You are correct to say that software patents have been issued. This does not however imply that they have been issued legally.
The best you could say is that the rather tenuous justification for their having been granted has yet to be tested in a court.
The spirit and intent of the current legislation is clearly against software patents - it seems unlikely any would survive such a test.
Why else would so many large software concerns be lobbying so hard if they already had what they wanted?
The battle in Europe is yet to be fought. There is no call for defeatism
so you're saying what? that hybrid cars do help energy consumption? That they don't help energy consumption? That they might, but that we'd be better off switching to all electric cars?
I can take the point about power stations and efficiencies of scale, but I can't tell what inference you intend us to draw.
I stumbled upon this in meta-mod and thought I'd chip in. Apologies for coming so late to the party
The problem with MUMPS is the data integrity issue.
it sucks for *any* kind of serious data retrieval.
Umm... no. Ive used it professionally, as I have Oracle and a handful of other DBMS packages. Mumps and it's successor Cache are very fast. Data integrity isn't a factor in retrieval, it only affects updates and deletions (inserts too, arguably).
Cache', by Intersystems (a Post-Relational Database!) is based on MUMPS. You've seen their adverts here on Slashdot. They claim to be object-relational, but they are no such thing: they are MUMPS
There isn't actually an accepted object-relation model, so anything that says "object-realtional" can be read as "marketing spin". The best contender, IMO, for an OR data model is probably Darwen and Date's Third Manifesto, but there's been regrettably little corporate take-up of their ideas.
What cache do claim is to be post-relational. Which is to say, they assert that theirs is (one of) the data-model(s) that is taken over from the (presumably) obsolete Relational Model. I can't say I agree with them there, since the RM is the best thing since semiconductor junctions. Still, that doesn't make Cache/Mumps a bad product.
MUMPS is, at best, a fairly bizarre language with persistent storage of global arrays.
Stop right there! Never, never, NEVER make the mistake of confusing the data manipulation langauge with the underlying model!
That sort of loose thinking is why so many people think they hate the Relation Model, when all the actual suckage is in SQL. (We're talking about a plugin for the PL/1 language which has hardly been used for thirty years, one which has formally abandoned the Relational Model. and one where the secretary of its own standards committee has publicly questioned the value of SQL as a standard. If you want me to suupport all that say so. I'll dig out my dissertation and post some references).
That said, MUMPS, Cache-style isn't as bad as it looks at first. If you can ignore the culture of BASIC style keyword abbreviation and structure your code properly, it becomes a very powerful language - although like many such, it can take a while to get your head around it all. It's not to everyone's taste, granted, but it is powerful.
The Awards are open to all companies that have been trading in the UK for at least 12 months prior to the Awards deadline.
So they may be giving money to open source, but none of that nsaty 'orrible community maintained nonsense.
mmm...
I wonder if the judges will deem participants in MS' shared source initiative as eligble to enter. More to the point, will projects whose only "openness" derives from signing a Microsoft NDA be considered eligible?
Suppose one of MS shared source projects were to win this award, in the apparent, if illusory, face of such projects as Firefox and Apache. In some circles that might seem to add much needed credibility to the "shared source". I wonder how much that would be worth to Redmond?
They don't distribute XP in a LiveCD version either, so far as I am aware. I really think the GP is on to a loser with this one.
Mind, we should not ignore the possibility that the GP was in fact making an impassioned plea for a single cd linux distro, since he hates and despises microsoft but feels bound to them because he suffers
from some strange condition of bloat-o-phobia.
In which case, we could also mention the likes of Damn Small Linux (50MB), Puppy Linux (50MB) and Feather Linux - which is a Knoppix with the bloat removed and which clocks in at 123MB. Also to be considered are Tomsrtbt which boots off a floppy for a command line distro, and muLinux which boots off a floppy into X. Hell's teeth, these days MS don't even like you using boot discs!
And of course there's Knoppix, which if it doesn't fit on a floppy, still fits into a single CD.
Maybe. Could be it just reflects my preferences in gaming. I prefer CIV-alikes and FPS games which never really happened on the consoles - at least so far as I'm aware.
