plus, actual sex seems like an awful lot of physical effort for not much of a payoff... I generally just watch it on video and drink a soda.
"A biological virus can only be introduced to one's body via some sort of transmitting vector like a mosquito, a tiny droplet of inhaled liquid, or a pecker."
"A biological virus can only be introduced to a human body if it is in a physical form capable of being introduced. This means an actual physical viral structure, in some form that can be insinutated into the body."
"Because a biological virus must be insinuated into the body in physical form to infect it, the virus cannot be transmitted electronically. Electronic transmissions can only convey concepts, not physical things (like a virus). Even if you built a cybersex suit with vibrating attachments for tickling unmentionables, the only thing you could transmit would be the control instructions for the device." (Let's say this one twice.)
FINALLY,
"Even if you built a cybersex device which directly stimulated the brain, at best you would be stimulating the parts of the brain which correlate to sensual stimuli, like vision, smell, touch, taste and hearing. Thus, you could possibly use the imagery you're transmitting to SCARE someone to death, or freak them out, or even hypnotize them, but you could not give them a virus."
Ok, gang? Let's all just swiiiiiiing our focus back to reality here. The premise of the book is dumb. I, for one, am pretty turned off every time I hear someone try to say you can catch a virus from your computer -- it makes me feel like I'm the only techie that took Biology in high school, which cannot be true (can it?). If modern American society is so techno-illiterate that they'll buy THIS kind of thing, we're fucking doomed.
Kin Korn Karn said: "Do you not like women? Are you asexual?" to another poster...
Hey!
What do you have against asexual people? I've been involuntarily asexual for almost two years now, and I like women just fine (they don't like me back, but that's ok). Sheesh. Let's not lump all of us unfortunate asexuals in with the "he-man women hater's club" types, people... Let's try to remember that even a poor, miserable asexual can like women just as much as the horniest jock.
(this has been a public service announcement -- support your local asexual co-op! They need a break!)
Boy, has it been a long time... But, it reminds me of what we used to do to display a colored pixel or sound in basic programs on the C-64... Am I close? This one looks like a beep... Is it?
Someone just posted a reply comparing the MPAA/RIAA to the Red Army, and boycotters to a resistance movement. So, apparently at least some slashdotters think that boycotting their cable television provider is the same thing as blowing up military command posts and such. Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say. Fascinating.
Well, "comrade", I think that's a little silly. But, it's interesting, so in reply I verily say this unto thee (ha ha, I really dig this whole archaic speech thing):
The companies that are members of the RIAA and MPAA are also involved in numerous other businesses, and it is impossible to truly boycott them without separating yourself from your own society. Additionally, they won't even notice the boycott because the markets involved are so enormous that even a significant boycott will only appear as a momentary blip to them, a tiny dimple in their profits. Thus, in my opinion, boycotting the companies in the RIAA and MPAA is a pointless act of self-abuse.
What I was trying to use humor to point out is, boycotting them is not the answer. It won't do any good and it'll only make you miserable. You're giving THEM a weapon to use against YOU, i.e. you're letting your feelings about them shut you out of the culture. It's as if a high school jock shoved his way into the chess club and as a result, you all quit playing chess in retaliation. Think the jock cares? He'll shrug and go back to hitting on cheerleaders. The only people that are hurt are the poor geeks who don't even have their chess club anymore.
My suggestion is to do things that will enrage and annoy the people you want to annoy, and make a horses ass out of each one individually. I suggested a game mod that would be embarassing and humiliating for some of the people involved, because that's something that might just get into the news. Imagine Barbara Walters asking how he feels about being represented as a cross-dressing Hitler-mustached cyber-demon-lord in a popular game mod. Picture her asking him pointed questions about how, exactly, the game became so popular and why so many geeks seem to really relish blowing him up. Now, don't you think that would do a lot more good than a silly boycott? And, hell, plenty of Germans read slashdot. They could translate a bunch of ridiculous trash-talk for the game ("I've got your pirate CD right here, you hacker!" with the exec grabbing his crotch, for example -- or "I'm gonna DMCA your ass" -- run with it).
