wait, wait, WAIT! NO CENSORSHIP! none. nill. zilch. no matter what. under any cicumstance. EVER! I grew up with unfiltered, uncensored internet access, and, oh lookie, I'm a normal person (for a/.er, at least).
I grew up without internet access, but even grown up, Tubgirl did end up scarring my soul.
And, yes, I found my fair share of porn, cult sites, etc. ad infinium, ad nauseum. Teach your kids critical and analitical thinking from a really young age (think shortpants) and let 'em loose. If you missed something, they'll tell you about it. Or better yet, figure it out for themselves. I did that most of the time, it wasnt too hard. Seroiuosly, either I wasa boy genius, or (more likely) you guys are really underestimating your kids.
Kids of what age are you talking about here? There's a big difference between teenagers and 7 year olds. For many parents the choice is to either give them no internet access at all, or to give them full access to all the filth out there. It's nice for parents to have a few more options.
Yeah, but the common Fox News crowd opinion seems to be that by not coming across as a moron or a lunatic Palin "won" politically.
Well, it is a victory of sorts. Depending how you set your standards.
The problem with the whole debate in my opinion was that Biden couldn't "win". Palin could "lose", if she really made herself look like an idiot or said something crazy, but Biden could have been Cicero and it wouldn't have mattered.
I read that after Palin's recent interviews, she could only go up, while Biden could only go down (particularly if he attacked Palin). Biden managed to avoid sounding condescending, and Palin did a lot better than on those recent interviews. It was probably the most positive result both parties could have hoped for.
The nature of the two candidates totally put the the ball in Palin's court. If she did well she would win, if she did OK she would tie (and still in a way "win"), if she bombed she would lose. Biden was going to more or less be fine unless he bombed (and lost), but could never "win" on he own.
He was just some dumb cowboy that came across as more likable to people dumb enough to vote for President based on who they'd rather sit down and have a beer with.
Palin came across as a breath of fresh air. Everyone keeps yelling for change in this election and so far, Palin appears to be the only one different than the current establishment.
She looks superficially different (being a young woman instead of an old guy), but I'm not convinced that her policies would actually be all that different. I'm counting more on McCain than her for that. He at least had some interesting proposals in 2000.
What exactly do you find a dubious claim? Do you think a (vice) president doesn't need an understanding of the constitution or other laws? Or do you think that Biden has no understanding of those laws (or at least less than Palin)?
That he is a less bad candidate than McCain is obvious to anyone with two ears and a brain, but anyone who thinks his policies would be all that much different from McCain hasn't been paying attention to Obama's voting record or campaign rhetoric.
Or McCain's for that matter. He wasn't always the conservative evangelical's choice, you know.
I did read one interesting article that claimed McCain would be better for Europe because he's more in favour of free trade, whereas Obama has some protectionist tendencies.
I don't think Biden did any better. They both just repeatedly misstated the other campaign's position while only extolling the virtues of their own.
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution. It's not a lot if you want to lead a country, but a basic understanding of the law is kind of vital, I think.
The VP debate was funny until I checked the news the next day and everything was about how well Palin did, saying that she even 'won' (politically). Then it was just very sad.
Really? I heard they both pretty much did what was expected from them. Palin did well, but probably not good enough to matter. Biden demonstrated he knew what he was talking about without getting pedantic, and that he'd be an adequate choice as VP.
And according to the analyses I read, that's pretty much all the Obama/Biden ticket needs to do: show they're not idiots, reliable, and an adequate choice to lead the country. McCain and Palin are working so hard to appear mavericks that they come across as unreliable loonies.
No idea if it's true, but if it is, it'd be pretty impressive that a young, black advocate for change has conquered the "safe choice" position. Although that's probably more because of McCain's panicky stunts than his own doing.
Western European democracies routinely have an election turnout percentage in the 80's or 90's.
Which Western European democracies exactly? Netherland usually has a voter turnout percentage closer to 50% (and even lower than that for European and local elections). In Belgium, on the other hand, voting is compulsory, so turnout tends to be over 90%.
One of the result is a large representation for socialist, extreme left-wing and extreme right wing parties. In the US, this segment of the population by and large doesn't bother to vote.
That's just apathy in a different form. They're required to vote, but don't care about any of the big moderate parties, so they vote for something extreme.
I agree with the earlier posts that say HOW MUCH money makes a big difference, but I'd add some other stipulations - you need to make damn sure that you don't end up with a short term payment for a long term screwed. You might even end up in a situation where they have the best intentions but go out of business and get bought by someone else.
If they have the best of intentions, they won't insist on a permanent non-compete clause. That's simply not reasonable. A non-compete clause severaly limits your job opportinities in exactly the area where you have the most recent, most relevant experience. Not being allowed to use that experience costs you a lot. This is only reasonable when they pay for what it costs you. And that's probably going to be at least a few hundred bucks each month for the duration of the non-compete.
