...I do occasionally write a/. journal or publish things on my own website.
Having said that, the only point I really want to touch on from the article (being that most of it has been said very well by others by now) is that I do not agree with the recommendation that people need to put 'my opinions are not those of my employer'.
I am myself as an individual first, and a represesentative of my employer second, not the other way around. It should not be the responsibility of a person to state who they are representing when they say something, but rather the responsibility of the company to make sure their spokesperson states they are speaking at that time as a representative of the company. If a person reads my statements as a de facto opinion of my employer, then they drew an incorrect conclusion and should have known better. If it isn't explicit, then don't assume.
Having said that.....making statements that are disparaging of one's employer, or reveals their internal business workings, should not be done lightly. It might not be illegal, but if you are an 'at-will' employee offending your employer with your antics could swiftly get you reprimanded or fired. A good acid test might be if the statement is not something you would want to say to your boss directly, then you may not want to say it and have it get back to them indirectly.
Freedom of speech is a two-way sword. It might be your right, but it's also your responsibility. You have merely the right to free speech, not the right to be immune from the fallout of your words. Both come as a package deal.
...I've heard about this article quite a while ago, back when 'Dubya' cut government support for fetal stem cell research. At the time it was the general consensus that fetal stem cell research was still necessary because (adult) bone marrow stem cell development was still too unreliable. There were many appeals to keep funding the fetal stem cells until the bone marrow stem cell techniques were improved to the degree that they could supplement/replace fetal stem cells in research.
The only thing I am confused about is why this article is on/. now, when this isn't breaking news, by any measure.
I agree with this line of thought, with a couple minor exceptions:
- First of all, reverting to childish behaviour isn't quite the exclusive domain of geeks/nerds/geniuses (whatever you want to call them). I've seen plenty of cases where a person who had an agenda/product of theirs to push would resort to some very petty tactics to get their own way. Some things are part of general human nature I guess.
- Second of all, I dont think it's really ego, but rather an indication of one's emotional attachment to their creation. Writing contributions to the kernel usually takes a lot of work and sweat to accomplish. When one's hard work is rejected from the 'Linus' tree, it can be frustrating at the very least.
Don't get me wrong - I still think it's not appropriate behaviour to whine and complain about it at the time. The 'Linus' kernel is Linus' peronal project too, so it's not just a matter of him having the final say, but also it's understandable that he'd want to be protective of it. I can't speak for him, but if I were in his shoes I'd want to make sure that any patches I accepted into the tree were actually a benefit to the whole. Patches that came out of left field from people I barely knew of would likely get rejected, regardless of their quality. If you can't take the basic steps of ensuring I know of the patch well in advance, then it doesn't bode well I'd trust the patch to become a permanent part of the tree.
Only thing that annoys me about the whole thing are those who complain about the freeze only scant days before it goes into effect. The freeze was coming for a while now, and it was well known far ahead of time when to expect it. Complaining at the last minute is a "too little, too late" gesture.
They should be able to negotiate any contract they want as long as it doesn't involve force (i.e. point a gun at someone).
You see, that's the problem - they do have a gun pointed at everyone - the economic equivalent of a gun called monopoly power. And your suggestion to pull Windows from the market is akin to cocking the hammer and squeezing the trigger.
But......
Believe it or not, I agree with you - Microsoft should do exactly that. Though I doubt you'll like my reasons for agreeing.
Windows is the metaphorical bullet in the gun. Once they pull the trigger, they'll have nothing left to threaten the marketplace with. The market will complain about being shot in the groin (personally because I believe that's where Microsoft likes to aim), but it's not a fatal wound. Once the market gets past the initial shock, they will realize there is nothing stopping them from going to alternate apps, alternate OS'es, and alternate licensing schemes.
Pulling Windows from the marketplace will ultimately give the market the impetus it has been wanting for a while now to restore balance and competition. No more Windows, no more dependence on Microsoft. Distributors/retailers will no longer feel pressured (or bullied) into offering only MS product, nor will competing companies feel like they have to hide from 'the giant boot'.
So....I'd love to see MS pull Windows. Unfortunately the gun they wield is double-barrelled, with one barrel aimed at themselves. They can't shoot you without shooting themselves. Their monopoly is their lifeblood - and they know it.
I cannot control what is in my datastore. Free speech or not, I'm not going to cache your kiddieporn for you. So if I know that there's a file I don't want, give me a way to blacklist it.
