You said: "who will be suffering? The point is to go about your life without these things. If you are suffering, there is no point because you have a mind set that you can't live without them."
("them" being music, movies, cable television, internet connectivity, and so on provided by large media companies involved with the RIAA and/or MPAA)
To which I reply:
Just because you CAN live without something doesn't mean you SHOULD. Or that you should pretend to enjoy it.
You can live without toilet paper, too. Or indoor plumbing. Or medical care. Or cars. Or houses.
My point is, why would you WANT TO? The whole point of civilization is to enjoy the benefits of civilization -- not throw them away on a pointless gesture.
So, pardon me, but although I know I can live perfectly well without television, the internet, and movies, I CHOOSE NOT TO. I like 'em! And, I'm keeping 'em.
You, of course, can go right ahead and do as you wish. If you want to move to the Appalacians, build a Quonset hut miles from any road, and spend the rest of your life eking out a pre-industrial living as a moonshiner or something, well, Banzai! Go for it! I'm sure we all respect your decision.
I'll be playing Hitman II on my Playstation. The levels set in Japan are TOUGH.
Boycotting the MPAA and RIAA won't do any good, for one major reason: the number of people who actually care about this issue is so small compared to the population at large that the RIAA and MPAA is unlikely to even notice that a boycott is occurring.
What WILL happen is that the people involved in the boycott will punish themselves, suffering weeks without internet access, movies, music, and so on, all just to find out that their suffering has all been in vain.
Then, there are the logistical problems. How, for instance, will boycotters coordinate their activities if they cannot read Slashdot because their ISP is their cable company? And, if they cannot coordinate their efforts, isn't it possible that at least some of them will never realize the boycott is over, ending up forty years from now like latter-day Rip Van Winkles, trying to plug decades-old Linux boxen into some hyper-modern network? Hair down to their ankles, teeth rotten away, eyes frozen into a thousand-yard stare?
Let alone the withdrawl symptoms they'll experience when they give up their favorite games. Public-service wards will fill with people whose thumbs continually twitch, twitch, twitch in a memorized UT sequence... Periodically they'll yell "BUY A BIGGER GUN!" The orderlies will be nervous wrecks. Electroshock will certainly follow.
No, friends, I think I'll pass. I think it will be a lot more fun if one of us creates a half-life mod oriented around the MPAA and/or RIAA headquarters and posts it to a friendly mirror. Surely at least ONE employee of one of these agencies reads slashdot? And, surely SOMEONE out there likes doing game mods, and has a few hours to spare?
I'd just like to see the boss battle against Valenti. THAT would be SOMETHING. Do a sort of "ROBOVALENTI" theme, maybe. Use really bad, color mug shots from the media. Animate it like on SouthPark. Maybe do something like the "bedroom" scene between Saddam and the devil? Um... Or not.;)
Although it may be illegal to sell a mortgage to people who can't afford it, I'm pretty sure banks will have teams of lawyers working on that one -- and a whole closetful of explanations of why a given debtor was approved. You forget how slippery corporate America is. If it will make a profit, the legality of "it" isn't going to be considered by the suits, period. They're just going to go for it and take the calculated risk. Look at the Enron and Worldcom scandals if you want real-world examples of corporatism gone bad. They just don't care -- nothing ever happens to these "captains of industry" and they know it. At worst, they spend a few rent-free years with free food and clothing in Club Fed. In their view, this isn't that big a deal.
As far as the credit cards go, well, the fact that the kids are being irresponsible doesn't change the dynamic of the situation. The banks roll out all this credit the kid can't handle, then the parents get soaked. The practice should be outlawed, IMHO.
For me, at least, great sci-fi has to be realistic and believeable, and the tech has to be correct (at least, I have to be able to believe it could function and have some idea of how it is supposed to work).
I think the most wonderful genre is near-future science fiction. A lot of Asimov's work falls into this line, involving space exploration, etc... James P. Hogan was pretty good with his "Inherit the stars" trilogy, which I thought was pretty good. I like Heinlein a lot, because although some of his fiction goes pretty far into the future, at least the tech is handled in a very believeable way and he tries pretty hard to "get it right".
The whole cyberpunk genre is just awesome, Bruce Sterling, William Gibson, et al... I like the fact that they're very tech-centric, and make some pretty good predictions about the near future (some of which are already coming true).
I'm not into the "faraway galaxy" thing at all, I recoil at fantasy stuff like sword-and-sorcery, and if a story is too far in the future, and the tech is just completely pulled out of the author's butt I generally ditch the book and write the seven bucks off as a loss. I think this sort of thing is a sign of laziness on the part of the author; instead of researching, and figuring out how something could work if it was happening in real life, the author just says, "it's fiction" and pulls the whole thing out of his ass. It's crap, you know?
What pisses me off more than anything else is when an author has no understanding whatsoever of computer science and tries to make up a situation without researching it. I've seen a couple of novels about how a "biological virus" is "infecting the internet", or how someone caught a biological virus by looking at an infected system's VDT -- usually with some hackneyed explanation about how the flashing on the screen "hacked the person's brain". Don't get me wrong, it's fun to laugh at some joker lit major who saw "the Matrix" and figured he'd cash in, but reading the tripe he puts out is too painful.
I know, I'm judgemental. But, Jesus, a guy's gotta have his standards.
Shaitand said: "My employer who distribute the benefits I've mentioned doesn't try to screw us. On the other hand his own father works for him and has been there for 15yrs. Now his father is starting to fall behind on technology and isn't keeping up as well. He's getting old. Being his father is affording him a hell of alot more protection than having been there 15yrs. As soon as he finds a suitable replacement his father will be out. He can't handle the job as cheaply and effectively as a youger replacement can. That's the way this field works, it's called buisness."
To which I reply:
Am I the only one who's completely horrified by this? This guy's boss is going to can his own father, who's been working for him for upwards of 15 years, because he's getting old and can't keep up with the young'uns???
That's not "business"; that's freakin' horrible. If I was your boss's father, I'd bring a chainsaw to work on my last day and atone for bringing that mutt into the world by performing a "retroactive abortion". Sheesh...
I agree with this post close to 100%. Recently I found a nice little poison pen letter in my mailbox; it was a check for about 3500.00, with a few pages of fine print that basically said that the agreement was for a cardless credit card, pre-maxed out!!! Cashing the check would open and max out the account. I was flabbergasted; who would have the nerve to try a stunt like that??? Don't they think we read the fine print? Before I tore it into a thousand pieces, I showed it to my mother for the humor value. She was pretty surprised too.
I think that the situation isn't a conspiracy, per se; I think it's a large number of companies and rich individuals pursuing their own selfish self-interest, Ayn-Rand objectivist style, and arriving at similar conclusions. Those conclusions, in my opinion, are:
1) The best way to acquire a lot of land quickly, without raising any eyebrows (and while getting some sort of tax break out of it I bet) is to write up a bunch of bad mortgages, then watch people fail to make payments, then, foreclose and turn the property around. Some people will keep their house, but then the bank makes the interest. Others will lose the house, which the bank will then sell directly at a profit when real estate prices climb. While the bank holds the house, it'll get a tax break because of the "loss" it took during that fiscal year. Right? It's not a consipracy, it's just a "successful" practice.
2) Credit card companies give college students credit cards they KNOW the students will go wild on; in fact, they DEPEND ON THIS to boost their profits. They assume (usually correctly) that the parents will step in to rescue the kids from bad credit ratings. Basically, it's a way to soak the parents through the kids, without the parents having any opportunity to decide whether this is going to be permitted or not. Then, as a person grows older, the credit card companies push more and more credit on them in hopes they'll spend too much. I've seen people get offers in the mail for "platinum" cards with credit ratings upwards of 50,000.00!!! Now, this is just nuts. Who the fuck needs a 50K credit line? The game here is, the credit card companies want you to spend too much, so that you can barely afford to make the minimum payment. Then, you get stuck paying the card off for DECADES, resulting in a sort of involuntary servitude, i.e. you work to pay the credit card. It's no coincidence the Republicans keep trying to kill off Bankruptcy protections. They'd love to bring back debtor's prisons, and make you state-sponsored slaves... Interestingly enough, the "war on drugs" major contribution to our culture has been a machine that turns harmless pot smokers into license plate manufacturing laborers and roadside garbage collectors! But, I'm not going to get into THAT one... (For the record, if anyone official is reading this, I don't do drugs; in fact, I don't even drink, so don't get any funny ideas).
3) Car and computer leases: now, how big a scam is THIS? Let me phrase it more accurately, so you can picture a car salesman saying it to you in plain english, ok? "Hey, I've got a great plan for you. You buy this car, only you're not really buying it, right? You make the payments for three years, higher payments in some cases than a purchase would be, and then, when you're all paid off, you GIVE ME BACK THE CAR and get another one, with no trade-in value, and start making payments all over again! What do you say?" Nuff said, I hope. Compare this bullshit with MY car payments. I bought an inexpensive pickup new, and I pay about 250 bucks a month. I'll have it paid off in four years of payments, total, and then, it'll last me another ten years without payments. When it's falling apart, I'll pick up another inexpensive truck that'll last me ANOTHER fifteen years. Now, compare this with a leased Lexus. Get my drift? Anyone who tells you a lease is less expensive than a purchase is totally full of shit, and trying to sucker you.
4) Commercials try to imply that if you don't buy some kind of huge diamond for your girlfriend, you don't love her, and that she secretly wants this from you and expects it. Let alone the fact that this chain of thought reduces all women to the status of expensive prostitutes, let alone the fact that diamonds have little or no real value, let alone the fact that they can be easily manufactured and you can buy an artificial diamond for 10% of the price of a "real" one, let alone the fact that REAL diamonds generally have FLAWS while artificial ones DO NOT... I mean, these commercials above all else are just pushing you to throw your money away on a fucking worthless carbon crystal! It's just mindless consumerism!
