Note I personally prefer the modified BSD license and think GNU is trying to mandate "morality".
Welcome to the real world. If you're living in a perfect dream world then the BSD license is perfect. If you live in the real world, where 99% of the people around you couldn't care less if you were dying in the sewer while they happily profit from a circus show of your dead corpse, then GNU GPL is the only realistic approach.
It's not about mandating morality. It's about accepting the deficiencies of the real world and working to ensure perpetuation. Humans are GNU GPL. If humans were BSD we'd have been enslaved by cats millenia ago.
Maybe we have and this really is just a big circus for the amusement of our feline overlords.
but honestly if you equate charity with socialism then you don't understand one or the other
I'm glad to see more people coming around on this. To this date the prevailing public opinion has been to label "communist and socialist" anything which doesn't generate stranglehold profits.
What law prevents the fascists from generating enough lies to win democratic elections?
Anyway, to be on topic - can someone give more technical information on this?
The issue has to do with the gravitational field of an object with the mass/volume of a black hole. Previously Hawking seemed to approximate a black hole as a single point with an event horizon. Once any mass or energy comes within the event horizon it is immediately absorbed to the mass at the center point. Initially no energy was thought to escape. Eventually there was Hawking radiation but no real spectral radiation.
Now a black hole is no longer a singularity in a function but is an asymptote. There is no definitive event horizon but a Schroedinger like area of decreasing probability. I believe the issue was with quantum mechanics. The concept of a definitive event horizon dictates that any mass or energy which crosses the horizon is gone. This is opposed to quantum mechanics which gives mass or (especially) energy the ability to almost cross an event horizon but not quite.
I don't know why these physicists had 30 years of trouble with it. Consider magnetic probability fields illustrated by concepts similar to Schroedinger's Equation. There is no event horizon for the probability field of electron distribution. Why should there be one for a black hole? Quarks have probability distribution just like any other subatomic energetic particle.
I didn't want to get into the argument about what mod chips are used for, or the argument about rights of companies vs. rights of consumers, or the argument about whose best interest copyright laws are really in. It all really boils down to this point.
Is it really ethical for Company A to lobby for legislation which prevents any anonymous consumer from purchasing Product B? Is it really ethical for Company A to lobby for legislation to prevent any anonymous consumer from physically connecting Product A with Product B?
This isn't about houses (building safety codes), or cars (transportation safety). There is nothing physically harmful about a silicon chip and there's no significant threat in a soldering iron for most people. Regardless of the usage of these mod chips why is it a crime to be in possession of case of 5000 of them? This is not about guns which are easily used as weapons.
This is clearly political graft by a corporation to cement in its ability to continue to ride inflated prices. These are taxpayer dollars being allocated to the benefit of a corporation where any profit will be unscrupulously raided by the CEO, executive board, VPs and major shareholders before the janitor ever sees a $0.10 raise.
If Sony is worried about piracy why not do what the rest of the industry does: DRM the software.
What you should be asking is,"When will my government stop supporting Microsoft?" A large part of Microsoft's monopoly is due to taxpayer revenue being funneled to Redmond through a thousand different contracts, tax credits, consulting fees, etc.
Rather than asking your government to grow to fight the threats you should be asking your government to shrink so it quits creating them.
It is my firm belief that the center of a black hole is a block of cheese. It is surrounded by slices of sausage and the ether which fills the space is BEER.
I have heard the "BMP thing" being spouted by a Microsoft / closed-source apologist
Actually an apologist wouldn't be spouting about the BMP exploit. Rather an apologist would be trying to dismiss it as you do in here:
Is there any documented evidence that this has been used in *any* virus/worm/hacks?
There. Now you're being the closed source apologist by saying,"We're sorry about the BMP thing but does it really make a difference?" Since it's been pointed out that the BMP thing was only present in older editions of MSIE (5.5?) it's pretty plausible that the forensic trail of tracking any exploits is long covered, formatted, and reinstalled.
And has there actually been more than one bug found
The security industry has its hands full simply processing data on exploits which are submitted. The people who have time to go over that released source code routine by routine, structure by structure, loop by loop, aren't going to tell you about it first. If they're nefarious they're not telling anyone.
Additionally, did you read this yesterday? Did you try contacting the authors who published those vulnerabilities? It's quite possible that they came onto those vulns by looking at the source code.
So sit down and...
