You ought to be more informed yourself. Re-read that "16 ships" article you linked. It says 16 ships create as much sulfur pollution as all the cars in the world because they burn "bunker fuel", an extremely dirty fuel. The article was given a poor title.
CO2 emissions from cars are much more than "not even a blip". That article says all the ships in the world emit nearly 1 billion tons of CO2 annually, and notes that the world's fleet of aircraft emits roughly the same amount. With a quick search, I dug up a figure for automobile emissions of roughly 0.6 billion tons of CO2 annually.
people who are against spending money on the poor and sick are nevertheless fine with dropping billions on boondoggle weapons systems and wars
Ask them if they would like to eliminate that branch of the local government known as the police department. Outsource that work to private contractors, or arm everyone, or just don't have police. Run Main Street just like Wall Street. Self regulation. Think how much money we could save if only we didn't need police! If they feel uncomfortable with this idea, then point out that evidently they think some government is good.
Security sells. Basic science doesn't. Most of our research has to be done from a military angle. The Internet and GPS, to name just 2 big projects, were defense projects.
A part of how I make my living relies on copyright
I shouldn't put it that way. Copyright and patents are only a means, a rationale, an agreement for transferring money from consumers to producers. A living from writing software or books relies on people paying for these things, just not necessarily through such agreements.
It's not so easy to extract a fair deal or enforce compliance on big players if they try to cheat. You may be obliged to honor their copyrights, but they can get away with violating yours. Some people are evidently willing to pay you, albeit grudgingly I should think, according to these legal frameworks. They have not had you over a barrel so that you had to accept a "work for hire" arrangement, or even worse, a complete transfer of all rights for no monetary consideration whatsoever (you get kudos, so to speak) as many academic journals still demand of researchers.
We are too simple and literal in our thinking. You can't survey and demark an idea like you can a piece of land. Even the very implication of discreteness in that word "idea" is misleading. Take as an example sorting algorithms. If there was a patent on Quicksort, should that cover all the variations? For instance, a common implementation uses the middle value of 3 elements for the pivot value, to make it less likely that a poor value will be chosen. Should that be covered by this hypothetical patent on Quicksort, or a separate patent? Another idea is randomization. Pick a pivot value at random from the list. Then, what about a hybrid sort? That uses Quicksort for large amounts of data, and Bubble sort for small when the recursion of Quicksort has divided the groups into small enough pieces for Bubble sort to be faster. In another case, there's an algorithm for finding the median value, or any other rank desired from a list of values, called Quickselect. It works almost the same as Quicksort. The difference is that Quicksort must process both halves of each split, whereas Quickselect works only on the half that contains the desired rank. Is Quickselect just a variation of Quicksort, or is it a wholly new and independent idea? It lies somewhere in between.
even the GPL does what it does through copyright law.
Do you mean that the GPL needs copyright law? Maybe, but free software doesn't. The GPL is a tool. It is most righteously called "copyleft". By design, any change that strengthens copyright law strengthens the GPL. It's purely tit for tat. If there was no copyright, we would not need the GPL.
the problem with patents ultimately is to keep things/ideas from being used by others.
Exactly! I think the solution is not to tweak how we get permission to use an idea. The solution is to make it so we don't have to get permission.
An inventor ought to be compensated. But that does not mean an inventor should be handed any kind of control, veto power, or even much of a say on the amount of the compensation. The amount is for the public and impartial measures to decide, not the inventor. Giving all those powers to an inventor just gums up the works.
I know of 2 viable alternatives to intellectual property. First is nothing. No patent law, and no other explicit form of encouragement. You would have to make good use of your first mover advantage to benefit from your widget. You may still be able to negotiate a deal with MegaCorp, but they tend to cheat and renege on deals if they think they can get away with it.
If the public feels there ought to be something more, then there is the other alternative, some form of patronage. Rather than trying to restrict access by force of law, so that tollbooths can be placed before all who would use an idea, try a permissive system. Use first, and sort out the compensation later. The small time inventor would help show how popular his invention is, and, after some verification, would receive monies from these organizations that we created specifically to handle this issue. At no point would any user of an idea have to fear being slapped with a penalty, or being dragged into court, which is a penalty all by itself.
The only thing moving us towards more sanity in the area of patent law is reality. The existence of the Internet and free software, and the crater filled legal battlegrounds and minefields of patent wars, have done more to show the perversity of "intellectual property" than any philosophical arguments.
Big organizations are the last to accept a paradigm shift. All the UN is really doing is acknowledging that there is a problem. They're still a long way from seeing that the problem is not the use of patent law, but the core concept of patents themselves: the monopolistic grant of exclusivity. They're thinking they can put a bandaid on the mess, that we can still have our precious patents and all we have to do is agree to play nice with them. That's like saying children can take firearms to the playground as long as they agree not to use them except in an emergency. We'll just tack on a few more safety features and measures so children can safely carry guns.
People didn't understand? They were the victims of a misinformation campaign? LOL.
Wonder how many humiliations it'll take to demoralize and scare copyright extremists enough that they'll never try the likes of ACTA again? Drum Karel De Gucht out. Force Theresa May to reconsider and not extradite O'Dwyer. Kick out the officials who are helping with the harassment of the Pirate Bay.
Then the extremists can spend the rest of their lives sulking in their mansions like deposed royalty, since they seem unable to face reality.
Why do you think that? I love the way everyone thinks change = sacrifice. Even the progressives fall into that kind of thinking.
A War on Global Warming would be economically beneficial. War stimulates the economy. And unless you've been in a coma for the last 5 years, you know our economy could really use some stimulating. Producing solar cells, wind mills, hydro power, biofuels would create a lot of jobs.
World War II made the Greatest Generation great. The next generation kept the Cold War cold. Our generation also has a big challenge, a chance to live up to our parents and grandparents' examples. That problem is Global Warming, and it is bigger than terrorism, bigger even than nuclear proliferation. We've spotted and verified the danger, we have a number of plans to address the problem, all we need do now is get to work.
But so far, our conduct has been downright shameful. Denial, fear, and even lying and treachery. Imagine if after Pearl Harbor, the US had cut and run. Abandoned Hawaii and ran whimpering back to the west coast, opined that maybe those Japs and Nazis had legitimate grievances and they actually weren't bad fellows, acknowledged that we pushed the Japs into attacking by denying them oil and other resources, told Britain that Neville Chamberlain should be reinstated and France should be left to its fate. And besides, it's more profitable to keep trading with the Axis. Republicans often accuse Democrats of being wimps, peace loving fools, and impractical dreamers. Now it's the Republicans who are screwball cuckoo crazy. Even their much vaunted reputation for fiscal prudence is just so much noise with no substance. If they think they impressed me with that debt ceiling showdown last year that damaged our credit rating, while the bankers who wrecked our economy still enjoy respect, privileged access, and massive bailouts, they are mistaken! Makes me sick, the way they lobbed softballs to Dimon just the other day. The air raid siren is wailing and the Republicans are sitting there, hands over ears. "Confirmation, Kaminsky. I want confirmation." Where are the real Republicans? All dead and honorably buried in veterans' cemeteries?