We slashdotters are supposed to be technically sophisticated and well educated. Were any of you paying attention in political science or history class? Do any of you know how powerful ridicule and propaganda are as weapons?
Slashdot Mirror
G4dget said: " As far as I'm concerned, Java has stagnated and become bloated over the last few years. And I don't think Java is a good platform for open source development (since important parts of the platform are not available in open source form)."
I agree with your entire post, which I think stated very eloquently what's going on with Java, but the above line resonated with me in particular. I run pretty old equipment, and I don't tend to spend very much bread on PCs (especially laptops, one accidental drop and they're paperweights) so the bloat issue is pretty important to me.
One of the nicer things about open source software is that you can generally get it to work pretty well on older equipment. Red Hat Linux 7.3 with KDE works fine on a Pentium 166MMX with 96MB ram. Applications load pretty quickly, everything seems smooth... This is one of the strengths of Linux, for me at least. So it pains me that Java is such a memory hog (the recommended environment for Forte, for example, which was written in Java, is 512MB Ram, minimum -- my little laptops have maybe 96MB). So on my little laptops, big Linux apps run slowly, and take forever to load (if they load correctly at all). In my view, an elegant language would let you write for older machines... Java doesn't, really.
Maybe Mono will do a better job there. If they're going to use it to develop for Gnome and etc, then they're going to have to figure out how to get it to be small-machine friendly like the rest of Linux. I'm pretty sure they're already working on that... Open Source guys are pretty good about that sort of thing.
As far as IBM goes, their implementation might be a little tighter than Sun's, who knows? It'll be interesting to find out.
"Enterprise app" (My definition):
An enterprise application is one with multiple components, geographically distributed, using multiple protocols and techniques to integrate the activities of a number of different people and/or departments.
A good example would be an application in which clients can submit orders/requests via a web page, adding an order/request record to a database. This stage uses a web server, middleware, and a database server. The next stage is one in which an employee of one department interacts with the record using an intranet or client-server application. This stage could be repeated in several departments, like order intake, shipping, customer service, etc. Another stage is one in which whatever the client requested is actually delivered. This could be handled as part of the previous stage, or maybe be its own stage by involving an outside party like Fedex and personal handling of the order/request by a live person (a sales call, etc).
So, in my view, the basic idea is that it's a company-wide system which involves a bunch of departments, potentially more than one database, clients, employees, and interested third parties.
What do you think, guys? Is this a workable definition?
Twitter said: "I say it is entirely possible that corporate America will not stay clueless forever and will discover, free software. This will end the wasteful duplication of closed source software and indeed require local talent to oversee and develop. Those in corporate America who move in that direction first will realize many savings."
Hang on a minute. I said that corporate America is greedy, short-sighted and stupid. I didn't say clueless, and I didn't say anything about open source. I wholly agree with you that corporate America is going to latch onto open source. I think they're going to cling to it like a swollen leech, because they'll perceive it as a way of breaking out of Microsoft licensing agreements and whatnot -- it's about money for them, and always has been. Stability and security are nice, but when's the last time you met a manager who understood these things in any depth?
However, this has NOTHING to do with outsourcing. If anything, open source makes outsourcing much easier, because they can hire outsourcing companies to handle all their open source modifications, and they don't have to worry about negotiating with any software companies for rights. And, as far as requiring "local talent" to oversee and develop, I've never seen a company hire ANYONE permanantly to develop software. They hire consultants (usually from outsourcing companies like Wipro) to build out their systems, then maintain them. You're missing the whole dynamic here.
This is coming. There's nothing we can do about it. And, those of us who prepare for it by going heavily local will have a serious head start when the shoe drops.