If the exploit was evident by looking at the code, the code writer would probably fix it
That's a bit shallow minded. Not every programmer who works for MS was a 4.0 overachiever who visualized code loops and logic flow in real time. Very few middle managers were 4.0 overachievers--many got to their position because they were better at social networking than coding networks. By the time the code gets to the upper management it's not being audited line by line. Even 4.0 students aren't always guaranteed overachievers with amazing perceptual abilities. Many 4.0 students know how to stand in line and keep their mouths shut. That's the most assured way to a 4.0.
Every single exploit is discovered by accident
I would agree that the majority of exploits are discovered by someone noticing erratic behavior in a program and taking the initiative to dig in deeper. However I know a number of people who take great delight in poring over changelogs and then going back to audit source code when "Bug in <sourcefile.c> fixed." The changelog may have been a roadsign but when sourcefile.c is 1000+ lines it's still a testament to skill to find the bug which was fixed.
<hat type="tinfoil" status="on"> What I am afraid of is, this is the beginning of Microsoft co-opting *NIX using its tried and proven method. First, it embraces a standard, then it extends the standard in the name of usability and power. You may argue that it's not easy to hijack an open standard or OSS, but look at HTML. Developers are adapting to Microsoft's bugs instead of writing clean, W3C-standard HTML.
Microsoft doesn't want to kill *NIX, they want to hijack it. It is easier to fight when you know you are being attacked, but not when you are being assimilated from the inside. Beware! </hat>
You posted this as AC so I'm going to reply and add my karma to it because it echoes my thoughts.
I don't think you need a tin-foil hat to think of this. It's a good business model to compete with GPL and OSS in this fashion. Microsoft does not know which piece of the GPL pie to try and attack first. SFU will give them a clear roadmap by showing them which functionalities are most important to their customers.
This is another reason why the BSD license should die. I can see Microsoft happily using as much BSD code as possible, without having to invest any research funding, to replace GPL code. Eventually there will be two Linux flavors just as you pointed out the two HTML flavors. Since Microsoft is more profitable for business partnerships and underhanded backroom stock deals the flavor will become the corporate favorite.
If enough years pass MS might even try to make SCO-like claims against FSF, kernel.org, and GNU.
Oh... and thanks for the source code for < and >. HTML really bugs me.
This is MSs foot into the POSIX compliant OS industry. First they released Win95 to get a majority market share and now they're beginning to realize that they're not going to displace the preeminant OS standards.
SFU is their method of determining which functionalities are key to interoperability between systems. Microsoft cannot be seen rewriting Linux or any *NIX flavor outright. SFU will show the Microsoft programmers which core Linux functionalities and libraries need to be rewritten under a proprietary license. Whenever a functionality or service causes bugs or interoperability issues then the core libraries will be rewritten so that you can have Windows Services for Unix and a corresponding Unix Services for Windows.
In much the same way that Linus developed Linux by writing POSIX compliant *NIX compatible routines from scratch, MS is taking the corporate approach to writing POSIX compliant *NIX compatible routines. This is the MS flanking maneuver to try and kill GPL and Open Source.
We all know that PHBs are apprehensive of GPL software because the industry says,"BSD good because we can steal their code and profit. GPL bad because we can't steal their code." In the future the industry will be happy to offer MS-Linux at competetive server prices ($500/server).
Someone else posted the link, but I see it as appropriate.
You mean *GASP* linux might have to compete!?!?! Heaven forbid!
Hahahaha. No. Linux won't have to compete. We'll all be stuck paying $300/seat for Linux or $199/seat for Win-2006.
I don't think it would be a bad thing for Microsoft to write a POSIX compliant OS but that would put us back to the 1970s where one had to license UNIX from AT&T/Bell Labs. How is that a favorable position?
What I'm really intrigued about is that Microsoft is looking for a backdoor into the POSIX compliant OS industry so that they never have to admit to saddling the world with a poorly designed OS for 10 years.
And it still doesn't sit right with me that so many people are apathetic that MS is going to take all of the hard work of BSD developers and turn it for their own profit. WTF? What is Microsoft giving back to the community in the spirit of the BSD license? Talk about opportunistic mosquitos...
If they start altering code that is under the GPL it must remain under the GPL, including their contributions
That's where they will do to Linux what Linus did to UNIX. When a particular functionality does not work properly with the SFU then Microsoft will devote a group of programmers to rewrite the core library behind that particular functionality. They will use no GPL code but, rather, will reimplement functionalities currently provided by GPL code. With every library which they rewrite they will create a proprietary Microsoft functionality. Of course, all Windows distros will be shipped with the proprietary Microsoft editions of those functionalities and eventually corporate environments will be using POSIX compliant systems written entirely by Microsoft.