We haven't had a Pearl Harbor moment yet this war, at least not a big enough event to convince the skeptics. Larsen Ice Shelf B was a footnote. Hurricane Katrina was the equivalent of blitzkrieg on Poland. We're in sitzkrieg. I hope we still have good options when the public at last acknowledges the danger.
There are more legitimate concerns than you think. This is a very timely article for me. Just got a letter last week announcing that the power company will soon install a smart meter at our place. So I am researching the matter.
I'm not too worried about the health effects of radio waves. I have limited the RFI at my place, but this is mainly for other reasons. Still have a landline and my cell phone stays off 99% of the time. Cell phones are expensive! Didn't have as much luck stopping the rest of the family from embracing the cordless handset, but they quit working long ago when the batteries wore out. I don't use wifi around the home, mostly because wifi is slow and unreliable compared to wired networking, but also it's one less access point to lock down. We also receive plain old TV signals. (Well, the new digital kind, not the old analog). I don't want interference with that. Don't think a squawking smart meter will screw up reception, but it could. I've replaced fluorescent light ballasts and computers (in one case, a hard drive) that were generating RFI.
But the other problems.... I know PG&E and TXU. PG&E bastards tried to double bill me and my landlord. Naturally the landlord suspected me first, but I had kept all my bills and was able to show that I had indeed signed up and paid for my electricity. Our two bills showed the same meter number, same periods of time. Just an innocent billing error! Lately, energy providers been deliberately making the bills more complicated and confusing. They promote a low rate, and don't mention this "delivery charge" that makes the actual rate much higher. They have this "base charge", funny fees, 2 year contracts, taxes etc. Think you're going to go all green and build a "net zero energy" home, generating your own solar power but still be attached to the grid? In that case, they'll try to set you up. They'll buy all your power from you at the wholesale rate (or even, at a discount from that), then sell whatever you use back to you at the retail rate. They still make money during those times when they don't actually deliver any power! You pay to use your own power! They've taken to all the crud the telecomms have been pulling. Then they throw around all these "options", sell you on this idea that you have the choice of picking the plan that suits you best. Yeah, right. All that really is, is more ways for you to go wrong, and the kicker is they can convince you it's your fault because you had choice! It's a false choice. I don't trust corporations. Shades of Enron. Telecomms actively try to suppress research into the health effects of cell phone radiation. And power companies claim smart meters will save us money, which is too big a stretch for me. The claim goes like this: because you can monitor your power usage more closely, you will more quickly notice when you are wasting power. Knowledge is power, so to speak. Obviously they do not save power in themselves. If anything, they use more of your power to transmit RF signals. Slaving power hungry devices to them comes later.
I note their web sites about smart meters don't address the issues that have been raised. How often are these meters inaccurate? How much power do they use? Is it 1 Watt-hour? 5 Wh? How often and how much power are their RF transmissions? They may be insignificant, but I'd still like the hard numbers. Do they add a "smart meter fee" to the electric bill, and how much is it? The power companies promoting these meters absolutely should address these concerns. Not to do so is less than honest. Since they are ignoring these issues, their marketing campaign about saving power is obvious bunk, and their reputation is poor, my inclination is to decline the smart meter.
What if there's nothing you can do to stay employable? Then what? It's ugly out there. They will lay you off just for looking over 40 no matter how well you perform.
I'd shape up my finances as much as possible. Cut expenses to the bone. Trade in the gas guzzlers for gas sippers, set the thermostat higher in the summer and lower in the winter, use a clothesline (actually, an indoor rack works fairly well). Never go to the movies and cancel the cable TV subscription, etc. Use the Internet for that stuff. Pay off the credit cards. You know, all the stuff they advise people to do to improve their finances. As for buying a house, forget it, unless it's some foreclosure deal you can pick up super cheap. (I hear Detroit has houses for under $10k.) Keep renting, and live with the contempt and second class treatment that's routinely dished out to renters. All a house will do is tie you down, make it harder to move to a job.
With finances not hindering you, you have another option: consulting. Consultants must be set up to weather slow times.
Only way you can do a 3-way comparison is hope the compiler optimizes it into the code.
Switch statements are another place you have to hope the compiler can optimize. For simple operations, it's easy enough to whip up a lookup table and not use switch at all, but if you need to call functions from the cases you're looking at using function pointers. Always takes me a fair amount of trial and error to get the syntax of a function pointer correct, and then it still might not work. Easier to forget it and let the compiler turn a switch statement into a series of comparisons.
Multiple entry to functions is another feature that isn't readily available. You can inline functions, and the compiler might heed you, or might not. In any case, inline doesn't help with this problem, just the opposite if anything. With macros, you can kind of do it in source code, for clarity, but the compiler will generate separate functions, rather like template functions. The MNG library is a good example of code that could use multiple entry. Lot of functions that are identical except for the input parameters and first few lines. Mozilla kicked MNG out of Firefox for being too bloated. Multiple entry might have shrunk MNG enough to save it.
C does have a GOTO statement, but it should be used only in very controlled situations. I've never tried using GOTOs to implement multiple entry. Don't need it to skip the initial check of a while loop since unlike some languages (*cough* python *cough*), C has a "do while" loop. Only used it to exit nested loops, and for that I prefer to wrap the loops in a function and use return.
Linux failed, or only the graphics driver failed? You could try the VESA driver. I had to do that on an old computer with integrated Intel graphics, as the Intel driver kept locking up. VESA won't have great performance, but at least it should work.
Binaries for those who "donate"? You mean "pay". This sort of thing is friction, and it always drives away some customers. Some people will be put off by a nag screen or crippleware scheme. A bad interface is enough to drive users away. I've also bought games that didn't have some features implemented yet. They fobbed customers off with the excuse that it was a bug, and released a "patch" several months later. Stinks to find that out after you've paid. Now I never buy software unless I can try it first.