But I seem to recall that the, gaming shops, until quite recently, used to have more PC-CD titles than any other. Maybe it's all a matter of perspective, and I only noticed the PC games because those were the ones I played.
Of course, that argument cuts both ways. Any data to back up your assertion? Just out of curiosity, you understand
mmm... But as I understand it, none of the private corporations have been setting up the service at all. I can't see a problem with local governemt setting up a service that private enterprise has repeatedly failed to offer.
It's not like the service can't be outsourced, either at the outset or later on once the business model has been proven.
However, rather than explore the options, all the providers are crying "no fair! communism!" without any plans at all to provide such a service.
This is something that should be tried, if only to see how well it works. Cheap citywide wifi has the potential to fast forward the local economy, much as other great advances in communication infrastructure (roads, print, radio, internet) have boosted econimies. The theory may be in error, but it deserves to be tested, if only in a couple of cities.
In a nutshell, I suppose it comes down to binary thinking. Everyone arguing on this thread seems to assume that this is strictly an either/or decision: either everyone everywhere has to have municipal wifi or no one does until and unless the corporate sector chooses to supply it.
That misses a range of options, both geographically and financially. Binary thinking works well for computers, but the real world tends toward analogue and fuzzy logic.
The next-generation AIM release will also be an open platform, which AOL says 'could rival even Mozilla due to its scale and the massive AIM user base.'"
Which could be the cleverest thing AOL have done for a long time, depending on whether the company can muster the will to see if through to the end. MS lost money for years trying to destroy AIM and AOL. For their part, AOL lost the top spot in the messenger wars, but kept a large userbase.
By opening AIM, AOL stand to gain a lot of new users, and to force MS into re-investing in MSN just when they'd really like to divert resources back to IE.
As I say, it all depends on whether they have the will to see the process through to the end. And I suppose, upon what they mean by an "open platform". Open Source a la mozilla would be fine, but the proposal may wind up being watered down into something akin to MS's "shared source" mockery. A shame if so, since they could be onto something with this.
I'm guessing within the next 5 generations, the console and PC market will converge...
Possibly sooner. This could well be a market that matures with its audience. If the consoles can keep up, Sony and Nintendo may arrive in a position to challenge the dominance of Wintel.
Of course, it's been tried before. The Spectrum failed to take its userbase with the platform upgraded, and while the Amiga probably mounted the strongest challenge to the PC, it still failed in the face of what was then a more open and easily extensible system (IMHO,IIRC BTW)
The question is whether the pattern will repeat, and if so, which platform will display the most openness and adaptability. I think it's unlikely to be a console, if only because the appeal of consoles (from a manufacturers viewpoint) is that they have the machine so tightly locked down. That's probably going to have to change if they don't want to lose their users as they grow up
Patents are here to stay, whether we like 'em or not.
Which patents would they be, precisely? Software patents are currently illegal under EU law, and since that is what we are disussing, they are not here at all.
Let's not start out by trying to confuse matters needlessly, shall we?
They are required to protect the IP of both a startup or an (evil) corporation.
Yeah, right. Because NDAs, Trade Secrets, Licencing and Copyright have done such a poor job right. Look at Microsoft - poor Bill hardly knows where his next billion is coming from...
Sorry, but there are lots of ways for software startups to protect their ideas. Patents are not needed for any of them. In fact patents hold the threat of denying a startup profit from their ideas, since a lawsuit based on a spurious can bankrupt a fledgling company before they have a chance to realise any proft from their idea however novel.
So since we cannot get rid of it what can be done to make it "reasonable"?
In Europe we don't have "it" (if by "it" you mean "software patents"). So the best way to make "it" reasonable is to see that "it" never gets enacted into law. In the States where you do have software patents, the best approach is to have them outlawed. That would satisfy the most stringent requirements for "reasonableness".
Lets say your corp has invented a drug that cures AIDS.
Let's talk instead about software patents in Europe. The purpose of clarity is not served by confusing software and pharmaceutical patents any more than it is by confusing the situation in Europe with that in the States. Furthermore, discussing measures to minimise the harm resulting from a law that has yet to be passed is a little defeatist. Or perhaps you think of it as optimistic?
