Katz has brought up some good points, but I think he left unsaid one of the most important: specific technologies are not neutral in their effects on society, the environment, and the economy. Often misunderstood, Marshall McLuhan (a Canadian BTW), said "the medium is the message". This has been continually misunderstood as "the medium affects the message". But in fact, any medium (read technology) fundamentally has a message which is its effects on society, the environment and the economy. As a simple example, television is not possible without some pretty serious infrastructure: studios, transmission systems and receivers. This infrastructure costs a huge amount of money to create and maintain so television can never be used effectively by people or groups without money.
Not only that, but despite a bit of unpopularity of the concept of globalism, technologies now have an immediate global effect (Linux would not be as far as it is today without globalism). Ignoring this effect is arrogance of the most dispicable kind, and is common among corporations (the dark underbelly of globalism).
I have been writing an essay on this topic of a moral and social framework for analyzing technologies. It is still very much in progress, and there are parts that are sounding a bit old, but for what its worth, here it is.
Well, the logical conclusion of the "Information wants to be Free" philosophy held my many OS advocates, is that copyright (and patents and trademarks) is "unnatural". I phrase it that way for a reason: in the past, many groups have claimed that some behavior, philosophy etc. is unnatural in order to attack it. The "unnatural" accusation, explicit or implicit, is a very difficult one to deal with because humans seem to have a psychological pre-disposition to believe that natural=good.
We see these attacks implicit in the strategy manifested in the GPL.
But that doesn't mean it isn't incorrect. One problem that I see so often is that "unnatural" is often conflated with "absolute moral standard" which is further conflated with "fundamentalism" and then is treated as a Very Bad Thing. But the fact is, that the term "unnatural" actually has a fairly useful meaning.
So in the case where copyright is attacted (implicitly) as unnatural, we have to be careful that we do not ignore the possibility that copyright may actually be unnatural!
As many people have said both here on Slashdot and elsewhere, information is not "naturally" a resource that suffers from economies of supply/scarcity. Since there is theoretically an infinite supply of information, the cost should be zero. As more and more types of information become detached from their physical media, we will see businesses and government struggle to understand what to do, since _all_ relevent policies are based on economics of supply and demand.
I would like to make a brief aside and point out that there are quite a number of types of information that are not yet detached from their physical media: painting, sculpture, smells, emotions, and personal memories all come to mind. These types of information obviously have to some degree or another become digitized and freed. However, especially those types of information that are coupled very tightly to wetware, will likely take a very long time to become free, if they ever do.
Now I will take a big leap, and point out that as the recognition of the freedom of information spreads, there will be some other things happen as well. Firstly, the fundamental unity of humanity will become harder and harder to ignore. Once this unity is recognized, new tools (systems of business, government, discovery, communication) will need to be developed. I personally think this will be an incredibly radical change - and that it isn't too far away.
The recognition of the unity of humanity is a fundamental prerequisit to any lasting peace, and to any lasting solutions to our many social, economic and environmental problems.
Well, that was quite a mouthful:-O
I haven't noticed anyone bring this up yet:
If you are doing a work-for-hire, can you legally use GPL source code? The GPL being a viral license may prevent that, particularly if the new work will be published.
The work of any sort of serious thesis (Masters or PhD) is usually published.
In order for this to work, you would have to make campaigning illegal, and in a country like the USA, that would be pretty much impossible due to freedom of speech concerns.
Personally, I think this would be a great system. It works very well in the Baha'i Community.
Well, I just finished reading the whole votescam site.
As you might imagine, it is very interesting. I won't buy the book though. For whatever reason (probably hippy parents combined with strong Baha'i upbringing), I have always been incredibly cynical about our political systems. On their surface they are obviously disfunctional and it does not suprise me one bit to hear evidence that elections are completely rigged.
One thing that really bothers me about all of this stuff is the lack of solutions. People are apathetic, they are focused on material gain, and they no longer trust even the _idea_ of Institutions of government. Our culture is evolving/designed to only increase these things.
So. What are the solutions? Well, I say this at risk of karma: there is only one solution and it is spiritual.
People need to change - to become better. If we are apathetic, we need to become heroic. If we are materialistic, we need to become detached. If we are cynical, we need to become idealistic. How can we become these things? Only by inspiration and by hope. And inspiration and hope can only be had by faith. And I'm not talking about some stupid blind faith.
We need to see that Humanity is One. The world is our shared environment, we have so much to offer each other in diversity of thought, in diversity of culture, in diversity of religion and beliefs. And we should forget about the ridiculous cultural relativism we have been fed by the media so that we can actually learn from each other.
We need to accept that depravity is the easy route for each and every one of us, but nobility is worth the struggle. Every time we make a mistake, we need to go beyond it: learn from it, forgive ourselves, share our new wisdom, and try not to make the same mistake again.
So how does this relate to voting? We have to realize that the current system of government is irrelevent, and that power really has been taken from the hands of the rulers. We as individuals do have the power to change things, locally and globally, but we need to stop relying on failable, often corrupt people to lead us.
And this is the real hard part for most of us, we need to believe in a higher power. We need to believe that the perfections we see in the physical universe can be had in the human universe. We need to hear the call that is sounding in our souls to unify the world. How can we possibly expect to solve our problems until we are united in our diversity. Peace is impossible unless and until our unity is firmly established - to paraphrase from the Baha'i writings.
So that means: don't worry about voting. Do it, vote for the person who has served humanity best, but don't worry about it. Instead, worry about your neighbor, worry about your enemy, worry about your boss, worry about your children, worry about the stranger you pass on the street. And then worry about the world. Find what talents you have, perfect them, and use them urgently to solve humanity's problems.
That is Faith, and that is Spirituality, and that is what is going to work.
that the gaining popularity of Linux, the resurgence of Apple and its impending roll-out of BSD/Mach based OS X, are causing a significant amount of upset in the operating system market. So what?
Well, as a comp-sci degree holder, I know that there are a heck of a lot of "Really Good Ideas" out there that have to do with operating systems. Linux, the BSD's, and a bunch of research os's are all playing with these things.