This "some assembly required" idea seems especially bad for software. "Some assembly required" makes a lot of sense for physical goods that pack down into much smaller volumes than they need when in use, but not software, just the opposite. Someone who is short of space may not want to make room for a bunch of source code. The Linux kernel is an extreme example. How big is the source code tree now, when unpacked? 200M? And after compiling, 300M thanks to all the object files created? And when you're all done compiling it, you have a kernel binary that might be 2M. Maybe that's insignificant on today's terabyte hard drives, but size still matters in other places. Just grinding through a compile still takes a few minutes. In this scheme, how are ordinary game players supposed to try before they buy? Linux comes with free compilers, but if they are on Windows, will they have to buy a compiler? Why not go with a demo version that leaves out some content?
In a better world, neither developers nor customers would need to bother with such schemes. We would have organizations whose duties are to collect funds, gather information on usage, and dole out compensation. The developer could concentrate solely on development, and the fans could share without guilt.
No, not always. Laws are far from perfect. In doubtful cases, yes, enforce the law. But this case is not in doubt. These anti-piracy laws are far too extreme. Too easy to twist such power to spy on innocent citizens, silence dissent, push unrelated agendas such as a crusade against porn or drugs or terrorism, and leverage the even more extreme privileges the content cartels think they would like. These laws are bad. I don't think it's possible to have any anti-piracy law that doesn't trample upon other vital freedoms.
And now, try to wrap your head around this idea: piracy is good. It is good in the sense that the public would benefit more if there was no such thing as a monopoly on copying. The public does not benefit as much from the current custom of trying to lock everything down, and the waste of millions on monopolistic gouging, clinging to outdated, grossly inefficient distribution systems such as CDs, and enforcement and court cases, DRM, lobbying, and even public campaigning. Capt. Copyright was ludicrous, and if anything, only served to undermine the message they were trying to push. All these anti-piracy efforts are predicated on the notion that piracy is bad, and that copyright is the only way or the only fair way artists can make a living. No. Not only are the anti-piracy bills too extreme, the very foundational ideas behind them all are wrong. Some think they are pushing bad means to achieve a good end, but the end they seek is not good. Does the end justify the means? If you have to go all fascist and use force to achieve some good end, you ought to reexamine that end and ask, is it really good? Odds are, it is not.
serving the complaint to your ISP instead of suing you, they're saving you money
Saving me money? Not at the price of due process and freedom! They should have no right to kick anyone off the Internet. That's like taking away the driver's license of someone accused-- accused, mind, not convicted-- of burglary, because logically they must have used a car to reach the target and haul away the goods. They don't need to convict anyone of anything, all they need do is make an accusation. So much for due process.
the people making them/buying them didn't want secure machines
I agree. The technical problems are the lesser difficulty. They are all solvable problems.
It's corruption that's really hard. There are always some who think they can use a situation like this to pull something unethical, hiding all the evidence so no one can be sure what happened. They're the ones fighting hard to keep as much as possible hidden. There is no excuse for keeping the software of a voting machine closed. So why did Diebold refuse to release source code? At least try to reduce the appearance of corruption? Maybe because they really were cheating and rigging votes? In which case releasing the source code would reveal the smoking gun. Diebold made themselves the perfect target for such suspicions. Added even more to the smoke (and fire?) by being blatantly partisan with their own political preferences. Diebold's reputation got so bad they sold their voting machine business.
You just ooze the milk of human kindness and mercy for the less-fortunate
I don't quite believe in your sincerity here. To wit, I expect you're opposed to universal health care. That phrase "less fortunate" really grates. Have you any idea how smug, patronizing, and superior that sounds? We're all poorer than we should be, and it's not because of random bad luck, no. We've been defrauded, our police forces bribed and suborned, and so far the robbers have brazenly got away with claiming it was all a misfortune or accident. As BP said about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, stuff happens, y'know? You sound like someone who watched a dealer stack the deck and now you're oozing fake sympathy over the players' "bad" luck, while feeling all superior and laughing up your sleeve at them for being too stupid to figure out that they were cheated. Or like those high flying bankers, who, after pulling a pump and dump scam and taking an enormous bonus, are now putting on a sickeningly fake innocence act, protesting that no one could have foreseen that the investment would tank because markets are unpredictable.
Oh, the old "it'll wreck the economy" and "hurt the poor" arguments. I'll call you, and raise you a "it'll destroy civilization" argument if we don't do it.
Higher gas prices won't wreck the economy. There are alternatives. People don't have to drive monster SUVs. Don't have to live in McMansions and commute 100 miles to work every day. There are a bunch of easy things we could do to save gas if we got serious about it.
If the environment is wrecked, that will wreck the economy more surely than any tiny price increase. You'd suddenly realize just how petty a $1 or even a $5 increase in the price of a gallon of gas is compared to millions of homeless people forced to move to higher ground thanks to rising sea levels, and more hungry millions swarming over the land because the weather made our crops fail. Civilizations have fallen over crop failures.
Stop being stupid! That was not about race, and you know it! That was a comment about civil disobedience. Plenty of civil disobedience had nothing to do with race. Piracy is on the same level as draft dodging during the Vietnam War, or joining a union in the days when that was illegal. With Vietnam as the goad, we broke the draft. We should be grateful to everyone who risked imprisonment and injury to end the draft.
Time and time and time again, we've said that copyright infringement is not stealing. There are many different crimes on the books. Vandalism, assault and battery, stealing, speeding, and copyright infringement are all very different. Do you really not understand that stealing and copyright infringement are different? I think you do. Why do you keep trying to equate them?
Really you deserve a troll mod for that. If you can't come up with any better arguments than this, you may as well just shut up.
I wonder if you understand how copyright fails academia? The real parasites are publishers such as Elsevier. We write and publish papers describing our research. We are expected to do so as part of a university job. In exchange for the privilege of publication in a recognized journal, publishers insist we give away our copyrights. We get no percentage, no flat fee, no co-ownership of the copyright, nothing at all from them. You might think they at least do some editing work, but no. The job of deciding which submissions are worthy of publication is farmed out back to us, for peer review. Then the publishers lock our work up behind paywalls for eternity minus 1 day, if they offer any way at all to obtain it online. Their main revenue stream comes from gouging university libraries for printed copies. Often, they force libraries into expensive package deals, rather like what cable TV companies offer. Zero of any money that they make from all this is paid to the authors.
Technically, we are in violation of their copyrights when we make our own works available online! The only thing that makes this whole scheme work at all is the salary that the public and the university pays. The publisher didn't pay one damn cent. Neither the authors nor the public who financially backed all this have any rights at all to the works. It's a raw deal, and we all know it.