I don't think people should worry about silly patents like say "one-click" etc
A lot of small businesses and open source developers would take issue with you on this, although I expect Microsoft and Amazon.com agree with you entirely.
Granted they are gonna create problems, but in the grander scheme
If they are going to create problems, why should we not worry about them? Your argument reminds me of the "adivce" supposedly given to potential rape victims: lie back and enjoy it and you probably won't get hurt.
if we can get them to agree to some thing more "reasonable" heck go ahead and patent every fucking idea or dream!
But your definition of reasonableness would make such patents invalid, would it not? Surely you're not proposing that we flood the patent office with spurious patents on abstract ideas. I can see a certain shallow, short term appeal to the idea, even if we take the most butally self interested view of the matter, only the very rich are going to have even a chance of benefiting from such a scheme. For the majority of us, all we would achive would be to condone the theft of our creativity.
To summarise: the topic is open source in Europe, sub topic the proposed legalisation of software patents in europe. This legislation is still from from a fait accompli, and we still have better options than deafeatism and self interested myopia.
Of course it is an embarassment to Microsoft!
You would not absolve your bank of responsibilty for your money just because they outsourced one of their servers.
Neither should we so absolve Microsoft when they fail to protect the passwords that may miscreants grant access to those same funds.
Passport is supposed to be Microsoft's single point of entry to the web. Sign on to one passport site and you're validated for all of them. That's the plan, that's what Microsoft want for passport. Potentially, passport logins protect bank accounts and other secure services. It's not just a few hotmail accounts that are on the line here.
How can we take Passport seriously in this role unless Redmond accepts responsibility for the security of its servers?
Microsoft chose a substandard company to which to outsource its passport server, and then failed to exercise sufficient oversight of the company.
You can't just say "it's all the fault of the koreans".
Blaming koreans in general for the careless of one korean server farm is a bit like blaming americans everywhere for Enron. Nor does it help to say "it won't be so easy next time. We have a right to expect the system to be secure in the absolute sense of the word.
Really the only way this can fail to be embarrasing to MS is if Passport has already become such a joke that no one outside Microsoft takes it seriously any more.
Which while true enough, doesn't justify the assertion that the open source communities are being used as subcontractors by multinational corporations.
I happen to be Dutch and I'm well aware of the difference between the EP and the EC. This is why the word 'constituants' was written within quotes to begin with.
I do apologise. I was about to add the quotes, realising both my error and the propriety of your original usage when by woeful carelessness on my part I hit submit instead of preview.
Alas, sarcasm is lost on most these days.
I abase myself utterly before your magnificence. My shame is unbearable.
Seriously, it's notoriously difficult to convey sarcasm effectively (at least without resorting to gross caricature like the above) through the medium of text - just look at any USENET netiquette guide. Of course, if your aim is to score cheap points rather than communicate effectively then that same difficulty can become a godsend.
if you have these questions to ask, go ask him instead of pointing out the bloody obvious on/..
Ask him what? Whether he is corrupt or merely stupid? It seems sarcasm isn't the only rhetorical form that doesn't propagate over a textual interface, nee? And just because you are fed up with the subject, it doesn't mean that the issues couldn't benefit from a wider airing.
It's not as if the geeks here are interested.
You know, if only I'd know you spoke for all of slashdot, I could have asked you first and saved myself the trouble. Perhaps you might tell those nice fellows that modded the original post +4 that they're not really interested after all? I hate to disappoint them after they've been so nice to me.
I am going to do is help my country-men give the EU and our own collective governement including most of the opposition the Finger in the referendum held today.
Huzzah! Good for you! I applaud your efforts. I wish I could do likewise. Alas, Dear Tony has determined that we are unlikely to get the chance to express our opinions unless he can determine in advance that we're going to agree with him. So give them one for me - I'm sure we all agree that finger giving is vitally important in this age of increasing european political disenfranchisement.
And when you get through that, feel free to do something about that chip on your shoulder.
Why should he care? He's not an MEP over whom I might possibly have some leverage. This is a EU commissioner - an entirely different kettle of fish.
The EU commissioners are undemocratic and corrupt. Undemocratic because they are appointed directly by member states governments and utterly unaccountable to the electorate. Corrupt because... well it's not exactly a secret, y'know?. And I say this as a European.