5) While I'm on the subject of mindless consumerism, let's think about something else that's mindless. American pop culture right now almost pressures people to be stupid. First of all, people who are technically proficient are often portrayed as social malcontents, gimps and losers. There's a subtle pressure to be a dumb jock, or some kind of celebrity. There seems to be a real cultural pressure to believe that the only way you can become successful is to be either a rock star, a jock, or some kind of insane "extreme sports" type. Reality occasionally noses in, with the stories about rich lawyers and doctors, long-term mainstays of our society, although the stories tend to gloss over the "sell-your-soul-for-the-almighty-dollar" part. But overall, it seems to me that most television programming tends to favor a worldview in which it's not only okay, but fine and dandy, to be a dumbass who knows virtually nothing in any depth.
Overall, the trend I'm seeing is that every business out there is trying to maximize their profits and increase their bottom line without paying a single thought to the cultural and societal ruin they're going to cause over time. They really just don't give a shit whether they rot our society from the inside out, as long as the rich get richer and fatter. Look what's happening with fast food; it's terribly unhealthy stuff, and the majority of Americans are now overweight, with a large percentage becoming obese, but it's profitable, so they're going to keep up their propaganda campaigns (AKA hamburger commercials) and "specials" so you keep stuffing your mouth with poison. They'll keep pushing it as long as people are willing to pay for it, right up to the point when the last fat slob has a coronary and dies.
The only thing that gives me hope is that at my job, where I meet college kids who are interning, I've run into some pretty smart kids. So maybe over time, people will just get hip to all this crap and blow it off. We'll still be stuck in a culture where a big portion of society is stuck under credit card debt, car leases, failing mortgages and a mountain of fast food, but at least a portion will be free.
I just had a thought; if the masses ever tumble to what's being done with them, they might revolt. Imagine a riot of thousands of enraged obese people! Well, one positive note: us geeks should be able to outrun them.
A brief description of the American two-party system (as told by an American):
America has a two-party system. This system's major strength is that the two parties are very different, and serve different constituencies. Why is this important? Because as long as the power is fairly evenly divided between the two parties, nothing ever happens and everyone can get back to watching Springer, beer in hand. Differences between the parties are profound:
1) The Republican party represents the rich, and corporations. Their mission is to make sure that the tax dollars paid by wealthy Americans go towards programs that help wealthy Americans, instead of to wild-eyed social programs designed to actually help the majority, and other similar injustices, like environmental protection. Thanks to the Republican party, crazy, drug-addled Hippie atheists can't force onerous, terrible laws on our nation's honest, forward thinking corporate community, like the Clean Air Act, which we all know was a Communist Plot.
2. Democrats represent rich people who aren't *that* rich, like doctors and lawyers (in fact, most democrats started life as lawyers). Because of this, Democrats champion causes that are progressive enough to let Doctors and Lawyers feel "socially conscious" and in touch with their "sixties campus radical youth" (we were all such crazy kids!). However, Democrats don't push any cause TOO far because "Actual social progress" == "Voted out of office in next election". Democrats often think that they represent "the people" and they do, in the sense that they represent "the people living in affluent suburbs with minivans, four+ bedroom houses, and in-ground swimming pools". Democrats want environmental protection (for their neighborhood) and social programs like drug rehab centers (in other people's neighborhoods) and alternative sources of power (provided it doesn't affect them in any way, or require the loss of their SUV)". Democrats are the "reasonable" party -- in fact, after the Repubicans took over Congress, most democrats decided that they were republicans, too! Now, THAT is reasonable.
Incidentally, there were rumors floating around a couple of years ago that there were other parties, including one called, enigmatically, "the Greens", but these reports are unsubstantiated.
According to the article, the person who got busted for uncapping his modem used a Cisco configuration file to do so. This, apparently, he fed to the modem from a PC in his living room.
Not knowing the mechanism by which this works, I'm worried that while tinkering with my system, I might accidentally clobber my cablemodem settings and land myself in some trouble. So, I would like to ask the following specific question:
Did the people who uncapped their modems buy their own modem, and use an included interface to adjust its settings? If this is the case, I can relax, because I'm using the "stock" modem from my ISP and as far as I can see there are no interfaces of any kind connected to it (so presumably, it only works within their limits, period).
On the other hand, did the people who uncapped their modems alter the modem right over the ethernet cable plugged into it via some undocumented mechanism? If so, well, that really sucks, and makes me nervous.
I know this question makes me look like a total knob, but I'm asking, seriously. This isn't something you can do by accident, without specialized equipment and software, is it?
I think you're (mostly) right about HDTV, but I still think they want to be able to distribute some kinds of video over the web. Nothing that would compete with their other franchises, mind you, but I've heard stories about the MPAA (for instance) wanting to sell s service where you can download and watch every movie ever made, for a "nominal fee" at your convenience. Things like that make me think that the web does figure in their thoughts.
I don't think it's so much a matter of having 50,000 channels, as of being able to order specific content on a per-use fee basis. I don't think that's as easy via HDTV as it is via the web, although my cable provider is trying out a digital "movies on demand" thing where I live. I didn't like it; the selection wasn't big enough, I ended up spending too much money on it, and it occasionally glitched, with the movie quitting on me. Maybe it'll be cool when they work the bugs out.
I dunno; they're worried about the web, and they're pushing for all these DRM technologies. If they weren't going to put all this stuff on the web, why push for the technologies? After all, existing movies will still be able to be played on DRM systems, because they don't have any watermarks or anything incorporated. Right? So it really only applies to FUTURE content.
If it really only applies to future content, then they can't be thinking they'll just put it on HDTV, because then, there would be no problem and the web would be a non-issue. The problem ONLY becomes a problem when they make content available over the web, and want to prevent people from trading it. Right?
So, my thinking is, they fully intend to sell content over the web, both audio and video. They're gearing up to it, and they want to protect their stuff while still being able to sell it. It's all about the web.
See what I mean? If it isn't about the web, then none of this, Palladium, DRM, etc, makes any sense. HDTV is already ready to go. Ditto for copy-protected CDs and DVDs. All the stuff that's in the works relates to the online sphere.
Quoth sqlrob: "No, not Divx:-), DIVX. The licensed "DVD" player released by Hollywood and Circuit City. It crashed and burned extremely hard.
Custom hardware, custom media, strict licensing protections (Buy a disk, it would only play on your player). Didn't sell and was abandoned. Something suspicously like you proposed, massively rejected by consumers."
Ahhh... I never saw that one. I, um, well, I'm kind of a hermit. I don't get out much.;)
Actually the idea sounds similar but it's really very different. What I'm proposing is a system which is for internet connections only, i.e. internet channels for getting music, movies, live streams from CNN, etc. Basically, like a cable box for the media-heavy parts of the internet. It wouldn't play DVDs or any other similar media. We have DVD players for that. It wouldn't play music CDs either -- we have CD players for that. The system is purely for files and downloads, with some kind of on-board storage, say, 60GB worth. You'd be able to download a certain amount of material before you'd have to start making room for new stuff. And, of course, you could have movies and such "expire" after some period of time, and so on.
Basically, what I'm trying to conceive of is a system which gives the MPAA and RIAA what they want in a proprietary hardware format so they can relax and declare the war over.
We're going to get something like this one way or the other, you know. Either we do it in proprietary hardware, or THEY'll do it to our PCs.
"They are already doing this. It's called HDTV - "a new special-purpose media device with the decryption method in hardware and the case sealed".
The problem with HDTV is it's very specific to cable television streams, whereas what I'm proposing is broader, able to get music, and live web streams, and so on. Media companies want to be able to distribute over the web, remember. HDTV doesn't give them that.
The idea is, set things up so that all protected media *which is distributed over the web* has to come over a proprietary system. HDTV and digital cable already takes care of cable television; copy protection on CDs and DVDs takes care of those avenues as well (not that I'm a big fan of the way they're handling CD copy protection, but I think the DVDs are working out alright). We need something for the web. Hence, my suggestion.
It is a little bit like HDTV in principle, though. Good point.
One neat idea is, if someone tries to crack open the box, a subsystem inside the box zaps the motherboard and video circuitry with a couple of dozen volts at, say, a quarter amp. Not enough to hurt a person, but the boards are smokin'! This way, if a person tries to make a kludged box to capture content, as soon as he applies screwdriver to seam, he hears a little zap sound and the box goes the way of all flesh.
Quoth Larne: "Until some Linux guy puts a proxy between the player and the internet, captures the files en route, and then cracks the proprietary encryption."
Ah, the reason that proprietary encryption systems have been cracked in the past has been that companies weren't trying very hard to encrypt the data. I see their attempts as token efforts, really. I think if they really, truly made an effort, they'd manage a system that would be very hard to crack. I'm not saying they should use RSA with really huge keys, but surely they can do better than they have in the past. I think you're a little too optimistic about the chances of the home user Vs. a properly funded research effort with an academic staff.
In my dream system, each system would be given a public and private key at the factory. When the system connected up to the provider, it would transmit its public key. The provider would encrypt for that key, and the viewer would decrypt ONLY within its own memory space.
You could make the case that some goober is going to strip the cable to the LCD, and try to capture the signal that way, but they can use a proprietary video system, limiting the usefulness of such a thing. And, of course, if it was me, I'd booby-trap the system so that it basically ate itself if a user tried to crack it open. A few dozen volts in a spike across the motherboard, for instance. But that's just me.