That makes me hopeful that at some point fairly soon, perhaps in a couple of years, there will be enough fragmentation of the OS markets that it will be possible for a really new, really good OS paradigm to sneak up and win.
Now, I don't mean that Linux is bad or any other imagined slight. Linux is pretty darn good, but it doesn't really operate on a new technological paradigm. Most of its popularity is based on its unique development paradigm (Free/Open Source/Community software). As it transitions to popularity based on familiarity and demonstrated capability, it will become more difficult to change.
I have to say that I don't really know much about OS theory - so I might be full of it, but these are just random musings so... TIWAGOS (Take It With A Grain Of Salt).
Hmm. Actually, the real question is "what constitutes distribution?". Binaries?
The recent DeCSS case is a really good example of the arbitrariness of setting a line of distribution. Think about this for a moment then read on...
Basically, software is information, and the GPL is a means to a philosophical approach to information, namely to ensure that the information encoded in software remains free. This is why the GPL bothers with derived works. So then the question is what is a derived work. Certainly there is a legal definition, but that definition is not apropos to this discussion. Why? Precisely because the GPL is about a completely different philosophy. The GPL attempts to subvert current legal theory and practice to create a new pholosophical framework for the freedom of information.
So, just what is the relationship between information and software? Well, to hear the DeCSS "team's" views on it, software is a form of expression. I believe this to be true. This is also fairly similar to the philosophy implied in the GPL. In fact, software is information at two levels: the symbols in which software is expressed, and the process/method which those symbols represent.
I would assert that the real goal of the GPL is to protect that second aspect: the process/method. I don't know this for certain, but the fact that derived works are protected and the fact that porting and linking are aspects discussed by the FSF Licenses, are good hints. This of course implies that the symbols aspect should also be protected as it is the original encoding of the process.
So now lets use some hypothetical examples to illustrate where those foundational comments lead.
All examles are based on the following scenario: Software "A" is GPL'd. I download an executable, run it a few times, and decide that I would like to use this functionality in Software "B" that I am writing.
1. I download "A"'s source, which happens to be written in C, and statically link it to "B". I then go out and share "B" with my friends neglecting to mention that source is available. VIOLATION!
2. Like 1., but link as a shared lib, and distribute "B" without "A", and without source. VIOLATION!
3. Write and distribute software "C" which automajically downloads "A", downloads "B"'s source, modifies "B"'s source for optimizations, builds "B" and runs "B". "C" is not distributed with source nor under the GPL. VIOLATION?
4. "A" is a reverse engineered version of X which has known public API's. Write and distribute software "C" which parses natural language queries in the domain of "X" and searches for software executables which implement "X"'s apis, downloads those executables, transforms the query into calls to the "X" apis, and then executes those calls on "A". "C" is not GPL'd. VIOLATION?
5. Write and distribute software "C" which parses natural language queries and searches for software executables to satisfy those queries. One query finds and installs "A" and "B" and then launches them. "C" is not GPL'd. VIOLATION? It uses "A", it distributes "A".
6. Write and distribute a document "C" with instructions on how to write "B", how to obtain "A", with no source, and not GPL'd. VIOLATION? Are instructions considered code? Is language and the brain considered sufficient as an executable?
Read "Le Ton Beau De Marot", "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies" and "Godel Escher and Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter to discover the real depth to this problem: what constitutes "linking", "distribution", "derived works" and "use".
This document/article does make some good points which relate to some of the main reasons why I have not embraced Linux (I'm a FreeBSD guy).
The license. I know, I know, the GPL is not just a legal document, but also a philosophy. The problem, is I think that it actually is self-destructive. The very nature of a viral license is to reduce the Freedom of Information. Not only that, but it really sucks from a legal perspective. The fact is, the boundary between what is allowed with the GPL and what is not, is very, very poorly defined. (See below for an example.)
Forking/competition. The whole KDE/Gnome thing just sucks. The fact is that competition should never have priority over unity (in my philosophical opinion). This means that competition for its own sake as seen in partisan politics, the economy, and software development is a ridiculous goal/justification for peoples inability to get along. That simple. ('Scuze me for the inflamatory remarks, but I feel pretty strongly about this.)
Now very likely this article was written with Journalistic License. But one way or the other, the points about the GPL and Competition are real concerns for _me_ as a professional and hobby developer.
About boundaries, consider this scenario from a legal perspective (this is for you GPL gurus out there - it was part of an email conversation between myself, a developer who released some GPL'd software, and a legal person at the FSF):
> My other example, about a professor using a tool, comes at this question
> from the other side: professor produces some reports using X software
> which is GPL'd. Obviously she has access to the source by virtue of its
> license, but those reports need not be GPL'd - they aren't software.
> One day she realizes that she is doing the same thing over and over again
> and writes a little script to help automate the process, and do some
> additional post-processing. Then she decides to write an application (in
> the same programming language that X was written with) which puts a nicer
> front end on the whole thing (GUI vs. shell). Then she finds out that
> many other professors would like copies of her reports (but they don't
> want to do the work of using the software - or perhaps they don't have
> access to the source data) so she starts a web distribution of those
> reports. Then, and this is probably the "fatal" step, she realizes that
> both X and her application would be better off if part of her application
> was re-factored into X (say its a web-scalability issue). Finally, she
> just goes willy-nilly making changes in both X and her application (but X
> always compiles without any dependencies on the app). And then she does a
> programmer-bad and makes X' dependent on the app. Where is the line at
> which her app must be GPL'd? Note, she never distributes her app in any
> form, only the reports.
If the her modified application, X', is never distributed to anyone, then
the GPL (version 2) does not come into play, and she is not bound to do
anything in particular because of that license in this case.
The GPL (version 3) may try to address this scenario.
With JSP's performance measurement may be a bit more of an art than with the others. Since the JSP container (eg Tomcat) is often configured to compile any.jsp that has changed, it may have a serious performance hit attributed to it. However, that _feature_ is meant for development and would be turned of in deployment: all the.jsp files are pre-compiled.