Microsoft is using SFU as its foothold to write a POSIX compliant OS and keep it under a proprietary license. You're absolutely correct in pointing out BSD. Any BSD licensed code that they can find will be used to save them the energy of rewriting the routines.
Another reason why the BSD license should die. Microsoft will happily take all of BSD, piece by piece, over the course of several years, and use it to create a POSIX compliant OS to compete with Linux and remain proprietary.
If you read between the lines this is actually the most insightful point in the comments so far.
If one stops to consider Microsoft's business model it becomes apparent that SFU is a way for Microsoft to attempt to gain IP rights to POSIX compliance. In the beginning there will be incompatibilities and inconsistencies. Microsoft will collaborate with organizations to iron out the incompatibilities and inconsistencies. Through merit of collaboration Microsoft will attempt to patent and copyright their contributions and, with every legal filing, will make a grab for any related material that is possible. The Linux industry, not wanting to be perceived as deliberately trying to undermine Windows, will have to collaborate with the Windows movement. Since Microsoft can afford to patent the contributions and refinements they will eventually nibble away at the GPL.
Essentially Microsoft is hoping to do to Linux what Linux did to UNIX. Microsoft is hoping to spend enough time to rewrite the code, subroutine by subroutine, in the name of compatibility, so that they can divest Linux from GPL. When they have properly divested the system from GPL over the course of five to ten years then they will once again assume market share _AND_ be able to legally make SCO-like IP claims on *NIX systems.
The real tragedy is that both parties will gladly throw those ideals away in a heartbeat when money is at stake
Is an "ideal" really an "ideal" if it's sacrificed so easily for money? I feel that if it is so easily tossed aside it is merely trendy speech to win votes.
Note, in case you misunderstood, that I specifically said that you can not thrive on such a job.
Props to Leinie's, bud. I'm from Rhinelander. I know the Wisconsin dialect. You said "...can survive, if not thrive, on..." meaning that you thought it was entirely possible to thrive.
So how is this better than a thousand years ago? From what I've read the Native Americans around LaCrosse, Eau Claire, or even in the northwoods averaged about 20 hours/week for any real hunting or gathering work. The rest of the time was spent singing, walking around, chasing the girls, smoking good northwoods herb, etc.
Give me paid housing, 2 meals/day, and something to study and I'll ace it.
Here are some foreigners for you
Oh Lord. Another argument based on poster children.
No doubt you have some less than stellar students around you. But Americans do not have a monopoly on brains as your silly comment demonstrates
I think that the point was that American taxpayers are paying taxes to support American students with the potential to develop brains. The parent was probably also making the observation that, in the grand scheme of things, bringing in foreign students is more related to the lust for cheap and easy labor than it is related to anything about talent.
My grad students come from all over the world. I expect them all to work hard and treat each other with respect
My experience with people who have been through graduate programs is precisely related to this. While they treat each other with respect they treat the rest of us as if we're somehow less worthy of life just because we weren't given the opportunity for a PhD. When I completed my undergrad work I didn't have a support system to give me time to think about the GRE and graduate studies. I had bills to pay. My living expenses were not covered by a generous work-study program. My summers were not spent in a cozy internship. My sophomore and junior years I sent out 300+ applications/year for internships and received zero offers. When I graduated I was faced with two choices: enter the workforce or watch bill collectors come clamoring. Had anyone let me in on the little known secret I would have let the bill collectors sit-and-spin. I was raised to pay my debts, however, and grudgingly entered the workforce. Six years later I've barely just paid off the interest and hardly made a nick in the principle. With the current state of my credit record, even if I took the GRE and qualified, I doubt I could qualify for the funding necessary.
Look at other countries, look where people are starving for their meals and slaving for a dollar a day
We have people starving for meals here in the US as well. We have people slaving away 60 hours/week at minimum wage who go home to single-room flats with shared bathrooms at the end of the hall. Having grown up in the US it would be nearly impossible to adjust to the culture shock of moving to a third-world nation but, all in all, many people living in a third world nation have a life that is much more pleasant due to its simplicity. Working for a dollar/day isn't all that rough when basic life necessities of food and shelter are handled by barter and trade, not by money.