Quoth Larne: "I agree the fundamental problem here is lack of imagination on the part of the **IA members, but I think the real solution will be in the form of making the content compelling enough, and cheap enough, that there'll be no motivation to steal it. Which ultimately means settling for big profits instead of obscene ones."
Jeez, I keep hearing this, and man, you've got to give it up. Content companies don't want to hear it. They want the obscene profits, and they're willing to destroy YOUR PC to make that happen. My idea is to give them a more palatable, more profitable alternative, let them move away from PCs entirely, and allow all the little children to play nice together. Any solution which requires that content companies actually charge a fair price for their goods is doomed to failure. They're never going to agree to it. Think about it.
Quoth Larne: "The point of the original article seems to be that any DRM, whether in hardware, software, purhased laws, or all three, is doomed to failure."
Which I disagree with. DRM as it is currently being considered is of course doomed because it interferes with what people want to do and they're going to rebel. But, done more sensibly, it doesn't have to be that way. Look at the cable television market. I have premium cable, right? And, I have a digital cable box under my TV. Thus, I have access to like, fifty movie channels and so on and so forth, and my neighbor can't see them even if he taps my cable because he doesn't have the console. So it doesn't matter if he taps it or not.
Descramblers do exist, but cable companies regularly short them out with brief bursts over the line, and they have ways of detecting them and sending out an angry "cable guy".
Anyway, most people like the service as-is, and get the set-top box. It's cheap, it's no hassle, and it works great.
My point is, if the technology is as streamlined and unobtrusive as the cable set-top box, everyone will have one and no one will bother trying to defeat the DRM in it. It just won't be worth it. The system itself will be cheap enough that everyone will have a copy, and that'll be that. You'll be able to get content subscriptions of some sort, and there'll be pay per view and other special purchases -- kinda like cable.
I just think everyone's looking at this situation in the wrong way.
DIVX? Wasn't that a software protocol? Running on PCs? That's not the same thing. I'm saying, build a special purpose hardware system, end-to-end, and only distribute media using that system's protocol. Encrypt everything along the entire path, seal all the hardware, limit the connectors provided with it, and enforce license terms which ban reverse engineering. In other words, for media content you're worried about, totally lock it into this hardware platform.
Sure, people are going to try and break it, but they'd try and break PC DRM too. The difference is, it would be much easier to break PC DRM. Almost trivial in comparison. For one thing, you have access to the motherboard, you can reconfigure your machine, you can change the O/S running on it, you can install custom software on it...
If media companies are clever, they'll make their media system entirely proprietary, with a proprietary O/S and no mechanism for a private person to develop software for it. The SDK could be distributed only to companies contracted to you, and of course, you would install all software at the factory and upgrades would be handled at the store where the gear was purchased ("No user serviceable parts inside! Opening this port will void your warranty! " and etc).
Basically, just close up the whole media shebang, and leave the rest of the internet alone. It's not like our tech industry would find this difficult.
Rats -- my web proxy filtered the site you mentioned as a "games" site. %$#@!!!
But, yeah, probably something like that only a full media device like a mini-DVD player. They could add an iPod-type music device, too, and so on, and so on. They could really run with it if they wanted to. In principle, they could make something which was tailored for video and sound, and really slick. Everything in ROM (no virus worries), hardware encryption and a sealed case (immune to casual attempts at reverse engineering) and so on. I'd buy one. It'd free up my PC for use as a local network server.
You know, it wouldn't take them that long to build this. They've already GOT windows CE, and a whole host of CE devices. It wouldn't he that hard for them to put together a new design incorporating the tech they've already got.
By letting the thing act as a combination cable modem/web browser/email terminal + maybe game machine, they'd fill an existing need and set the stage for a big content market.
They just need to let go of this whole "we'll push content over to PCs" idea. There is room for more than one class of device, you know?
My "dream gadget" would be something like the little portable DVD players you see these days. Only, it would be larger, probably like a slim-line laptop with a fifteen inch LCD, it would accept a cable feed, and have a keyboard and touchpad for accessing DRM websites. It would have some email and web browsing capabilities, implemented in a flash ROM of course, WinCE style. It would have some kind of printer interface, naturally enough, and a little proprietary 8.5x11 printer. And, it would have a proprietary connector which you could run to a proprietary LCD or external monitor in various sizes if you wanted to use it as an entertainment center.
Sony would sell one, Microsoft would probably contract out to build one, and so on, etc. It would parallel the console market.
Given a class of device like this, and online offerings only it can access, personal computers cease to be a problem for the entertainment industry and we can all relax. Nobody gets screwed, programmers can still program, everyone's happy.
You know it's inevitable anyway. I just got a Sharp Mobilon Tripad (on Ebay, for 200 bucks). It's a CE machine with just about everything an end-user needs, and it's kinda cool. Instant on, too. And, it's over a year old, design wise. Already obsolete.
I think the real problem with DRM as Hollywood types are trying to implement it is that they're so unimaginative they can't envision a scenario in which online offerings are accessed with anything besides a general-purpose computer. Basically, it's the same old Hollywood problem all over again: they can't picture anything new themselves, so they keep rehashing existing things ad nauseum.
Instead of trying to wreck or cripple personal computers, why aren't they trying to build a new special-purpose media device with the decryption method in hardware and the case sealed? Doing this would let them implement DRM in any way they chose without interfering with anyone's work, it would give them a new product to sell, and it would probably leave everyone happy. Not just happy; probably delighted.
Some other benefits of such a product would be that they could control what connectors are installed, they could play with the way the screen is painted so it wouldn't appear well on videotape (remember how old CRTs wouldn't show up well on videotape because of how the scan lines were generated?) and they could build in a temporary storage function which would let you time-shift or do any other thing you wanted.
Think about it: this would give them everything they want. They could put A/V content on the web in a proprietary encrypted format, so they wouldn't have to worry about all us Linux guys downloading their precious files, people would have access to the content as part of their cable service, they'd get either a cheapo low-end model free or buy the premium system (the cell phone model)... And, everyone is happy. I can browse the non-DRM web with my Red Hat box, or turn on my content system when I want to do something requiring DRM. It's totally win-win.
Sometimes I think the MPAA and RIAA are asleep at the switch. None of these legal maneuverings are necessary! Build the little custom media system, stop producing videotapes, switch over to encrypted online streams and DVDs, and freakin' relax. Drop the idea that everything has to run on a PC, for Christ's sake.
Of course, this is just my opinion and they're not going to listen. But, wouldn't it be nice if they did?
" [offtopic] * I always read books about air disasters when riding on aircraft. it's interesting * it keeps the people in the adjacent seats quiet * the plane is less likely to crash, because the gods of flying have a sense of humor"
Oh my god, what a great idea! That hadn't occurred to me. Any good titles to recommend?
Not that I ever step on an airplane anymore (I tell people, "if it's too far to drive it's TOO DAMN FAR") but back when I used to fly, I always kept my laptop safely hidden in my carry-on. I always figured that if I took it out, Murphy's law would get me -- some jackass would accidentally spill his/her coke and complimentary roasted nuts all over my system.
MY solution was to bring a good science fiction novel with me. It doesn't require electricity, it's much more interesting than anything you'll see on DVD, and you don't have to worry about it getting damaged (books are pretty tough).
A side benefit is, that dufus they crammed next to you in the seat is a lot less likely to annoy you by craning his neck over if you're not running a midget movie theater. About the most you'll get is "whatcha readin'?" which you can deal with by supplying an unsettling stare and the reply, "A book about an airline passenger who poisons one of his fellow passengers -- Oh, LOOK! Your soda and nuts are here!" (this last said with an inexplicable brightening of your expression and a big smile. Make sure you stare at the person while he/she eats).
"That does *not* sound like "entry level", but rather a middle-level at least." -- Tablizer
In private industry it would be a pretty respectable position; it's entry level for the programmer track here in civil service. There used to be one lower than that, which was just "programmer" but now they pretty much start people at the more senior spot. At least that's what I've heard. Once upon a time, you went from "programmer" to "programmer/analyst" to "systems analyst" but now things are getting a little flatter. I'm not complaining.;)
"Do you have any tips for scoring high on the forms/interviews, BTW? What specifically are they looking for and what do they reject or are bothered by?"
Well, having looked over a lot of resumes myself, one very strong point I'd make is DO NOT LIE. You'll get found out almost immediately -- the people reviewing resumes for civil service are not H/R, they're senior programming staff. Their bullshit detectors are top notch, and they resent being played for a fool, especially when they have to review dozens of resumes instead of working on their pet project. Another thing is, because people don't generally get fired from civil service, we're MUCH more careful who we hire. We go for someone with some meat on their bones, i.e. someone who actually knows something. If you've got solid experience, TELL US. We like to hear that kind of thing. Just don't try to fake it.
Although we're a Microsoft shop, we don't penalize resumes for non-microsoft experience; most of us have done some work in Unix and Java, and we respect the skills required. I was a pure Linux/Java guy before I hired on, so obviously it didn't hurt me any. Having said that, if you know VB 6.0, and are familiar with IIS, MTS, and SQL Server, that would probably help you out a bit. Familiarity with N-Tier client-server will help a lot; most of our systems are along those lines. Knowledge of Oracle and PL-SQL is a plus, because we like Oracle... Of course, we're getting into.Net, so that might help, but don't focus on it. At best, it's an extra (for now).
"Another thing, there is often a 6-month or more delay between the time you fill out an application and the time anything happens." -- Tablizer
In state government you'll get a faster response, I think. I started getting calls after only 3 or 4 weeks. The interviews got wrapped up over two weeks and I was hired, just like that. I think you should look more towards the larger states with large, complex governments like New York, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois... Less populous areas might be different, and not require as much staff but by the same token, you might get a faster response there. Don't ignore them, of course, every state has an infrastructure, but the bigger, more heavy-duty ones offer more jobs I suspect.