As well, the JVM used makes quite a large performance difference. The Win32 JVM with Hotspot, seriously outperforms some of the other JVM's (orders of magnitude difference). I don't really know about the Linux JVM's, but I have heard that they underperform relative to Sun's Win32 JVM.
Basically, the performance aspect of the article is completely bogus: utilizing two completely different OS platforms is just the start of the problems!
I used to do a bit of WebObjects development back in the OpenStep days. WebObjects had three great things going for it: great tools, fantastic database connectivity middleware, and really solid web scripting and tag extentions.
Recently, I have been doing Java 2 Enterprise Edition development. At my day job, I am working in a high availability application server environment, and in my night job, I am prototyping a educational web system. In that second role I am using JSP's. (Dislaimer: I love Java compared to C++ but hate it compared to Objective-C.) As the article points out, the tool support is missing, and I personally find JDBC to be a pretty weak database interface, but the actual JSP technology is really cool! I've been working on custom tag extentions and they really rock - solving the problem of separating display code (html) from business logic and model code (accomplished with the use of JavaBeans and EJB's).
Personally, I think that the Java platform is the way to go in the long run. JSP's are a really good step to completing the platform and the Tomcat reference implementation is a great tool for prototyping.
Actually in Barrie: COIS (Central Ontario Internet Services). They are small and last I checked had only a T1. But hey! I'm basically alone in there right now! They also provide local dialup access which shares the bandwidth. They are a very friendly family shop.
FWIW, I've had a small FreeBSD 4 box running for 150 days with no downtime. I server several domains using sendmail and apache. I have all the bad services turned off and I use ssh to get to the box - including getting and sending email. The box is a Pentium 233 w/ 32 MB Ram and an 8gig hd. Just so noone thinks I don't push the box, I've done _many_ installs and de-installs from the ports collection, I've got PostgreSQL running as well as Tomcat. I do java development on it from remote, and since I'm a relative novice for sysadmining, I do some pretty darn stupid things sometimes.
The box is rock solid. Just recently I had a runaway process consuming 100% cpu and several megs of process memory - and I didn't notice for over three weeks! Kill -9 PID got rid of it and the system is still going fabulously.
The system is located with a really small colo facility (how small? I was their first client about 7 months ago!), it has a UPS and it hasn't been down or disconnected since I flipped the switch on it. Oh. BTW, it's in Ontario, in Canada, and I've been in California for the last five months. I haven't even gone in to stroke the darn thing!
Its fun having my very own little server:0)
Just to remain on-topic, I'll through in a few more tidbits about the DIY option that I've learned. Shop around for colo for price if it concerns you. I was getting quotes in the USD500/month range, but by finding these small-timers, I'm down at about USD180/month. Also, they don't require me to have a rack mounted computer - nice since they tend to be quite a bit more pricey.
Also, just for some perspective, I haven't used Linux, and my other UNIX experience is while I was working at Sun with Solaris which was definately more unstable (restart required about once every two weeks). I have a friend who runs OpenBSD and has a similar stability record to my FreeBSD box. I have another friend with lots of (unasked-for) NT experience who is actually quite happy with its stability - though I don't know the numbers.
Hope this little summary helps if you go the DIY path.
Actually, for what its worth, the reason I remain in Canada is because I pay higher taxes there than I would in the United States...
WHAT!!!?
Yup. That's my way of contributing. I am by far in the highest tax bracket in Canada which means I pay more than 50% of my income into taxes. Taxes which support universal health care, and relatively inexpensive, very high quality education.
Yes. Fortunately I am easy to ignore...
Interestingly enough nationalism is one of my biggest problems with current systems. Have you read Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson? Very good historical and philosophical analysis of the origin and evolution of the concept of nationalism.
As it happens, I am slightly on the side of activist, although in a very moderate manner. I belong to the Bahai Community which has as one of its fundamental tenets the unity of humanity. It is crucial to recognize the global scope of most of our current problems (economic, social, environmental), and that these problems can only be solved after people have recognized their fundamental unity.
Technically, there is a way out of the dilemma presented by partisan politics: vote for an individual. Interview the candidates, learn about their character, and in particular their record of service to humanity. Vote on that basis and hopefully it will be sufficient. Realistically, I'm pretty doubtful about any politician in today's culture...
By the way, I am Canadian. Not that it matters as far as politics is concerned...
Hmm. You have some good points. Certainly, not voting is often interpreted as tacit acceptance of the status quo. But there really is a deeper problem: what if you fundamentally disagree with the system.
For example, I personally disagree with partisan politics. There is no party, and there never will be one, that represents my views simply by virtue of its existance. I don't believe in one-party politics, I believe that zero party politics is the solution. So what am I to do? My voting is tantamount to acceptance of party politics.
Another example is that I believe that I should be able to vote for literally anyone. This is because I believe that the system of nominations and campaigning is inherently subject to corruption. If I vote, I cannot truly vote for the people I believe should be responsible for the governance of the nation. This is to me a severe restriction on my freedom. Again, voting (either for someone who is on the ballot, or abstaining or spoiling my ballot) is tantamount to supporting the system of nominations and campaigning. There is no way for me to register my specific complaints.
You mention three options: leaving the country, revolution, or starting a new party. For me, leaving the country is no solution. For one thing (and this may be an issue of my own ignorance) there is no country that has a political system which conforms to my ideals. For another thing, there are other good things about where I live which amount to me accepting a tradeoff: I have no political voice, but I have access to education and healthcare that is nearly unparalleled in the world.
The option of starting a revolution turns out not to be necessary. In fact, I belong to an international organization which has implemented a system very similar to what I have described which works effectively to govern millions of people from every country in the world. Since I am in it for the long haul, I'm not too worried about the current systems, except insofar as they are contributing to strife and dissention for human beings everywhere (and for that matter, animals and plants!).
For what its worth, I should mention that I am actually Canadian. Not that it makes any difference as far as politics is concerned...
Actually, there is one very important view that cannot be expressed by voting: "I disapprove of the political system"! If you vote, you are implicitly saying "I agree with the political system as it stands - it is good enough."
