Would it be a leap to say Google is pushing quickly towards a 'tipping point' - where they offer services at such a value proposition that businesses and the public can't refuse to move from a Windows-centric model to something novel?
The procedure should have been to go directly from the data center to a bank - and deposit the backups in a safe deposit box. The data should never make a pit-stop in someone's driveway.:(
Unless you get attacked on the way to the bank (and if you think that likely, take steps to provide security for the transfer - maybe an armored car if it is that sensitive), there shouldn't be an opportunity for anyone to gain access to the data. Usually keeping a low profile, and varying the times and days you make the deliveries is sufficient.
For smaller businesses this can be as simple as backing up the encrypted data onto a gigabyte usb drive - which can be delivered to the bank unobtrusively.
Additionally, there are companies that provide the service of picking up and securing backup media - if you don't have the resources or want to hassle with it yourself.
Is anyone really surprised about this? When have corporations and government agencies shielding people from individual responsibility ever done the right thing when there was money at stake?
I think that number is somewhere between 0 and some fractional value of 1.
In computer science and engineering fields this is called the 'KISS' principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid (e.g. keep it as simple as possible - don't be overly clever because you will one day have to debug that kludge you call an application).
Sadly, it seems more developers are concerned with looks more than results.
...smaller, more geographically diffuse market means that they'll rarely have radio's ability for listeners to converse over what they "heard on the radio", and word just won't get out in a big way.
What you are seeing here is the natural progression from 'mass media' to a 'selective media' environment. The MPAA/RIAA doesn't get it, and most people for that matter don't get it. The days of mega million dollar record sales are slowly coming to an end (and gaining momentum every day).
We already see the flicker of the future with indie/hobby groups releasing music for free in various formats (and better quality, in many respects, than so-called 'established artists' - interestingly about 1/3 of my music is non-commercial and yet fits into my playlist so well I can't tell the difference most times). What is needed is a way for the listeners to find what they like quickly -- to match up artists with listeners. When that is in place - there won't be any need to depend on the major record labels.
If this law is passed it will just push users to alternative systems - linux boxes with software that can play mp3s (I can't see how they could possibly enforce such a law against a general purpose computer - particularly if I have access to the source code, and a soldering iron). While regulations might exist, enforcement would be next to impossible - particularly given the free exchange of information within the community of listeners who refuse to let the music industry silence the indie/hobby groups.
The GPL doesn't say 'any and all' GPL'd software use is revoked if you violate the license for a particular program, revocation or your rights to copy, modify and distribute just the software that is being violated is revoked. The license furthermore states that use of the program is not covered under the GPL. That makes a big difference - and is not nearly as big a problem for businesses as the original headline indicated - particularly where use is concerned.
So, if I (as a business) screw up and modify GPL'd program called 'gnome' and include it in my latest super-widget - without attribution, and other requirements of the license - that does not mean I have to stop using Linux or unmodified 'gnome' --- it just revokes my right to copy, modify and distribute my modified version of 'gnome'. That is how I read the license.
I think this article is going a bit off the deep end.
You got a good point there about the recipe from an apples to apples comparison between that and code. Nonetheless I wanted to emphasize that there is a transaction going on when you modify and distribute GPL'd code --- you then have a responsibility to make that 'payment'.
iTunes on the Windows box only rips CDs to the iTunes proprietary format - because when I copied the files over to my linux box (converted the windows machine to linux) - the files were not recognizable by MP3 player - although mp3s and wavs ripped using other software (before I started using iTunes) were recognized and played. These were songs I ripped from my own CDs! Some of the music was songs I wrote, performed, and recorded myself! iTunes locked it into its proprietary format with little chance of extracting it. I ended up re-ripping the music from CDs using a linux based ripper to reclaim the files.