"And, Thanks for your viewpoint."
Thank you, too. This has been pretty interesting. You seem kind of sharp. Don't be disheartened by not getting into civil service the first time out, there are a lot of budget problems going on in several states, some have hiring freezes, etc... Sooner or later, they're going to have to fill vacant positions. Keep your eye on the "public sector" part of hotjobs, which is where I found my job, and on your state's larger newspaper (e.g. the New York Times instead of the Rockland Journal News, for instance) for ads announcing positions, and you'll be able to apply when they open up.
Your experience doesn't synch up with mine at all. I entered civil service when I was 31, after working in private industry for years. I accepted the entry-level position, "Senior Programmer/Analyst", partially because I was fed up with private industry and all the bullshit I was seeing happen, but also because I was tired of building systems whose only purpose was to get money from people. I wasn't just escaping the dot-com crash; I was escaping the emptiness of the whole endeavor. I wanted to do socially rewarding work, which benefitted other people without being tainted with a profit motive. But that's private, and personal, and I'm not going to describe my beliefs here. I'm talking to you about the basic fact that civil service jobs are possibly the last GOOD jobs in America, George Bush Jr's attempts at union busting notwithstanding.
So, in answer to your question,
[["why *should* people start at the bottom when they have 10+ years of experience already? It is demeaning and frustrating"]]
I'd say two things:
1. A "senior programmer analyst" position is HARDLY "the bottom"; it's just an entry point. You start at the entry point and work your way up from there.
2. I think that maybe people who think entering at the correct entry point is "demeaning and frustrating" should put their egos away and seriously re-evaluate just how valuable their experience is in the private sector. If, as you say,
[["The private sector is paying sh*t right now, if you can even find something. Perhaps security-related stuff is in demand, but the rest of IT is shot in the ass."]]
then that Senior-Programmer-Analyst position isn't as bad as you're trying to portray it to be, is it? Beats the unemployment line, doesn't it? If private industry is in the shitter, then you lose NOTHING by swallowing your pride and starting over again in civil service. Besides, the people are nicer, the work benefits humanity, and you get to actually enjoy A LIFE because you don't have to work all the crazy overtime hours private industry demands (Again, these are the benefits of unionization, but I'm not going to drag out my soapbox here).
So, in answer to your post, I think you're way, way off the mark. But I respect your difference of opinion; perhaps we'll "agree to disagree".;)
P.S. About your idea that increasing turnover in government staff is a good idea, I should point out that the reason the computer systems used by government agencies work so well and crash so rarely is that we keep our programmers for decades, so the person maintaining code is often the man who invented it, and new programmers can work with him for years, almost as if they were his apprentices. There's more continuity, which leads to much greater stability over time. I've met people here who started working with punch cards, who've been maintaining their systems for decades, and who are intimately familiar with almost every tool the state uses. You just don't see that in private industry very often. Maybe in Bell Labs or IBM, I don't know; but certainly not very often.
It's something to think about. The turnover you're so enamored with only benefits consultants who like churn.
(responding to a critique of my points vis-a-vis government jobs):
I'm sure this is how people in private industry view government positions, but the view is a lot better from in here, if you catch my drift. Taking your points one by one, with no animosity (honest):
"1. Government work involves a lot of red tape and meandering politics that tend to be anti-merit."
Well, the part about red tape is true, but sometimes that's a blessing in disguise; it buys time in a pinch. I haven't seen any meandering politics, but then, I'm in IT, and most of the staff here are pretty cool. Most people just want to be left alone with their work. I dont' know if that's true in ALL agencies, but it's true in mine.
"2. The government is shrinking right now due to tax revenue shortfalls. Only military and security seem to be expanding."
True, BUT, they're still looking for IT people. Soon, they'll be replacing people who retire and leave vacancies. And, there are always a few people who want more money, and take off to private industry. A vacancy is a vacancy.
"3. The gov hiring process is biased toward recent grads because the unions save the good (high) positions for their own members. It is massive age-bias. Surprisingly, a big lawsuit over it has yet to come."
You misunderstand. Everyone has to ENTER civil service at the entry level; all promotions are from within. It doesn't bar older people; it bars people who aren't willing to pay their dues. ANYONE can enter the system at the entry point. You accept the initial status and you work your way up -- just like EVERYONE else who came before you. There's no discrimination involved.
One nice thing is, our workers compete with their peers for promotions, taking examinations in which the three best scores are called for an interview. It's purely merit based, and purely within a specific peer group (i.e. you enter at GS-18, then GS-18s compete for GS-23 slots, GS-23s compete for GS-25 slots, and so on). It results in a system where a good programmer can work for the same employer (the state) for thirty or forty years, then retire -- i.e. his loyalty and his work are repaid fairly. Try finding THAT in private industry.
It's similar to how the military works, if you think about it. You can't just walk into a recruiting office at 35 and say, "the dot-coms won't hire me anymore, so I'd like to start off as a Colonel, thanks." You have to start at Second Lieutenant just like everyone else. No one is special; everyone gets treated in exactly the same way (except for appointments, but those aren't strictly speaking civil service so I'm not counting them). One major difference is, the military WILL consider age in recruiting, and we don't. We welcome everyone.
Wanna hear something funny? I hear this complaint a lot, mostly from consultants who are dismayed when they find out they can't just jump into a GS-25 when they're tired of consulting and want to score a pension. You either enter civil service the right way, and play fair, or you stay in private industry and take your chances.
My favorite response to this sort of thing is the Aesop Fable about the Grasshopper and the Ant. Civil Service is the anthill, and we're all working hard and building up seniority and benefits. Consultant/grasshoppers are out in the world, making two or three times as much as us, but they pay a price -- they don't get to compete for the higher positions. It's all very fair, and totally on the up and up.
"4. The gov(s) is moving more to oursourcing, meaning the jobs are still going to cheaper foriegners."
Not exactly. Each agency maintains an internal IT staff which preserves and maintains the internal systems used by that agency. Outside consultants are called in to build specific projects, which are then handed off to internal staff for long-term maintenance. Government is smarter than you might imagine; it doesn't trust anything, and doesn't leave anything to chance. Every system has at least SOMEONE babysitting it, whether it was developed internally or not. Bet on it.
"5. Gov technology lags behind. "
Not MY gov. We're using some very current stuff here, and setting up some very interesting services for our citizens. I don't want to get into it; I don't know what has been announced, and it's not my call what should be described to people. But we're pretty fast on our feet.
"True, if you can get in and learn to tolerate the jerkocracy there, then you will have more job security than private sector. I would note that gov job satisfaction surveys often don't point very high."
My, oh, my, that's a biased statement. I haven't seen ANY "jerkocracy". Every person I've worked with here has been a complete professional, very elegant and completely cool. And, I don't know anyone who's really dissatisfied with his/her job; we're all pretty happy. We get a lot of training, we get to work with some really great tools, we're building socially significant systems that protect and serve the people of my state... What's not to love about it? And, what's a little bureaucracy? Do you think corporate America doesn't have any?
Anyway, I hope you'll consider some of my responses here and give civil service a fairer shake. So what if we don't get paid as much as private industry? I think the balance of the positive things about it more than make up for the difference in pay.
No one. This game has no action in it, despite my cooperation with your trolling. I figured you'd be good for at least one rant, but nooooooo, you want to keep throwing one-liners around, not even making an effort. You're a troll-tease, that's what you are. Hmph.
I can't leave it like this. We need a limerick.
"There once was a lad from Calais,
whose balls were constructed of brass,
He'd bang them together,
and play 'Stormy Weather',
as lightning shot out of his ass."
There; that's a little better at least. Now I shall depart. My Playstation II is beckoning me.
But, and I know this is going to get me flamed, there's another thing. In the year and a half I've been in this job, I've found out that the Microsoft tools I'm using are really not that bad. Back in my dot-com Java days, I figured VB was a fate worse than death. It's not. It's pretty ugly at times, sure, but it's got a lot of nice points to it. I can whip up an application in no time at all, for one thing. I can integrate web sites, client-server components, MTS components, and databases with ease. It really is a piece of cake working with this stuff. And, I think a lot of the Linux-only guys miss this basic truth. When it comes to developer's tools, Microsoft is truly on the ball.
Why aren't there equivalent, GPL'ed tools for Linux yet? I don't mean "functional" I mean equivalent. Sure, some of the Java IDEs are nice, but most of them run kinda slow, don't they? And, you're at the mercy of the JVM running on any given Linux box. Your apps are not going to run blazingly fast, ok?
What's wrong with putting together something like Borland's C++ Builder and making it available, GPL, for Linux? Something where you have a GUI that lets you do UI design and then snap right into code, set properties, etc, without having to use multiple tools (like KDevelop and its UI designer, or am I thinking of a QT thing? It's been a while)? Maybe such an environment exists; if so I'd like to hear about it.
Basically, I think Linux needs to address this. Borland's making some strides, which is nice. I'm very interested in their new environment. But I'd much rather see something GPL'ed. Sun offers Forte, but it runs SO SLOOOOOOW on my machine. Give me something I can sink my teeth into.
I can't promise I'll use it at work -- that's not for me to say. But I'd use it at home.
Note: as far as games go, that's a non-starter with me. My gaming platform is the Playstation II. I can sack out on my plush futon, ten feet away from a big TV, and fight my heart out without getting carpal tunnel or wrecking my eyes. And, it plays DVD's too!
Slashdot Mirror
You said: "who will be suffering? The point is to go about your life without these things. If you are suffering, there is no point because you have a mind set that you can't live without them."