As far as utility companies go, well, so much for THAT idea. Thanks for the heads up. On the other hand, you can make some pretty decent money by becoming a technician for a utility. My brother in law works for ConEd, and he's doing pretty well. Of course, his beat is down in the Bronx, and the utility tunnels he works in are really, really old and strange places -- he's seen rats as big as small dogs, and walls moving, where upon shining his lamp on them, tens of millions of cockroaches freaked out and ran in every direction! He said they're inches deep, like a river of bugs. Still -- it beats flipping burgers, and kind of hard to outsource!
MrResistor said: "The hole in your arguement is self defense. Killing people is illegal, but if I can prove it was self defense I won't be punished for it."
This is not a hole. While it may be true that IF someone is trying to kill me, and therefore is presenting an immediate threat to my life, THEN I am permitted to use appropriate force and possibly even kill him without getting in trouble, this has nothing whatsoever to do with some hacker kid flooding my network. A DOS attack is simply not a direct threat to your life or limb and so you cannot use self defense as a defense. This is a false analogy.
A better analogy would be the case where someone was committing libel against you. You are entitled to get a lawyer, seek an injunction against the person, obtain a court order forcing them to stop... But (for example) If they're talking trash about you on a radio station, you're not entitled to break in at 4AM and use a baseball bat on the transmitter, or sneak up on the roof and cut down the antenna with an acetylene torch. Trying a stunt like that goes right over the line into criminal activity. Just as trying to hack a hacker is criminal activity, whether you tell yourself it's self defense or not.
It sucks, but if your ISP won't help you find another ISP. Or get a lawyer, and get a court order. Sue the hacker's ISP. Sue the hacker. Basically, DO SOMETHING (LEGAL) ABOUT IT. Running around like a villager with a coil of rope, a torch and a pitchfork isn't going to get you any satisfaction. It might get you put in jail for a while though.
Additional thought:
I've just thought of one more thing: some sectors which might have trouble outsourcing could be the utilities, telephone and cable companies, regional ISPs, etc... So a clever IT professional might be able to find good work in such an industry. Actually, a range of jobs will probably survive in all sectors like this. So that's cool too.
It might not work out all that badly for us overall... It won't be the Great Depression again, maybe just depressing.
Interesting note: the article mentioned that as education becomes more widespread in India and conditions there improve, companies like Wipro will probably end up outsourcing to even less expensive countries like Thailand because wages in India won't be cheap anymore! How's that for irony? Work for American companies will be handled by Indian companies which contract out to, say, Cambodian companies (which may in turn subcontract elsewhere). Amazing.
Hey, guys:
Here is what I think is going to happen:
First, the outsourcing trend is going to worsen. Corporate America is going to increasingly ship its IT work overseas to companies like Wipro. Mostly this is because corporate America is greedy, short-sighted, and fairly stupid, and has absolutely no problem with skewering the economy and destroying the middle class if they can squeeze a little more profit out of the system in the short term. India, which seems fairly pragmatic and which wants to improve its position, will capitalize on this and take all the work given it. This doesn't make India evil; the SITUATION is pretty rotten for the US though.
The result of this is that the U.S. IT industry is going to be gutted. As companies discover that outsourcing works, they'll outsource other jobs as well, including that of the managers who fired all the IT staff. Why have IT staff in India and not managers? Move everyone offshore except the executive, sales, and client-service staff. Hell, even some of those can go -- India is already the site of several call centers.
As a result of this trend, which will accelerate over time, the only jobs available in the US that pay well will be for executives and support staff. The only corporate IT that's going to be done in the US is going to be low-level tech support (for the executives) and some consulting (for network setup at a new location, etc). The consulting will mostly be done by -- you guessed it -- Indian representiatives of consulting firms. There may be a few Americans left, who suck it up and take the low salaries. Who knows?
There will still be a middle class, it'll just be a lot smaller. They'll be people who do things that you just can't outsource. Mechanics. Plumbers. Electricians and carpenters. Cops and Firemen. They'll be local, and they'll serve their communities. Computer repairmen might make a living doing house calls. You might be able to make some money setting up home networks and such. Government will still be strong, and lots of programmers (and a whole variety of other white-collar workers) will work at the county, state, or federal level. And, of course there's always academia, if you can stand all the backstabbing and infighting. The middle class will get a lot smaller, but it'll still be there.
