Stallman wrote a feature for Linux Today over a month ago on this subject here. As you might expect, he's strongly in favor of open databases.
I certainly understand why someone who compiled a data base would feel ripped off if someone copied it for profit, or maintained an out of date mirror that caused harm. On the other hand you can see how great public good can come from free availability of certain databases. Perhaps the government should exercise eminent domain over the databases that need to be public?
"IANAL, but, AFAIK, Google could publish their algorithm, thus preventing (by `prior art') anyone else patenting it. Always assuming that the patent lawers etc are competent enough to find the Google publication."
On reflection, I think you are right. Maybe this is a case where a patent almost makes sense. If Google just publishes their algorithm, then whoever can buy more and faster servers profits from the idea, right? If yahoo implements google for example not many people will go to google's page.
I'm starting to think that the goal should be to reduce software patents' duration to 3 years or so. This is probably realistically achievable, and would maintain a better balance between encouraging innovation and spreading new ideas. Until we disconnect selling ideas from survival somehow it's hard to expect more -- real life isn't a gift culture yet.
But realize that if Google *doesn't* patent it, someone else can, which would be even worse.
In the current context you can't blame a company for grabbing all the software patents they can, even the FSF is thinking of playing this game. It's how those patents are exercised that matters.
At least there really seems to be some clever innovation involved in this one.
I certainly agree that Microsoft would have a real uphill battle promoting their own Unix system.
But don't assume that Microsoft will use a single strategy. They have enough money and people to send one division off to capture the Unix market while another develops NT in competition to it. Especially if they hire/buy a third party with some actual Unix experience to quietly do the work for them on the side.
If they do enter into the Unix market itself, rather than thru some form of emulation, I think it unlikely that Linux will be the vehicle. Why not take advantage of the natural ideological split in the open source community and fracture it with a BSD distribution? The BSD license allows them to immediately relicense with their usual EULA, and now they don't even have to mention Berkeley. It even runs Linux binaries and comes in three flavors: secure, portable, and compatible. What really hurts Linux is that it's a *very* good OS, and much harder to argue PHBs into switching away from.
The result of this could be that everyone has much better software that's free beer, but the open source movement is left with nothing better to do than write programs and drivers for Microsoft's omnipresent BSD. Its a better future than the present, but not where I'd like to go.
Sure do remember it, my first consulting job was Z80 assembly, an ultrasound probe to measure depth of human eyes. The "Klingon" instructions, as I remember calling them back then, were quite useful indeed. I'd take Z80 over 8085 any day.
For my money though, nothing beats an 8032 for a *simple* 8-bit embedded microcontroller. Named bits, quasi-bidirectional ports and a multiply and divide are just too useful, not to mention cycle counting is far easier.
All throughout the memorandum, the concept of illegal information is bandied about, like it really was taken for granted and obvious. I'm going to use the child porn issue as an example, because its the hottest button in my view.
Granted, the coercion of children to create pornographic information is to be despised and prosecuted, but I do not see a necessity that the information resulting from these activities should necessarily be illegal to possess or distribute. Even the Bertelsmann memorandum notes the wisdom of not holding ISPs liable for possession of material created by third parties passing thru or being stored in their networks. Let's prosecute the people who abuse children, I don't have any problem with warrants for ISP logs for that purpose. But lets think a little before suggesting that possession of the wrong patterns of 1's and 0's can get you locked up.
For one thing, given the number of children actually being abused by their own families, it seems a bit silly to spend countless dollars to attack one infintesimal part of the real problem that just happens to be highly visible now because of internet publicity. If child abuse is a concern for you, and it should be, don't think that pictures on the internet comprise the full extent, or even the ugliest part of the problem. Most of it happens in the privacy of the home by those supposedly taking care of those children. If protection of children *must* happen, *at all costs*, then lets start with video cameras in all rooms of everyone's home. Then you might have a handle on the problem.
There are too many impossible dividing lines. There are naked children in religious art, so you need to get into the intent of the artist and the reaction of a typical viewer to define child pornography. Just try to define what is art and what is porn, you may know it when you see it, but writing down the difference *for everyone* is another matter. There are other sticky questions, like does it matter if no children were actually involved in the production, e.g. erotic cartoons? How about purely textual erotic stories? What if a download is accidental, e.g. spam, or offline reading of newsgroups -- is that still something they should lock you up for?
I don't like the concept of being locked up for possession of information. It is more effective to legislate against the real problem -- real world activities that endanger real people of any age.
We are already to a point where computers require really good computers and good software for their manufacture. Try to design a chip like Merced with pencil and paper sometime.
To me, a critical point will be passed when computers become better at writing software and designing hardware than humans are, and have the ability to improve themselves in this way. We are already seeing neural net and genetic designs that work very well, but we don't really understand why. It's entirely possible that computers in the future will be very difficult for us to understand at all on the lower levels, because they are self-designed and programmed.