First of all, I think that there are two major problems with most state/regional, and national political systems:
Partisan Politics. The default mode of most political systems is that an individual who wishes to participate in governance must align with a political party. Political parties are designed with the idea of opposition which is supposed to be part of a system of checks and balances. In reality, the opposition is usually only done for the sake of appearances, is not applied rationally, and actually hinders most honest efforts at governance. What is the alternative? Certainly not single-party politics! Rather, no-party politics: every politician runs independently and on their own merits. Which leads to...
The system of nominations, and campaigning. This system severely limits the ability of individuals to participate in governance on the basis of merit. If I am able to vote for any individual I choose, even myself, I have the proper degree of freedom. Every adult in "good standing" should be eligible, and obligated to server their electorate if chosen. And, campaigning should be forbiddens as it leads to many of the worst aspects and abuses: only those with money (or serious partisan backing) can hope to "win".
Another major problem is people's attitude towards governance as the holding of power. Rather, governance is most effective when it is considered service. And the more broad that perspective of service is, the better! Demonstrated service to humanity should be the most significant factor in our decisions about who must govern.
In this time when globalization (the good kind - and yes there is such a thing - Linux is only possible because of it) is a fact of life, when environmental and economic and social problems influence every human being on the planet, we are just being perverse if we think that we can afford to vote on any other basis than demonstrated service to humanity.
My two cents.
We don't live in igloos scraping lichen off the rocks for sustenance during the year-long permanent blizzard, worried about the polar bears and crevices in the iceburg we are living on.
Yes, actually, when I first started, I had the same problem (remember: took me a few months to get into it). There were some very specific things that really helped:
1. Doing errands: if I planned reasonably well, I could get out of the house one or two times a day to do quick errands.
2. Didn't watch TV! TV (and videos, and games) seemed to really exacerbate the cooped-up feeling. Cutting them out almost completely made my head and body feel a lot better.
3. Road trips: almost every weekend I would make sure to get totally away from the house. Often I would go a few hours drive away (eg. to family, friends etc.) This made a huge difference. Oh. And no cellphone or pager or contact number or email or address or relative to contact in an emergency:)
One other factor: I have a wife and kid and so when I wasn't working, I would often be spending time with them. If you are single I can see that adding another level of difficulty to working from home.
Nevertheless, I really think that in the majority of cases, working from home is much more healthy!
Good luck on your job search.
I have had the good fortune of working from home as a 100% telecommuter. I worked from my home in Canada for a company in California for a full year doing software development.
IT ROCKED!!! I worked super-efficiently and had lots of time for family and recreation!
Now, it didn't get like that without any effort. In fact, it took about three months before I really got the hang of it.
The reason I mention this, is because I felt this was absolutely the best possible work environment. If you can do this in your job, take the option! Work hard to make it work for your employer, because in the long run it is by far the most healthy work environment possible (assuming that your home environment is good).
Really, I am quite tired of the extremes that are presented. Unfortunately, western culture is based, in large part, on the idea of using conflict to resolve issues (party politics, debate, etc.). So, its the Luddites vs. the industrialists, the neo-Luddites vs. the technologists. Me, I'm a mp3-using, Java-coding, internet-community-participating, Luddite: I refuse to watch TV. I have decided that TV as a technology should be eliminated. I truly think it is harmful to individuals and society. Yet, computers melded with the Internet, I definately think there is a place for.
It is impossible to deny that technologies and media have social and cultural effects. Let me be clear what I mean by that: any new technology or media as it is implemented and used in a society, transforms that society. First an example: back in '96 I went to the Marshall Islands to do some volunteer work. Although I do not know the exact dates, they had recently begun to receive television from the USA. The cultural impact was obvious and undeniable. Children and teens completely changed the way they dressed and played (this was the minor, most visible impact). Violent youth gangs formed (this was the really bad, less visible impact). There were many other changes. There is nothing in their previous culture which suggested that these people had a shred of violence in them. But within a few short years of media contact their culture radically changed.
I strongly encourage people to take the debate away from technology-freedom vs. non-technology-morals. This debate is a straw man. Every technology is different enough that it must be evaluated on its own, appart from an irrelevant larger debate which can't be resolved. The middle ground, the rational discussion that we need, can only be done by recognizing that every technology has a host of effects, and that we must try to see those effect clearly in order to make a rational choice about the adoption of the technology.
I am writing a paper about this topic. It is still in progress so if you take a peek, please excuse any stupid phrasings or unsupported claims... As well, I would like to point people to some books by Jerry Mander: Four Arguments for the Elmination of Television and In the Absence of the Sacred and a book by Marshall McLuhan: Understanding Media. These books try to be fairly balanced. Jerry Mander does get a little wierd at times, but on the balance has good arguements for his points.
Hmm. Actually, the scary part is that there are companies working on stuff like this. Using weird demographic and tracking stuff. I happen to have worked for one of them. It's not actually as hard as it might seem to get a lot of really good info just from web logs. And add a few other technological pieces and suddenly ZeroKnowledge looks like a really nice place to hide.
I have also heard that these conditions can also be linked to allergens. Unfortunately, I don't have any references to point at, but I remember both sugar and milk as potential candidates. I know that with my son, sugar has an instantaneous negative effect on him which I imagine is quite similar to the symptoms of ADD and ADHD: sudden boost in energy, very low tolerance for things he is not interested in, and extremely quick temper.
Hmmm. I once spent three hours riding with a woman who had a child diagnosed with ADHD (H is for Hyperactivity - this is more extreme than ADD). She and her child tried many things but she really wanted to avoid drugs. Eventually, she did what should be obvious to any parent who loves their children and actually spends time trying to help them be real human beings (instead of vidiots): she started to look at his attention deficit and his hyperactivity as a _good_ thing. She just basically called them something different: intense curiosity and enormous energy. She and her child talked a lot about things and eventually they came up with a really simple solution for the times when his "disability" became difficult for others around him: he would run around the block as many times as it took to burn off some of that energy. Aparently this worked marvels. His school work improved etc. etc. <miracle story continues...>.