Understand, we are okay with not receiving any direct compensation. Our salary is our compensation. It's this lockup that these miserable publishers do that is so outrageous. Our works should be under something like a Creative Commons license, not a privately held copyright. If these academic publishers all went bankrupt and vanished tomorrow, the world would be a better place. We sure don't need them, not with the Internet.
The failure extends further than that. There is also the textbook racket. Students are required to purchase textbooks at very high prices, and often the work is a poor quality rush job. You might think the author makes out on that deal. Not so much. The publisher gets the lion's share. Closely related are technical books. Most technical books earn the authors such a paltry amount of royalties that the money is no incentive for creating such a work. Could have made a lot more money working in industry. Authors publish for the name recognition.
I'm always looking for lighter, faster, simpler desktop environments. I've never heard of Awesome WM. Is it light?
Lately, I've been using LXDE + openbox on Arch Linux. Before that, tried XFCE. On an old computer with 128M RAM, I find LXDE is still too heavy. Incredibly, LXDE needs about 64M. Got better performance by dumping LXDE and going with just IceWM.
As for openbox, I'd just as soon turn off some features. "Roll up/down" and "Un/decorate" are not things I want presented to newbies. But it's not so easy to remove those options.
Possibly the weakest part of Linux on the Desktop is the inability to configure a lot of things, even by editing configuration files in a text editor. Or, if the desktops weren't so screwy, it wouldn't be necessary to tweak the configuration.
Often, I can't directly tweak the colors, instead have to load a theme that changes a bunch of other things I didn't want changed. Can't remove unwanted menu items like that "Roll". Definitely don't want the scroll wheel doing a Roll action if the mouse pointer happens to be on the titlebar. That's just confusing. As if that overloading of the scroll wheel wasn't bad enough, it also whips through multiple desktops if the mouse pointer was on the desktop. A way to stop that is to cut the number of desktops down to 1. What's bad about undecorate is that it is not clear how to reverse the action. Undecorate removes the titlebar you clicked on to get that menu item. I use Alt-space to bring up the menu, but there ought to be a way to do it with the mouse.
Yes. The GP is crazy not to use some swap. The only reason I would not have swap is if the server has only SSDs for storage, and preserving that is more important than keeping the server running.
I consider swap essential for making out of memory failures more graceful. The memory leak is still a very common software flaw. Swap gives you time to notice you have a memory shortage, and a chance to do something about it. Then, there are all kinds of badly designed scripts and programs that leave shells, terminals, and what not hanging around in memory. For instance, startx and xinit run XWindows from a shell in such a way that the shell is left resident until XWindows terminates. This is not a true zombie process or orphan or leak, but it is a small waste of memory. Or someone has logged in several days ago and left some terminals running. Swap is great for stuff like that.
You may be right that SawStop may be too expensive to be worthwhile, or not feasible for hand saws. There may be better ways to prevent accidental finger amputations.
But we should take patents out of the equation. We don't know if the main reason this innovation is not available to the public is the expense, or failed patent licensing negotiations, or something else. If patents didn't exist, didn't add so much friction to the process of bringing an invention to the public, didn't raise the barriers even higher, we'd know that was not the reason. As it is, we can only guess.
I picked on SawStop because that is exactly the kind of invention that patents were meant to help. It's not software, not a business method, not overly broad, and not blindingly obvious. They had a working prototype, and now working devices, though of extremely limited choice and availability. And yet we see that patents aren't doing even an invention like this any favors.
If it is the expense, it may be possible to improve this invention to the point it is worthwhile. There may be dozens of ideas. Maybe it could be made reusable. But no one can try anything without the blessing of the patent holder.
Another fact of nature is that restrictions are stifling. Each patent is a restriction on all humanity except the one who was granted exclusive ownership.
We're supposed to get something in exchange for that monster huge concession, something valuable enough to make it a good deal. What? Oh yeah, the idea. We receive an idea that at worst is not original and not great, in exchange for... promising not to use that idea without permission for 17 years, for fear that might cheat great inventors out of one thin dime of all the profits to be had from every possible use of "their" ideas. It's like we didn't really receive the idea. But we wouldn't want them to sulk and refuse to do any more inventing!
Tabitha Babbitt invented but did not patent the circular saw. The circular saw was put into immediate use. Recently, some inventors made a safety improvement they call SawStop. No more fingers lost to accidents! This improvement is so rarely seen it may as well not exist. I have thought of getting one as a present for my father. He's old enough he may not be able to use a circular saw quite as safely as he once could. But I have never seen any portable saw with it. You'd think at least one of the major retailers of power tools and hardware would stock at least one saw with this feature, at least one major manufacturer would license the technology, but no. They couldn't come to an agreement. Worse, the establishment is trying to stifle it, as it is competition. While they fight, we must do without. That's not how the system is supposed to work!
I have LibreOffice of course, but don't actually use it much. Word processing seems antiquated. I use text editors and browsers for my writing. Most of my writing is programs, documentation, posts, and emails, not letters. Good riddance to all those empty forms one is expected to know and follow in letter writing.
Spreadsheets are sometimes useful. But I often find programming languages more flexible for heavy duty calculation.
If I do a lecture, I work from notes and use a chalkboard or a whiteboard. One problem with a presentation is it's too static and linear. Fairly easy to skip stuff your audience already knows, but not so easy to whip up new slides on the spot for the other way around. A talk is constrained enough for a slide show, but that also makes them of limited value. Everyone has been in useless, boring meetings dominated by PowerPoint presentations.
What else do office suites do? 3rd rate database management, drawings, and...?
But you might slack off if your manager can't look in on you every 5 minutes.
I think this is a minor point. Lack of telecommuting and flex time are only symptoms of the real problem, which is that lots of places treat workers very badly. Act like no one has a work ethic, or any honesty, integrity, reliability or maturity, or can even tie their shoelaces let alone competently perform a highly technical job. Seem to think they can freely abuse and denigrate people, and insult workers' intelligence with laughably bad and clumsy manipulation. Do all they can to make the worker dependent, then think less of them for being dependent. That the mere fact they are paying someone is license to treat them like dirt. Some of this becomes self-fulfilling.
It's funny how employers demand quantities of technical skills, but seem to let any old fool make a hash of managing people. The worker has to know 20 different programming languages, OSes, environments, and platforms, but the management doesn't need to have the foggiest idea what's covered in Management 101, or even remember basic socialization skills every child picks up in school. Upper management can't tell the difference between a real leader and a slave driver. Naturally, as long as the incompetent manager is allowed to get away with blaming everything on the peons, he won't bother improving himself, or do any of that teamwork nonsense that weak and powerless people have to do.