Nothing scary here, we specify a problem space, a computer optimizes connections and software operations to provide solutions in the space. But conciousness can't arise without self-referentiality and I wonder if this is where it will come from.
Well, clearly "independent" means something different in Microsoft's vocabulary. Mindcraft was "independent" too. They also experienced having their name dragged thru the mud. If Microsoft keeps ruining these "independent" organizations, there may not be one available when they need one someday.
The full page ad in the NYT was brought up in the anti-trust trial. Interesting to speculate whether perjury occurred, or if the judge could decide part of Microsoft's case was no longer credible as a result.
No need to topple Microsoft, I think, just stand back, they're doing quite well all on their own. Does one yell "Software!" when a behemoth starts to fall?
You make an excellent point about the danger of monitoring re insider stock information. I think the same argument could be made for medical privacy in a hospital, credit privacy at a credit company, or confidentiality of sources at a newspaper. Any company or government agency that claims to protect anyone's privacy has issues if they monitor their employees.
In the context of current law though, I don't have an answer to this. If an employee engages in illegal activity thru company equipment then seizure for evidence is a possibility. Also harrasment suits from employees offended by other's tastes. To prevent that the company must become their own police force to catch criminals and harrassers before the real police or courts can.
The question is whether the loss of employment and productivity due to the surveillance outweighs the risk to the company. For a small company this argument is more convincing, chances of criminal employees are not very significant, and harrassers are usually pretty well known as such fairly quickly. For a large corporation the equation isn't nearly so clear, they are almost gauranteed to see abuses. I still think zero tolerance for any discovered abuses plus insurance for liability might be a better route for them, especially given your arguments about liability due to additional people seeing critical information.
A friend of mine got his undergraduate degree from MIT in electrical engineering. He later innocently took out a consulting ad in a business directory. Turns out, that to advertise as an engineer in California, the professional certification is required.
He spent a year cramming for the test and got his certification, but he said it would have been a lot easier just after he graduated (15 years earlier.) So if you have any thought of being in business for yourself, I'd have to recommend taking the test now.
Yes, Microsoft and some other companies did try this with California schools about a year ago. They lost, thanks to a lot of opposition from students, faculty, and unions like the CSEA. I've been told by someone active in the fight that similar proposals were tried all over the country, but I don't know where or the results in those cases.
The deal was basically very cheap prices on hardware and software in exchange for exclusive use of the services provided by the companies behind the proposal. Very Microsoftian.
I have had very little problem with issues like these working for small companies, those with about 100 employees or less. There are exceptions, but you can work around them, so to speak. Most small companies don't need such *BS* because they can quickly tell if someone isn't doing their job -- everyone is important and it gets noticed when someone slacks. People know each other fairly well and generally try not to offend each other. It's not a cold impersonal environment.
Corporations, especially the large ones, have indeed made pyschological screening, insurance redlining, credit checks, drug-testing, and lack of privacy the industry standards they are today. The scariest part is that they have great influence over lawmakers and unless we fight it, choice may vanish completely no matter who you work for.
The phone company owns the networks I communicate over, and it even used to own the handset in everyone's home. People *still* have an expectation of privacy in phone conversations, and have been legally upheld in this expectation. Its not the ownership per se, but the explicit signed agreement on terms of use that should dictate whether an employer can snoop or not. If I see such a clause in my contract I'll ask it to be struck, or keep looking, just as I do with drug testing clauses. Their power extends exactly as far as what we will put up with. Too much in my view.
" 3) completely pointless - if they tried to use the moon for population-control, like they did with the American West, they'd quickly find out that the moon does not have that much room... neither would have Mars, by the way."
I haven't heard that anyone viewed the American West as population control, more like a whole bunch of people who didn't care for the stuffed shirts back east and wanted their own land came out here on their own -- then populated it like mad rabbits.
Also the issue has nothing to do with the size of Moon or Mars. Both have surface areas comparable to Earth's given the large percentage of water surface here. And we don't build *on* the Moon, we build *in* the moon, and that makes for a huge amount of room indeed, potentially.
But you are absolutely right that space in general is useless for population control, just as America was for Europe. You simply can't pack up and ship off as many people as are born each day, so it will never work for that.
It is *NOT* pointless however. First, sheer tourism -- rich people will pay a lot of money for exclusive vacations. Especially if rumors spread about sex in low gravity. Second, science will progress a lot from having more than one set of planetary data, and several observation points on the universe. Specialized enviroments like microgravity and cheap high vacuum labs also help. Third, it's great insurance for the human race to have independent colonies scattered about the solar system. Fourth, people with heart trouble, e.g., are likely to live a lot longer in low gravity. Fifth, though you can't control population, having those who hate the system most leave for space will reduce tensions. Sixth, its something those crazy humans *will* do, better get used to the idea.:)
Ok, you're right, I was silly to mention the sun, suffice it to say disposal won't be the problem it is now. If you dump it on the moon, you'll have to contend with the Lunatics, of course.