So what's the point? Well, as other posters are sure to mention this seems to me to be another case of parents and society prefering technological solutions to solutions based on responsibility. I have recently been reading a book called How To Multiply Your Baby's Intelligence which basically talks about how the nature vs. nurture issue is a moot point until we actually figure out how to take full advantage of the nuture side of the equation. The book goes on to describe so-called miraculous accomplishments by brain injured children as well as normal children such as: reading, high speed math, learning multiple languages, etc. all before the age of 3!!! I have used some of the techniques with my own son who is now 26 months old. He was able to read about 40 words at age 14 months. We (my wife and I) dropped the ball and didn't continue with his learning up till now. Hopefully we are not to late.
Ever since I was a child, I have always felt that adults seriously underestimate the abilities of children. I am concerned that our diagnoses such as ADD and ADHD are really a reflection of our impatience and intollerance of children's natural abilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Katz has brought up some good points, but I think he left unsaid one of the most important: specific technologies are not neutral in their effects on society, the environment, and the economy. Often misunderstood, Marshall McLuhan (a Canadian BTW), said "the medium is the message". This has been continually misunderstood as "the medium affects the message". But in fact, any medium (read technology) fundamentally has a message which is its effects on society, the environment and the economy. As a simple example, television is not possible without some pretty serious infrastructure: studios, transmission systems and receivers. This infrastructure costs a huge amount of money to create and maintain so television can never be used effectively by people or groups without money. Not only that, but despite a bit of unpopularity of the concept of globalism, technologies now have an immediate global effect (Linux would not be as far as it is today without globalism). Ignoring this effect is arrogance of the most dispicable kind, and is common among corporations (the dark underbelly of globalism). I have been writing an essay on this topic of a moral and social framework for analyzing technologies. It is still very much in progress, and there are parts that are sounding a bit old, but for what its worth, here it is.
Well, the logical conclusion of the "Information wants to be Free" philosophy held my many OS advocates, is that copyright (and patents and trademarks) is "unnatural". I phrase it that way for a reason: in the past, many groups have claimed that some behavior, philosophy etc. is unnatural in order to attack it. The "unnatural" accusation, explicit or implicit, is a very difficult one to deal with because humans seem to have a psychological pre-disposition to believe that natural=good. We see these attacks implicit in the strategy manifested in the GPL. But that doesn't mean it isn't incorrect. One problem that I see so often is that "unnatural" is often conflated with "absolute moral standard" which is further conflated with "fundamentalism" and then is treated as a Very Bad Thing. But the fact is, that the term "unnatural" actually has a fairly useful meaning. So in the case where copyright is attacted (implicitly) as unnatural, we have to be careful that we do not ignore the possibility that copyright may actually be unnatural! As many people have said both here on Slashdot and elsewhere, information is not "naturally" a resource that suffers from economies of supply/scarcity. Since there is theoretically an infinite supply of information, the cost should be zero. As more and more types of information become detached from their physical media, we will see businesses and government struggle to understand what to do, since _all_ relevent policies are based on economics of supply and demand. I would like to make a brief aside and point out that there are quite a number of types of information that are not yet detached from their physical media: painting, sculpture, smells, emotions, and personal memories all come to mind. These types of information obviously have to some degree or another become digitized and freed. However, especially those types of information that are coupled very tightly to wetware, will likely take a very long time to become free, if they ever do. Now I will take a big leap, and point out that as the recognition of the freedom of information spreads, there will be some other things happen as well. Firstly, the fundamental unity of humanity will become harder and harder to ignore. Once this unity is recognized, new tools (systems of business, government, discovery, communication) will need to be developed. I personally think this will be an incredibly radical change - and that it isn't too far away. The recognition of the unity of humanity is a fundamental prerequisit to any lasting peace, and to any lasting solutions to our many social, economic and environmental problems. Well, that was quite a mouthful :-O
I haven't noticed anyone bring this up yet: If you are doing a work-for-hire, can you legally use GPL source code? The GPL being a viral license may prevent that, particularly if the new work will be published. The work of any sort of serious thesis (Masters or PhD) is usually published.
In order for this to work, you would have to make campaigning illegal, and in a country like the USA, that would be pretty much impossible due to freedom of speech concerns. Personally, I think this would be a great system. It works very well in the Baha'i Community.
Well, I just finished reading the whole votescam site. As you might imagine, it is very interesting. I won't buy the book though. For whatever reason (probably hippy parents combined with strong Baha'i upbringing), I have always been incredibly cynical about our political systems. On their surface they are obviously disfunctional and it does not suprise me one bit to hear evidence that elections are completely rigged. One thing that really bothers me about all of this stuff is the lack of solutions. People are apathetic, they are focused on material gain, and they no longer trust even the _idea_ of Institutions of government. Our culture is evolving/designed to only increase these things. So. What are the solutions? Well, I say this at risk of karma: there is only one solution and it is spiritual. People need to change - to become better. If we are apathetic, we need to become heroic. If we are materialistic, we need to become detached. If we are cynical, we need to become idealistic. How can we become these things? Only by inspiration and by hope. And inspiration and hope can only be had by faith. And I'm not talking about some stupid blind faith. We need to see that Humanity is One. The world is our shared environment, we have so much to offer each other in diversity of thought, in diversity of culture, in diversity of religion and beliefs. And we should forget about the ridiculous cultural relativism we have been fed by the media so that we can actually learn from each other. We need to accept that depravity is the easy route for each and every one of us, but nobility is worth the struggle. Every time we make a mistake, we need to go beyond it: learn from it, forgive ourselves, share our new wisdom, and try not to make the same mistake again. So how does this relate to voting? We have to realize that the current system of government is irrelevent, and that power really has been taken from the hands of the rulers. We as individuals do have the power to change things, locally and globally, but we need to stop relying on failable, often corrupt people to lead us. And this is the real hard part for most of us, we need to believe in a higher power. We need to believe that the perfections we see in the physical universe can be had in the human universe. We need to hear the call that is sounding in our souls to unify the world. How can we possibly expect to solve our problems until we are united in our diversity. Peace is impossible unless and until our unity is firmly established - to paraphrase from the Baha'i writings. So that means: don't worry about voting. Do it, vote for the person who has served humanity best, but don't worry about it. Instead, worry about your neighbor, worry about your enemy, worry about your boss, worry about your children, worry about the stranger you pass on the street. And then worry about the world. Find what talents you have, perfect them, and use them urgently to solve humanity's problems. That is Faith, and that is Spirituality, and that is what is going to work.