DRM is bad because it masks data format standards - and makes moving your own data between platforms next to impossible. Unless, of course, that platform includes the 'approved' DRM technology (which, of course, will be proprietary). DRM is nothing more than a scheme to lock 'consumers' into certain proprietary vendors, and thus minimize consumer choice. It only serves to keep old bloated business models afloat and does not help authors or publishers (who will have to expend more money to provide 'DRM' compatible content) or consumers (who will have to buy expensive DRM machines to experience the new content without the guarantee that they will have access to that content at any time going forward - at the whim of the content provider).
Beyond the poor implimenation of DRM, we can see there are other issues at stake here.
I believe one of the problems with the idea of Open Source and FSF skipping hand in hand is that some so-called 'Open Source' shops only take from the community and provide little if any reciprocal in return.
I find it hypocritical that capitalist businesses say the FSF is 'communist', then turn around and not 'pay' for the benefit of free software by an exchange of software with the community - expecting a free ride. If I went to a restaurant and consumed their fare, and then attempted to stiff them on the bill, I would end up washing dishes to make up the difference. As bad as 'not paying' is for an individual, it is multiplied many times over by a corporation - which in most cases magnifies the damage by the large distribution channels they command.
The GPL is all about reciprocity. I provide this code that you can incorporate in your own designs as you like - but you have to pay for that incorporation by sharing your changes with anyone who wants to see them. Reciprocity is how business is purported to operate, and is in most cases true. In more cases than I care to count we see businesses that do things that no sane respectable person would do - including incorporating GPL'd software within proprietary systems for sale without providing attribution or releasing the changes as stated in the license.
Of course we probably shouldn't attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.
The moderation system serves many purposes, but perhaps the most important is to provide a user, 24 hours later viewing at Score 2 or 3 an accurate pulse on the topic at hand. If the comment is not about the new motherboard chipset, that comment at least should not be modded 'insightful', and in many cases, ought to be modded offtopic of flamebait.
The sheer number of complaints probably indicates there is indeed a problem. Trying to browbeat the moderators into submission will not solve the problem: take the extra 5 seconds to edit the stories you publish (I mean come-on, you publish on average - what --- 10 stories per day? The stories are never more than a paragraph in length (with the exception of book reviews - that are usually well written from what I have seen). You can't tell me it would burden you to spend an extra minute out of your day to edit 10 paragraphs.
Another solution that would allow you to continue your 'way', while helping the readers would be to modify the slashdot code to provide a means of reporting typographical and content errors (perhaps display these in a box next to the article) to bypass the complaints being 'inside' of the story - yet keep readers informed about points of contention for those who care. Just a thought.
"Content Provider" is an oxymoron because rarely do businesses (whom I presume are the complaintants) provide anything useful other than price lists.
On the other hand, search engines direct people to their 'content' - bringing potential customers to their site above and beyond what would normally transpire - thus increasing the revenue stream of these sites.
As for non-profit sites who post real content - perhaps we need a search engine that just lists these sites alone - that way the complainers wouldn't have to worry about anymore search engine directed 'visitors' or the $$ they bring.
There is a reason why the word 'moron' is in 'oxymoron' - and this article illustrates it beautifully.
Many IT professionals and computer scientists view Windows as a 'toy' OS. What would you say to convince them to use Vista over (insert industrial strength POSIX OS here) for their mission critical systems?
According to the dictionary, a community is, among other things, "A group of people having common interests...A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society". According to Webster's I would have to come to the conclusion that there is, indeed, a FOSS community. Just as there are different political parties that share their common interest in government, factions within FOSS share the common interest of free and open source - regardless of what purpose and meaning they give to the outcome.
More importantly, this may be impossible because of what we are trying to measure and how we are trying to measure it. What is light? A particle? A wave? It has qualities of both - so the question of 'exactly what it is we are measuring' is not ascertainable and is a cautionary tale for us: we only know as much as we think we understand at any given moment; new ways of approaching hard problems can alter what we consider 'reality' in the blink of an eye.
There is always a duck-billed platypus to throw a monkey wrench into the works...
There is, and has never been a true limited government in the US. Every administration gets into office and then immediately begins 'helping' their 'constituents'. In the case of the Republican party it is religeous fundamentalists and big business (Military, Industrial complex). In the case of the Democratic party it is far leftwing zealots and big business (Hollywood, Music Industry).