I have to agree here. While I support 100% Freenet's aim to allow anonymous free speech, I have one major beef with it:
Free speech is a double-edged sword - I may have the right to state my opinion, but I also have the right to refuse to support yours.
I fully expect that Freenet's main use will not be to help suppressed organizations to function when otherwise they couldn't, but rather as a way of letting pirates, pedophiles, pornographers, terrorists, etc., distribute their filth and plottings without being traced. To that end, I will demand the ability to refuse to support (by providing my bandwidth/storage) anything that I feel is simply wrong/illegal.
Encrypting/hiding the contents of the node on my system isn't the answer - it is merely the digital equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. I knowingly provided the node to the net, so it's likely I would be responsible for anything that may be contained within. If I am going to be an activist for free speech, at the very least I'd like to make sure I know what I am trying to protect.
....where the criminals are always sorry - but usually they're only sorry they got caught.
Micirosoft has been known for this type of behaviour. Using one of their own PR persons to pretend to be a 'switcher' (for the lack of a better term) is just par for the course
I'm not surprised MS is planning reprisals for this person. Pretending to be an ordinary joe off the street that switched is ok - getting caught as a stooge in one of MS's standard FUD strategies though - that's just not acceptable.
<sarcasm>
How dare she be so stupid as to not have gone into hiding and prevent the damage to MS's precious reputation?
I'm of the opinion that applications, like users, should be given the absolute minimum needed to perform their tasks. Even though many applications that start suid almost immediately drop into a less privileged id, there's still that momentary opportunity for a bug or well-crafted attack could make use of the privileged id to take control of the system.
Chroot jails are good at preventing cracks from hijacking an id and running rampant across the entire system. However, running as root even in a chroot jail is a dangerous thing - it would not take much effort to inject into the jail tools that would allow them to directly access hardware/filesystems that are normally inaccessible from within the jail. Chroot jails are definitely a wise thing to use, but they have their own weaknesses. Giving the system the ability to prevent privileged access except when explicitly necessary is a second level of prevention that I feel is important.
I'm all for this type of feature. Root access is a powerful thing, and in my humble opinion its a good thing whenever one can control not only what apps have privileged access, but explicit privileged actions the application is permitted to take.
For example...
Do I really need to run a ftp daemon as root, if all I need is a privileged (<1024) access port, and no other privileged feature? Wouldn't it make more sense to run the ftpd as a normal user, with an option set that allowed the socket allocation only to run with elevated privileges?
I've been using Mozilla since the 0.6 beta days and count my blessings on a regular basis. It's nice to see they've added the GTK support - now it'll not only be a linux app, but will have the look and feel that is consistent with other GTK-based apps. That part tended to be irritating - didn't feel like GTK, didn't feel like KDE, felt like one of those 'let's design the entire interface to our own personal tastes' programs that one finds far too often on that 'other' OS.
One question I have though - does it support GTK 1.2, or 2.0 (including the anti-aliasing fonts feature)?
Expecting a judge to maintain an image of impartiality places no expectation on them to put up any false facades - it merely put underscore the importance that their own opinions and beliefs are not (and should not be) relevant to the case. Every court decision that is made (excepting IIRC civil court) is filed with the judge's explanation of why they came to the decision they did, frequently tied to previous cases or interpretations of law. Anybody should be able to read these judgements and see exactly how and why the decision was made. If the judgement is made based on the judge's personal opinions or a misinterpreted fact of law, there is a very good likelihood it will be go to the appeals courts.
If any judge were free to express without hesitation their opinion on a matter before them, the lawyers would have a field day appealing the cases. All it would take is a single comment by the judge against a defendant and, in no time flat, the lawyers have an appeal ready, claiming the judge was prejudiced and was going to convict no matter what the evidence.
The image of impartiality is critical for a function legal system. It has nothing to do with putting on a false facade, or deceit, but to do with an imperfect system that has enough issues these days trying to determine justice without being made to look biased and prejudiced (note the word: pre + judged) by judges who should know the damage caused by their words far outweighs their urge to speak them.
Personally...I think that's a small price to pay when given the responsibility of deciding another person's fate.