("them" being music, movies, cable television, internet connectivity, and so on provided by large media companies involved with the RIAA and/or MPAA)
To which I reply:
Just because you CAN live without something doesn't mean you SHOULD. Or that you should pretend to enjoy it.
You can live without toilet paper, too. Or indoor plumbing. Or medical care. Or cars. Or houses.
My point is, why would you WANT TO? The whole point of civilization is to enjoy the benefits of civilization -- not throw them away on a pointless gesture.
So, pardon me, but although I know I can live perfectly well without television, the internet, and movies, I CHOOSE NOT TO. I like 'em! And, I'm keeping 'em.
You, of course, can go right ahead and do as you wish. If you want to move to the Appalacians, build a Quonset hut miles from any road, and spend the rest of your life eking out a pre-industrial living as a moonshiner or something, well, Banzai! Go for it! I'm sure we all respect your decision.
I'll be playing Hitman II on my Playstation. The levels set in Japan are TOUGH.
Hey, guys:
;)
Boycotting the MPAA and RIAA won't do any good, for one major reason: the number of people who actually care about this issue is so small compared to the population at large that the RIAA and MPAA is unlikely to even notice that a boycott is occurring.
What WILL happen is that the people involved in the boycott will punish themselves, suffering weeks without internet access, movies, music, and so on, all just to find out that their suffering has all been in vain.
Then, there are the logistical problems. How, for instance, will boycotters coordinate their activities if they cannot read Slashdot because their ISP is their cable company? And, if they cannot coordinate their efforts, isn't it possible that at least some of them will never realize the boycott is over, ending up forty years from now like latter-day Rip Van Winkles, trying to plug decades-old Linux boxen into some hyper-modern network? Hair down to their ankles, teeth rotten away, eyes frozen into a thousand-yard stare?
Let alone the withdrawl symptoms they'll experience when they give up their favorite games. Public-service wards will fill with people whose thumbs continually twitch, twitch, twitch in a memorized UT sequence... Periodically they'll yell "BUY A BIGGER GUN!" The orderlies will be nervous wrecks. Electroshock will certainly follow.
No, friends, I think I'll pass. I think it will be a lot more fun if one of us creates a half-life mod oriented around the MPAA and/or RIAA headquarters and posts it to a friendly mirror. Surely at least ONE employee of one of these agencies reads slashdot? And, surely SOMEONE out there likes doing game mods, and has a few hours to spare?
I'd just like to see the boss battle against Valenti. THAT would be SOMETHING. Do a sort of "ROBOVALENTI" theme, maybe. Use really bad, color mug shots from the media. Animate it like on SouthPark. Maybe do something like the "bedroom" scene between Saddam and the devil? Um... Or not.
Although it may be illegal to sell a mortgage to people who can't afford it, I'm pretty sure banks will have teams of lawyers working on that one -- and a whole closetful of explanations of why a given debtor was approved. You forget how slippery corporate America is. If it will make a profit, the legality of "it" isn't going to be considered by the suits, period. They're just going to go for it and take the calculated risk. Look at the Enron and Worldcom scandals if you want real-world examples of corporatism gone bad. They just don't care -- nothing ever happens to these "captains of industry" and they know it. At worst, they spend a few rent-free years with free food and clothing in Club Fed. In their view, this isn't that big a deal.
As far as the credit cards go, well, the fact that the kids are being irresponsible doesn't change the dynamic of the situation. The banks roll out all this credit the kid can't handle, then the parents get soaked. The practice should be outlawed, IMHO.
For me, at least, great sci-fi has to be realistic and believeable, and the tech has to be correct (at least, I have to be able to believe it could function and have some idea of how it is supposed to work).
I think the most wonderful genre is near-future science fiction. A lot of Asimov's work falls into this line, involving space exploration, etc... James P. Hogan was pretty good with his "Inherit the stars" trilogy, which I thought was pretty good. I like Heinlein a lot, because although some of his fiction goes pretty far into the future, at least the tech is handled in a very believeable way and he tries pretty hard to "get it right".
The whole cyberpunk genre is just awesome, Bruce Sterling, William Gibson, et al... I like the fact that they're very tech-centric, and make some pretty good predictions about the near future (some of which are already coming true).
I'm not into the "faraway galaxy" thing at all, I recoil at fantasy stuff like sword-and-sorcery, and if a story is too far in the future, and the tech is just completely pulled out of the author's butt I generally ditch the book and write the seven bucks off as a loss. I think this sort of thing is a sign of laziness on the part of the author; instead of researching, and figuring out how something could work if it was happening in real life, the author just says, "it's fiction" and pulls the whole thing out of his ass. It's crap, you know?
What pisses me off more than anything else is when an author has no understanding whatsoever of computer science and tries to make up a situation without researching it. I've seen a couple of novels about how a "biological virus" is "infecting the internet", or how someone caught a biological virus by looking at an infected system's VDT -- usually with some hackneyed explanation about how the flashing on the screen "hacked the person's brain". Don't get me wrong, it's fun to laugh at some joker lit major who saw "the Matrix" and figured he'd cash in, but reading the tripe he puts out is too painful.
I know, I'm judgemental. But, Jesus, a guy's gotta have his standards.
Shaitand said: "My employer who distribute the benefits I've mentioned doesn't try to screw us. On the other hand his own father works for him and has been there for 15yrs. Now his father is starting to fall behind on technology and isn't keeping up as well. He's getting old. Being his father is affording him a hell of alot more protection than having been there 15yrs. As soon as he finds a suitable replacement his father will be out. He can't handle the job as cheaply and effectively as a youger replacement can. That's the way this field works, it's called buisness."
To which I reply:
Am I the only one who's completely horrified by this? This guy's boss is going to can his own father, who's been working for him for upwards of 15 years, because he's getting old and can't keep up with the young'uns???
That's not "business"; that's freakin' horrible. If I was your boss's father, I'd bring a chainsaw to work on my last day and atone for bringing that mutt into the world by performing a "retroactive abortion". Sheesh...
I agree with this post close to 100%. Recently I found a nice little poison pen letter in my mailbox; it was a check for about 3500.00, with a few pages of fine print that basically said that the agreement was for a cardless credit card, pre-maxed out!!! Cashing the check would open and max out the account. I was flabbergasted; who would have the nerve to try a stunt like that??? Don't they think we read the fine print? Before I tore it into a thousand pieces, I showed it to my mother for the humor value. She was pretty surprised too.
I think that the situation isn't a conspiracy, per se; I think it's a large number of companies and rich individuals pursuing their own selfish self-interest, Ayn-Rand objectivist style, and arriving at similar conclusions. Those conclusions, in my opinion, are:
1) The best way to acquire a lot of land quickly, without raising any eyebrows (and while getting some sort of tax break out of it I bet) is to write up a bunch of bad mortgages, then watch people fail to make payments, then, foreclose and turn the property around. Some people will keep their house, but then the bank makes the interest. Others will lose the house, which the bank will then sell directly at a profit when real estate prices climb. While the bank holds the house, it'll get a tax break because of the "loss" it took during that fiscal year. Right? It's not a consipracy, it's just a "successful" practice.
2) Credit card companies give college students credit cards they KNOW the students will go wild on; in fact, they DEPEND ON THIS to boost their profits. They assume (usually correctly) that the parents will step in to rescue the kids from bad credit ratings. Basically, it's a way to soak the parents through the kids, without the parents having any opportunity to decide whether this is going to be permitted or not. Then, as a person grows older, the credit card companies push more and more credit on them in hopes they'll spend too much. I've seen people get offers in the mail for "platinum" cards with credit ratings upwards of 50,000.00!!! Now, this is just nuts. Who the fuck needs a 50K credit line? The game here is, the credit card companies want you to spend too much, so that you can barely afford to make the minimum payment. Then, you get stuck paying the card off for DECADES, resulting in a sort of involuntary servitude, i.e. you work to pay the credit card. It's no coincidence the Republicans keep trying to kill off Bankruptcy protections. They'd love to bring back debtor's prisons, and make you state-sponsored slaves... Interestingly enough, the "war on drugs" major contribution to our culture has been a machine that turns harmless pot smokers into license plate manufacturing laborers and roadside garbage collectors! But, I'm not going to get into THAT one... (For the record, if anyone official is reading this, I don't do drugs; in fact, I don't even drink, so don't get any funny ideas).
3) Car and computer leases: now, how big a scam is THIS? Let me phrase it more accurately, so you can picture a car salesman saying it to you in plain english, ok? "Hey, I've got a great plan for you. You buy this car, only you're not really buying it, right? You make the payments for three years, higher payments in some cases than a purchase would be, and then, when you're all paid off, you GIVE ME BACK THE CAR and get another one, with no trade-in value, and start making payments all over again! What do you say?" Nuff said, I hope. Compare this bullshit with MY car payments. I bought an inexpensive pickup new, and I pay about 250 bucks a month. I'll have it paid off in four years of payments, total, and then, it'll last me another ten years without payments. When it's falling apart, I'll pick up another inexpensive truck that'll last me ANOTHER fifteen years. Now, compare this with a leased Lexus. Get my drift? Anyone who tells you a lease is less expensive than a purchase is totally full of shit, and trying to sucker you.
4) Commercials try to imply that if you don't buy some kind of huge diamond for your girlfriend, you don't love her, and that she secretly wants this from you and expects it. Let alone the fact that this chain of thought reduces all women to the status of expensive prostitutes, let alone the fact that diamonds have little or no real value, let alone the fact that they can be easily manufactured and you can buy an artificial diamond for 10% of the price of a "real" one, let alone the fact that REAL diamonds generally have FLAWS while artificial ones DO NOT... I mean, these commercials above all else are just pushing you to throw your money away on a fucking worthless carbon crystal! It's just mindless consumerism!