These are the people who did everything they could to force through software patents. They did this in the face of massive opposition from member state goverments, from MEPs, from EU businessess and from EU citizens.
So why is he going to give a rats ass what I think? It's not like I can threaten not to re-elect him. It's not like anyone can.
And I'm not surprised he wants to hear as little as possible from his constituents; I doubt if he ever reads his public email. For my part, I've got better things to do with my time than to justify the existence of some third level private secretary by letting him write me a snotty letter.
Persaude me that I might achieve something, and I might reconsider. As it stands however...
well, I think a more accurate translation of,i>the open source community today [is a] subcontractor of American multinationals
would be: the open source community needs to be a subcontractor of European multinationals.
So what's stopping the Euro Corporations? the whole point of open source is that anyone can use it. It's not like we Europeans have to steal it from the US before we can get the benefit. Both can use it at the same time. Oh, and everybody else in the world can use it too, unimportant as that seems to Villasante.
To frame the discussion in terms of Europe vs America is a red herring. Villasante can't possibly be that clueless about open source, can he?
Which, I suppose, brings us back again to Hanlon's Razor and (thanks, SQL Error) Hanlon's Law
As the article stated, open source programmers are being treat more a subcontractors
That's right. Hardly a day goes by without IBM phoning me up, telling me what I have to write next, what coding style I must use and what format to use for the documentation. And they get really, really snotty if I blow the arbitarily short deadlines they set. I wouldn't be so bad if they didn't make me spend most of my day sitting in endless tedious meetings, and dealing with political crap that my boss can't be bothered to field because I'm only some scummy contractor...
I've done actual, real world subcontracting. That's a little unfair to some of my employers since I've had some good bosses, but but I've also had gigs that weren't far off what I described above.
I've written some open source software too. The experience is very different. I do what I want to do, according to my deadlines and my techniques. I write stuff that I will find useful, or in order to learn how do something. If other people find my work useful, that's how I measure the success of my labours.
I've been a subcontractor and I've coded open source. The two experiences are very different.
"Open source communities need to take themselves seriously and realise they have contribution to themselves and society.
He Meant:
Open source coders need to form startups which can be bought up and crushed.
He Said:
From the moment they realise they are part of the evolution of society and try to influence it, we will be moving in the right direction
He Meant:
Open source communities have realised they are a part of the evolution of society and are influencing it but not in a direction that my paymasters find profitable
He Said:
Companies are using the potential of communities as subcontractors -- the open source community today [is a] subcontractor of American multinationals
He Meant:
Maybe if I can make them feel as if they are losing out they'll all get discouraged and do something else.
He Said:
What I think is that Europe doesn't have a software industry today
He Meant:
And it isn't going to have one tomorrow either if I have any say in the matter.
He Said:
Open source is a complete mess -- many people do lots of different things. There's total confusion today
He Meant
I really, really really don't get this open source thing. Really, I'm a clue free zone.
Or am attributing to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity?
Yeah, I get that. It wasn't a dig at you so much as a reaction to the entire topic. It's a bit like reading the eternal evolution vs. creationism flame war on USENET.
Really though, what'd it hurt to allow a few test cases?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in the UK. What's a reliable source of sales data? You've got me curious now...
The best you could say is that the rather tenuous justification for their having been granted has yet to be tested in a court. The spirit and intent of the current legislation is clearly against software patents - it seems unlikely any would survive such a test. Why else would so many large software concerns be lobbying so hard if they already had what they wanted?
The battle in Europe is yet to be fought. There is no call for defeatism
I can take the point about power stations and efficiencies of scale, but I can't tell what inference you intend us to draw.
The problem with MUMPS is the data integrity issue.
it sucks for *any* kind of serious data retrieval.
Umm... no. Ive used it professionally, as I have Oracle and a handful of other DBMS packages. Mumps and it's successor Cache are very fast. Data integrity isn't a factor in retrieval, it only affects updates and deletions (inserts too, arguably).