I really wish more of this world would appreciate what they have and what they can use for others instead of wishing for what they think they need
I agree in principle but, at the same time, I don't feel that we should be led into browbeating our peers. I'm sure Rockefeller and Morgan used much the speech when preaching to their workers about wages. Modern day managers use much the same speech when performance review time comes around. There is a balance between "appreciate what they have" and "make a stand not to be used like a rube".
Unfortunately, I was one of them poor sods who was good at everything
Too bad you posted as AC. It does seem that people who insist on personal excellence get the hardest end of the stick from the MBAs. I feel there are several reasons for this. The first is jealousy. Another is illustrated in your post. Such as
All of my teachers in high school thought I would be majoring in the subjects they taught
and
I didn't care much for the scientific process -- too "flimsy" for me
A virtuoso is difficult to figure out and nail down. PhDs, on the other hand, are easy to fit into a corporate scheme which relies on categorizing people based on their weaknesses. A virtuoso, having made the conscious effort to excel at everything they encounter, is perceived as a competitive presence by everyone. They can't be locked into simple manager vs. manager games and typically take the sport out of pitting employees against each other based on performance.
The only real role that management has for a person who strives for uniform excellence is "whipping post". Because the target never specialized for single degree they can be constantly held back on the pay and promotion scale.
Even health-care isn't safe: look at the proportion of routine dental care which migrated from dentists to dental hygienists, and then ask yourself how difficult would it be for the same thing to happen with routine medical care?
You're right and it's already started on the slippery slope with HMOs and other forms of managed health care.
Slashdot Mirror
Note I personally prefer the modified BSD license and think GNU is trying to mandate "morality".
Welcome to the real world. If you're living in a perfect dream world then the BSD license is perfect. If you live in the real world, where 99% of the people around you couldn't care less if you were dying in the sewer while they happily profit from a circus show of your dead corpse, then GNU GPL is the only realistic approach.
It's not about mandating morality. It's about accepting the deficiencies of the real world and working to ensure perpetuation. Humans are GNU GPL. If humans were BSD we'd have been enslaved by cats millenia ago.
Maybe we have and this really is just a big circus for the amusement of our feline overlords.
but honestly if you equate charity with socialism then you don't understand one or the other
I'm glad to see more people coming around on this. To this date the prevailing public opinion has been to label "communist and socialist" anything which doesn't generate stranglehold profits.
What law prevents the fascists from generating enough lies to win democratic elections?
Anyway, to be on topic - can someone give more technical information on this?
The issue has to do with the gravitational field of an object with the mass/volume of a black hole. Previously Hawking seemed to approximate a black hole as a single point with an event horizon. Once any mass or energy comes within the event horizon it is immediately absorbed to the mass at the center point. Initially no energy was thought to escape. Eventually there was Hawking radiation but no real spectral radiation.
Now a black hole is no longer a singularity in a function but is an asymptote. There is no definitive event horizon but a Schroedinger like area of decreasing probability. I believe the issue was with quantum mechanics. The concept of a definitive event horizon dictates that any mass or energy which crosses the horizon is gone. This is opposed to quantum mechanics which gives mass or (especially) energy the ability to almost cross an event horizon but not quite.
I don't know why these physicists had 30 years of trouble with it. Consider magnetic probability fields illustrated by concepts similar to Schroedinger's Equation. There is no event horizon for the probability field of electron distribution. Why should there be one for a black hole? Quarks have probability distribution just like any other subatomic energetic particle.
Once I buy something, it's mine
I didn't want to get into the argument about what mod chips are used for, or the argument about rights of companies vs. rights of consumers, or the argument about whose best interest copyright laws are really in. It all really boils down to this point.
Is it really ethical for Company A to lobby for legislation which prevents any anonymous consumer from purchasing Product B? Is it really ethical for Company A to lobby for legislation to prevent any anonymous consumer from physically connecting Product A with Product B?
This isn't about houses (building safety codes), or cars (transportation safety). There is nothing physically harmful about a silicon chip and there's no significant threat in a soldering iron for most people. Regardless of the usage of these mod chips why is it a crime to be in possession of case of 5000 of them? This is not about guns which are easily used as weapons.
This is clearly political graft by a corporation to cement in its ability to continue to ride inflated prices. These are taxpayer dollars being allocated to the benefit of a corporation where any profit will be unscrupulously raided by the CEO, executive board, VPs and major shareholders before the janitor ever sees a $0.10 raise.