My guess is that if the company really does have the best intentions (which could be the case), they'll happily drop the non-compete clause if you explain to them what's wrong with it. And if they explain why they really need it anyway, they should be willing to pay a lot extra. And if they don't want to do that, well, then they're being unreasonable, and the submitter probably shouldn't go work there.
(Now, I have nothing against this story if it is just about providing tools for parents - I'm just referring to the general claim about parents not having time to supervise their kids on the Internet, as if somehow kids were supposed to be on the Internet in the first place.)
If you do want to allow your kids limited internet access, Glubble might be an interesting choice. It locks the kid's browser (which needs to be Firefox) down so it can only visit approved sites, and it comes with a list of thousands of sites suitable for children. Parents can block or allow any site they choose, and can check their children's browsing history and recent searches (without having to know anything about where firefox keeps those things).
It looks like the best approach to internnet censorship for kids I've seen so far, and it provides a nice social networking site where they can chat with family members and stuff like that.
I find the BSD license particularly damaging to open source progress into technology culture and business.
Ironically, a very large proportion of the most widely used open source software in business environments is BSD (or similarly) licensed. If you're a Java programmer (and most large businesses have employed one or two of those in their time), you'll find almost all of those open source libs you use are under BSD licenses.
I think you mean Apache. Most Java libraries I've used (other than the core Sun stuff) are from Apache and released under Apache license.
The big problem with the non-compete is that it's permanent, and includes his previous (unreleased?) work. There are possible problems with the non-compete like: What if the job doesn't work out, and he's left on the streets 3 months later?
A non-compete clause on work you did before you were hired, that continues after you leave the company, is unreasonable no matter what.
I think a clause like that for a regular job should be illegal, and you definitely shouldn't sign anything like that unless they pay for your life after you leave the job, which probably means millions.
You're not just signing away copyright on work done for them, you're signing away your own work experience. Even the experience you acquired before you started working them. Basically, you're signing away your entire career. So they have to pay for your entire career.
If they don't want to do that, the contract is not reasonable.
As to your question: I expect that not that many FOSS developers get hired away like this. Most companies recognize the value that the rest of the FOSS community brings to the project. These guys don't. That's going to discourage a lot of FOSS developers from dealing with this sort of company.
Exactly. An employee who is an active and respected committer of an important open source project is far more valuable than an employee who knows about that project but isn't a committer. A smart but honest employer would allow him to commit bugfixes at the very least, and preferably also new features that he didn't write explicitly for his new employer.
If they don't allow that, they're either stupid, or dishonest. Ask yourself whether you want to be working for a company like that.
Honstly, if the code is BSD licensed, the only reason they want you to do this is to get rid of competition for their own benefit, which makes them undeserving of a generous price for your time and reputation. It's not like the BSD license would restrict them from using your project anyway, even for commercial purposes.
That's not necessarily the reason. It could be that they need this project, but also need certain improvements, and perhaps need it to move in a certain direction. Hiring an important committer is a great way of accomplishing those goals.
Problem is, by denying him to contribute future changes to the project, they're effectively demanding a fork that they want to maintain themselves. But is that really in the best interests of the company? Because if there are other productive committers still left on the open source project, they'll miss out on their improvements after the fork, or they'll have to do a lot of work merging those changes with their own forked code.
It could very well be in the submitter's prospective employer's best interest to allow him to commit his most important fixes to the project. Only keep the new features that the employer needs (built in a modular way on top of the open source stuff) to themselves. That way, the employer won't have to maintain their own fork and won't miss out on new fixes by other committers, while still keeping the extra features from their new expert to themselves.
This way everybody wins. And that's always the best open source business model.
On the other hand, if the submitter is the only serious committer on this project, the prospective employer is effectively asking to buy the project. So how much is that project worth?
Slashdot Mirror
...internet censorship...
wait, wait, WAIT! NO CENSORSHIP! none. nill. zilch. no matter what. under any cicumstance. EVER! I grew up with unfiltered, uncensored internet access, and, oh lookie, I'm a normal person (for a /.er, at least).
I grew up without internet access, but even grown up, Tubgirl did end up scarring my soul.
And, yes, I found my fair share of porn, cult sites, etc. ad infinium, ad nauseum. Teach your kids critical and analitical thinking from a really young age (think shortpants) and let 'em loose. If you missed something, they'll tell you about it. Or better yet, figure it out for themselves. I did that most of the time, it wasnt too hard. Seroiuosly, either I wasa boy genius, or (more likely) you guys are really underestimating your kids.
Kids of what age are you talking about here? There's a big difference between teenagers and 7 year olds. For many parents the choice is to either give them no internet access at all, or to give them full access to all the filth out there. It's nice for parents to have a few more options.