Cache', by Intersystems (a Post-Relational Database!) is based on MUMPS. You've seen their adverts here on Slashdot. They claim to be object-relational, but they are no such thing: they are MUMPS
There isn't actually an accepted object-relation model, so anything that says "object-realtional" can be read as "marketing spin". The best contender, IMO, for an OR data model is probably Darwen and Date's Third Manifesto, but there's been regrettably little corporate take-up of their ideas.
What cache do claim is to be post-relational. Which is to say, they assert that theirs is (one of) the data-model(s) that is taken over from the (presumably) obsolete Relational Model. I can't say I agree with them there, since the RM is the best thing since semiconductor junctions. Still, that doesn't make Cache/Mumps a bad product.
MUMPS is, at best, a fairly bizarre language with persistent storage of global arrays.
Stop right there! Never, never, NEVER make the mistake of confusing the data manipulation langauge with the underlying model!
That sort of loose thinking is why so many people think they hate the Relation Model, when all the actual suckage is in SQL. (We're talking about a plugin for the PL/1 language which has hardly been used for thirty years, one which has formally abandoned the Relational Model. and one where the secretary of its own standards committee has publicly questioned the value of SQL as a standard. If you want me to suupport all that say so. I'll dig out my dissertation and post some references).
That said, MUMPS, Cache-style isn't as bad as it looks at first. If you can ignore the culture of BASIC style keyword abbreviation and structure your code properly, it becomes a very powerful language - although like many such, it can take a while to get your head around it all. It's not to everyone's taste, granted, but it is powerful.
So they may be giving money to open source, but none of that nsaty 'orrible community maintained nonsense.
mmm...
I wonder if the judges will deem participants in MS' shared source initiative as eligble to enter. More to the point, will projects whose only "openness" derives from signing a Microsoft NDA be considered eligible?
Suppose one of MS shared source projects were to win this award, in the apparent, if illusory, face of such projects as Firefox and Apache. In some circles that might seem to add much needed credibility to the "shared source". I wonder how much that would be worth to Redmond?
Purely speculation, of course.
2-1 Fav - Microsoft Internet Explorer
3-2 - Microsoft Word
5-1 - Microsoft Media Plater (EU edition)
50-1 - Firefox
1000-1 Bittorrent
200-1 bar
Or something like that. Personally, I'm taking no bets...
I wonder: is this the latest thing in trolling, or is slashdot's message database FUBARed at the moment?
Mind, we should not ignore the possibility that the GP was in fact making an impassioned plea for a single cd linux distro, since he hates and despises microsoft but feels bound to them because he suffers from some strange condition of bloat-o-phobia.
In which case, we could also mention the likes of Damn Small Linux (50MB), Puppy Linux (50MB) and Feather Linux - which is a Knoppix with the bloat removed and which clocks in at 123MB. Also to be considered are Tomsrtbt which boots off a floppy for a command line distro, and muLinux which boots off a floppy into X. Hell's teeth, these days MS don't even like you using boot discs!
And of course there's Knoppix, which if it doesn't fit on a floppy, still fits into a single CD.
Yeah, what was the GPs point, anyway? :)
But I seem to recall that the, gaming shops, until quite recently, used to have more PC-CD titles than any other. Maybe it's all a matter of perspective, and I only noticed the PC games because those were the ones I played.
Of course, that argument cuts both ways. Any data to back up your assertion? Just out of curiosity, you understand
It's not like the service can't be outsourced, either at the outset or later on once the business model has been proven. However, rather than explore the options, all the providers are crying "no fair! communism!" without any plans at all to provide such a service.
This is something that should be tried, if only to see how well it works. Cheap citywide wifi has the potential to fast forward the local economy, much as other great advances in communication infrastructure (roads, print, radio, internet) have boosted econimies. The theory may be in error, but it deserves to be tested, if only in a couple of cities.
In a nutshell, I suppose it comes down to binary thinking. Everyone arguing on this thread seems to assume that this is strictly an either/or decision: either everyone everywhere has to have municipal wifi or no one does until and unless the corporate sector chooses to supply it.
That misses a range of options, both geographically and financially. Binary thinking works well for computers, but the real world tends toward analogue and fuzzy logic.