The majority of people will be working class, either in retail or some sort of support function, like security or building maintenance. The economy will shrink, possibly a lot, and prices will fall because of this. Some communities will be hit harder than others.
I don't think it'll be a total disaster, it'll just be a change. Local economies will be more visible, people will be more connected to their community as a result (because jobs won't be for companies anymore, but local businesses).
I'm still not sure how I feel about all this, but I'm pretty sure this is what's going to happen. As for me, I'm staying in government, and I'm going to try and build some kind of side business doing consulting for regular joes and small businesses. Local, small, and comfortable. No worry about outsourcing there...
Just my $.02...
As I read his love-letter to the publishing industry, which basically said that the output of authors, artists, et al was "crap" which was then filtered by value-adding publishers (Puh-LEASE), I couldn't help but think that if these publishers were any good at filtering crap, we would never have heard of Mr. Kling in the first place.
I like the idea of a creative commons, though. Kudos to the crew that created it.
DancingSword said: "Dropping the packets isn't going to save me from paying for the bandwidth, or unclog my connection ( this IS assault, we're talking about ), and no matter how I makebelieve that they aren't touching my machine, therefore I have no right to touch theirs, it isn't that clear/simple ( they are obliterating my resources, for starters ):"
Yes, but the correct approach is to complain to your ISP and have them firewall the offending packets off upstream, without making you pay for them. If you're a business customer this shouldn't be a problem for the ISP.
Then he said: "If A PROCESS among their machine is attacking me & costing me, then have I the right to kill that process's action..?"
No; you're not killing an action by firewalling their traffic. You are blocking it, just as you have the right to put a lock on your front door to block a thief from entering your house. You're not tying the thief to a telephone pole; he still has his liberty -- you're just keeping him out of YOUR house, which is YOUR right. See? Your rights end where the thief's rights begin, and vice versa.
Then he said: "If not, then assaulting/damaging others' ( by losing them their ISP/connection, or costing them thousands of dollars in bandwidth, or obliterating their livelihood's function ) is a right, and neither one's-own-resources, nor defensive-action is *equal* a right."
Now, you're using a non sequitur. You cannot proceed from the other proposition to this conclusion; it just doesn't work. Here is what I think the "rights" situation is (just to be clear):
I have the right to take action on MY OWN MACHINE, to prevent your machine from interfering with me. Thus, I can firewall your machine off from me, and I can ask my ISP to put in an upstream firewall to protect my business. This only affects MY machine, so it doesn't impact any legitimate rights of the attacker.
Even if an attacker is DOS'ing your server, you do not have the right to attempt to counter-hack him. Your rights end where his begin, you see: he has the right to expect privacy and noninterference on his system just as YOU do on yours.
The only appropriate action is to involve your ISP and the authorities. They can then take LEGAL action against the source of the attacks.
Mirko said: "You should not interact with other's machines : Let them fix their worm problems themselves or they may not appreciate it.
It is normal and nice to tell them they have a problem but your work stops here !"
I agree with you that one should never, ever interfere with the operation of another machine or site. I also agree that the best course of action would be to notify them of the problem, and let them fix their own machines. However, I would take an additional step: I would adjust the firewalls on my own machines so that traffic from the affected machines was completely blocked off until the worm/portscans/whatever stopped completely.
I think this approach is a fair compromise; it protects my machines (my responsibility) and it doesn't interfere with other people's machines (which is probably illegal anyway). And, I've done them the favor of letting them know about the problem, in a gentlemanly, polite way.