Slashdot Mirror
You ought to be more informed yourself. Re-read that "16 ships" article you linked. It says 16 ships create as much sulfur pollution as all the cars in the world because they burn "bunker fuel", an extremely dirty fuel. The article was given a poor title.
CO2 emissions from cars are much more than "not even a blip". That article says all the ships in the world emit nearly 1 billion tons of CO2 annually, and notes that the world's fleet of aircraft emits roughly the same amount. With a quick search, I dug up a figure for automobile emissions of roughly 0.6 billion tons of CO2 annually.
people who are against spending money on the poor and sick are nevertheless fine with dropping billions on boondoggle weapons systems and wars
Ask them if they would like to eliminate that branch of the local government known as the police department. Outsource that work to private contractors, or arm everyone, or just don't have police. Run Main Street just like Wall Street. Self regulation. Think how much money we could save if only we didn't need police! If they feel uncomfortable with this idea, then point out that evidently they think some government is good.
Security sells. Basic science doesn't. Most of our research has to be done from a military angle. The Internet and GPS, to name just 2 big projects, were defense projects.
A part of how I make my living relies on copyright
I shouldn't put it that way. Copyright and patents are only a means, a rationale, an agreement for transferring money from consumers to producers. A living from writing software or books relies on people paying for these things, just not necessarily through such agreements.
It's not so easy to extract a fair deal or enforce compliance on big players if they try to cheat. You may be obliged to honor their copyrights, but they can get away with violating yours. Some people are evidently willing to pay you, albeit grudgingly I should think, according to these legal frameworks. They have not had you over a barrel so that you had to accept a "work for hire" arrangement, or even worse, a complete transfer of all rights for no monetary consideration whatsoever (you get kudos, so to speak) as many academic journals still demand of researchers.
We are too simple and literal in our thinking. You can't survey and demark an idea like you can a piece of land. Even the very implication of discreteness in that word "idea" is misleading. Take as an example sorting algorithms. If there was a patent on Quicksort, should that cover all the variations? For instance, a common implementation uses the middle value of 3 elements for the pivot value, to make it less likely that a poor value will be chosen. Should that be covered by this hypothetical patent on Quicksort, or a separate patent? Another idea is randomization. Pick a pivot value at random from the list. Then, what about a hybrid sort? That uses Quicksort for large amounts of data, and Bubble sort for small when the recursion of Quicksort has divided the groups into small enough pieces for Bubble sort to be faster. In another case, there's an algorithm for finding the median value, or any other rank desired from a list of values, called Quickselect. It works almost the same as Quicksort. The difference is that Quicksort must process both halves of each split, whereas Quickselect works only on the half that contains the desired rank. Is Quickselect just a variation of Quicksort, or is it a wholly new and independent idea? It lies somewhere in between.
even the GPL does what it does through copyright law.
Do you mean that the GPL needs copyright law? Maybe, but free software doesn't. The GPL is a tool. It is most righteously called "copyleft". By design, any change that strengthens copyright law strengthens the GPL. It's purely tit for tat. If there was no copyright, we would not need the GPL.
I don't think you understood what I said.
the problem with patents ultimately is to keep things/ideas from being used by others.
Exactly! I think the solution is not to tweak how we get permission to use an idea. The solution is to make it so we don't have to get permission.
An inventor ought to be compensated. But that does not mean an inventor should be handed any kind of control, veto power, or even much of a say on the amount of the compensation. The amount is for the public and impartial measures to decide, not the inventor. Giving all those powers to an inventor just gums up the works.
I know of 2 viable alternatives to intellectual property. First is nothing. No patent law, and no other explicit form of encouragement. You would have to make good use of your first mover advantage to benefit from your widget. You may still be able to negotiate a deal with MegaCorp, but they tend to cheat and renege on deals if they think they can get away with it.
If the public feels there ought to be something more, then there is the other alternative, some form of patronage. Rather than trying to restrict access by force of law, so that tollbooths can be placed before all who would use an idea, try a permissive system. Use first, and sort out the compensation later. The small time inventor would help show how popular his invention is, and, after some verification, would receive monies from these organizations that we created specifically to handle this issue. At no point would any user of an idea have to fear being slapped with a penalty, or being dragged into court, which is a penalty all by itself.
The only thing moving us towards more sanity in the area of patent law is reality. The existence of the Internet and free software, and the crater filled legal battlegrounds and minefields of patent wars, have done more to show the perversity of "intellectual property" than any philosophical arguments.
Big organizations are the last to accept a paradigm shift. All the UN is really doing is acknowledging that there is a problem. They're still a long way from seeing that the problem is not the use of patent law, but the core concept of patents themselves: the monopolistic grant of exclusivity. They're thinking they can put a bandaid on the mess, that we can still have our precious patents and all we have to do is agree to play nice with them. That's like saying children can take firearms to the playground as long as they agree not to use them except in an emergency. We'll just tack on a few more safety features and measures so children can safely carry guns.
People didn't understand? They were the victims of a misinformation campaign? LOL.
Wonder how many humiliations it'll take to demoralize and scare copyright extremists enough that they'll never try the likes of ACTA again? Drum Karel De Gucht out. Force Theresa May to reconsider and not extradite O'Dwyer. Kick out the officials who are helping with the harassment of the Pirate Bay.
Then the extremists can spend the rest of their lives sulking in their mansions like deposed royalty, since they seem unable to face reality.
cutting emissions is economically harmful
Why do you think that? I love the way everyone thinks change = sacrifice. Even the progressives fall into that kind of thinking.
A War on Global Warming would be economically beneficial. War stimulates the economy. And unless you've been in a coma for the last 5 years, you know our economy could really use some stimulating. Producing solar cells, wind mills, hydro power, biofuels would create a lot of jobs.
World War II made the Greatest Generation great. The next generation kept the Cold War cold. Our generation also has a big challenge, a chance to live up to our parents and grandparents' examples. That problem is Global Warming, and it is bigger than terrorism, bigger even than nuclear proliferation. We've spotted and verified the danger, we have a number of plans to address the problem, all we need do now is get to work.
But so far, our conduct has been downright shameful. Denial, fear, and even lying and treachery. Imagine if after Pearl Harbor, the US had cut and run. Abandoned Hawaii and ran whimpering back to the west coast, opined that maybe those Japs and Nazis had legitimate grievances and they actually weren't bad fellows, acknowledged that we pushed the Japs into attacking by denying them oil and other resources, told Britain that Neville Chamberlain should be reinstated and France should be left to its fate. And besides, it's more profitable to keep trading with the Axis. Republicans often accuse Democrats of being wimps, peace loving fools, and impractical dreamers. Now it's the Republicans who are screwball cuckoo crazy. Even their much vaunted reputation for fiscal prudence is just so much noise with no substance. If they think they impressed me with that debt ceiling showdown last year that damaged our credit rating, while the bankers who wrecked our economy still enjoy respect, privileged access, and massive bailouts, they are mistaken! Makes me sick, the way they lobbed softballs to Dimon just the other day. The air raid siren is wailing and the Republicans are sitting there, hands over ears. "Confirmation, Kaminsky. I want confirmation." Where are the real Republicans? All dead and honorably buried in veterans' cemeteries?