If Sony is worried about piracy why not do what the rest of the industry does: DRM the software.
If my government won't stop Microsoft, who will?
It's not up to your government to stop Microsoft.
What you should be asking is,"When will my government stop supporting Microsoft?" A large part of Microsoft's monopoly is due to taxpayer revenue being funneled to Redmond through a thousand different contracts, tax credits, consulting fees, etc.
Rather than asking your government to grow to fight the threats you should be asking your government to shrink so it quits creating them.
It is my firm belief that the center of a black hole is a block of cheese. It is surrounded by slices of sausage and the ether which fills the space is BEER.
The parent is horribly bipolar.
I have heard the "BMP thing" being spouted by a Microsoft / closed-source apologist
Actually an apologist wouldn't be spouting about the BMP exploit. Rather an apologist would be trying to dismiss it as you do in here:
Is there any documented evidence that this has been used in *any* virus/worm/hacks?
There. Now you're being the closed source apologist by saying,"We're sorry about the BMP thing but does it really make a difference?" Since it's been pointed out that the BMP thing was only present in older editions of MSIE (5.5?) it's pretty plausible that the forensic trail of tracking any exploits is long covered, formatted, and reinstalled.
And has there actually been more than one bug found
The security industry has its hands full simply processing data on exploits which are submitted. The people who have time to go over that released source code routine by routine, structure by structure, loop by loop, aren't going to tell you about it first. If they're nefarious they're not telling anyone.
Additionally, did you read this yesterday? Did you try contacting the authors who published those vulnerabilities? It's quite possible that they came onto those vulns by looking at the source code.
So sit down and...
If the exploit was evident by looking at the code, the code writer would probably fix it
That's a bit shallow minded. Not every programmer who works for MS was a 4.0 overachiever who visualized code loops and logic flow in real time. Very few middle managers were 4.0 overachievers--many got to their position because they were better at social networking than coding networks. By the time the code gets to the upper management it's not being audited line by line. Even 4.0 students aren't always guaranteed overachievers with amazing perceptual abilities. Many 4.0 students know how to stand in line and keep their mouths shut. That's the most assured way to a 4.0.
Every single exploit is discovered by accident
I would agree that the majority of exploits are discovered by someone noticing erratic behavior in a program and taking the initiative to dig in deeper. However I know a number of people who take great delight in poring over changelogs and then going back to audit source code when "Bug in <sourcefile.c> fixed." The changelog may have been a roadsign but when sourcefile.c is 1000+ lines it's still a testament to skill to find the bug which was fixed.
And this has stopped MS before...?
Two more words: "Money talks"
<hat type="tinfoil" status="on">
What I am afraid of is, this is the beginning of Microsoft co-opting *NIX using its tried and proven method. First, it embraces a standard, then it extends the standard in the name of usability and power. You may argue that it's not easy to hijack an open standard or OSS, but look at HTML. Developers are adapting to Microsoft's bugs instead of writing clean, W3C-standard HTML.
Microsoft doesn't want to kill *NIX, they want to hijack it. It is easier to fight when you know you are being attacked, but not when you are being assimilated from the inside. Beware!
</hat>
You posted this as AC so I'm going to reply and add my karma to it because it echoes my thoughts.
I don't think you need a tin-foil hat to think of this. It's a good business model to compete with GPL and OSS in this fashion. Microsoft does not know which piece of the GPL pie to try and attack first. SFU will give them a clear roadmap by showing them which functionalities are most important to their customers.
This is another reason why the BSD license should die. I can see Microsoft happily using as much BSD code as possible, without having to invest any research funding, to replace GPL code. Eventually there will be two Linux flavors just as you pointed out the two HTML flavors. Since Microsoft is more profitable for business partnerships and underhanded backroom stock deals the flavor will become the corporate favorite.
If enough years pass MS might even try to make SCO-like claims against FSF, kernel.org, and GNU.
Oh... and thanks for the source code for < and >. HTML really bugs me.
This is MSs foot into the POSIX compliant OS industry. First they released Win95 to get a majority market share and now they're beginning to realize that they're not going to displace the preeminant OS standards.
SFU is their method of determining which functionalities are key to interoperability between systems. Microsoft cannot be seen rewriting Linux or any *NIX flavor outright. SFU will show the Microsoft programmers which core Linux functionalities and libraries need to be rewritten under a proprietary license. Whenever a functionality or service causes bugs or interoperability issues then the core libraries will be rewritten so that you can have Windows Services for Unix and a corresponding Unix Services for Windows.