Which could be the cleverest thing AOL have done for a long time, depending on whether the company can muster the will to see if through to the end. MS lost money for years trying to destroy AIM and AOL. For their part, AOL lost the top spot in the messenger wars, but kept a large userbase.
By opening AIM, AOL stand to gain a lot of new users, and to force MS into re-investing in MSN just when they'd really like to divert resources back to IE.
As I say, it all depends on whether they have the will to see the process through to the end. And I suppose, upon what they mean by an "open platform". Open Source a la mozilla would be fine, but the proposal may wind up being watered down into something akin to MS's "shared source" mockery. A shame if so, since they could be onto something with this.
Of course, it's been tried before. The Spectrum failed to take its userbase with the platform upgraded, and while the Amiga probably mounted the strongest challenge to the PC, it still failed in the face of what was then a more open and easily extensible system (IMHO,IIRC BTW)
The question is whether the pattern will repeat, and if so, which platform will display the most openness and adaptability. I think it's unlikely to be a console, if only because the appeal of consoles (from a manufacturers viewpoint) is that they have the machine so tightly locked down. That's probably going to have to change if they don't want to lose their users as they grow up
Which patents would they be, precisely? Software patents are currently illegal under EU law, and since that is what we are disussing, they are not here at all.
Let's not start out by trying to confuse matters needlessly, shall we?
They are required to protect the IP of both a startup or an (evil) corporation.
Yeah, right. Because NDAs, Trade Secrets, Licencing and Copyright have done such a poor job right. Look at Microsoft - poor Bill hardly knows where his next billion is coming from...
Sorry, but there are lots of ways for software startups to protect their ideas. Patents are not needed for any of them. In fact patents hold the threat of denying a startup profit from their ideas, since a lawsuit based on a spurious can bankrupt a fledgling company before they have a chance to realise any proft from their idea however novel.
So since we cannot get rid of it what can be done to make it "reasonable"?
In Europe we don't have "it" (if by "it" you mean "software patents"). So the best way to make "it" reasonable is to see that "it" never gets enacted into law. In the States where you do have software patents, the best approach is to have them outlawed. That would satisfy the most stringent requirements for "reasonableness".
Lets say your corp has invented a drug that cures AIDS.
Let's talk instead about software patents in Europe. The purpose of clarity is not served by confusing software and pharmaceutical patents any more than it is by confusing the situation in Europe with that in the States. Furthermore, discussing measures to minimise the harm resulting from a law that has yet to be passed is a little defeatist. Or perhaps you think of it as optimistic?
I don't think people should worry about silly patents like say "one-click" etc
A lot of small businesses and open source developers would take issue with you on this, although I expect Microsoft and Amazon.com agree with you entirely.
Granted they are gonna create problems, but in the grander scheme
If they are going to create problems, why should we not worry about them? Your argument reminds me of the "adivce" supposedly given to potential rape victims: lie back and enjoy it and you probably won't get hurt.
if we can get them to agree to some thing more "reasonable" heck go ahead and patent every fucking idea or dream!
But your definition of reasonableness would make such patents invalid, would it not? Surely you're not proposing that we flood the patent office with spurious patents on abstract ideas. I can see a certain shallow, short term appeal to the idea, even if we take the most butally self interested view of the matter, only the very rich are going to have even a chance of benefiting from such a scheme. For the majority of us, all we would achive would be to condone the theft of our creativity.
To summarise: the topic is open source in Europe, sub topic the proposed legalisation of software patents in europe. This legislation is still from from a fait accompli, and we still have better options than deafeatism and self interested myopia.
Passport is supposed to be Microsoft's single point of entry to the web. Sign on to one passport site and you're validated for all of them. That's the plan, that's what Microsoft want for passport. Potentially, passport logins protect bank accounts and other secure services. It's not just a few hotmail accounts that are on the line here.
How can we take Passport seriously in this role unless Redmond accepts responsibility for the security of its servers? Microsoft chose a substandard company to which to outsource its passport server, and then failed to exercise sufficient oversight of the company.
You can't just say "it's all the fault of the koreans". Blaming koreans in general for the careless of one korean server farm is a bit like blaming americans everywhere for Enron. Nor does it help to say "it won't be so easy next time. We have a right to expect the system to be secure in the absolute sense of the word.