In the meantime average Joe-middle-class gets the shaft, picks up the tab, and sends his son/daughter off to die in Iraq/Afganistan.
I find it deplorable that both Wikipedia, and Britannica have errors in their content - similar enough to be almost identical (3 vs. 4 --- not a shining win for Britannica by any means). I also question the metrics involved; why didn't they look at the total number of articles in various categories to get a feel for the breadth of both sources, as well as other things. An accurate picture does not revolve around one measurement - unless you are trying to lie to yourself and others. So this 'scientific' test is meaningless - and does not shine light on the real problem.
The real problem is that information, be it scientific, historic, biographic or otherwise is always subject to interpretation - and whether intentionally through some agenda, or accidentally through an error, inaccuracies creep in over time.
We are better equipped to deal with this issue today with technologies that allow the preservation of information over longer periods of time. Nevertheless we have one thing that will always be a limitation no matter what system we use: human beings. Over time information degrades as it is copied from one medium to another because of human failings. The sheer volume of information makes it difficult to have exacting controls over this process.
In the end this result just tells me that wikipedia is sufficient as a resource - on par with traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore wikipedia has articles that I don't find in traditional encyclopedias, and adds articles as events unfold - making it more timely and desireable to me as a resource than 'frozen' encyclopedias (whether traditional paper or cdrom formats).
What would sell me on going with traditional encyclopedias again would be for them to realize that technology is changing, and for them to produce enhancments of the online encyclopedias (like Wikipedia) by leveraging their talented researches to validate factual information - rather than trying to do the whole thing themselves; a 'google' of online encyclopedias, if you will.
Of course, they won't be able to make as much money as they used to with the tradition methods - and they will have to change how they are paid for those services - but that is a fact of life with the internet - the same things we are seeing happening in the software industry (Windows vs. Linux), in the bookselling arena (Amazon.com vs. brick and mortar retailers), and other markets are happening in the encyclopedia market. No amount of gnashing of teeth and pointing of fingers is going to change that.
Ultimately it is up to each of us to verify the facts - particularly if we are depending upon them for our livelyhood (going around with wrong-headed ideas is not appealing to me in any case - but many folks are not so discerning and will believe the wildest ideas). Encyclopedias merely scratch the surface - and can't be trusted as definitive. Only through our own trials and research can we be sure that all of the evidence for any subject points to a certain conclusion, and some things may never be known with any amount of certainty. You can only know what is knowable - everything else is up to interpretation. That may seem counterintuitive but nature is full of contradictions (take the duck-billed platypus, for example).
I call BS on this one. Rebooting cures nothing. It merely covers it up until next time.
Most of what it covers up are:
Memory Leaks -- software that is incorrectly written, or uses libraries that are incorrectly implimented.
Disk issues -- if a disk drive is failing, replace it -- don't let fsck (or windows equivalent) keep it limping along - fix the problem because you will lose data if you don't.
While this may 'work' from an 'I need to get this guy off my back' standpoint, it fixes nothing.
Perhaps ruminating over inefficiencies serves to provide deeper development of the brain. There are so many things going on in a developing brain that we would be hard pressed to definitively say 'it is more beneficial to have a brain that can eliminate inefficient options early on', because we don't understand enough about it.
Equally plausible is the idea that repetition of a wider array of options serves to program the brain more deeply with an understanding about how the world works that goes beyond the task at hand. This could be the source of our curiosity and propensity to be inventive that goes beyond what we see in the animal world. Perhaps this could be expressed simply as the idea that humans play more than animals do - animals approach things from a practical standpoint and humans do many things that, on the surface at least, seem impractical - but provide dividends in terms of understanding later.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the truest response I have seen in all my years reading /. Bravo! May the sanity continue.
You might be onto something. There are indications that Google is in the process of building out a backbone network. What better way to deliver such a system than via a dedicated network?