I've read a little bit about Orion, and after you get over the shock it's a very interesting plan. It's the thought of using it for taking off from the Earth's surface that most people find objectionable, and reasonably so. I'm not sure the plan's authors ever claimed that was wise, only possible, but you can't expect media to report a story like that straight!
"A *good* author shouldn't just pull a 'plot outline' from a stack of pre-generated index cards and fill in the blanks, although that's a perfectly good way to sell hordes of cheapo paperback copies if you don't mind putting your name on absolute drivel. Stuff like that *does* seem to sell, after all."
Quite true, and I think that if there is anything to be worried about, it's that some publishing houses may find it's cheaper to generate formula novels by computer than select them from a slushpile. The fact that "good enough" beats "better" should be remembered here.
While many might see this as liberating authors to write more worthwhile books, it could have a chilling economic effect on those that write formula novels to support their real writing or simply to break into the business.
The books I want to read by computers are ones that give me insight into what it's really like to be a computer in a human society.
But I have to think this progam is very impressive if it does as well as they suggest.
Teller is a brilliant and insightful person. But his insistence that scientists should not care about the consequences of their work is not a currently popular view. Personally I think he's half right -- you can't do science and worry whether you should know what you might find out. Too often science is serendipitous anyway, even if you tried not to, you could still discover the next horror weapon.
But scientists have a very real obligation to help politicians wisely evaluate the consequences of scientific and technological breakthroughs. You can't make the H-bomb go away, but you can help control its use and production intelligently.
When I hear of plans of h-bombing a new harbor into Alaska, to "mainline" it's economy, I have to think Teller is speaking as an expert in fields he knows next to nothing about. Bad advocacy -- creates two sorts of idiot -- those who are frightened of any use of nuclear energy, and those who really think it's a good idea to H-Bomb Alaska.
Once we get into space, nuclear energy is likely to become much more useful. Without the high concentrations of people around reactors, risks are far less in comparison to benefits. Easy disposal of waste in the Sun makes it more attractive yet. Even bombs may well be truly useful tools for excavating or moving asteroids.
Teller is nothing new in science. Someone who has truly contributed a lot to a difficult field, but whose opinions outside his field are somewhat inflammatory, if not arrogant. His work will be greatly appreciated next century, but his abrasive personality has cost him acceptance in his own lifetime.
I doubt that the Virtual University will replace traditional college programs. As the author argues so well, they are certification programs and that is what most businesses actually want. As a test of being able to stick in one place for four years and do what you're told, colleges are wonderful.
There are also the socialization aspects that other readers have mentioned, and colleges are a indeed a useful halfway house between living with parents and really being out there on your own.
But for education, traditional colleges tend to be very poor unless the student is very focused on learning, not just graduating. Way too much politics, both internal and external, tend to get in the way. Good training for corporations and academia, but not really about education.
The idea I like about the Virtual U is that it could provide a way for many of us supposedly already socialized types access to learning resources. We all know that learning doesn't stop at the University if you are into technology. It allows individual pacing, so those with only a couple of hours a day to spare can still participate. It doesn't require yet another commute to attend classes.
Don't underestimate the interaction possible via internet -- slashdot is kinda fun for example, no? No replacement for real social contact, for example with the opposite sex, but not bad at all for intellectual discussion, the primary thrust of education.
Another advantage would be distributed resources. You can benefit from *both* MIT and CMU from your home terminal -- choice is no longer a career threatening hazard.
Even if Virtual U can't replace colleges, it can still have a very valuable role in education.
If corporations are individuals, why do they get preferential treatment under the law, and effectively cast way more political influence than one vote? This "solution", a crypto review process not likely to be practicable for individuals or small businesses, or open source projects, is just the latest example.
This country seems to be falling into a dangerous mindset, optimizing law for corporations rather than individuals. Corporations need privacy. Individuals can't be allowed privacy (for their own good.)
Unfortunately, corporations are focused on making money in the short term no matter how expensive it proves to be for everyone else in the long term. Very little fundamental research is occurring in corporations as it once did at Bell Labs. Corporation mergers, acquisitions, and outsourcing have degraded our quality of life. A society organized for the sole benefit of the balance sheets of its corporations is not an optimal solution for individuals.
We should fight for equal rights for all under the law, individuals and corporations alike. One entity, one vote.
This article is likely to slashdot them with negative responses. I replied, caustically but politely. I hope they get a lot of well written negative comments. It's too bad the people in Washington aren't likely to see them.