One Caveat: if I was working for an ISP, and my machines included routers which their machines depended upon for their internet connection, it would be a little more sticky. In that case, I think I'd prevent traffic from that machine from going TO my machines, but I might allow forwarding on the routers... I'd have to crack open my firewall book, it's been a while -- this would work, wouldn't it? If there was some way of identifying the worm/etc's packets, I could just firewall off the worm, too, maybe.
I didn't see anything on their website about patent lawsuits, but I did see a link to this item about "SCO Linux 4"... Seems a little weird to demand a patent fee on Linux, while releasing your own Linux distro, doesn't it? Besides, they mention other distros (red hat specifically) as competition but don't mention any patent issue.
1 09 2003.htm
http://www.practical-tech.com/infrastructure/i0
Here's their press release page, BTW -- I don't see anything about any patent issues.
http://ir.sco.com/releases.cfm
Could this patent thing be a hoax? It's got to be, right?
Hmm... Taking a few of your points one at a time:
You said: "Actually, I'm saying something a little different. I'm saying that people are all idiots. The tools we build should reflect that."
You're wrong here: all people are not idiots, and tools should NOT reflect this way of thinking. I think there is a clear spectrum between complete idiots and true geniuses. No matter what type of compiler you build, or how well you build it, sooner or later an idiot is going to get his hands on it and hurt himself. You can't do anything about that, and anyway, it's the idiot's problem, not yours. It's better to build a compiler for the brilliant people who will be able to make the best use out of it, and the competent people who will be able to make good use out of it -- empower THESE people, and don't put arbitrary limitations on what they can do with your tool. Build for the wise, in other words. And, let managers who think they can drag Sophia in from the steno pool for a quick VB class and a promotion, get hoist on their own petard.
"...So VB is (or at least was last I used it) like a golf cart inflated to SUV size. It is really only safe for tooling around your subdivision, but it sure looks like it should be able to handle the autobahns."
I disagree. VB6 is capable of very serious development. However, you have to use it where it makes sense. It's an applications programming language. It's good for applications programming. Database frontends, transactional dlls, stuff like that. Banks, government agencies, etc, all make very good use of VB. Would you write a game engine in it? Of course not. The very idea is ridiculous. But a large, distributed client-server application turns out just fine (I maintain a couple of them myself).
As far as your car analogy goes, well, I don't think it fits. However, I agree with you about cars. I think it comes down to the fact that most students don't take physics, and don't understand what happens in a crash. An SUV will protect you from injuries due to the crushing of the vehicle -- because the vehicle probably won't crush easily. However, if you flip it, or you slam into something like a tree, the car's coming to a sudden stop, and YOU are NOT. Seatbelts and airbags only go so far, and it's SO easy to break your neck, or slam your head into the window or side pillar...
Ah... Sorry, I should have realized you'd have that covered. I was trying to look for a potential cause of your problem when someone posted something amazingly informative about it -- but he posted as an A/C so I can't be his fan (what a drag). It's a great post though. I wish I could mod it up.
dubl-u said: "Alas, programming is done by real humans, ambulatory sacks of meat, albeit with occasional fits of brilliance. Good toolsmiths know this, and make appropriate tools. People who make bad tools (like VB) are either fools or inhumanly cruel. I can never decide which explanation I prefer."
;)
Yes, but are you saying that given two idiots of equal stupidity, one with VB and one with gcc, the idiot armed with VB will do a worse job? I submit to you my theory that neither idiot will create anything functional, BUT, the idiot armed with gcc will be unlikely to even figure out how to run the compiler. The idiot armed with VB will probably at least have a weird little form built while the idiot armed with gcc is stuck wondering whether to use vi, emacs, or pico. This may be a Good Thing.
My point is: no tool can save an idiot, or even make him useful. Therefore, complaining about VB because there are idiots in the world isn't fair.
Vadem_t said: "ActiveX. Major pain in the arse. For some reason references to ActiveX objects that work just fine on one computer might disappear if you move the source to another."