In a society where all men are considered equal, then based on that definition no one man can have the absolute right to judge the doings of another man. In a perfect world, the existence of courts and judges wouldn't be necessary. However, this isn't a perfect world, and there on occasion becomes the need for a third party to make a binding decision in a dispute between two others, be it two individuals or an individual and the law.
This is where the problem lies. In order to ensure that both parties get an equal shake at stating their case, the judge must be considered a neutral party from the get-go. The judge's role is not to impose his own opinions on a case, but to impose the correct interpretation of law that is applicable. His opinions and cbeliefs on the matter should have no reflection on the outcome of the case.
Judges, however, are as human (and imperfect) as the rest of us. We all have our biases and beliefs, and we should not expect a judge to be any different. It is (at least in my opinion) impossible to expect a judge to be truly neutral in their own mind. But at the very least the judge should present the image or impartiality when it comes to cases they are residing on. A judicial system cannot function successfully at providing justice if it is not perceived as providing that justice to all people equally.
If 'judge' Jackson does not like the responsibility and duties of passing himself off as a truly neutral party in a court case, then he should resign from the bench and return to practicing law privately. At least then if he was to shoot off his mouth prematurely it would be normal and considered (unfortunately) part of the normal politics of law.
Luckily this isn't likely to happen. It's said that in every programmer there's a writer trying to get out, and I'm no exception, so I did a little digging into what would be needed to get one's works published.
Now I dont claim to be an expert on publishing, but based on my own experience there looks like there's lots of different publishing companies around, ranging from short story magazines to full-fledged hardcover printers. Most publishers aren't as ridiculously greedy and arrogant as the RIAA and usually have more tolerable terms when it comes to copyrights. Frequently a type of right called 'first print' rights are requested, and maybe second-or-third edition rights also - but after the first few runs the rights ultimatly stay with the author. Because of the large number of competing publishers, a good author has plenty of choice where to take their works. As for a bad author? Well...we all have to start somewhere! 8)
I tried to get into the Xlibris site, but it's either slashdotted or unavailable where I am. However, the idea of a company that allows a person to publish their own works sounds like a very good idea. Especialyl for those of us yet to bite the bullet and start writing our first novel!
I'm hoping xlibris is as useful as this article hypes it up to be.....we'll know soon enough...
...this type of thing was tried with 5.25" and 3.5" floppy disks. A number of games at the time would, during the manufacturing process, put some type of physical defect into the disk at a specific physical location. In some cases it was a remarkably low-tech device that did the job - a hand-held hole punch. The game would check for read issues at the appropriate sector number, and voila, if an error was detected, it would run.
And then, just like now.....crack software became available to patch the games to run anyways. Anyone remember the program copywrite?
I am of the firm opinion that any copy proection method that is software-based will always be eventually cracked. As long as the authentication system used ensure the program is the orginal copy is stored as data on the application media itself then there is the opportunity the some cracker with a good knowledge of application internals would be able to directly modify the auth module to always return a success flag. A type of authentication system is needed that is physical in nature that is not directly modifiable by anyone. As for a specific method, I do not know what could do this satisfactorily....and if I did, well...let's just say I'd be a lot wealthier than I am. 8)
In regards to the DRM aspects of such a device, there's no doubt that's a controversial approach to take. Personally I feel fair-use rights should not be infringed, and any copy protection measures must take this in mind. I'd be ok with a 'copy once' mechanism that allows only copies that are made from the original media. Any copies made from the copy would not be possible. It wouldn't wipe out software piracy completely, but it would be a large limiting factor on the 'copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy' warez distribution systems.
Just my 2 cents. I leave it up to you if it's worth that much. 8)
Slashdot Mirror
Having said that, the only point I really want to touch on from the article (being that most of it has been said very well by others by now) is that I do not agree with the recommendation that people need to put 'my opinions are not those of my employer'.
I am myself as an individual first, and a represesentative of my employer second, not the other way around. It should not be the responsibility of a person to state who they are representing when they say something, but rather the responsibility of the company to make sure their spokesperson states they are speaking at that time as a representative of the company. If a person reads my statements as a de facto opinion of my employer, then they drew an incorrect conclusion and should have known better. If it isn't explicit, then don't assume.
Having said that.....making statements that are disparaging of one's employer, or reveals their internal business workings, should not be done lightly. It might not be illegal, but if you are an 'at-will' employee offending your employer with your antics could swiftly get you reprimanded or fired. A good acid test might be if the statement is not something you would want to say to your boss directly, then you may not want to say it and have it get back to them indirectly.