This site is really an affront. First the "big lie" premise that the trial is about Microsoft's "freedom to innovate", as if they ever had, or ever respected anyone else's freedom. The kicker though is the caricature of the American flag -- uh, yeah, thanks for not using the Microsoft logo in the little monitor at least! Supporting Microsoft is patriotic, I'm sure, remember how Microsoft said any delay in Win98 from the bundling trial might have serious effects on the economy?
Re:What are you so damn afraid of?
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 2
No doubt that cops are in a very unenviable position. They serve an essential function for very little thanks. I suspect they wouldn't turn to other rewards like petty power and corruption nearly as often if they got more respect and thanks.
More, their life is on the line every time they do so much as stop someone for speeding, so making quick decisions as to how much danger they are in is important to their survival. If some overgeneralize I have to say it's easy to understand why. Strangely, unfounded prejudices probably do not serve their interests either -- it's safer to distrust everyone rather than cretinize some based on a stereotype. You can also be civil and suspicious simultaneously.
Still, I will never fully trust cops (or a government), even though I may understand why they are as they are.
What a pithy summary of the bazaar. It reeks of elitism and arrogance. It was very clever to attack ESR and his religion, did you think of that all by yourself? Thanks, but I prefer foul-mouthed Linux zealots.
The bazaar is important because it's surprising that it works at all. It suggests that people can usefully collaborate in a self organizing fashion, which is something *new* in the software world. Some of us think that this concept has importance in terms of promoting freedom and escaping corporate development nightmares. You don't need to agree, but please, don't come off like some aristocrat too good for the peasants. Your envy is showing.
It's really a shame both OSs have to put up with people who are more interested in being thought elite and correct than doing something to improve their OS. Both OSs deserve far better advocacy.
Not a bad algorithm, but you left out the *real* time sink. Doing those nasty problems at the end of each chapter:). Especially those muthas rated over 40!
I came at programming rather back-asswards. I didn't start reading Knuth until years after I was programming professionally. To be truthful, for the kind of assembly programming I do, Knuth is rarely that useful. But it's wonderful exercise for the mind, and recommended reading in any case.
Re:What are you so damn afraid of?
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 1
Hi Rez:)
I never thought for a minute that Rodney was an angel, or that some violence wasn't necessary to subdue him. As you say though, the cops lost it. If I get mad and beat someone up I'm still up for assault, even if I was provoked. If a soldier intentionally shoots someone after they surrender, even if they tried to kill him seconds before, it's still a serious offense.
The issue isn't that one case where a video camera happened to be handy though. What I object to is the sharp divide in many cop's minds between citizens and cretins. They're very polite and helpful to the citizens, but some show a quite different face to cretins. I've been on both sides of the cretin/citizen line and this was my experience. Too often the classification has more to do with political affiliation, economic circumstance, or skin color, rather than actual danger to society. That this is understandable doesn't mean it's good.
Re:What are you so damn afraid of?
on
CALEA update
·
· Score: 2
"I would like to see the ACTUAL statistics that say the DEA kicks down more wrong doors than right."
No one would claim that they make mistakes very often. But when they do -- you should be afraid. You'll be frightened out of your wits, have all your property seized, and get lots of unwanted publicity that will never be properly corrected when the truth finally comes out.
"I am sorry there even 'are' disapproved minorities, but I don't think that is the issue here. Citizens ARE sheep, and I'm willing to bet they aren't all members of the majority either... But this isn't what I'm discussing here."
You asked -- "what are you so damn afraid of?" My answer is that unless you are in a group that is being actively targeted by the government -- not much. Otherwise, a lot. Some of us see that the government's willingness to abuse the rights of some citizens imply they'd be equally willing to abuse ours, given altered circumstances. This is cause for worry.
"You mention Watergate, Rodney King... sounds like what you are looking for is accountability. Exactly out of what thin air would you like the law enforcement agencies to get the information, or proof as you will, to bring these things to a head?"
Are you suggesting that increased wire tapping would be applied against government abuses? Forgive me for doubting. Note that the Nixon tapes were obtained thru due process, by the courts. No wiretapping required. Note also that the whole scandal was set off by an illegal wiretapping act by our president -- yet more evidence that the government cannot be trusted with easily abused surveillance powers.
On Vietnam, remember the "Pentagon Papers?" What that led to was more illegal wiretapping (at NYT) and breaking and entering to obtain Ellsberg's psychiatric records in an attempt to discredit the truth that leak revealed.
The Rodney King case did not lack for evidence, just willingness to put white cops in jail for abuse of power. While it wasn't our government that failed here (they even brought a civil rights case to make up for the failed criminal trial), they're still responsible for spreading the false idea that cops are the only thing standing between "regular citizens" and the nasty have-nots and radicals who want to take everything away.
I too was once sure that the government was on my side. My turning point came in the early seventies when I was clubbed returning to my dorm room after peacefully attending a scheduled town hall meeting on the Vietnam war. It was probably the most educational experience I had in college.