that the gaining popularity of Linux, the resurgence of Apple and its impending roll-out of BSD/Mach based OS X, are causing a significant amount of upset in the operating system market. So what? Well, as a comp-sci degree holder, I know that there are a heck of a lot of "Really Good Ideas" out there that have to do with operating systems. Linux, the BSD's, and a bunch of research os's are all playing with these things. That makes me hopeful that at some point fairly soon, perhaps in a couple of years, there will be enough fragmentation of the OS markets that it will be possible for a really new, really good OS paradigm to sneak up and win. Now, I don't mean that Linux is bad or any other imagined slight. Linux is pretty darn good, but it doesn't really operate on a new technological paradigm. Most of its popularity is based on its unique development paradigm (Free/Open Source/Community software). As it transitions to popularity based on familiarity and demonstrated capability, it will become more difficult to change. I have to say that I don't really know much about OS theory - so I might be full of it, but these are just random musings so... TIWAGOS (Take It With A Grain Of Salt).
what Linux distribution they would be using?
Hmm. Actually, the real question is "what constitutes distribution?". Binaries? The recent DeCSS case is a really good example of the arbitrariness of setting a line of distribution. Think about this for a moment then read on... Basically, software is information, and the GPL is a means to a philosophical approach to information, namely to ensure that the information encoded in software remains free. This is why the GPL bothers with derived works. So then the question is what is a derived work. Certainly there is a legal definition, but that definition is not apropos to this discussion. Why? Precisely because the GPL is about a completely different philosophy. The GPL attempts to subvert current legal theory and practice to create a new pholosophical framework for the freedom of information. So, just what is the relationship between information and software? Well, to hear the DeCSS "team's" views on it, software is a form of expression. I believe this to be true. This is also fairly similar to the philosophy implied in the GPL. In fact, software is information at two levels: the symbols in which software is expressed, and the process/method which those symbols represent. I would assert that the real goal of the GPL is to protect that second aspect: the process/method. I don't know this for certain, but the fact that derived works are protected and the fact that porting and linking are aspects discussed by the FSF Licenses, are good hints. This of course implies that the symbols aspect should also be protected as it is the original encoding of the process. So now lets use some hypothetical examples to illustrate where those foundational comments lead. All examles are based on the following scenario: Software "A" is GPL'd. I download an executable, run it a few times, and decide that I would like to use this functionality in Software "B" that I am writing. 1. I download "A"'s source, which happens to be written in C, and statically link it to "B". I then go out and share "B" with my friends neglecting to mention that source is available. VIOLATION! 2. Like 1., but link as a shared lib, and distribute "B" without "A", and without source. VIOLATION! 3. Write and distribute software "C" which automajically downloads "A", downloads "B"'s source, modifies "B"'s source for optimizations, builds "B" and runs "B". "C" is not distributed with source nor under the GPL. VIOLATION? 4. "A" is a reverse engineered version of X which has known public API's. Write and distribute software "C" which parses natural language queries in the domain of "X" and searches for software executables which implement "X"'s apis, downloads those executables, transforms the query into calls to the "X" apis, and then executes those calls on "A". "C" is not GPL'd. VIOLATION? 5. Write and distribute software "C" which parses natural language queries and searches for software executables to satisfy those queries. One query finds and installs "A" and "B" and then launches them. "C" is not GPL'd. VIOLATION? It uses "A", it distributes "A". 6. Write and distribute a document "C" with instructions on how to write "B", how to obtain "A", with no source, and not GPL'd. VIOLATION? Are instructions considered code? Is language and the brain considered sufficient as an executable? Read "Le Ton Beau De Marot", "Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies" and "Godel Escher and Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter to discover the real depth to this problem: what constitutes "linking", "distribution", "derived works" and "use".
Now very likely this article was written with Journalistic License. But one way or the other, the points about the GPL and Competition are real concerns for _me_ as a professional and hobby developer.
About boundaries, consider this scenario from a legal perspective (this is for you GPL gurus out there - it was part of an email conversation between myself, a developer who released some GPL'd software, and a legal person at the FSF):
> My other example, about a professor using a tool, comes at this question
> from the other side: professor produces some reports using X software
> which is GPL'd. Obviously she has access to the source by virtue of its
> license, but those reports need not be GPL'd - they aren't software.
> One day she realizes that she is doing the same thing over and over again
> and writes a little script to help automate the process, and do some
> additional post-processing. Then she decides to write an application (in
> the same programming language that X was written with) which puts a nicer
> front end on the whole thing (GUI vs. shell). Then she finds out that
> many other professors would like copies of her reports (but they don't
> want to do the work of using the software - or perhaps they don't have
> access to the source data) so she starts a web distribution of those
> reports. Then, and this is probably the "fatal" step, she realizes that
> both X and her application would be better off if part of her application
> was re-factored into X (say its a web-scalability issue). Finally, she
> just goes willy-nilly making changes in both X and her application (but X
> always compiles without any dependencies on the app). And then she does a
> programmer-bad and makes X' dependent on the app. Where is the line at
> which her app must be GPL'd? Note, she never distributes her app in any
> form, only the reports.
If the her modified application, X', is never distributed to anyone, then
the GPL (version 2) does not come into play, and she is not bound to do
anything in particular because of that license in this case.
The GPL (version 3) may try to address this scenario.
With JSP's performance measurement may be a bit more of an art than with the others. Since the JSP container (eg Tomcat) is often configured to compile any .jsp that has changed, it may have a serious performance hit attributed to it. However, that _feature_ is meant for development and would be turned of in deployment: all the .jsp files are pre-compiled.
As well, the JVM used makes quite a large performance difference. The Win32 JVM with Hotspot, seriously outperforms some of the other JVM's (orders of magnitude difference). I don't really know about the Linux JVM's, but I have heard that they underperform relative to Sun's Win32 JVM.