Freedom of speech is a two-way sword. It might be your right, but it's also your responsibility. You have merely the right to free speech, not the right to be immune from the fallout of your words. Both come as a package deal.
The only thing I am confused about is why this article is on /. now, when this isn't breaking news, by any measure.
- First of all, reverting to childish behaviour isn't quite the exclusive domain of geeks/nerds/geniuses (whatever you want to call them). I've seen plenty of cases where a person who had an agenda/product of theirs to push would resort to some very petty tactics to get their own way. Some things are part of general human nature I guess.
- Second of all, I dont think it's really ego, but rather an indication of one's emotional attachment to their creation. Writing contributions to the kernel usually takes a lot of work and sweat to accomplish. When one's hard work is rejected from the 'Linus' tree, it can be frustrating at the very least.
Don't get me wrong - I still think it's not appropriate behaviour to whine and complain about it at the time. The 'Linus' kernel is Linus' peronal project too, so it's not just a matter of him having the final say, but also it's understandable that he'd want to be protective of it. I can't speak for him, but if I were in his shoes I'd want to make sure that any patches I accepted into the tree were actually a benefit to the whole. Patches that came out of left field from people I barely knew of would likely get rejected, regardless of their quality. If you can't take the basic steps of ensuring I know of the patch well in advance, then it doesn't bode well I'd trust the patch to become a permanent part of the tree.
Only thing that annoys me about the whole thing are those who complain about the freeze only scant days before it goes into effect. The freeze was coming for a while now, and it was well known far ahead of time when to expect it. Complaining at the last minute is a "too little, too late" gesture.
You see, that's the problem - they do have a gun pointed at everyone - the economic equivalent of a gun called monopoly power. And your suggestion to pull Windows from the market is akin to cocking the hammer and squeezing the trigger.
But......
Believe it or not, I agree with you - Microsoft should do exactly that. Though I doubt you'll like my reasons for agreeing.
Windows is the metaphorical bullet in the gun. Once they pull the trigger, they'll have nothing left to threaten the marketplace with. The market will complain about being shot in the groin (personally because I believe that's where Microsoft likes to aim), but it's not a fatal wound. Once the market gets past the initial shock, they will realize there is nothing stopping them from going to alternate apps, alternate OS'es, and alternate licensing schemes.
Pulling Windows from the marketplace will ultimately give the market the impetus it has been wanting for a while now to restore balance and competition. No more Windows, no more dependence on Microsoft. Distributors/retailers will no longer feel pressured (or bullied) into offering only MS product, nor will competing companies feel like they have to hide from 'the giant boot'.
So....I'd love to see MS pull Windows. Unfortunately the gun they wield is double-barrelled, with one barrel aimed at themselves. They can't shoot you without shooting themselves. Their monopoly is their lifeblood - and they know it.
I have to agree here. While I support 100% Freenet's aim to allow anonymous free speech, I have one major beef with it:
Free speech is a double-edged sword - I may have the right to state my opinion, but I also have the right to refuse to support yours.
I fully expect that Freenet's main use will not be to help suppressed organizations to function when otherwise they couldn't, but rather as a way of letting pirates, pedophiles, pornographers, terrorists, etc., distribute their filth and plottings without being traced. To that end, I will demand the ability to refuse to support (by providing my bandwidth/storage) anything that I feel is simply wrong/illegal.
Encrypting/hiding the contents of the node on my system isn't the answer - it is merely the digital equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. I knowingly provided the node to the net, so it's likely I would be responsible for anything that may be contained within. If I am going to be an activist for free speech, at the very least I'd like to make sure I know what I am trying to protect.
Micirosoft has been known for this type of behaviour. Using one of their own PR persons to pretend to be a 'switcher' (for the lack of a better term) is just par for the course
I'm not surprised MS is planning reprisals for this person. Pretending to be an ordinary joe off the street that switched is ok - getting caught as a stooge in one of MS's standard FUD strategies though - that's just not acceptable.
<sarcasm>
How dare she be so stupid as to not have gone into hiding and prevent the damage to MS's precious reputation?