Yeah, but the common Fox News crowd opinion seems to be that by not coming across as a moron or a lunatic Palin "won" politically.
Well, it is a victory of sorts. Depending how you set your standards.
The problem with the whole debate in my opinion was that Biden couldn't "win". Palin could "lose", if she really made herself look like an idiot or said something crazy, but Biden could have been Cicero and it wouldn't have mattered.
I read that after Palin's recent interviews, she could only go up, while Biden could only go down (particularly if he attacked Palin). Biden managed to avoid sounding condescending, and Palin did a lot better than on those recent interviews. It was probably the most positive result both parties could have hoped for.
The nature of the two candidates totally put the the ball in Palin's court. If she did well she would win, if she did OK she would tie (and still in a way "win"), if she bombed she would lose. Biden was going to more or less be fine unless he bombed (and lost), but could never "win" on he own.
He was just some dumb cowboy that came across as more likable to people dumb enough to vote for President based on who they'd rather sit down and have a beer with.
And the irony? He doesn't even drink.
I think it's his daughters that do that, right?
Palin came across as a breath of fresh air. Everyone keeps yelling for change in this election and so far, Palin appears to be the only one different than the current establishment.
She looks superficially different (being a young woman instead of an old guy), but I'm not convinced that her policies would actually be all that different. I'm counting more on McCain than her for that. He at least had some interesting proposals in 2000.
I find that a very dubious claim
What exactly do you find a dubious claim? Do you think a (vice) president doesn't need an understanding of the constitution or other laws? Or do you think that Biden has no understanding of those laws (or at least less than Palin)?
That he is a less bad candidate than McCain is obvious to anyone with two ears and a brain, but anyone who thinks his policies would be all that much different from McCain hasn't been paying attention to Obama's voting record or campaign rhetoric.
Or McCain's for that matter. He wasn't always the conservative evangelical's choice, you know.
I did read one interesting article that claimed McCain would be better for Europe because he's more in favour of free trade, whereas Obama has some protectionist tendencies.
Are you trying to tell me that Hugh Laurie isn't some super smart medical diagnosis guru with a bum leg and drug addiction?
Didn't he get that bum leg when he fought in World War I with Rowan Atkinson and Tony Robinson?
Which is why the United Kingdom is actually considered a constitutional monarchy.
That was his point. It's a monarchy, but not run by its monarch. Like most monarchies, nowadays.
Well, it's not like their picking candidates for a beauty contest, now, is it?
Well, that would make the choice a lot easier.
I don't think Biden did any better. They both just repeatedly misstated the other campaign's position while only extolling the virtues of their own.
Possibly, but at least Biden gives the impression of understanding the constitution. It's not a lot if you want to lead a country, but a basic understanding of the law is kind of vital, I think.
Well, that's better than what Bush did in 2000. He didn't answer a single question, and somehow he won it.
If your goal is to win, winning without answering a single question is about as good as you can get.
The VP debate was funny until I checked the news the next day and everything was about how well Palin did, saying that she even 'won' (politically). Then it was just very sad.
Really? I heard they both pretty much did what was expected from them. Palin did well, but probably not good enough to matter. Biden demonstrated he knew what he was talking about without getting pedantic, and that he'd be an adequate choice as VP.
And according to the analyses I read, that's pretty much all the Obama/Biden ticket needs to do: show they're not idiots, reliable, and an adequate choice to lead the country. McCain and Palin are working so hard to appear mavericks that they come across as unreliable loonies.
No idea if it's true, but if it is, it'd be pretty impressive that a young, black advocate for change has conquered the "safe choice" position. Although that's probably more because of McCain's panicky stunts than his own doing.
We are a republic, not a democracy. That extra layer, of which you speak is what makes us a republic.
No, it's the lack of a monarch that makes you a republic. And lots of republics are democracies.
Western European democracies routinely have an election turnout percentage in the 80's or 90's.
Which Western European democracies exactly? Netherland usually has a voter turnout percentage closer to 50% (and even lower than that for European and local elections). In Belgium, on the other hand, voting is compulsory, so turnout tends to be over 90%.
One of the result is a large representation for socialist, extreme left-wing and extreme right wing parties. In the US, this segment of the population by and large doesn't bother to vote.
That's just apathy in a different form. They're required to vote, but don't care about any of the big moderate parties, so they vote for something extreme.
Why is it even necessary to register in advance? Isn't every US citizen registered at birth/time of immigration?
And does anyone know if there are any other countries that also require you to register in advance? It sounds very archaic to me.
As long as we have the electoral system, it's painfully obvious that it's not a democracy.
It's a bad democracy that doesn't count all votes equally, but that doesn't mean it's not a democracy at all. It's just a bad one.