Basically, the performance aspect of the article is completely bogus: utilizing two completely different OS platforms is just the start of the problems!
I used to do a bit of WebObjects development back in the OpenStep days. WebObjects had three great things going for it: great tools, fantastic database connectivity middleware, and really solid web scripting and tag extentions. Recently, I have been doing Java 2 Enterprise Edition development. At my day job, I am working in a high availability application server environment, and in my night job, I am prototyping a educational web system. In that second role I am using JSP's. (Dislaimer: I love Java compared to C++ but hate it compared to Objective-C.) As the article points out, the tool support is missing, and I personally find JDBC to be a pretty weak database interface, but the actual JSP technology is really cool! I've been working on custom tag extentions and they really rock - solving the problem of separating display code (html) from business logic and model code (accomplished with the use of JavaBeans and EJB's). Personally, I think that the Java platform is the way to go in the long run. JSP's are a really good step to completing the platform and the Tomcat reference implementation is a great tool for prototyping.
Actually in Barrie: COIS (Central Ontario Internet Services). They are small and last I checked had only a T1. But hey! I'm basically alone in there right now! They also provide local dialup access which shares the bandwidth. They are a very friendly family shop.
FWIW, I've had a small FreeBSD 4 box running for 150 days with no downtime. I server several domains using sendmail and apache. I have all the bad services turned off and I use ssh to get to the box - including getting and sending email. The box is a Pentium 233 w/ 32 MB Ram and an 8gig hd. Just so noone thinks I don't push the box, I've done _many_ installs and de-installs from the ports collection, I've got PostgreSQL running as well as Tomcat. I do java development on it from remote, and since I'm a relative novice for sysadmining, I do some pretty darn stupid things sometimes. The box is rock solid. Just recently I had a runaway process consuming 100% cpu and several megs of process memory - and I didn't notice for over three weeks! Kill -9 PID got rid of it and the system is still going fabulously. The system is located with a really small colo facility (how small? I was their first client about 7 months ago!), it has a UPS and it hasn't been down or disconnected since I flipped the switch on it. Oh. BTW, it's in Ontario, in Canada, and I've been in California for the last five months. I haven't even gone in to stroke the darn thing! Its fun having my very own little server :0)
Just to remain on-topic, I'll through in a few more tidbits about the DIY option that I've learned. Shop around for colo for price if it concerns you. I was getting quotes in the USD500/month range, but by finding these small-timers, I'm down at about USD180/month. Also, they don't require me to have a rack mounted computer - nice since they tend to be quite a bit more pricey.
Also, just for some perspective, I haven't used Linux, and my other UNIX experience is while I was working at Sun with Solaris which was definately more unstable (restart required about once every two weeks). I have a friend who runs OpenBSD and has a similar stability record to my FreeBSD box. I have another friend with lots of (unasked-for) NT experience who is actually quite happy with its stability - though I don't know the numbers.
Hope this little summary helps if you go the DIY path.
Actually, for what its worth, the reason I remain in Canada is because I pay higher taxes there than I would in the United States... WHAT!!!? Yup. That's my way of contributing. I am by far in the highest tax bracket in Canada which means I pay more than 50% of my income into taxes. Taxes which support universal health care, and relatively inexpensive, very high quality education. Yes. Fortunately I am easy to ignore...
Interestingly enough nationalism is one of my biggest problems with current systems. Have you read Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson? Very good historical and philosophical analysis of the origin and evolution of the concept of nationalism. As it happens, I am slightly on the side of activist, although in a very moderate manner. I belong to the Bahai Community which has as one of its fundamental tenets the unity of humanity. It is crucial to recognize the global scope of most of our current problems (economic, social, environmental), and that these problems can only be solved after people have recognized their fundamental unity. Technically, there is a way out of the dilemma presented by partisan politics: vote for an individual. Interview the candidates, learn about their character, and in particular their record of service to humanity. Vote on that basis and hopefully it will be sufficient. Realistically, I'm pretty doubtful about any politician in today's culture... By the way, I am Canadian. Not that it matters as far as politics is concerned...
Hmm. You have some good points. Certainly, not voting is often interpreted as tacit acceptance of the status quo. But there really is a deeper problem: what if you fundamentally disagree with the system. For example, I personally disagree with partisan politics. There is no party, and there never will be one, that represents my views simply by virtue of its existance. I don't believe in one-party politics, I believe that zero party politics is the solution. So what am I to do? My voting is tantamount to acceptance of party politics. Another example is that I believe that I should be able to vote for literally anyone. This is because I believe that the system of nominations and campaigning is inherently subject to corruption. If I vote, I cannot truly vote for the people I believe should be responsible for the governance of the nation. This is to me a severe restriction on my freedom. Again, voting (either for someone who is on the ballot, or abstaining or spoiling my ballot) is tantamount to supporting the system of nominations and campaigning. There is no way for me to register my specific complaints. You mention three options: leaving the country, revolution, or starting a new party. For me, leaving the country is no solution. For one thing (and this may be an issue of my own ignorance) there is no country that has a political system which conforms to my ideals. For another thing, there are other good things about where I live which amount to me accepting a tradeoff: I have no political voice, but I have access to education and healthcare that is nearly unparalleled in the world. The option of starting a revolution turns out not to be necessary. In fact, I belong to an international organization which has implemented a system very similar to what I have described which works effectively to govern millions of people from every country in the world. Since I am in it for the long haul, I'm not too worried about the current systems, except insofar as they are contributing to strife and dissention for human beings everywhere (and for that matter, animals and plants!). For what its worth, I should mention that I am actually Canadian. Not that it makes any difference as far as politics is concerned...
Actually, there is one very important view that cannot be expressed by voting: "I disapprove of the political system"! If you vote, you are implicitly saying "I agree with the political system as it stands - it is good enough."