;)
I've run into something like this, and I found that in my case, it was because the libraries weren't installed on the target computer, but they HAD been installed on MY computer because I'm a developer and had Visual Studio. This is actually a giant pain in the ass not limited to Active X, because you can't really predict what's going to be available on the target machine when your company (like mine) has people running some machines so old they have IE 3.3 on them (really!).
Microsoft put out an extension to Visual Studio called Visual Studio Installer, which you can download from their site (I don't remember the URL, but you can search the site). Basically, it works almost like an interdev project and it creates a windows installer (msi) file which covers all your dependencies. You can see which files are being brought in to handle dependencies, where you might have a conflict, etc. It's kind of neat. It might help you; it helped me with my problem, at least.
FYI...
Wow, you really hate VB. Before I answer your post, let me say that I hate VB's syntax, the fact that it's not truly object oriented, and the weird, back-asswards way it does things. So I'm not totally against you on this. I'd rather be working in C++ or even C, so take the following in context, ok?
VB *CAN* be used for relatively larger projects, BUT, it depends on what kind of programmer is involved. I've inherited some semi-large VB projects, including a three-tier client-server setup built from VB programs, MTS dlls, ASP pages, and a pretty big database, with a lot of lines of code (not just a page). Luckily for me, the original programmer had an engineering background, so his code was pretty tight and the project was in pretty good shape. I made beaucoup changes to it, updating it to account for a number of policy changes. I had to totally redesign chunks of it because of changes in the way a number of pieces of data were going to be handled in the future, etc, and of course I had a great deal of bug-hunting to do. But, overall, despite the fact that this was a big, complex project, it all went pretty well. We're now moving into a phase where the system's going to be expanded again, to add features. It's growing, in other words -- bigger and bigger. And, it's not giving us that much trouble in the process.
I think where large projects run into trouble with VB is when they are run by people who do NOT have a solid computer science background. All too often, a secretary or clerk is sent off to a VB class, baptized as a programmer, and handed a copy of VB, Professional Edition. Then this clueless person is expected to be able to handle a large project. No knowledge of data or file structures, no knowledge of relational database design or algorithms, but they're given the tools and admin access to a test database, plus a big project. Naturally, the person A) shits his pants and runs to Border's to buy a VB picture-cook-book with lots of yummy recipes in it, B) makes a good faith effort and totally fucks it up, and C) doesn't know what the hell hit him when the project implodes the day before the deadline (or am I being too harsh here?).
But don't blame VB for it; blame the manager who's too stupid to know that computer programming is an engineering task requiring more than a six-week VB course to learn how to do properly. I feel sorry for the poor noob who gets flattered into thinking he's a programmer; he's the one that takes it in the shorts, generally.
Sorry for the elitist rant, but...
I don't think there is a capital-M "meaning of life". I think the general idea is, try to be nice to other people, try to live well, be satisfied with a comfortable, modest life and leave the Earth a little bit nicer than it was when you found it. At least, I think that's the idea. You seem to be on the right track; cops generally tend to protect things, and prevent them from lapsing into chaos. It's a pretty solid contribution. ;)
Marvellous. It's only taken them 20 years to produce something Unix has had for nearly 30. Their mothers must be proud.
I think you're missing the point of the argument. A company that started in America, using American labor to bootstrap itself into existence, owes a certain duty of loyalty to the people who created its products and infrastructure. It is disloyal and petty to use people to build your company, and then discard them when it is convenient for you. Furthermore, there is another issue at hand. If you employ, say, 500 people to man your manufacturing, engineering design, and IT departments for x number of years while your firm is growing, then you are returning that number of salaries to the communities that fostered your growth. In other words, you are supporting your local community, and by extension, your nation. If you then turn around and fuck your community and nation over by taking those jobs overseas to gain an Indian Discount(TM) you're demonstrating that you're not worthy of the trust that was placed in you by your community when they allowed you to grow large in the first place (for example, many manufacturing firms are granted tax breaks, assistance in setting up their infrastructure like power cables, data lines, and phone lines, water and sewage, and so on).