Slashdot Mirror
Stallman wrote a feature for Linux Today over a month ago on this subject here. As you might expect, he's strongly in favor of open databases.
I certainly understand why someone who compiled a data base would feel ripped off if someone copied it for profit, or maintained an out of date mirror that caused harm. On the other hand you can see how great public good can come from free availability of certain databases. Perhaps the government should exercise eminent domain over the databases that need to be public?
"IANAL, but, AFAIK, Google could publish their algorithm, thus preventing (by `prior art') anyone else patenting it. Always assuming that the patent lawers etc are competent enough to find the Google publication."
On reflection, I think you are right. Maybe this is a case where a patent almost makes sense. If Google just publishes their algorithm, then whoever can buy more and faster servers profits from the idea, right? If yahoo implements google for example not many people will go to google's page.
I'm starting to think that the goal should be to reduce software patents' duration to 3 years or so. This is probably realistically achievable, and would maintain a better balance between encouraging innovation and spreading new ideas. Until we disconnect selling ideas from survival somehow it's hard to expect more -- real life isn't a gift culture yet.
Yup, yet another software patent.
But realize that if Google *doesn't* patent it, someone else can, which would be even worse.
In the current context you can't blame a company for grabbing all the software patents they can, even the FSF is thinking of playing this game. It's how those patents are exercised that matters.
At least there really seems to be some clever innovation involved in this one.
I certainly agree that Microsoft would have a real uphill battle promoting their own Unix system.
But don't assume that Microsoft will use a single strategy. They have enough money and people to send one division off to capture the Unix market while another develops NT in competition to it. Especially if they hire/buy a third party with some actual Unix experience to quietly do the work for them on the side.
If they do enter into the Unix market itself, rather than thru some form of emulation, I think it unlikely that Linux will be the vehicle. Why not take advantage of the natural ideological split in the open source community and fracture it with a BSD distribution? The BSD license allows them to immediately relicense with their usual EULA, and now they don't even have to mention Berkeley. It even runs Linux binaries and comes in three flavors: secure, portable, and compatible. What really hurts Linux is that it's a *very* good OS, and much harder to argue PHBs into switching away from.
The result of this could be that everyone has much better software that's free beer, but the open source movement is left with nothing better to do than write programs and drivers for Microsoft's omnipresent BSD. Its a better future than the present, but not where I'd like to go.
Another excellent free beer editor for Windows text (and HTML) is Notetab . Emacs for DOS is also available from DJGPP.
Sure do remember it, my first consulting job was Z80 assembly, an ultrasound probe to measure depth of human eyes. The "Klingon" instructions, as I remember calling them back then, were quite useful indeed. I'd take Z80 over 8085 any day.
For my money though, nothing beats an 8032 for a *simple* 8-bit embedded microcontroller. Named bits, quasi-bidirectional ports and a multiply and divide are just too useful, not to mention cycle counting is far easier.
All throughout the memorandum, the concept of illegal information is bandied about, like it really was taken for granted and obvious. I'm going to use the child porn issue as an example, because its the hottest button in my view.
Granted, the coercion of children to create pornographic information is to be despised and prosecuted, but I do not see a necessity that the information resulting from these activities should necessarily be illegal to possess or distribute. Even the Bertelsmann memorandum notes the wisdom of not holding ISPs liable for possession of material created by third parties passing thru or being stored in their networks. Let's prosecute the people who abuse children, I don't have any problem with warrants for ISP logs for that purpose. But lets think a little before suggesting that possession of the wrong patterns of 1's and 0's can get you locked up.
For one thing, given the number of children actually being abused by their own families, it seems a bit silly to spend countless dollars to attack one infintesimal part of the real problem that just happens to be highly visible now because of internet publicity. If child abuse is a concern for you, and it should be, don't think that pictures on the internet comprise the full extent, or even the ugliest part of the problem. Most of it happens in the privacy of the home by those supposedly taking care of those children. If protection of children *must* happen, *at all costs*, then lets start with video cameras in all rooms of everyone's home. Then you might have a handle on the problem.
There are too many impossible dividing lines. There are naked children in religious art, so you need to get into the intent of the artist and the reaction of a typical viewer to define child pornography. Just try to define what is art and what is porn, you may know it when you see it, but writing down the difference *for everyone* is another matter. There are other sticky questions, like does it matter if no children were actually involved in the production, e.g. erotic cartoons? How about purely textual erotic stories? What if a download is accidental, e.g. spam, or offline reading of newsgroups -- is that still something they should lock you up for?
I don't like the concept of being locked up for possession of information. It is more effective to legislate against the real problem -- real world activities that endanger real people of any age.
We are already to a point where computers require really good computers and good software for their manufacture. Try to design a chip like Merced with pencil and paper sometime.