Would it be a leap to say Google is pushing quickly towards a 'tipping point' - where they offer services at such a value proposition that businesses and the public can't refuse to move from a Windows-centric model to something novel?
Certainly food for thought.
The procedure should have been to go directly from the data center to a bank - and deposit the backups in a safe deposit box. The data should never make a pit-stop in someone's driveway. :(
Unless you get attacked on the way to the bank (and if you think that likely, take steps to provide security for the transfer - maybe an armored car if it is that sensitive), there shouldn't be an opportunity for anyone to gain access to the data. Usually keeping a low profile, and varying the times and days you make the deliveries is sufficient.
For smaller businesses this can be as simple as backing up the encrypted data onto a gigabyte usb drive - which can be delivered to the bank unobtrusively.
Additionally, there are companies that provide the service of picking up and securing backup media - if you don't have the resources or want to hassle with it yourself.
Is anyone really surprised about this? When have corporations and government agencies shielding people from individual responsibility ever done the right thing when there was money at stake?
I think that number is somewhere between 0 and some fractional value of 1.
In computer science and engineering fields this is called the 'KISS' principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid (e.g. keep it as simple as possible - don't be overly clever because you will one day have to debug that kludge you call an application).
Sadly, it seems more developers are concerned with looks more than results.
What you are seeing here is the natural progression from 'mass media' to a 'selective media' environment. The MPAA/RIAA doesn't get it, and most people for that matter don't get it. The days of mega million dollar record sales are slowly coming to an end (and gaining momentum every day).
We already see the flicker of the future with indie/hobby groups releasing music for free in various formats (and better quality, in many respects, than so-called 'established artists' - interestingly about 1/3 of my music is non-commercial and yet fits into my playlist so well I can't tell the difference most times). What is needed is a way for the listeners to find what they like quickly -- to match up artists with listeners. When that is in place - there won't be any need to depend on the major record labels.
If this law is passed it will just push users to alternative systems - linux boxes with software that can play mp3s (I can't see how they could possibly enforce such a law against a general purpose computer - particularly if I have access to the source code, and a soldering iron). While regulations might exist, enforcement would be next to impossible - particularly given the free exchange of information within the community of listeners who refuse to let the music industry silence the indie/hobby groups.
Interesting times indeed.
Wait a minute - that is an oxymoron! Your argument to have the parent poster seek out such a thing is moot.
Assumptions are the mothers of all fark-ups.
I stand corrected.
GPL does not cover USE.
morons/agreed!
IANAL
The GPL doesn't say 'any and all' GPL'd software use is revoked if you violate the license for a particular program, revocation or your rights to copy, modify and distribute just the software that is being violated is revoked. The license furthermore states that use of the program is not covered under the GPL. That makes a big difference - and is not nearly as big a problem for businesses as the original headline indicated - particularly where use is concerned.
So, if I (as a business) screw up and modify GPL'd program called 'gnome' and include it in my latest super-widget - without attribution, and other requirements of the license - that does not mean I have to stop using Linux or unmodified 'gnome' --- it just revokes my right to copy, modify and distribute my modified version of 'gnome'. That is how I read the license.
I think this article is going a bit off the deep end.
IANAL
You got a good point there about the recipe from an apples to apples comparison between that and code. Nonetheless I wanted to emphasize that there is a transaction going on when you modify and distribute GPL'd code --- you then have a responsibility to make that 'payment'.
:)
Per your last question: Clumsy Magician
iTunes on the Windows box only rips CDs to the iTunes proprietary format - because when I copied the files over to my linux box (converted the windows machine to linux) - the files were not recognizable by MP3 player - although mp3s and wavs ripped using other software (before I started using iTunes) were recognized and played. These were songs I ripped from my own CDs! Some of the music was songs I wrote, performed, and recorded myself! iTunes locked it into its proprietary format with little chance of extracting it. I ended up re-ripping the music from CDs using a linux based ripper to reclaim the files.