We haven't had a Pearl Harbor moment yet this war, at least not a big enough event to convince the skeptics. Larsen Ice Shelf B was a footnote. Hurricane Katrina was the equivalent of blitzkrieg on Poland. We're in sitzkrieg. I hope we still have good options when the public at last acknowledges the danger.
There are more legitimate concerns than you think. This is a very timely article for me. Just got a letter last week announcing that the power company will soon install a smart meter at our place. So I am researching the matter.
I'm not too worried about the health effects of radio waves. I have limited the RFI at my place, but this is mainly for other reasons. Still have a landline and my cell phone stays off 99% of the time. Cell phones are expensive! Didn't have as much luck stopping the rest of the family from embracing the cordless handset, but they quit working long ago when the batteries wore out. I don't use wifi around the home, mostly because wifi is slow and unreliable compared to wired networking, but also it's one less access point to lock down. We also receive plain old TV signals. (Well, the new digital kind, not the old analog). I don't want interference with that. Don't think a squawking smart meter will screw up reception, but it could. I've replaced fluorescent light ballasts and computers (in one case, a hard drive) that were generating RFI.
But the other problems.... I know PG&E and TXU. PG&E bastards tried to double bill me and my landlord. Naturally the landlord suspected me first, but I had kept all my bills and was able to show that I had indeed signed up and paid for my electricity. Our two bills showed the same meter number, same periods of time. Just an innocent billing error! Lately, energy providers been deliberately making the bills more complicated and confusing. They promote a low rate, and don't mention this "delivery charge" that makes the actual rate much higher. They have this "base charge", funny fees, 2 year contracts, taxes etc. Think you're going to go all green and build a "net zero energy" home, generating your own solar power but still be attached to the grid? In that case, they'll try to set you up. They'll buy all your power from you at the wholesale rate (or even, at a discount from that), then sell whatever you use back to you at the retail rate. They still make money during those times when they don't actually deliver any power! You pay to use your own power! They've taken to all the crud the telecomms have been pulling. Then they throw around all these "options", sell you on this idea that you have the choice of picking the plan that suits you best. Yeah, right. All that really is, is more ways for you to go wrong, and the kicker is they can convince you it's your fault because you had choice! It's a false choice. I don't trust corporations. Shades of Enron. Telecomms actively try to suppress research into the health effects of cell phone radiation. And power companies claim smart meters will save us money, which is too big a stretch for me. The claim goes like this: because you can monitor your power usage more closely, you will more quickly notice when you are wasting power. Knowledge is power, so to speak. Obviously they do not save power in themselves. If anything, they use more of your power to transmit RF signals. Slaving power hungry devices to them comes later.
I note their web sites about smart meters don't address the issues that have been raised. How often are these meters inaccurate? How much power do they use? Is it 1 Watt-hour? 5 Wh? How often and how much power are their RF transmissions? They may be insignificant, but I'd still like the hard numbers. Do they add a "smart meter fee" to the electric bill, and how much is it? The power companies promoting these meters absolutely should address these concerns. Not to do so is less than honest. Since they are ignoring these issues, their marketing campaign about saving power is obvious bunk, and their reputation is poor, my inclination is to decline the smart meter.
What if there's nothing you can do to stay employable? Then what? It's ugly out there. They will lay you off just for looking over 40 no matter how well you perform.
I'd shape up my finances as much as possible. Cut expenses to the bone. Trade in the gas guzzlers for gas sippers, set the thermostat higher in the summer and lower in the winter, use a clothesline (actually, an indoor rack works fairly well). Never go to the movies and cancel the cable TV subscription, etc. Use the Internet for that stuff. Pay off the credit cards. You know, all the stuff they advise people to do to improve their finances. As for buying a house, forget it, unless it's some foreclosure deal you can pick up super cheap. (I hear Detroit has houses for under $10k.) Keep renting, and live with the contempt and second class treatment that's routinely dished out to renters. All a house will do is tie you down, make it harder to move to a job.
With finances not hindering you, you have another option: consulting. Consultants must be set up to weather slow times.
I wish C could get closer to the metal.
Only way you can do a 3-way comparison is hope the compiler optimizes it into the code.
Switch statements are another place you have to hope the compiler can optimize. For simple operations, it's easy enough to whip up a lookup table and not use switch at all, but if you need to call functions from the cases you're looking at using function pointers. Always takes me a fair amount of trial and error to get the syntax of a function pointer correct, and then it still might not work. Easier to forget it and let the compiler turn a switch statement into a series of comparisons.
Multiple entry to functions is another feature that isn't readily available. You can inline functions, and the compiler might heed you, or might not. In any case, inline doesn't help with this problem, just the opposite if anything. With macros, you can kind of do it in source code, for clarity, but the compiler will generate separate functions, rather like template functions. The MNG library is a good example of code that could use multiple entry. Lot of functions that are identical except for the input parameters and first few lines. Mozilla kicked MNG out of Firefox for being too bloated. Multiple entry might have shrunk MNG enough to save it.
C does have a GOTO statement, but it should be used only in very controlled situations. I've never tried using GOTOs to implement multiple entry. Don't need it to skip the initial check of a while loop since unlike some languages (*cough* python *cough*), C has a "do while" loop. Only used it to exit nested loops, and for that I prefer to wrap the loops in a function and use return.
Linux failed, or only the graphics driver failed? You could try the VESA driver. I had to do that on an old computer with integrated Intel graphics, as the Intel driver kept locking up. VESA won't have great performance, but at least it should work.
Binaries for those who "donate"? You mean "pay". This sort of thing is friction, and it always drives away some customers. Some people will be put off by a nag screen or crippleware scheme. A bad interface is enough to drive users away. I've also bought games that didn't have some features implemented yet. They fobbed customers off with the excuse that it was a bug, and released a "patch" several months later. Stinks to find that out after you've paid. Now I never buy software unless I can try it first.