5) While I'm on the subject of mindless consumerism, let's think about something else that's mindless. American pop culture right now almost pressures people to be stupid. First of all, people who are technically proficient are often portrayed as social malcontents, gimps and losers. There's a subtle pressure to be a dumb jock, or some kind of celebrity. There seems to be a real cultural pressure to believe that the only way you can become successful is to be either a rock star, a jock, or some kind of insane "extreme sports" type. Reality occasionally noses in, with the stories about rich lawyers and doctors, long-term mainstays of our society, although the stories tend to gloss over the "sell-your-soul-for-the-almighty-dollar" part. But overall, it seems to me that most television programming tends to favor a worldview in which it's not only okay, but fine and dandy, to be a dumbass who knows virtually nothing in any depth.
Overall, the trend I'm seeing is that every business out there is trying to maximize their profits and increase their bottom line without paying a single thought to the cultural and societal ruin they're going to cause over time. They really just don't give a shit whether they rot our society from the inside out, as long as the rich get richer and fatter. Look what's happening with fast food; it's terribly unhealthy stuff, and the majority of Americans are now overweight, with a large percentage becoming obese, but it's profitable, so they're going to keep up their propaganda campaigns (AKA hamburger commercials) and "specials" so you keep stuffing your mouth with poison. They'll keep pushing it as long as people are willing to pay for it, right up to the point when the last fat slob has a coronary and dies.
The only thing that gives me hope is that at my job, where I meet college kids who are interning, I've run into some pretty smart kids. So maybe over time, people will just get hip to all this crap and blow it off. We'll still be stuck in a culture where a big portion of society is stuck under credit card debt, car leases, failing mortgages and a mountain of fast food, but at least a portion will be free.
I just had a thought; if the masses ever tumble to what's being done with them, they might revolt. Imagine a riot of thousands of enraged obese people! Well, one positive note: us geeks should be able to outrun them.
A brief description of the American two-party system (as told by an American):
America has a two-party system. This system's major strength is that the two parties are very different, and serve different constituencies. Why is this important? Because as long as the power is fairly evenly divided between the two parties, nothing ever happens and everyone can get back to watching Springer, beer in hand. Differences between the parties are profound:
1) The Republican party represents the rich, and corporations. Their mission is to make sure that the tax dollars paid by wealthy Americans go towards programs that help wealthy Americans, instead of to wild-eyed social programs designed to actually help the majority, and other similar injustices, like environmental protection. Thanks to the Republican party, crazy, drug-addled Hippie atheists can't force onerous, terrible laws on our nation's honest, forward thinking corporate community, like the Clean Air Act, which we all know was a Communist Plot.
2. Democrats represent rich people who aren't *that* rich, like doctors and lawyers (in fact, most democrats started life as lawyers). Because of this, Democrats champion causes that are progressive enough to let Doctors and Lawyers feel "socially conscious" and in touch with their "sixties campus radical youth" (we were all such crazy kids!). However, Democrats don't push any cause TOO far because "Actual social progress" == "Voted out of office in next election". Democrats often think that they represent "the people" and they do, in the sense that they represent "the people living in affluent suburbs with minivans, four+ bedroom houses, and in-ground swimming pools". Democrats want environmental protection (for their neighborhood) and social programs like drug rehab centers (in other people's neighborhoods) and alternative sources of power (provided it doesn't affect them in any way, or require the loss of their SUV)". Democrats are the "reasonable" party -- in fact, after the Repubicans took over Congress, most democrats decided that they were republicans, too! Now, THAT is reasonable.
Incidentally, there were rumors floating around a couple of years ago that there were other parties, including one called, enigmatically, "the Greens", but these reports are unsubstantiated.
According to the article, the person who got busted for uncapping his modem used a Cisco configuration file to do so. This, apparently, he fed to the modem from a PC in his living room.
Not knowing the mechanism by which this works, I'm worried that while tinkering with my system, I might accidentally clobber my cablemodem settings and land myself in some trouble. So, I would like to ask the following specific question:
Did the people who uncapped their modems buy their own modem, and use an included interface to adjust its settings? If this is the case, I can relax, because I'm using the "stock" modem from my ISP and as far as I can see there are no interfaces of any kind connected to it (so presumably, it only works within their limits, period).
On the other hand, did the people who uncapped their modems alter the modem right over the ethernet cable plugged into it via some undocumented mechanism? If so, well, that really sucks, and makes me nervous.
I know this question makes me look like a total knob, but I'm asking, seriously. This isn't something you can do by accident, without specialized equipment and software, is it?
Thanks,
Phil
I think you're (mostly) right about HDTV, but I still think they want to be able to distribute some kinds of video over the web. Nothing that would compete with their other franchises, mind you, but I've heard stories about the MPAA (for instance) wanting to sell s service where you can download and watch every movie ever made, for a "nominal fee" at your convenience. Things like that make me think that the web does figure in their thoughts.
I don't think it's so much a matter of having 50,000 channels, as of being able to order specific content on a per-use fee basis. I don't think that's as easy via HDTV as it is via the web, although my cable provider is trying out a digital "movies on demand" thing where I live. I didn't like it; the selection wasn't big enough, I ended up spending too much money on it, and it occasionally glitched, with the movie quitting on me. Maybe it'll be cool when they work the bugs out.
I dunno; they're worried about the web, and they're pushing for all these DRM technologies. If they weren't going to put all this stuff on the web, why push for the technologies? After all, existing movies will still be able to be played on DRM systems, because they don't have any watermarks or anything incorporated. Right? So it really only applies to FUTURE content.
If it really only applies to future content, then they can't be thinking they'll just put it on HDTV, because then, there would be no problem and the web would be a non-issue. The problem ONLY becomes a problem when they make content available over the web, and want to prevent people from trading it. Right?
So, my thinking is, they fully intend to sell content over the web, both audio and video. They're gearing up to it, and they want to protect their stuff while still being able to sell it. It's all about the web.
See what I mean? If it isn't about the web, then none of this, Palladium, DRM, etc, makes any sense. HDTV is already ready to go. Ditto for copy-protected CDs and DVDs. All the stuff that's in the works relates to the online sphere.
What do you think? I think I'm on the mark here.
Quoth sqlrob: "No, not Divx:-), DIVX. The licensed "DVD" player released by Hollywood and Circuit City. It crashed and burned extremely hard.
;)
Custom hardware, custom media, strict licensing protections (Buy a disk, it would only play on your player). Didn't sell and was abandoned. Something suspicously like you proposed, massively rejected by consumers."
Ahhh... I never saw that one. I, um, well, I'm kind of a hermit. I don't get out much.
Actually the idea sounds similar but it's really very different. What I'm proposing is a system which is for internet connections only, i.e. internet channels for getting music, movies, live streams from CNN, etc. Basically, like a cable box for the media-heavy parts of the internet. It wouldn't play DVDs or any other similar media. We have DVD players for that. It wouldn't play music CDs either -- we have CD players for that. The system is purely for files and downloads, with some kind of on-board storage, say, 60GB worth. You'd be able to download a certain amount of material before you'd have to start making room for new stuff. And, of course, you could have movies and such "expire" after some period of time, and so on.
Basically, what I'm trying to conceive of is a system which gives the MPAA and RIAA what they want in a proprietary hardware format so they can relax and declare the war over.
We're going to get something like this one way or the other, you know. Either we do it in proprietary hardware, or THEY'll do it to our PCs.
Just my 2c...
"They are already doing this. It's called HDTV - "a new special-purpose media device with the decryption method in hardware and the case sealed".
The problem with HDTV is it's very specific to cable television streams, whereas what I'm proposing is broader, able to get music, and live web streams, and so on. Media companies want to be able to distribute over the web, remember. HDTV doesn't give them that.
The idea is, set things up so that all protected media *which is distributed over the web* has to come over a proprietary system. HDTV and digital cable already takes care of cable television; copy protection on CDs and DVDs takes care of those avenues as well (not that I'm a big fan of the way they're handling CD copy protection, but I think the DVDs are working out alright). We need something for the web. Hence, my suggestion.
It is a little bit like HDTV in principle, though. Good point.
Thank you very much!
One neat idea is, if someone tries to crack open the box, a subsystem inside the box zaps the motherboard and video circuitry with a couple of dozen volts at, say, a quarter amp. Not enough to hurt a person, but the boards are smokin'! This way, if a person tries to make a kludged box to capture content, as soon as he applies screwdriver to seam, he hears a little zap sound and the box goes the way of all flesh.
Thanks for the compliment!
Phil
Quoth Larne: "Until some Linux guy puts a proxy between the player and the internet, captures the files en route, and then cracks the proprietary encryption."
Ah, the reason that proprietary encryption systems have been cracked in the past has been that companies weren't trying very hard to encrypt the data. I see their attempts as token efforts, really. I think if they really, truly made an effort, they'd manage a system that would be very hard to crack. I'm not saying they should use RSA with really huge keys, but surely they can do better than they have in the past. I think you're a little too optimistic about the chances of the home user Vs. a properly funded research effort with an academic staff.
In my dream system, each system would be given a public and private key at the factory. When the system connected up to the provider, it would transmit its public key. The provider would encrypt for that key, and the viewer would decrypt ONLY within its own memory space.
You could make the case that some goober is going to strip the cable to the LCD, and try to capture the signal that way, but they can use a proprietary video system, limiting the usefulness of such a thing. And, of course, if it was me, I'd booby-trap the system so that it basically ate itself if a user tried to crack it open. A few dozen volts in a spike across the motherboard, for instance. But that's just me.