DRM is bad because it masks data format standards - and makes moving your own data between platforms next to impossible. Unless, of course, that platform includes the 'approved' DRM technology (which, of course, will be proprietary). DRM is nothing more than a scheme to lock 'consumers' into certain proprietary vendors, and thus minimize consumer choice. It only serves to keep old bloated business models afloat and does not help authors or publishers (who will have to expend more money to provide 'DRM' compatible content) or consumers (who will have to buy expensive DRM machines to experience the new content without the guarantee that they will have access to that content at any time going forward - at the whim of the content provider).
Beyond the poor implimenation of DRM, we can see there are other issues at stake here.
I believe one of the problems with the idea of Open Source and FSF skipping hand in hand is that some so-called 'Open Source' shops only take from the community and provide little if any reciprocal in return.
I find it hypocritical that capitalist businesses say the FSF is 'communist', then turn around and not 'pay' for the benefit of free software by an exchange of software with the community - expecting a free ride. If I went to a restaurant and consumed their fare, and then attempted to stiff them on the bill, I would end up washing dishes to make up the difference. As bad as 'not paying' is for an individual, it is multiplied many times over by a corporation - which in most cases magnifies the damage by the large distribution channels they command.
The GPL is all about reciprocity. I provide this code that you can incorporate in your own designs as you like - but you have to pay for that incorporation by sharing your changes with anyone who wants to see them. Reciprocity is how business is purported to operate, and is in most cases true. In more cases than I care to count we see businesses that do things that no sane respectable person would do - including incorporating GPL'd software within proprietary systems for sale without providing attribution or releasing the changes as stated in the license.
Of course we probably shouldn't attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance.
I thought the FSF or another organization had dedicated lawyers for that - to help anyone who detects GPL violations in commercial software.
I recall reading this somewhere - with examples of some cases they have begun to pursue -- but I can't recall the organization...
The sheer number of complaints probably indicates there is indeed a problem. Trying to browbeat the moderators into submission will not solve the problem: take the extra 5 seconds to edit the stories you publish (I mean come-on, you publish on average - what --- 10 stories per day? The stories are never more than a paragraph in length (with the exception of book reviews - that are usually well written from what I have seen). You can't tell me it would burden you to spend an extra minute out of your day to edit 10 paragraphs.
Another solution that would allow you to continue your 'way', while helping the readers would be to modify the slashdot code to provide a means of reporting typographical and content errors (perhaps display these in a box next to the article) to bypass the complaints being 'inside' of the story - yet keep readers informed about points of contention for those who care. Just a thought.
"Content Provider" is an oxymoron because rarely do businesses (whom I presume are the complaintants) provide anything useful other than price lists.
On the other hand, search engines direct people to their 'content' - bringing potential customers to their site above and beyond what would normally transpire - thus increasing the revenue stream of these sites.
As for non-profit sites who post real content - perhaps we need a search engine that just lists these sites alone - that way the complainers wouldn't have to worry about anymore search engine directed 'visitors' or the $$ they bring.
There is a reason why the word 'moron' is in 'oxymoron' - and this article illustrates it beautifully.
Many IT professionals and computer scientists view Windows as a 'toy' OS. What would you say to convince them to use Vista over (insert industrial strength POSIX OS here) for their mission critical systems?
You could get the benefit of this with the flexibility to rewritability via a USB drive. Plug in a new drive, and voila! You boot into a new OS.
According to the dictionary, a community is, among other things, "A group of people having common interests...A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society". According to Webster's I would have to come to the conclusion that there is, indeed, a FOSS community. Just as there are different political parties that share their common interest in government, factions within FOSS share the common interest of free and open source - regardless of what purpose and meaning they give to the outcome.
More importantly, this may be impossible because of what we are trying to measure and how we are trying to measure it. What is light? A particle? A wave? It has qualities of both - so the question of 'exactly what it is we are measuring' is not ascertainable and is a cautionary tale for us: we only know as much as we think we understand at any given moment; new ways of approaching hard problems can alter what we consider 'reality' in the blink of an eye.
There is always a duck-billed platypus to throw a monkey wrench into the works...