Do you see my point: it's not that there's anything wrong with Indian engineers. An engineer is an engineer. But there are basic issues of right and wrong involved -- moral issues, if you will. Socrates would consider this a question of piety. Which is the more pious action? Lining your pockets with an extra 10% profit and destroying the livelihoods of the very people that made you who you are? Or supporting your community, showing gratitude for what they've given you? Think about it.
Having said that, Wired ran an article in which people in India's government and educational system were interviewed, and they said they were deliberately targeting the IT industries of first world nations in hopes of making the world dependent upon them. So you can also look at this as an economic war. Perhaps exporting jobs to India should be considered an act of treason?
Sorry to bust your bubble.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm planning on a blissful week of doing "NOTHING". I'm going to fart around on my Playstation II, and on my brand, spanking new XBox, and open up a can of whoop ass.
I may drink a little too. But so far that's just a rumor. And we just got done having a stuffed Christmas Goose! Wonderful, delicious, yum.
If only my slightly deranged (it's cute when they go mad), oversexed ex girlfriend were here, I could have a truly lovely time. I'd have to hide the knives, of course, but I'm used to that.
Merry Christmas, everyone! And, a happy New Years, too!
Kin_Korn_Karn said: "I spent a year after a breakup without wanting to fool with the whole dating thing. I know where you're coming from. but dude.. not trying to be a smartass here but you need some therapy. That's some scary shit."
;)
;) :) :P
I get that a lot.
Actually, I've thought about therapy, but like sex, I find it better in concept than implementation. You know, psychologists have the ability to involuntarily commit you if they think you're crazy enough? It only takes a few sessions for them to build up a thick enough folder to send you to the Funny Farm (TM). Man, that'd be all I'd need. I mean, the electroshock looks interesting, and the drugs are free and legal, but having to wear pyjamas all day and no computer access? No, no no, that just won't work for me.
Besides, being a little crazy is fun. I don't want some psyche mechanic stealing my crazy! I worked long and hard to construct my madness and they'll pry it from my cold, dead head before I give it up.
Having said that, I think you might have a point; my ex was a little alarming, and my current dating situation could be viewed by an outsider as a little weird. But it's cool -- I've got a Playstation II and I'm getting an XBox for Christmas! With a setup like that, who needs sex?
Kin Korn Karn said "asexual means without sexual desire, not without sex. I've been there, too.. it ends eventually"
Ah, but you misapprehend my situation. My ex girlfriend was completely bent. Also, she had been a gymnast growing up, so she was very physically strong and was only an inch or so shorter than me. ALSO, she knew perfectly well that I'd never, ever hit her, even in retaliation, so that gave her a tactical advantage. Basically, if she ever got P.O.ed enough, she could have really opened up a can of whoop ass.
I finally told her I didn't want to go out with her anymore, and wasn't going to have sex with her anymore, and by the way, she can sleep on the couch and I'll give her a lift in the morning. She LOST IT. Went completely ballistic. She leaped up and down, nearly caving in my living room, scared the piss out of me and then, broke my favorite art deco lamp. Just threw it on the ground and busted it.
So, it's been nearly two years because although I find the CONCEPT of sex interesting, the actual IMPLEMENTATION is something I leave to others. I figure, who knows what kind of nut I'll end up with next? Look what happened to that poor Bobbitt guy. I find women kind of alarming these days.
I think my problem is, I'm attracted to tall, physically tough women who could potentially kick my ass. However, I'm also concerned that they might actually DECIDE to kick my ass. Plus, actual sex seems like an awful lot of physical effort for not much of a payoff... I generally just watch it on video and drink a soda.
So, am I asexual? Or just not getting laid?
Ok, people, repeat after me:
"A biological virus can only be introduced to one's body via some sort of transmitting vector like a mosquito, a tiny droplet of inhaled liquid, or a pecker."
"A biological virus can only be introduced to a human body if it is in a physical form capable of being introduced. This means an actual physical viral structure, in some form that can be insinutated into the body."