</sarcasm>
Chroot jails are good at preventing cracks from hijacking an id and running rampant across the entire system. However, running as root even in a chroot jail is a dangerous thing - it would not take much effort to inject into the jail tools that would allow them to directly access hardware/filesystems that are normally inaccessible from within the jail. Chroot jails are definitely a wise thing to use, but they have their own weaknesses. Giving the system the ability to prevent privileged access except when explicitly necessary is a second level of prevention that I feel is important.
I'm all for this type of feature. Root access is a powerful thing, and in my humble opinion its a good thing whenever one can control not only what apps have privileged access, but explicit privileged actions the application is permitted to take.
For example...
Do I really need to run a ftp daemon as root, if all I need is a privileged (<1024) access port, and no other privileged feature? Wouldn't it make more sense to run the ftpd as a normal user, with an option set that allowed the socket allocation only to run with elevated privileges?
One question I have though - does it support GTK 1.2, or 2.0 (including the anti-aliasing fonts feature)?
If any judge were free to express without hesitation their opinion on a matter before them, the lawyers would have a field day appealing the cases. All it would take is a single comment by the judge against a defendant and, in no time flat, the lawyers have an appeal ready, claiming the judge was prejudiced and was going to convict no matter what the evidence.
The image of impartiality is critical for a function legal system. It has nothing to do with putting on a false facade, or deceit, but to do with an imperfect system that has enough issues these days trying to determine justice without being made to look biased and prejudiced (note the word: pre + judged) by judges who should know the damage caused by their words far outweighs their urge to speak them.
Personally...I think that's a small price to pay when given the responsibility of deciding another person's fate.
This is where the problem lies. In order to ensure that both parties get an equal shake at stating their case, the judge must be considered a neutral party from the get-go. The judge's role is not to impose his own opinions on a case, but to impose the correct interpretation of law that is applicable. His opinions and cbeliefs on the matter should have no reflection on the outcome of the case.
Judges, however, are as human (and imperfect) as the rest of us. We all have our biases and beliefs, and we should not expect a judge to be any different. It is (at least in my opinion) impossible to expect a judge to be truly neutral in their own mind. But at the very least the judge should present the image or impartiality when it comes to cases they are residing on. A judicial system cannot function successfully at providing justice if it is not perceived as providing that justice to all people equally.
If 'judge' Jackson does not like the responsibility and duties of passing himself off as a truly neutral party in a court case, then he should resign from the bench and return to practicing law privately. At least then if he was to shoot off his mouth prematurely it would be normal and considered (unfortunately) part of the normal politics of law.
Now I dont claim to be an expert on publishing, but based on my own experience there looks like there's lots of different publishing companies around, ranging from short story magazines to full-fledged hardcover printers. Most publishers aren't as ridiculously greedy and arrogant as the RIAA and usually have more tolerable terms when it comes to copyrights. Frequently a type of right called 'first print' rights are requested, and maybe second-or-third edition rights also - but after the first few runs the rights ultimatly stay with the author. Because of the large number of competing publishers, a good author has plenty of choice where to take their works. As for a bad author? Well...we all have to start somewhere! 8)
I tried to get into the Xlibris site, but it's either slashdotted or unavailable where I am. However, the idea of a company that allows a person to publish their own works sounds like a very good idea. Especialyl for those of us yet to bite the bullet and start writing our first novel!
I'm hoping xlibris is as useful as this article hypes it up to be.....we'll know soon enough...
And then, just like now.....crack software became available to patch the games to run anyways. Anyone remember the program copywrite?
I am of the firm opinion that any copy proection method that is software-based will always be eventually cracked. As long as the authentication system used ensure the program is the orginal copy is stored as data on the application media itself then there is the opportunity the some cracker with a good knowledge of application internals would be able to directly modify the auth module to always return a success flag. A type of authentication system is needed that is physical in nature that is not directly modifiable by anyone. As for a specific method, I do not know what could do this satisfactorily....and if I did, well...let's just say I'd be a lot wealthier than I am. 8)
In regards to the DRM aspects of such a device, there's no doubt that's a controversial approach to take. Personally I feel fair-use rights should not be infringed, and any copy protection measures must take this in mind. I'd be ok with a 'copy once' mechanism that allows only copies that are made from the original media. Any copies made from the copy would not be possible. It wouldn't wipe out software piracy completely, but it would be a large limiting factor on the 'copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy' warez distribution systems.
Just my 2 cents. I leave it up to you if it's worth that much. 8)