This "some assembly required" idea seems especially bad for software. "Some assembly required" makes a lot of sense for physical goods that pack down into much smaller volumes than they need when in use, but not software, just the opposite. Someone who is short of space may not want to make room for a bunch of source code. The Linux kernel is an extreme example. How big is the source code tree now, when unpacked? 200M? And after compiling, 300M thanks to all the object files created? And when you're all done compiling it, you have a kernel binary that might be 2M. Maybe that's insignificant on today's terabyte hard drives, but size still matters in other places. Just grinding through a compile still takes a few minutes. In this scheme, how are ordinary game players supposed to try before they buy? Linux comes with free compilers, but if they are on Windows, will they have to buy a compiler? Why not go with a demo version that leaves out some content?
In a better world, neither developers nor customers would need to bother with such schemes. We would have organizations whose duties are to collect funds, gather information on usage, and dole out compensation. The developer could concentrate solely on development, and the fans could share without guilt.
it's okay for them to enforce laws
No, not always. Laws are far from perfect. In doubtful cases, yes, enforce the law. But this case is not in doubt. These anti-piracy laws are far too extreme. Too easy to twist such power to spy on innocent citizens, silence dissent, push unrelated agendas such as a crusade against porn or drugs or terrorism, and leverage the even more extreme privileges the content cartels think they would like. These laws are bad. I don't think it's possible to have any anti-piracy law that doesn't trample upon other vital freedoms.
And now, try to wrap your head around this idea: piracy is good. It is good in the sense that the public would benefit more if there was no such thing as a monopoly on copying. The public does not benefit as much from the current custom of trying to lock everything down, and the waste of millions on monopolistic gouging, clinging to outdated, grossly inefficient distribution systems such as CDs, and enforcement and court cases, DRM, lobbying, and even public campaigning. Capt. Copyright was ludicrous, and if anything, only served to undermine the message they were trying to push. All these anti-piracy efforts are predicated on the notion that piracy is bad, and that copyright is the only way or the only fair way artists can make a living. No. Not only are the anti-piracy bills too extreme, the very foundational ideas behind them all are wrong. Some think they are pushing bad means to achieve a good end, but the end they seek is not good. Does the end justify the means? If you have to go all fascist and use force to achieve some good end, you ought to reexamine that end and ask, is it really good? Odds are, it is not.
serving the complaint to your ISP instead of suing you, they're saving you money
Saving me money? Not at the price of due process and freedom! They should have no right to kick anyone off the Internet. That's like taking away the driver's license of someone accused-- accused, mind, not convicted-- of burglary, because logically they must have used a car to reach the target and haul away the goods. They don't need to convict anyone of anything, all they need do is make an accusation. So much for due process.
the people making them/buying them didn't want secure machines
I agree. The technical problems are the lesser difficulty. They are all solvable problems.
It's corruption that's really hard. There are always some who think they can use a situation like this to pull something unethical, hiding all the evidence so no one can be sure what happened. They're the ones fighting hard to keep as much as possible hidden. There is no excuse for keeping the software of a voting machine closed. So why did Diebold refuse to release source code? At least try to reduce the appearance of corruption? Maybe because they really were cheating and rigging votes? In which case releasing the source code would reveal the smoking gun. Diebold made themselves the perfect target for such suspicions. Added even more to the smoke (and fire?) by being blatantly partisan with their own political preferences. Diebold's reputation got so bad they sold their voting machine business.
You just ooze the milk of human kindness and mercy for the less-fortunate
I don't quite believe in your sincerity here. To wit, I expect you're opposed to universal health care. That phrase "less fortunate" really grates. Have you any idea how smug, patronizing, and superior that sounds? We're all poorer than we should be, and it's not because of random bad luck, no. We've been defrauded, our police forces bribed and suborned, and so far the robbers have brazenly got away with claiming it was all a misfortune or accident. As BP said about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, stuff happens, y'know? You sound like someone who watched a dealer stack the deck and now you're oozing fake sympathy over the players' "bad" luck, while feeling all superior and laughing up your sleeve at them for being too stupid to figure out that they were cheated. Or like those high flying bankers, who, after pulling a pump and dump scam and taking an enormous bonus, are now putting on a sickeningly fake innocence act, protesting that no one could have foreseen that the investment would tank because markets are unpredictable.
Oh, the old "it'll wreck the economy" and "hurt the poor" arguments. I'll call you, and raise you a "it'll destroy civilization" argument if we don't do it.
Higher gas prices won't wreck the economy. There are alternatives. People don't have to drive monster SUVs. Don't have to live in McMansions and commute 100 miles to work every day. There are a bunch of easy things we could do to save gas if we got serious about it.
If the environment is wrecked, that will wreck the economy more surely than any tiny price increase. You'd suddenly realize just how petty a $1 or even a $5 increase in the price of a gallon of gas is compared to millions of homeless people forced to move to higher ground thanks to rising sea levels, and more hungry millions swarming over the land because the weather made our crops fail. Civilizations have fallen over crop failures.
Stop being stupid! That was not about race, and you know it! That was a comment about civil disobedience. Plenty of civil disobedience had nothing to do with race. Piracy is on the same level as draft dodging during the Vietnam War, or joining a union in the days when that was illegal. With Vietnam as the goad, we broke the draft. We should be grateful to everyone who risked imprisonment and injury to end the draft.
Time and time and time again, we've said that copyright infringement is not stealing. There are many different crimes on the books. Vandalism, assault and battery, stealing, speeding, and copyright infringement are all very different. Do you really not understand that stealing and copyright infringement are different? I think you do. Why do you keep trying to equate them?
Really you deserve a troll mod for that. If you can't come up with any better arguments than this, you may as well just shut up.
I wonder if you understand how copyright fails academia? The real parasites are publishers such as Elsevier. We write and publish papers describing our research. We are expected to do so as part of a university job. In exchange for the privilege of publication in a recognized journal, publishers insist we give away our copyrights. We get no percentage, no flat fee, no co-ownership of the copyright, nothing at all from them. You might think they at least do some editing work, but no. The job of deciding which submissions are worthy of publication is farmed out back to us, for peer review. Then the publishers lock our work up behind paywalls for eternity minus 1 day, if they offer any way at all to obtain it online. Their main revenue stream comes from gouging university libraries for printed copies. Often, they force libraries into expensive package deals, rather like what cable TV companies offer. Zero of any money that they make from all this is paid to the authors.
Technically, we are in violation of their copyrights when we make our own works available online! The only thing that makes this whole scheme work at all is the salary that the public and the university pays. The publisher didn't pay one damn cent. Neither the authors nor the public who financially backed all this have any rights at all to the works. It's a raw deal, and we all know it.