To me, a critical point will be passed when computers become better at writing software and designing hardware than humans are, and have the ability to improve themselves in this way. We are already seeing neural net and genetic designs that work very well, but we don't really understand why. It's entirely possible that computers in the future will be very difficult for us to understand at all on the lower levels, because they are self-designed and programmed.
Nothing scary here, we specify a problem space, a computer optimizes connections and software operations to provide solutions in the space. But conciousness can't arise without self-referentiality and I wonder if this is where it will come from.
Well, clearly "independent" means something different in Microsoft's vocabulary. Mindcraft was "independent" too. They also experienced having their name dragged thru the mud. If Microsoft keeps ruining these "independent" organizations, there may not be one available when they need one someday.
The full page ad in the NYT was brought up in the anti-trust trial. Interesting to speculate whether perjury occurred, or if the judge could decide part of Microsoft's case was no longer credible as a result.
No need to topple Microsoft, I think, just stand back, they're doing quite well all on their own. Does one yell "Software!" when a behemoth starts to fall?
You make an excellent point about the danger of monitoring re insider stock information. I think the same argument could be made for medical privacy in a hospital, credit privacy at a credit company, or confidentiality of sources at a newspaper. Any company or government agency that claims to protect anyone's privacy has issues if they monitor their employees.
In the context of current law though, I don't have an answer to this. If an employee engages in illegal activity thru company equipment then seizure for evidence is a possibility. Also harrasment suits from employees offended by other's tastes. To prevent that the company must become their own police force to catch criminals and harrassers before the real police or courts can.
The question is whether the loss of employment and productivity due to the surveillance outweighs the risk to the company. For a small company this argument is more convincing, chances of criminal employees are not very significant, and harrassers are usually pretty well known as such fairly quickly. For a large corporation the equation isn't nearly so clear, they are almost gauranteed to see abuses. I still think zero tolerance for any discovered abuses plus insurance for liability might be a better route for them, especially given your arguments about liability due to additional people seeing critical information.
A friend of mine got his undergraduate degree from MIT in electrical engineering. He later innocently took out a consulting ad in a business directory. Turns out, that to advertise as an engineer in California, the professional certification is required.
He spent a year cramming for the test and got his certification, but he said it would have been a lot easier just after he graduated (15 years earlier.) So if you have any thought of being in business for yourself, I'd have to recommend taking the test now.
Yes, Microsoft and some other companies did try this with California schools about a year ago. They lost, thanks to a lot of opposition from students, faculty, and unions like the CSEA. I've been told by someone active in the fight that similar proposals were tried all over the country, but I don't know where or the results in those cases.
The deal was basically very cheap prices on hardware and software in exchange for exclusive use of the services provided by the companies behind the proposal. Very Microsoftian.
I have had very little problem with issues like these working for small companies, those with about 100 employees or less. There are exceptions, but you can work around them, so to speak. Most small companies don't need such *BS* because they can quickly tell if someone isn't doing their job -- everyone is important and it gets noticed when someone slacks. People know each other fairly well and generally try not to offend each other. It's not a cold impersonal environment.
Corporations, especially the large ones, have indeed made pyschological screening, insurance redlining, credit checks, drug-testing, and lack of privacy the industry standards they are today. The scariest part is that they have great influence over lawmakers and unless we fight it, choice may vanish completely no matter who you work for.
The phone company owns the networks I communicate over, and it even used to own the handset in everyone's home. People *still* have an expectation of privacy in phone conversations, and have been legally upheld in this expectation. Its not the ownership per se, but the explicit signed agreement on terms of use that should dictate whether an employer can snoop or not. If I see such a clause in my contract I'll ask it to be struck, or keep looking, just as I do with drug testing clauses. Their power extends exactly as far as what we will put up with. Too much in my view.
" 3) completely pointless - if they tried to use the moon for population-control, like they did with the American West, they'd quickly find out that the moon does not have that much room... neither would have Mars, by the way."
:)
I haven't heard that anyone viewed the American West as population control, more like a whole bunch of people who didn't care for the stuffed shirts back east and wanted their own land came out here on their own -- then populated it like mad rabbits.
Also the issue has nothing to do with the size of Moon or Mars. Both have surface areas comparable to Earth's given the large percentage of water surface here. And we don't build *on* the Moon, we build *in* the moon, and that makes for a huge amount of room indeed, potentially.
But you are absolutely right that space in general is useless for population control, just as America was for Europe. You simply can't pack up and ship off as many people as are born each day, so it will never work for that.
It is *NOT* pointless however. First, sheer tourism -- rich people will pay a lot of money for exclusive vacations. Especially if rumors spread about sex in low gravity. Second, science will progress a lot from having more than one set of planetary data, and several observation points on the universe. Specialized enviroments like microgravity and cheap high vacuum labs also help. Third, it's great insurance for the human race to have independent colonies scattered about the solar system. Fourth, people with heart trouble, e.g., are likely to live a lot longer in low gravity. Fifth, though you can't control population, having those who hate the system most leave for space will reduce tensions. Sixth, its something those crazy humans *will* do, better get used to the idea.