"Because a biological virus must be insinuated into the body in physical form to infect it, the virus cannot be transmitted electronically. Electronic transmissions can only convey concepts, not physical things (like a virus). Even if you built a cybersex suit with vibrating attachments for tickling unmentionables, the only thing you could transmit would be the control instructions for the device." (Let's say this one twice.)
FINALLY,
"Even if you built a cybersex device which directly stimulated the brain, at best you would be stimulating the parts of the brain which correlate to sensual stimuli, like vision, smell, touch, taste and hearing. Thus, you could possibly use the imagery you're transmitting to SCARE someone to death, or freak them out, or even hypnotize them, but you could not give them a virus."
Ok, gang? Let's all just swiiiiiiing our focus back to reality here. The premise of the book is dumb. I, for one, am pretty turned off every time I hear someone try to say you can catch a virus from your computer -- it makes me feel like I'm the only techie that took Biology in high school, which cannot be true (can it?). If modern American society is so techno-illiterate that they'll buy THIS kind of thing, we're fucking doomed.
Say it ain't so!
Kin Korn Karn said: "Do you not like women? Are you asexual?" to another poster...
Hey!
What do you have against asexual people? I've been involuntarily asexual for almost two years now, and I like women just fine (they don't like me back, but that's ok). Sheesh. Let's not lump all of us unfortunate asexuals in with the "he-man women hater's club" types, people... Let's try to remember that even a poor, miserable asexual can like women just as much as the horniest jock.
(this has been a public service announcement -- support your local asexual co-op! They need a break!)
Boy, has it been a long time... But, it reminds me of what we used to do to display a colored pixel or sound in basic programs on the C-64... Am I close? This one looks like a beep... Is it?
Hmm...
Someone just posted a reply comparing the MPAA/RIAA to the Red Army, and boycotters to a resistance movement. So, apparently at least some slashdotters think that boycotting their cable television provider is the same thing as blowing up military command posts and such. Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say. Fascinating.
Well, "comrade", I think that's a little silly. But, it's interesting, so in reply I verily say this unto thee (ha ha, I really dig this whole archaic speech thing):
The companies that are members of the RIAA and MPAA are also involved in numerous other businesses, and it is impossible to truly boycott them without separating yourself from your own society. Additionally, they won't even notice the boycott because the markets involved are so enormous that even a significant boycott will only appear as a momentary blip to them, a tiny dimple in their profits. Thus, in my opinion, boycotting the companies in the RIAA and MPAA is a pointless act of self-abuse.
What I was trying to use humor to point out is, boycotting them is not the answer. It won't do any good and it'll only make you miserable. You're giving THEM a weapon to use against YOU, i.e. you're letting your feelings about them shut you out of the culture. It's as if a high school jock shoved his way into the chess club and as a result, you all quit playing chess in retaliation. Think the jock cares? He'll shrug and go back to hitting on cheerleaders. The only people that are hurt are the poor geeks who don't even have their chess club anymore.
My suggestion is to do things that will enrage and annoy the people you want to annoy, and make a horses ass out of each one individually. I suggested a game mod that would be embarassing and humiliating for some of the people involved, because that's something that might just get into the news. Imagine Barbara Walters asking how he feels about being represented as a cross-dressing Hitler-mustached cyber-demon-lord in a popular game mod. Picture her asking him pointed questions about how, exactly, the game became so popular and why so many geeks seem to really relish blowing him up. Now, don't you think that would do a lot more good than a silly boycott? And, hell, plenty of Germans read slashdot. They could translate a bunch of ridiculous trash-talk for the game ("I've got your pirate CD right here, you hacker!" with the exec grabbing his crotch, for example -- or "I'm gonna DMCA your ass" -- run with it).
We slashdotters are supposed to be technically sophisticated and well educated. Were any of you paying attention in political science or history class? Do any of you know how powerful ridicule and propaganda are as weapons?
Sigh. I'm SO DISAPPOINTED in my generation.