In much the same way that Linus developed Linux by writing POSIX compliant *NIX compatible routines from scratch, MS is taking the corporate approach to writing POSIX compliant *NIX compatible routines. This is the MS flanking maneuver to try and kill GPL and Open Source.
We all know that PHBs are apprehensive of GPL software because the industry says,"BSD good because we can steal their code and profit. GPL bad because we can't steal their code." In the future the industry will be happy to offer MS-Linux at competetive server prices ($500/server).
Someone else posted the link, but I see it as appropriate.
Bitrot, for one, over time applications installed will install thier own preferred versions of various system dlls along with their own dlls
:(
I've seen Mandrake rpms do the same with gtk/glib/pango libraries.
You mean *GASP* linux might have to compete!?!?! Heaven forbid!
Hahahaha. No. Linux won't have to compete. We'll all be stuck paying $300/seat for Linux or $199/seat for Win-2006.
I don't think it would be a bad thing for Microsoft to write a POSIX compliant OS but that would put us back to the 1970s where one had to license UNIX from AT&T/Bell Labs. How is that a favorable position?
What I'm really intrigued about is that Microsoft is looking for a backdoor into the POSIX compliant OS industry so that they never have to admit to saddling the world with a poorly designed OS for 10 years.
And it still doesn't sit right with me that so many people are apathetic that MS is going to take all of the hard work of BSD developers and turn it for their own profit. WTF? What is Microsoft giving back to the community in the spirit of the BSD license? Talk about opportunistic mosquitos...
If they start altering code that is under the GPL it must remain under the GPL, including their contributions
That's where they will do to Linux what Linus did to UNIX. When a particular functionality does not work properly with the SFU then Microsoft will devote a group of programmers to rewrite the core library behind that particular functionality. They will use no GPL code but, rather, will reimplement functionalities currently provided by GPL code. With every library which they rewrite they will create a proprietary Microsoft functionality. Of course, all Windows distros will be shipped with the proprietary Microsoft editions of those functionalities and eventually corporate environments will be using POSIX compliant systems written entirely by Microsoft.
Microsoft is using SFU as its foothold to write a POSIX compliant OS and keep it under a proprietary license. You're absolutely correct in pointing out BSD. Any BSD licensed code that they can find will be used to save them the energy of rewriting the routines.
Another reason why the BSD license should die. Microsoft will happily take all of BSD, piece by piece, over the course of several years, and use it to create a POSIX compliant OS to compete with Linux and remain proprietary.
The BSD license is so much more commercial friendly
:)
Someone else did the work and wrote it.
We get to compile it and PROFIT and we probably get to take corporate tax credits for making charitable contributions to the people who wrote it.
Now _THAT'S_ corporate friendly.
w00t!
... they must have violated SCO's IP rights
If you read between the lines this is actually the most insightful point in the comments so far.
If one stops to consider Microsoft's business model it becomes apparent that SFU is a way for Microsoft to attempt to gain IP rights to POSIX compliance. In the beginning there will be incompatibilities and inconsistencies. Microsoft will collaborate with organizations to iron out the incompatibilities and inconsistencies. Through merit of collaboration Microsoft will attempt to patent and copyright their contributions and, with every legal filing, will make a grab for any related material that is possible. The Linux industry, not wanting to be perceived as deliberately trying to undermine Windows, will have to collaborate with the Windows movement. Since Microsoft can afford to patent the contributions and refinements they will eventually nibble away at the GPL.
Essentially Microsoft is hoping to do to Linux what Linux did to UNIX. Microsoft is hoping to spend enough time to rewrite the code, subroutine by subroutine, in the name of compatibility, so that they can divest Linux from GPL. When they have properly divested the system from GPL over the course of five to ten years then they will once again assume market share _AND_ be able to legally make SCO-like IP claims on *NIX systems.
The real tragedy is that both parties will gladly throw those ideals away in a heartbeat when money is at stake
Is an "ideal" really an "ideal" if it's sacrificed so easily for money? I feel that if it is so easily tossed aside it is merely trendy speech to win votes.
Note, in case you misunderstood, that I specifically said that you can not thrive on such a job.