I agree with the earlier posts that say HOW MUCH money makes a big difference, but I'd add some other stipulations - you need to make damn sure that you don't end up with a short term payment for a long term screwed. You might even end up in a situation where they have the best intentions but go out of business and get bought by someone else.
If they have the best of intentions, they won't insist on a permanent non-compete clause. That's simply not reasonable. A non-compete clause severaly limits your job opportinities in exactly the area where you have the most recent, most relevant experience. Not being allowed to use that experience costs you a lot. This is only reasonable when they pay for what it costs you. And that's probably going to be at least a few hundred bucks each month for the duration of the non-compete.
My guess is that if the company really does have the best intentions (which could be the case), they'll happily drop the non-compete clause if you explain to them what's wrong with it. And if they explain why they really need it anyway, they should be willing to pay a lot extra. And if they don't want to do that, well, then they're being unreasonable, and the submitter probably shouldn't go work there.
(Now, I have nothing against this story if it is just about providing tools for parents - I'm just referring to the general claim about parents not having time to supervise their kids on the Internet, as if somehow kids were supposed to be on the Internet in the first place.)
If you do want to allow your kids limited internet access, Glubble might be an interesting choice. It locks the kid's browser (which needs to be Firefox) down so it can only visit approved sites, and it comes with a list of thousands of sites suitable for children. Parents can block or allow any site they choose, and can check their children's browsing history and recent searches (without having to know anything about where firefox keeps those things).
It looks like the best approach to internnet censorship for kids I've seen so far, and it provides a nice social networking site where they can chat with family members and stuff like that.
I find the BSD license particularly damaging to open source progress into technology culture and business.
Ironically, a very large proportion of the most widely used open source software in business environments is BSD (or similarly) licensed. If you're a Java programmer (and most large businesses have employed one or two of those in their time), you'll find almost all of those open source libs you use are under BSD licenses.
I think you mean Apache. Most Java libraries I've used (other than the core Sun stuff) are from Apache and released under Apache license.
GPL gives maximum freedom to the code.
BSD gives maximum freedom to the programmer/corporation.
I think BSD gives maximum freedom to developers of derivative code, while GPL gives maximum freedom to users of derivative code.
I've never understood what code itself would do with freedom.
Wait, when did the Red Cross become evil?
Didn't they sue people for using red crosses to indicate medical facilities?
The big problem with the non-compete is that it's permanent, and includes his previous (unreleased?) work. There are possible problems with the non-compete like: What if the job doesn't work out, and he's left on the streets 3 months later?
A non-compete clause on work you did before you were hired, that continues after you leave the company, is unreasonable no matter what.
I think a clause like that for a regular job should be illegal, and you definitely shouldn't sign anything like that unless they pay for your life after you leave the job, which probably means millions.
You're not just signing away copyright on work done for them, you're signing away your own work experience. Even the experience you acquired before you started working them. Basically, you're signing away your entire career. So they have to pay for your entire career.
If they don't want to do that, the contract is not reasonable.
As to your question: I expect that not that many FOSS developers get hired away like this. Most companies recognize the value that the rest of the FOSS community brings to the project. These guys don't. That's going to discourage a lot of FOSS developers from dealing with this sort of company.
Exactly. An employee who is an active and respected committer of an important open source project is far more valuable than an employee who knows about that project but isn't a committer. A smart but honest employer would allow him to commit bugfixes at the very least, and preferably also new features that he didn't write explicitly for his new employer.
If they don't allow that, they're either stupid, or dishonest. Ask yourself whether you want to be working for a company like that.
Honstly, if the code is BSD licensed, the only reason they want you to do this is to get rid of competition for their own benefit, which makes them undeserving of a generous price for your time and reputation. It's not like the BSD license would restrict them from using your project anyway, even for commercial purposes.
That's not necessarily the reason. It could be that they need this project, but also need certain improvements, and perhaps need it to move in a certain direction. Hiring an important committer is a great way of accomplishing those goals.
Problem is, by denying him to contribute future changes to the project, they're effectively demanding a fork that they want to maintain themselves. But is that really in the best interests of the company? Because if there are other productive committers still left on the open source project, they'll miss out on their improvements after the fork, or they'll have to do a lot of work merging those changes with their own forked code.
It could very well be in the submitter's prospective employer's best interest to allow him to commit his most important fixes to the project. Only keep the new features that the employer needs (built in a modular way on top of the open source stuff) to themselves. That way, the employer won't have to maintain their own fork and won't miss out on new fixes by other committers, while still keeping the extra features from their new expert to themselves.
This way everybody wins. And that's always the best open source business model.
On the other hand, if the submitter is the only serious committer on this project, the prospective employer is effectively asking to buy the project. So how much is that project worth?
Wasn't the movie about more than just riding lightbikes?
My first thought about a Tron game: if I want to fight my CPU, I'll just install Windows.
I can't find the option to mod this +5/-100 Brilliant/Gruesome.