Really the only way this can fail to be embarrasing to MS is if Passport has already become such a joke that no one outside Microsoft takes it seriously any more.
What? You thought that meant "your" computer? I always reckoned it was supposed to mean "Bill's Computer"
Which while true enough, doesn't justify the assertion that the open source communities are being used as subcontractors by multinational corporations.
Sorry man, As bad days go, this one's been completely off the scale. I guess I'm just a little volatile at the moment.
I do apologise. I was about to add the quotes, realising both my error and the propriety of your original usage when by woeful carelessness on my part I hit submit instead of preview.
Alas, sarcasm is lost on most these days.
I abase myself utterly before your magnificence. My shame is unbearable.
Seriously, it's notoriously difficult to convey sarcasm effectively (at least without resorting to gross caricature like the above) through the medium of text - just look at any USENET netiquette guide. Of course, if your aim is to score cheap points rather than communicate effectively then that same difficulty can become a godsend.
if you have these questions to ask, go ask him instead of pointing out the bloody obvious on /..
Ask him what? Whether he is corrupt or merely stupid? It seems sarcasm isn't the only rhetorical form that doesn't propagate over a textual interface, nee? And just because you are fed up with the subject, it doesn't mean that the issues couldn't benefit from a wider airing.
It's not as if the geeks here are interested.
You know, if only I'd know you spoke for all of slashdot, I could have asked you first and saved myself the trouble. Perhaps you might tell those nice fellows that modded the original post +4 that they're not really interested after all? I hate to disappoint them after they've been so nice to me.
I am going to do is help my country-men give the EU and our own collective governement including most of the opposition the Finger in the referendum held today.
Huzzah! Good for you! I applaud your efforts. I wish I could do likewise. Alas, Dear Tony has determined that we are unlikely to get the chance to express our opinions unless he can determine in advance that we're going to agree with him. So give them one for me - I'm sure we all agree that finger giving is vitally important in this age of increasing european political disenfranchisement.
And when you get through that, feel free to do something about that chip on your shoulder.
The EU commissioners are undemocratic and corrupt. Undemocratic because they are appointed directly by member states governments and utterly unaccountable to the electorate. Corrupt because... well it's not exactly a secret, y'know?. And I say this as a European.
These are the people who did everything they could to force through software patents. They did this in the face of massive opposition from member state goverments, from MEPs, from EU businessess and from EU citizens.
So why is he going to give a rats ass what I think? It's not like I can threaten not to re-elect him. It's not like anyone can.
And I'm not surprised he wants to hear as little as possible from his constituents; I doubt if he ever reads his public email. For my part, I've got better things to do with my time than to justify the existence of some third level private secretary by letting him write me a snotty letter.
Persaude me that I might achieve something, and I might reconsider. As it stands however...
Not a problem for such an incisive wit, I'm sure
To frame the discussion in terms of Europe vs America is a red herring. Villasante can't possibly be that clueless about open source, can he?
Which, I suppose, brings us back again to Hanlon's Razor and (thanks, SQL Error) Hanlon's Law
That's right. Hardly a day goes by without IBM phoning me up, telling me what I have to write next, what coding style I must use and what format to use for the documentation. And they get really, really snotty if I blow the arbitarily short deadlines they set. I wouldn't be so bad if they didn't make me spend most of my day sitting in endless tedious meetings, and dealing with political crap that my boss can't be bothered to field because I'm only some scummy contractor...
I've done actual, real world subcontracting. That's a little unfair to some of my employers since I've had some good bosses, but but I've also had gigs that weren't far off what I described above.
I've written some open source software too. The experience is very different. I do what I want to do, according to my deadlines and my techniques. I write stuff that I will find useful, or in order to learn how do something. If other people find my work useful, that's how I measure the success of my labours.
I've been a subcontractor and I've coded open source. The two experiences are very different.
He Said:
He Meant: He Said: He Meant: He Said: He Meant: He Said: He Meant: He Said: He MeantOr am attributing to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity?
I'll just go and write out one hundred times "I will always RTFA".
Really though, what'd it hurt to allow a few test cases?