Ok, you're right, I was silly to mention the sun, suffice it to say disposal won't be the problem it is now. If you dump it on the moon, you'll have to contend with the Lunatics, of course.
I've read a little bit about Orion, and after you get over the shock it's a very interesting plan. It's the thought of using it for taking off from the Earth's surface that most people find objectionable, and reasonably so. I'm not sure the plan's authors ever claimed that was wise, only possible, but you can't expect media to report a story like that straight!
"A *good* author shouldn't just pull a 'plot outline' from a stack of pre-generated index cards and fill in the blanks, although that's a perfectly good way to sell hordes of cheapo paperback copies if you don't mind putting your name on absolute drivel. Stuff like that *does* seem to sell, after all."
Quite true, and I think that if there is anything to be worried about, it's that some publishing houses may find it's cheaper to generate formula novels by computer than select them from a slushpile. The fact that "good enough" beats "better" should be remembered here.
While many might see this as liberating authors to write more worthwhile books, it could have a chilling economic effect on those that write formula novels to support their real writing or simply to break into the business.
The books I want to read by computers are ones that give me insight into what it's really like to be a computer in a human society.
But I have to think this progam is very impressive if it does as well as they suggest.
Teller is a brilliant and insightful person. But his insistence that scientists should not care about the consequences of their work is not a currently popular view. Personally I think he's half right -- you can't do science and worry whether you should know what you might find out. Too often science is serendipitous anyway, even if you tried not to, you could still discover the next horror weapon.
But scientists have a very real obligation to help politicians wisely evaluate the consequences of scientific and technological breakthroughs. You can't make the H-bomb go away, but you can help control its use and production intelligently.
When I hear of plans of h-bombing a new harbor into Alaska, to "mainline" it's economy, I have to think Teller is speaking as an expert in fields he knows next to nothing about. Bad advocacy -- creates two sorts of idiot -- those who are frightened of any use of nuclear energy, and those who really think it's a good idea to H-Bomb Alaska.
Once we get into space, nuclear energy is likely to become much more useful. Without the high concentrations of people around reactors, risks are far less in comparison to benefits. Easy disposal of waste in the Sun makes it more attractive yet. Even bombs may well be truly useful tools for excavating or moving asteroids.
Teller is nothing new in science. Someone who has truly contributed a lot to a difficult field, but whose opinions outside his field are somewhat inflammatory, if not arrogant. His work will be greatly appreciated next century, but his abrasive personality has cost him acceptance in his own lifetime.
I doubt that the Virtual University will replace traditional college programs. As the author argues so well, they are certification programs and that is what most businesses actually want. As a test of being able to stick in one place for four years and do what you're told, colleges are wonderful.
There are also the socialization aspects that other readers have mentioned, and colleges are a indeed a useful halfway house between living with parents and really being out there on your own.
But for education, traditional colleges tend to be very poor unless the student is very focused on learning, not just graduating. Way too much politics, both internal and external, tend to get in the way. Good training for corporations and academia, but not really about education.
The idea I like about the Virtual U is that it could provide a way for many of us supposedly already socialized types access to learning resources. We all know that learning doesn't stop at the University if you are into technology. It allows individual pacing, so those with only a couple of hours a day to spare can still participate. It doesn't require yet another commute to attend classes.
Don't underestimate the interaction possible via internet -- slashdot is kinda fun for example, no? No replacement for real social contact, for example with the opposite sex, but not bad at all for intellectual discussion, the primary thrust of education.
Another advantage would be distributed resources. You can benefit from *both* MIT and CMU from your home terminal -- choice is no longer a career threatening hazard.
Even if Virtual U can't replace colleges, it can still have a very valuable role in education.
If corporations are individuals, why do they get preferential treatment under the law, and effectively cast way more political influence than one vote? This "solution", a crypto review process not likely to be practicable for individuals or small businesses, or open source projects, is just the latest example.
This country seems to be falling into a dangerous mindset, optimizing law for corporations rather than individuals. Corporations need privacy. Individuals can't be allowed privacy (for their own good.)
Unfortunately, corporations are focused on making money in the short term no matter how expensive it proves to be for everyone else in the long term. Very little fundamental research is occurring in corporations as it once did at Bell Labs. Corporation mergers, acquisitions, and outsourcing have degraded our quality of life. A society organized for the sole benefit of the balance sheets of its corporations is not an optimal solution for individuals.
We should fight for equal rights for all under the law, individuals and corporations alike. One entity, one vote.
I'd like to know too, but doubt we ever will.
This article is likely to slashdot them with negative responses. I replied, caustically but politely. I hope they get a lot of well written negative comments. It's too bad the people in Washington aren't likely to see them.