Quoth Larne: "I agree the fundamental problem here is lack of imagination on the part of the **IA members, but I think the real solution will be in the form of making the content compelling enough, and cheap enough, that there'll be no motivation to steal it. Which ultimately means settling for big profits instead of obscene ones."
Jeez, I keep hearing this, and man, you've got to give it up. Content companies don't want to hear it. They want the obscene profits, and they're willing to destroy YOUR PC to make that happen. My idea is to give them a more palatable, more profitable alternative, let them move away from PCs entirely, and allow all the little children to play nice together. Any solution which requires that content companies actually charge a fair price for their goods is doomed to failure. They're never going to agree to it. Think about it.
Quoth Larne: "The point of the original article seems to be that any DRM, whether in hardware, software, purhased laws, or all three, is doomed to failure."
Which I disagree with. DRM as it is currently being considered is of course doomed because it interferes with what people want to do and they're going to rebel. But, done more sensibly, it doesn't have to be that way. Look at the cable television market. I have premium cable, right? And, I have a digital cable box under my TV. Thus, I have access to like, fifty movie channels and so on and so forth, and my neighbor can't see them even if he taps my cable because he doesn't have the console. So it doesn't matter if he taps it or not.
Descramblers do exist, but cable companies regularly short them out with brief bursts over the line, and they have ways of detecting them and sending out an angry "cable guy".
Anyway, most people like the service as-is, and get the set-top box. It's cheap, it's no hassle, and it works great.
My point is, if the technology is as streamlined and unobtrusive as the cable set-top box, everyone will have one and no one will bother trying to defeat the DRM in it. It just won't be worth it. The system itself will be cheap enough that everyone will have a copy, and that'll be that. You'll be able to get content subscriptions of some sort, and there'll be pay per view and other special purchases -- kinda like cable.
I just think everyone's looking at this situation in the wrong way.
DIVX? Wasn't that a software protocol? Running on PCs? That's not the same thing. I'm saying, build a special purpose hardware system, end-to-end, and only distribute media using that system's protocol. Encrypt everything along the entire path, seal all the hardware, limit the connectors provided with it, and enforce license terms which ban reverse engineering. In other words, for media content you're worried about, totally lock it into this hardware platform.
Sure, people are going to try and break it, but they'd try and break PC DRM too. The difference is, it would be much easier to break PC DRM. Almost trivial in comparison. For one thing, you have access to the motherboard, you can reconfigure your machine, you can change the O/S running on it, you can install custom software on it...
If media companies are clever, they'll make their media system entirely proprietary, with a proprietary O/S and no mechanism for a private person to develop software for it. The SDK could be distributed only to companies contracted to you, and of course, you would install all software at the factory and upgrades would be handled at the store where the gear was purchased ("No user serviceable parts inside! Opening this port will void your warranty! " and etc).
Basically, just close up the whole media shebang, and leave the rest of the internet alone. It's not like our tech industry would find this difficult.
Rats -- my web proxy filtered the site you mentioned as a "games" site. %$#@!!!
.02...
But, yeah, probably something like that only a full media device like a mini-DVD player. They could add an iPod-type music device, too, and so on, and so on. They could really run with it if they wanted to. In principle, they could make something which was tailored for video and sound, and really slick. Everything in ROM (no virus worries), hardware encryption and a sealed case (immune to casual attempts at reverse engineering) and so on. I'd buy one. It'd free up my PC for use as a local network server.
You know, it wouldn't take them that long to build this. They've already GOT windows CE, and a whole host of CE devices. It wouldn't he that hard for them to put together a new design incorporating the tech they've already got.
By letting the thing act as a combination cable modem/web browser/email terminal + maybe game machine, they'd fill an existing need and set the stage for a big content market.
They just need to let go of this whole "we'll push content over to PCs" idea. There is room for more than one class of device, you know?
just my
While I'm at it...
My "dream gadget" would be something like the little portable DVD players you see these days. Only, it would be larger, probably like a slim-line laptop with a fifteen inch LCD, it would accept a cable feed, and have a keyboard and touchpad for accessing DRM websites. It would have some email and web browsing capabilities, implemented in a flash ROM of course, WinCE style. It would have some kind of printer interface, naturally enough, and a little proprietary 8.5x11 printer. And, it would have a proprietary connector which you could run to a proprietary LCD or external monitor in various sizes if you wanted to use it as an entertainment center.
Sony would sell one, Microsoft would probably contract out to build one, and so on, etc. It would parallel the console market.
Given a class of device like this, and online offerings only it can access, personal computers cease to be a problem for the entertainment industry and we can all relax. Nobody gets screwed, programmers can still program, everyone's happy.
You know it's inevitable anyway. I just got a Sharp Mobilon Tripad (on Ebay, for 200 bucks). It's a CE machine with just about everything an end-user needs, and it's kinda cool. Instant on, too. And, it's over a year old, design wise. Already obsolete.
I think the real problem with DRM as Hollywood types are trying to implement it is that they're so unimaginative they can't envision a scenario in which online offerings are accessed with anything besides a general-purpose computer. Basically, it's the same old Hollywood problem all over again: they can't picture anything new themselves, so they keep rehashing existing things ad nauseum.
Instead of trying to wreck or cripple personal computers, why aren't they trying to build a new special-purpose media device with the decryption method in hardware and the case sealed? Doing this would let them implement DRM in any way they chose without interfering with anyone's work, it would give them a new product to sell, and it would probably leave everyone happy. Not just happy; probably delighted.
Some other benefits of such a product would be that they could control what connectors are installed, they could play with the way the screen is painted so it wouldn't appear well on videotape (remember how old CRTs wouldn't show up well on videotape because of how the scan lines were generated?) and they could build in a temporary storage function which would let you time-shift or do any other thing you wanted.
Think about it: this would give them everything they want. They could put A/V content on the web in a proprietary encrypted format, so they wouldn't have to worry about all us Linux guys downloading their precious files, people would have access to the content as part of their cable service, they'd get either a cheapo low-end model free or buy the premium system (the cell phone model)... And, everyone is happy. I can browse the non-DRM web with my Red Hat box, or turn on my content system when I want to do something requiring DRM. It's totally win-win.
Sometimes I think the MPAA and RIAA are asleep at the switch. None of these legal maneuverings are necessary! Build the little custom media system, stop producing videotapes, switch over to encrypted online streams and DVDs, and freakin' relax. Drop the idea that everything has to run on a PC, for Christ's sake.
Of course, this is just my opinion and they're not going to listen. But, wouldn't it be nice if they did?
Thank you very much -- very interesting info.
" [offtopic]
* I always read books about air disasters when riding on aircraft. it's interesting
* it keeps the people in the adjacent seats quiet
* the plane is less likely to crash, because the gods of flying have a sense of humor"
Oh my god, what a great idea! That hadn't occurred to me. Any good titles to recommend?
Not that I ever step on an airplane anymore (I tell people, "if it's too far to drive it's TOO DAMN FAR") but back when I used to fly, I always kept my laptop safely hidden in my carry-on. I always figured that if I took it out, Murphy's law would get me -- some jackass would accidentally spill his/her coke and complimentary roasted nuts all over my system.
;)
MY solution was to bring a good science fiction novel with me. It doesn't require electricity, it's much more interesting than anything you'll see on DVD, and you don't have to worry about it getting damaged (books are pretty tough).
A side benefit is, that dufus they crammed next to you in the seat is a lot less likely to annoy you by craning his neck over if you're not running a midget movie theater. About the most you'll get is "whatcha readin'?" which you can deal with by supplying an unsettling stare and the reply, "A book about an airline passenger who poisons one of his fellow passengers -- Oh, LOOK! Your soda and nuts are here!" (this last said with an inexplicable brightening of your expression and a big smile. Make sure you stare at the person while he/she eats).
Um... Never mind.
"That does *not* sound like "entry level", but rather a middle-level at least." -- Tablizer
;)
.Net, so that might help, but don't focus on it. At best, it's an extra (for now).
In private industry it would be a pretty respectable position; it's entry level for the programmer track here in civil service. There used to be one lower than that, which was just "programmer" but now they pretty much start people at the more senior spot. At least that's what I've heard. Once upon a time, you went from "programmer" to "programmer/analyst" to "systems analyst" but now things are getting a little flatter. I'm not complaining.
"Do you have any tips for scoring high on the forms/interviews, BTW? What specifically are they looking for and what do they reject or are bothered by?"
Well, having looked over a lot of resumes myself, one very strong point I'd make is DO NOT LIE. You'll get found out almost immediately -- the people reviewing resumes for civil service are not H/R, they're senior programming staff. Their bullshit detectors are top notch, and they resent being played for a fool, especially when they have to review dozens of resumes instead of working on their pet project. Another thing is, because people don't generally get fired from civil service, we're MUCH more careful who we hire. We go for someone with some meat on their bones, i.e. someone who actually knows something. If you've got solid experience, TELL US. We like to hear that kind of thing. Just don't try to fake it.
Although we're a Microsoft shop, we don't penalize resumes for non-microsoft experience; most of us have done some work in Unix and Java, and we respect the skills required. I was a pure Linux/Java guy before I hired on, so obviously it didn't hurt me any. Having said that, if you know VB 6.0, and are familiar with IIS, MTS, and SQL Server, that would probably help you out a bit. Familiarity with N-Tier client-server will help a lot; most of our systems are along those lines. Knowledge of Oracle and PL-SQL is a plus, because we like Oracle... Of course, we're getting into
"Another thing, there is often a 6-month or more delay between the time you fill out an application and the time anything happens." -- Tablizer
In state government you'll get a faster response, I think. I started getting calls after only 3 or 4 weeks. The interviews got wrapped up over two weeks and I was hired, just like that. I think you should look more towards the larger states with large, complex governments like New York, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois... Less populous areas might be different, and not require as much staff but by the same token, you might get a faster response there. Don't ignore them, of course, every state has an infrastructure, but the bigger, more heavy-duty ones offer more jobs I suspect.