Props to Leinie's, bud. I'm from Rhinelander. I know the Wisconsin dialect. You said "...can survive, if not thrive, on..." meaning that you thought it was entirely possible to thrive.
So how is this better than a thousand years ago? From what I've read the Native Americans around LaCrosse, Eau Claire, or even in the northwoods averaged about 20 hours/week for any real hunting or gathering work. The rest of the time was spent singing, walking around, chasing the girls, smoking good northwoods herb, etc.
Today, you can survive, if not thrive, on a part-time job of 20-30 hours a week
WHAT?
Pass me whatever it is you found...
How well would you do in grad school in China?
Give me paid housing, 2 meals/day, and something to study and I'll ace it.
Here are some foreigners for you
Oh Lord. Another argument based on poster children.
No doubt you have some less than stellar students around you. But Americans do not have a monopoly on brains as your silly comment demonstrates
I think that the point was that American taxpayers are paying taxes to support American students with the potential to develop brains. The parent was probably also making the observation that, in the grand scheme of things, bringing in foreign students is more related to the lust for cheap and easy labor than it is related to anything about talent.
My grad students come from all over the world. I expect them all to work hard and treat each other with respect
My experience with people who have been through graduate programs is precisely related to this. While they treat each other with respect they treat the rest of us as if we're somehow less worthy of life just because we weren't given the opportunity for a PhD. When I completed my undergrad work I didn't have a support system to give me time to think about the GRE and graduate studies. I had bills to pay. My living expenses were not covered by a generous work-study program. My summers were not spent in a cozy internship. My sophomore and junior years I sent out 300+ applications/year for internships and received zero offers. When I graduated I was faced with two choices: enter the workforce or watch bill collectors come clamoring. Had anyone let me in on the little known secret I would have let the bill collectors sit-and-spin. I was raised to pay my debts, however, and grudgingly entered the workforce. Six years later I've barely just paid off the interest and hardly made a nick in the principle. With the current state of my credit record, even if I took the GRE and qualified, I doubt I could qualify for the funding necessary.
I'm glad the mods gave you funny. I usually get "flamebait" for similar thoughts.
Look at other countries, look where people are starving for their meals and slaving for a dollar a day
We have people starving for meals here in the US as well. We have people slaving away 60 hours/week at minimum wage who go home to single-room flats with shared bathrooms at the end of the hall. Having grown up in the US it would be nearly impossible to adjust to the culture shock of moving to a third-world nation but, all in all, many people living in a third world nation have a life that is much more pleasant due to its simplicity. Working for a dollar/day isn't all that rough when basic life necessities of food and shelter are handled by barter and trade, not by money.
I really wish more of this world would appreciate what they have and what they can use for others instead of wishing for what they think they need
I agree in principle but, at the same time, I don't feel that we should be led into browbeating our peers. I'm sure Rockefeller and Morgan used much the speech when preaching to their workers about wages. Modern day managers use much the same speech when performance review time comes around. There is a balance between "appreciate what they have" and "make a stand not to be used like a rube".
Unfortunately, I was one of them poor sods who was good at everything
Too bad you posted as AC. It does seem that people who insist on personal excellence get the hardest end of the stick from the MBAs. I feel there are several reasons for this. The first is jealousy. Another is illustrated in your post. Such as
All of my teachers in high school thought I would be majoring in the subjects they taught
and
I didn't care much for the scientific process -- too "flimsy" for me
A virtuoso is difficult to figure out and nail down. PhDs, on the other hand, are easy to fit into a corporate scheme which relies on categorizing people based on their weaknesses. A virtuoso, having made the conscious effort to excel at everything they encounter, is perceived as a competitive presence by everyone. They can't be locked into simple manager vs. manager games and typically take the sport out of pitting employees against each other based on performance.
The only real role that management has for a person who strives for uniform excellence is "whipping post". Because the target never specialized for single degree they can be constantly held back on the pay and promotion scale.
Even health-care isn't safe: look at the proportion of routine dental care which migrated from dentists to dental hygienists, and then ask yourself how difficult would it be for the same thing to happen with routine medical care?
You're right and it's already started on the slippery slope with HMOs and other forms of managed health care.
I can understand why many people post as AC in topics such as this one which cover careers and money.
:)
Just for pointing out the obvious I've been modded twice as flamebait and made two foes.
I think it's healthy for people to realize on their own that money is really worthless
Good. You'll be happy to donate all of yours to me so that _I_ can take the time to go back for a PhD.