- Partisan Politics. The default mode of most political systems is that an individual who wishes to participate in governance must align with a political party. Political parties are designed with the idea of opposition which is supposed to be part of a system of checks and balances. In reality, the opposition is usually only done for the sake of appearances, is not applied rationally, and actually hinders most honest efforts at governance. What is the alternative? Certainly not single-party politics! Rather, no-party politics: every politician runs independently and on their own merits. Which leads to...
- The system of nominations, and campaigning. This system severely limits the ability of individuals to participate in governance on the basis of merit. If I am able to vote for any individual I choose, even myself, I have the proper degree of freedom. Every adult in "good standing" should be eligible, and obligated to server their electorate if chosen. And, campaigning should be forbiddens as it leads to many of the worst aspects and abuses: only those with money (or serious partisan backing) can hope to "win".
Another major problem is people's attitude towards governance as the holding of power. Rather, governance is most effective when it is considered service. And the more broad that perspective of service is, the better! Demonstrated service to humanity should be the most significant factor in our decisions about who must govern. In this time when globalization (the good kind - and yes there is such a thing - Linux is only possible because of it) is a fact of life, when environmental and economic and social problems influence every human being on the planet, we are just being perverse if we think that we can afford to vote on any other basis than demonstrated service to humanity. My two cents.Nope. We've got beavers, eh?
Yes, actually, when I first started, I had the same problem (remember: took me a few months to get into it). There were some very specific things that really helped: 1. Doing errands: if I planned reasonably well, I could get out of the house one or two times a day to do quick errands. 2. Didn't watch TV! TV (and videos, and games) seemed to really exacerbate the cooped-up feeling. Cutting them out almost completely made my head and body feel a lot better. 3. Road trips: almost every weekend I would make sure to get totally away from the house. Often I would go a few hours drive away (eg. to family, friends etc.) This made a huge difference. Oh. And no cellphone or pager or contact number or email or address or relative to contact in an emergency :)
One other factor: I have a wife and kid and so when I wasn't working, I would often be spending time with them. If you are single I can see that adding another level of difficulty to working from home.
Nevertheless, I really think that in the majority of cases, working from home is much more healthy!
Good luck on your job search.
I have had the good fortune of working from home as a 100% telecommuter. I worked from my home in Canada for a company in California for a full year doing software development.
IT ROCKED!!! I worked super-efficiently and had lots of time for family and recreation!
Now, it didn't get like that without any effort. In fact, it took about three months before I really got the hang of it.
The reason I mention this, is because I felt this was absolutely the best possible work environment. If you can do this in your job, take the option! Work hard to make it work for your employer, because in the long run it is by far the most healthy work environment possible (assuming that your home environment is good).
It is impossible to deny that technologies and media have social and cultural effects. Let me be clear what I mean by that: any new technology or media as it is implemented and used in a society, transforms that society. First an example: back in '96 I went to the Marshall Islands to do some volunteer work. Although I do not know the exact dates, they had recently begun to receive television from the USA. The cultural impact was obvious and undeniable. Children and teens completely changed the way they dressed and played (this was the minor, most visible impact). Violent youth gangs formed (this was the really bad, less visible impact). There were many other changes. There is nothing in their previous culture which suggested that these people had a shred of violence in them. But within a few short years of media contact their culture radically changed.
I strongly encourage people to take the debate away from technology-freedom vs. non-technology-morals. This debate is a straw man. Every technology is different enough that it must be evaluated on its own, appart from an irrelevant larger debate which can't be resolved. The middle ground, the rational discussion that we need, can only be done by recognizing that every technology has a host of effects, and that we must try to see those effect clearly in order to make a rational choice about the adoption of the technology.
I am writing a paper about this topic. It is still in progress so if you take a peek, please excuse any stupid phrasings or unsupported claims... As well, I would like to point people to some books by Jerry Mander: Four Arguments for the Elmination of Television and In the Absence of the Sacred and a book by Marshall McLuhan: Understanding Media. These books try to be fairly balanced. Jerry Mander does get a little wierd at times, but on the balance has good arguements for his points.
Hmm. Actually, the scary part is that there are companies working on stuff like this. Using weird demographic and tracking stuff. I happen to have worked for one of them. It's not actually as hard as it might seem to get a lot of really good info just from web logs. And add a few other technological pieces and suddenly ZeroKnowledge looks like a really nice place to hide.
I have also heard that these conditions can also be linked to allergens. Unfortunately, I don't have any references to point at, but I remember both sugar and milk as potential candidates. I know that with my son, sugar has an instantaneous negative effect on him which I imagine is quite similar to the symptoms of ADD and ADHD: sudden boost in energy, very low tolerance for things he is not interested in, and extremely quick temper.
Hmmm. I once spent three hours riding with a woman who had a child diagnosed with ADHD (H is for Hyperactivity - this is more extreme than ADD). She and her child tried many things but she really wanted to avoid drugs. Eventually, she did what should be obvious to any parent who loves their children and actually spends time trying to help them be real human beings (instead of vidiots): she started to look at his attention deficit and his hyperactivity as a _good_ thing. She just basically called them something different: intense curiosity and enormous energy. She and her child talked a lot about things and eventually they came up with a really simple solution for the times when his "disability" became difficult for others around him: he would run around the block as many times as it took to burn off some of that energy. Aparently this worked marvels. His school work improved etc. etc. <miracle story continues...>.
So what's the point? Well, as other posters are sure to mention this seems to me to be another case of parents and society prefering technological solutions to solutions based on responsibility. I have recently been reading a book called How To Multiply Your Baby's Intelligence which basically talks about how the nature vs. nurture issue is a moot point until we actually figure out how to take full advantage of the nuture side of the equation. The book goes on to describe so-called miraculous accomplishments by brain injured children as well as normal children such as: reading, high speed math, learning multiple languages, etc. all before the age of 3!!! I have used some of the techniques with my own son who is now 26 months old. He was able to read about 40 words at age 14 months. We (my wife and I) dropped the ball and didn't continue with his learning up till now. Hopefully we are not to late.
Ever since I was a child, I have always felt that adults seriously underestimate the abilities of children. I am concerned that our diagnoses such as ADD and ADHD are really a reflection of our impatience and intollerance of children's natural abilities.