This site is really an affront. First the "big lie" premise that the trial is about Microsoft's "freedom to innovate", as if they ever had, or ever respected anyone else's freedom. The kicker though is the caricature of the American flag -- uh, yeah, thanks for not using the Microsoft logo in the little monitor at least! Supporting Microsoft is patriotic, I'm sure, remember how Microsoft said any delay in Win98 from the bundling trial might have serious effects on the economy?
No doubt that cops are in a very unenviable position. They serve an essential function for very little thanks. I suspect they wouldn't turn to other rewards like petty power and corruption nearly as often if they got more respect and thanks.
More, their life is on the line every time they do so much as stop someone for speeding, so making quick decisions as to how much danger they are in is important to their survival. If some overgeneralize I have to say it's easy to understand why. Strangely, unfounded prejudices probably do not serve their interests either -- it's safer to distrust everyone rather than cretinize some based on a stereotype. You can also be civil and suspicious simultaneously.
Still, I will never fully trust cops (or a government), even though I may understand why they are as they are.
What a pithy summary of the bazaar. It reeks of elitism and arrogance. It was very clever to attack ESR and his religion, did you think of that all by yourself? Thanks, but I prefer foul-mouthed Linux zealots.
The bazaar is important because it's surprising that it works at all. It suggests that people can usefully collaborate in a self organizing fashion, which is something *new* in the software world. Some of us think that this concept has importance in terms of promoting freedom and escaping corporate development nightmares. You don't need to agree, but please, don't come off like some aristocrat too good for the peasants. Your envy is showing.
It's really a shame both OSs have to put up with people who are more interested in being thought elite and correct than doing something to improve their OS. Both OSs deserve far better advocacy.
Not a bad algorithm, but you left out the *real* time sink. Doing those nasty problems at the end of each chapter :). Especially those muthas rated over 40!
I came at programming rather back-asswards. I didn't start reading Knuth until years after I was programming professionally. To be truthful, for the kind of assembly programming I do, Knuth is rarely that useful. But it's wonderful exercise for the mind, and recommended reading in any case.
Hi Rez :)
I never thought for a minute that Rodney was an angel, or that some violence wasn't necessary to subdue him. As you say though, the cops lost it. If I get mad and beat someone up I'm still up for assault, even if I was provoked. If a soldier intentionally shoots someone after they surrender, even if they tried to kill him seconds before, it's still a serious offense.
The issue isn't that one case where a video camera happened to be handy though. What I object to is the sharp divide in many cop's minds between citizens and cretins. They're very polite and helpful to the citizens, but some show a quite different face to cretins. I've been on both sides of the cretin/citizen line and this was my experience. Too often the classification has more to do with political affiliation, economic circumstance, or skin color, rather than actual danger to society. That this is understandable doesn't mean it's good.
"I would like to see the ACTUAL statistics that say the DEA kicks down more wrong doors than
right."
No one would claim that they make mistakes very often. But when they do -- you should be afraid. You'll be frightened out of your wits, have all your property seized, and get lots of unwanted publicity that will never be properly corrected when the truth finally comes out.
"I am sorry there even 'are' disapproved minorities, but I don't think that is the issue here. Citizens ARE sheep, and I'm willing to bet they aren't all members of the majority either... But this isn't what I'm discussing here."
You asked -- "what are you so damn afraid of?" My answer is that unless you are in a group that is being actively targeted by the government -- not much. Otherwise, a lot. Some of us see that the government's willingness to abuse the rights of some citizens imply they'd be equally willing to abuse ours, given altered circumstances. This is cause for worry.
"You mention Watergate, Rodney King... sounds like what you are looking for is accountability.
Exactly out of what thin air would you like the law enforcement agencies to get the information, or proof as you will, to bring these things to a head?"
Are you suggesting that increased wire tapping would be applied against government abuses? Forgive me for doubting. Note that the Nixon tapes were obtained thru due process, by the courts. No wiretapping required. Note also that the whole scandal was set off by an illegal wiretapping act by our president -- yet more evidence that the government cannot be trusted with easily abused surveillance powers.
On Vietnam, remember the "Pentagon Papers?" What that led to was more illegal wiretapping (at NYT) and breaking and entering to obtain Ellsberg's psychiatric records in an attempt to discredit the truth that leak revealed.
The Rodney King case did not lack for evidence, just willingness to put white cops in jail for abuse of power. While it wasn't our government that failed here (they even brought a civil rights case to make up for the failed criminal trial), they're still responsible for spreading the false idea that cops are the only thing standing between "regular citizens" and the nasty have-nots and radicals who want to take everything away.
I too was once sure that the government was on my side. My turning point came in the early seventies when I was clubbed returning to my dorm room after peacefully attending a scheduled town hall meeting on the Vietnam war. It was probably the most educational experience I had in college.