"And, Thanks for your viewpoint."
Thank you, too. This has been pretty interesting. You seem kind of sharp. Don't be disheartened by not getting into civil service the first time out, there are a lot of budget problems going on in several states, some have hiring freezes, etc... Sooner or later, they're going to have to fill vacant positions. Keep your eye on the "public sector" part of hotjobs, which is where I found my job, and on your state's larger newspaper (e.g. the New York Times instead of the Rockland Journal News, for instance) for ads announcing positions, and you'll be able to apply when they open up.
Your experience doesn't synch up with mine at all. I entered civil service when I was 31, after working in private industry for years. I accepted the entry-level position, "Senior Programmer/Analyst", partially because I was fed up with private industry and all the bullshit I was seeing happen, but also because I was tired of building systems whose only purpose was to get money from people. I wasn't just escaping the dot-com crash; I was escaping the emptiness of the whole endeavor. I wanted to do socially rewarding work, which benefitted other people without being tainted with a profit motive. But that's private, and personal, and I'm not going to describe my beliefs here. I'm talking to you about the basic fact that civil service jobs are possibly the last GOOD jobs in America, George Bush Jr's attempts at union busting notwithstanding.
;)
So, in answer to your question,
[["why *should* people start at the bottom when they have 10+ years of experience already? It is demeaning and frustrating"]]
I'd say two things:
1. A "senior programmer analyst" position is HARDLY "the bottom"; it's just an entry point. You start at the entry point and work your way up from there.
2. I think that maybe people who think entering at the correct entry point is "demeaning and frustrating" should put their egos away and seriously re-evaluate just how valuable their experience is in the private sector. If, as you say,
[["The private sector is paying sh*t right now, if you can even find something. Perhaps security-related stuff is in demand, but the rest of IT is shot in the ass."]]
then that Senior-Programmer-Analyst position isn't as bad as you're trying to portray it to be, is it? Beats the unemployment line, doesn't it? If private industry is in the shitter, then you lose NOTHING by swallowing your pride and starting over again in civil service. Besides, the people are nicer, the work benefits humanity, and you get to actually enjoy A LIFE because you don't have to work all the crazy overtime hours private industry demands (Again, these are the benefits of unionization, but I'm not going to drag out my soapbox here).
So, in answer to your post, I think you're way, way off the mark. But I respect your difference of opinion; perhaps we'll "agree to disagree".
P.S. About your idea that increasing turnover in government staff is a good idea, I should point out that the reason the computer systems used by government agencies work so well and crash so rarely is that we keep our programmers for decades, so the person maintaining code is often the man who invented it, and new programmers can work with him for years, almost as if they were his apprentices. There's more continuity, which leads to much greater stability over time. I've met people here who started working with punch cards, who've been maintaining their systems for decades, and who are intimately familiar with almost every tool the state uses. You just don't see that in private industry very often. Maybe in Bell Labs or IBM, I don't know; but certainly not very often.
It's something to think about. The turnover you're so enamored with only benefits consultants who like churn.
(responding to a critique of my points vis-a-vis government jobs):
I'm sure this is how people in private industry view government positions, but the view is a lot better from in here, if you catch my drift. Taking your points one by one, with no animosity (honest):
"1. Government work involves a lot of red tape and meandering politics that tend to be anti-merit."
Well, the part about red tape is true, but sometimes that's a blessing in disguise; it buys time in a pinch. I haven't seen any meandering politics, but then, I'm in IT, and most of the staff here are pretty cool. Most people just want to be left alone with their work. I dont' know if that's true in ALL agencies, but it's true in mine.
"2. The government is shrinking right now due to tax revenue shortfalls. Only military and security seem to be expanding."
True, BUT, they're still looking for IT people. Soon, they'll be replacing people who retire and leave vacancies. And, there are always a few people who want more money, and take off to private industry. A vacancy is a vacancy.
"3. The gov hiring process is biased toward recent grads because the unions save the good (high) positions for their own members. It is massive age-bias. Surprisingly, a big lawsuit over it has yet to come."
You misunderstand. Everyone has to ENTER civil service at the entry level; all promotions are from within. It doesn't bar older people; it bars people who aren't willing to pay their dues. ANYONE can enter the system at the entry point. You accept the initial status and you work your way up -- just like EVERYONE else who came before you. There's no discrimination involved.
One nice thing is, our workers compete with their peers for promotions, taking examinations in which the three best scores are called for an interview. It's purely merit based, and purely within a specific peer group (i.e. you enter at GS-18, then GS-18s compete for GS-23 slots, GS-23s compete for GS-25 slots, and so on). It results in a system where a good programmer can work for the same employer (the state) for thirty or forty years, then retire -- i.e. his loyalty and his work are repaid fairly. Try finding THAT in private industry.
It's similar to how the military works, if you think about it. You can't just walk into a recruiting office at 35 and say, "the dot-coms won't hire me anymore, so I'd like to start off as a Colonel, thanks." You have to start at Second Lieutenant just like everyone else. No one is special; everyone gets treated in exactly the same way (except for appointments, but those aren't strictly speaking civil service so I'm not counting them). One major difference is, the military WILL consider age in recruiting, and we don't. We welcome everyone.
Wanna hear something funny? I hear this complaint a lot, mostly from consultants who are dismayed when they find out they can't just jump into a GS-25 when they're tired of consulting and want to score a pension. You either enter civil service the right way, and play fair, or you stay in private industry and take your chances.
My favorite response to this sort of thing is the Aesop Fable about the Grasshopper and the Ant. Civil Service is the anthill, and we're all working hard and building up seniority and benefits. Consultant/grasshoppers are out in the world, making two or three times as much as us, but they pay a price -- they don't get to compete for the higher positions. It's all very fair, and totally on the up and up.
"4. The gov(s) is moving more to oursourcing, meaning the jobs are still going to cheaper foriegners."
Not exactly. Each agency maintains an internal IT staff which preserves and maintains the internal systems used by that agency. Outside consultants are called in to build specific projects, which are then handed off to internal staff for long-term maintenance. Government is smarter than you might imagine; it doesn't trust anything, and doesn't leave anything to chance. Every system has at least SOMEONE babysitting it, whether it was developed internally or not. Bet on it.
"5. Gov technology lags behind. "
Not MY gov. We're using some very current stuff here, and setting up some very interesting services for our citizens. I don't want to get into it; I don't know what has been announced, and it's not my call what should be described to people. But we're pretty fast on our feet.
"True, if you can get in and learn to tolerate the jerkocracy there, then you will have more job security than private sector. I would note that gov job satisfaction surveys often don't point very high."
My, oh, my, that's a biased statement. I haven't seen ANY "jerkocracy". Every person I've worked with here has been a complete professional, very elegant and completely cool. And, I don't know anyone who's really dissatisfied with his/her job; we're all pretty happy. We get a lot of training, we get to work with some really great tools, we're building socially significant systems that protect and serve the people of my state... What's not to love about it? And, what's a little bureaucracy? Do you think corporate America doesn't have any?
Anyway, I hope you'll consider some of my responses here and give civil service a fairer shake. So what if we don't get paid as much as private industry? I think the balance of the positive things about it more than make up for the difference in pay.
"but I am playing the game, guess who's winning?"
No one. This game has no action in it, despite my cooperation with your trolling. I figured you'd be good for at least one rant, but nooooooo, you want to keep throwing one-liners around, not even making an effort. You're a troll-tease, that's what you are. Hmph.
I can't leave it like this. We need a limerick.
"There once was a lad from Calais,
whose balls were constructed of brass,
He'd bang them together,
and play 'Stormy Weather',
as lightning shot out of his ass."
There; that's a little better at least. Now I shall depart. My Playstation II is beckoning me.
But, and I know this is going to get me flamed, there's another thing. In the year and a half I've been in this job, I've found out that the Microsoft tools I'm using are really not that bad. Back in my dot-com Java days, I figured VB was a fate worse than death. It's not. It's pretty ugly at times, sure, but it's got a lot of nice points to it. I can whip up an application in no time at all, for one thing. I can integrate web sites, client-server components, MTS components, and databases with ease. It really is a piece of cake working with this stuff. And, I think a lot of the Linux-only guys miss this basic truth. When it comes to developer's tools, Microsoft is truly on the ball.
Why aren't there equivalent, GPL'ed tools for Linux yet? I don't mean "functional" I mean equivalent. Sure, some of the Java IDEs are nice, but most of them run kinda slow, don't they? And, you're at the mercy of the JVM running on any given Linux box. Your apps are not going to run blazingly fast, ok?
What's wrong with putting together something like Borland's C++ Builder and making it available, GPL, for Linux? Something where you have a GUI that lets you do UI design and then snap right into code, set properties, etc, without having to use multiple tools (like KDevelop and its UI designer, or am I thinking of a QT thing? It's been a while)? Maybe such an environment exists; if so I'd like to hear about it.
Basically, I think Linux needs to address this. Borland's making some strides, which is nice. I'm very interested in their new environment. But I'd much rather see something GPL'ed. Sun offers Forte, but it runs SO SLOOOOOOW on my machine. Give me something I can sink my teeth into.
I can't promise I'll use it at work -- that's not for me to say. But I'd use it at home.
Note: as far as games go, that's a non-starter with me. My gaming platform is the Playstation II. I can sack out on my plush futon, ten feet away from a big TV, and fight my heart out without getting carpal tunnel or wrecking my eyes. And, it plays DVD's too!