There is, and has never been a true limited government in the US. Every administration gets into office and then immediately begins 'helping' their 'constituents'. In the case of the Republican party it is religeous fundamentalists and big business (Military, Industrial complex). In the case of the Democratic party it is far leftwing zealots and big business (Hollywood, Music Industry).
In the meantime average Joe-middle-class gets the shaft, picks up the tab, and sends his son/daughter off to die in Iraq/Afganistan.
Here is a link to the project you are referring to FYI
I find it deplorable that both Wikipedia, and Britannica have errors in their content - similar enough to be almost identical (3 vs. 4 --- not a shining win for Britannica by any means). I also question the metrics involved; why didn't they look at the total number of articles in various categories to get a feel for the breadth of both sources, as well as other things. An accurate picture does not revolve around one measurement - unless you are trying to lie to yourself and others. So this 'scientific' test is meaningless - and does not shine light on the real problem.
The real problem is that information, be it scientific, historic, biographic or otherwise is always subject to interpretation - and whether intentionally through some agenda, or accidentally through an error, inaccuracies creep in over time.
We are better equipped to deal with this issue today with technologies that allow the preservation of information over longer periods of time. Nevertheless we have one thing that will always be a limitation no matter what system we use: human beings. Over time information degrades as it is copied from one medium to another because of human failings. The sheer volume of information makes it difficult to have exacting controls over this process.
In the end this result just tells me that wikipedia is sufficient as a resource - on par with traditional encyclopedias. Furthermore wikipedia has articles that I don't find in traditional encyclopedias, and adds articles as events unfold - making it more timely and desireable to me as a resource than 'frozen' encyclopedias (whether traditional paper or cdrom formats).
What would sell me on going with traditional encyclopedias again would be for them to realize that technology is changing, and for them to produce enhancments of the online encyclopedias (like Wikipedia) by leveraging their talented researches to validate factual information - rather than trying to do the whole thing themselves; a 'google' of online encyclopedias, if you will.
Of course, they won't be able to make as much money as they used to with the tradition methods - and they will have to change how they are paid for those services - but that is a fact of life with the internet - the same things we are seeing happening in the software industry (Windows vs. Linux), in the bookselling arena (Amazon.com vs. brick and mortar retailers), and other markets are happening in the encyclopedia market. No amount of gnashing of teeth and pointing of fingers is going to change that.
Ultimately it is up to each of us to verify the facts - particularly if we are depending upon them for our livelyhood (going around with wrong-headed ideas is not appealing to me in any case - but many folks are not so discerning and will believe the wildest ideas). Encyclopedias merely scratch the surface - and can't be trusted as definitive. Only through our own trials and research can we be sure that all of the evidence for any subject points to a certain conclusion, and some things may never be known with any amount of certainty. You can only know what is knowable - everything else is up to interpretation. That may seem counterintuitive but nature is full of contradictions (take the duck-billed platypus, for example).
Rebooting can cure ailments of all sorts...
I call BS on this one. Rebooting cures nothing. It merely covers it up until next time.
Most of what it covers up are:
Memory Leaks -- software that is incorrectly written, or uses libraries that are incorrectly implimented.
Disk issues -- if a disk drive is failing, replace it -- don't let fsck (or windows equivalent) keep it limping along - fix the problem because you will lose data if you don't.
While this may 'work' from an 'I need to get this guy off my back' standpoint, it fixes nothing.
Perhaps ruminating over inefficiencies serves to provide deeper development of the brain. There are so many things going on in a developing brain that we would be hard pressed to definitively say 'it is more beneficial to have a brain that can eliminate inefficient options early on', because we don't understand enough about it.
Equally plausible is the idea that repetition of a wider array of options serves to program the brain more deeply with an understanding about how the world works that goes beyond the task at hand. This could be the source of our curiosity and propensity to be inventive that goes beyond what we see in the animal world. Perhaps this could be expressed simply as the idea that humans play more than animals do - animals approach things from a practical standpoint and humans do many things that, on the surface at least, seem impractical - but provide dividends in terms of understanding later.