Understand, we are okay with not receiving any direct compensation. Our salary is our compensation. It's this lockup that these miserable publishers do that is so outrageous. Our works should be under something like a Creative Commons license, not a privately held copyright. If these academic publishers all went bankrupt and vanished tomorrow, the world would be a better place. We sure don't need them, not with the Internet.
The failure extends further than that. There is also the textbook racket. Students are required to purchase textbooks at very high prices, and often the work is a poor quality rush job. You might think the author makes out on that deal. Not so much. The publisher gets the lion's share. Closely related are technical books. Most technical books earn the authors such a paltry amount of royalties that the money is no incentive for creating such a work. Could have made a lot more money working in industry. Authors publish for the name recognition.
I'm always looking for lighter, faster, simpler desktop environments. I've never heard of Awesome WM. Is it light?
Lately, I've been using LXDE + openbox on Arch Linux. Before that, tried XFCE. On an old computer with 128M RAM, I find LXDE is still too heavy. Incredibly, LXDE needs about 64M. Got better performance by dumping LXDE and going with just IceWM.
As for openbox, I'd just as soon turn off some features. "Roll up/down" and "Un/decorate" are not things I want presented to newbies. But it's not so easy to remove those options.
Possibly the weakest part of Linux on the Desktop is the inability to configure a lot of things, even by editing configuration files in a text editor. Or, if the desktops weren't so screwy, it wouldn't be necessary to tweak the configuration.
Often, I can't directly tweak the colors, instead have to load a theme that changes a bunch of other things I didn't want changed. Can't remove unwanted menu items like that "Roll". Definitely don't want the scroll wheel doing a Roll action if the mouse pointer happens to be on the titlebar. That's just confusing. As if that overloading of the scroll wheel wasn't bad enough, it also whips through multiple desktops if the mouse pointer was on the desktop. A way to stop that is to cut the number of desktops down to 1. What's bad about undecorate is that it is not clear how to reverse the action. Undecorate removes the titlebar you clicked on to get that menu item. I use Alt-space to bring up the menu, but there ought to be a way to do it with the mouse.
Yes. The GP is crazy not to use some swap. The only reason I would not have swap is if the server has only SSDs for storage, and preserving that is more important than keeping the server running.
I consider swap essential for making out of memory failures more graceful. The memory leak is still a very common software flaw. Swap gives you time to notice you have a memory shortage, and a chance to do something about it. Then, there are all kinds of badly designed scripts and programs that leave shells, terminals, and what not hanging around in memory. For instance, startx and xinit run XWindows from a shell in such a way that the shell is left resident until XWindows terminates. This is not a true zombie process or orphan or leak, but it is a small waste of memory. Or someone has logged in several days ago and left some terminals running. Swap is great for stuff like that.
You may be right that SawStop may be too expensive to be worthwhile, or not feasible for hand saws. There may be better ways to prevent accidental finger amputations.
But we should take patents out of the equation. We don't know if the main reason this innovation is not available to the public is the expense, or failed patent licensing negotiations, or something else. If patents didn't exist, didn't add so much friction to the process of bringing an invention to the public, didn't raise the barriers even higher, we'd know that was not the reason. As it is, we can only guess.
I picked on SawStop because that is exactly the kind of invention that patents were meant to help. It's not software, not a business method, not overly broad, and not blindingly obvious. They had a working prototype, and now working devices, though of extremely limited choice and availability. And yet we see that patents aren't doing even an invention like this any favors.
If it is the expense, it may be possible to improve this invention to the point it is worthwhile. There may be dozens of ideas. Maybe it could be made reusable. But no one can try anything without the blessing of the patent holder.
Another fact of nature is that restrictions are stifling. Each patent is a restriction on all humanity except the one who was granted exclusive ownership.
We're supposed to get something in exchange for that monster huge concession, something valuable enough to make it a good deal. What? Oh yeah, the idea. We receive an idea that at worst is not original and not great, in exchange for ... promising not to use that idea without permission for 17 years, for fear that might cheat great inventors out of one thin dime of all the profits to be had from every possible use of "their" ideas. It's like we didn't really receive the idea. But we wouldn't want them to sulk and refuse to do any more inventing!
Tabitha Babbitt invented but did not patent the circular saw. The circular saw was put into immediate use. Recently, some inventors made a safety improvement they call SawStop. No more fingers lost to accidents! This improvement is so rarely seen it may as well not exist. I have thought of getting one as a present for my father. He's old enough he may not be able to use a circular saw quite as safely as he once could. But I have never seen any portable saw with it. You'd think at least one of the major retailers of power tools and hardware would stock at least one saw with this feature, at least one major manufacturer would license the technology, but no. They couldn't come to an agreement. Worse, the establishment is trying to stifle it, as it is competition. While they fight, we must do without. That's not how the system is supposed to work!
I have LibreOffice of course, but don't actually use it much. Word processing seems antiquated. I use text editors and browsers for my writing. Most of my writing is programs, documentation, posts, and emails, not letters. Good riddance to all those empty forms one is expected to know and follow in letter writing.
Spreadsheets are sometimes useful. But I often find programming languages more flexible for heavy duty calculation.
If I do a lecture, I work from notes and use a chalkboard or a whiteboard. One problem with a presentation is it's too static and linear. Fairly easy to skip stuff your audience already knows, but not so easy to whip up new slides on the spot for the other way around. A talk is constrained enough for a slide show, but that also makes them of limited value. Everyone has been in useless, boring meetings dominated by PowerPoint presentations.
What else do office suites do? 3rd rate database management, drawings, and...?
But you might slack off if your manager can't look in on you every 5 minutes.
I think this is a minor point. Lack of telecommuting and flex time are only symptoms of the real problem, which is that lots of places treat workers very badly. Act like no one has a work ethic, or any honesty, integrity, reliability or maturity, or can even tie their shoelaces let alone competently perform a highly technical job. Seem to think they can freely abuse and denigrate people, and insult workers' intelligence with laughably bad and clumsy manipulation. Do all they can to make the worker dependent, then think less of them for being dependent. That the mere fact they are paying someone is license to treat them like dirt. Some of this becomes self-fulfilling.
It's funny how employers demand quantities of technical skills, but seem to let any old fool make a hash of managing people. The worker has to know 20 different programming languages, OSes, environments, and platforms, but the management doesn't need to have the foggiest idea what's covered in Management 101, or even remember basic socialization skills every child picks up in school. Upper management can't tell the difference between a real leader and a slave driver. Naturally, as long as the incompetent manager is allowed to get away with blaming everything on the peons, he won't bother improving himself, or do any of that teamwork nonsense that weak and powerless people have to do.