The Inner Party were watched, but they had a limited amount of freedom (i.e, they were allowed to turn off their telescreens for limited amounts of time).
The Outer Party (of which Winston was a member) were watched continuously.
The Poletarians, as you say, could do pretty much what they wanted to.
Certainly. But if you're truly the author, the copyright holder, you can license a new version of the code any time you want. Several companies actually do this. The original code maintains its license; again, no different from BSD. Your new version, which may have a few modifications, doesn't need to. If you're not the copyright holder, you don't have a legal right to complain.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think where we diverge in opinion has to do with what we think about changes to the said code by third parties being made propreitry. I don't think that it's neccessarily a bad thing, or that the original author of a work should be denied this option, or any 3rd party that wants to close the code or incorporate it into propreitry works, should be denied this option, either. Of course, if the author would prefer the changes being kept open and not being made propreitry, and also has no intention of ever making a program with the said changes by third parties propreitry, the GPL would be perfect, and it certainly has its place amoung people who hold these views on development.
If code protection (ie, ensuring any changes made to a GPL'd peice of code aren't made propreitry) is the only concern, the GPL is obviously the ideal choice. But whether or not that makes for the most progress in the software development field is another story. I don't believe that an OSS (GNU GPL-style) only software would will make for the most progress in the software development field, I believe that a combination of many licenses, and a combination of software including propreitry and open source, will allow software to progress faster and make for more refined software in the long run.
Maybe some people like the GPL because, say, they understand it, unlike you?
On the contrary. I understand it very well. And I'm not trying to put down the GPL. It's not a bad license per se, but it only allows certain kinds of freedom. Freedom should mean freedom for everyone, not only end-users and GPL proponents.
Any code he wrote himself and which was his own code he can re-release under any licence he wants, even if he already released it GPL
True, but that would also hold true for BSD'd code - and the added advantage of BSD'd code is that you are not prevented from taking changes to that code and using them in whatever way you want, including redistribution in binary form without the source code. Let's take an example of this and think it through: Project X is released under the GPL. Many changes are made in Project X 2.0. Suddenly the interest in Project X wanes, and only the original author wants to continue making changes. Additionally, Project X is used by a small clique of users. The author wants to start charging for changes in Project X 3.0, but under the GPL, there is no way to do this since providing access to the source code is mandatory (ie, he CAN charge for it, but most people would just laugh it off and download the source code without paying). If Project X had been released under the BSD license, people could still download the source code for Project X 1.x - 2.x, but the author would not be prevented from taking all of the changes made to Project X 1.x and 2.x and incorporating them into Project X 3.0, and charging for it, in binary form. Whether the users decided it was worth buying would depend on how good the changes he made to the product were. The users would still have the option of getting the source code or binary versions of Project X 1.x or 2.x, and other developers would still be able to pick up versions of 2.x or 1.x and continue open source development on those. All in all, the BSD license is more free, GNU zealot rhetoric aside.
It's disinformation to suggest that if somebody releases their own code as GPL, they can't later release it as something else. It's poor thinking to then take that incorrect assertion and use it as a basis for attacking the GPL.
I'm not attacking the GPL, I'm pointing out facts about the GPL, and nothing I have said about it is incorrect. Whether or not the GNU philosophy about freedom and the GPL's terms are good or bad is subjective. The ZPL, MIT, BSD and many other licenses I would consider more free. (My opinion only, feel free to disagree:) ).
That way, other people could still get the code, but at least he could re-incorporate all of the changes to date into a new propreitry system, and start charging for it. Whether people would buy it or not is a different story, but if he made changes people really wanted and they weren't in the free BSD-licensed version, he would at least have a shot of making money from it without depending entirely on donations. (AND there would still be a free version). Of course, this is Slashdot. People here are convinced the GPL is better for some reason.
Here in South Africa, broadband has only been out since about March 2002, and it's already had way more than a 2% takeup, despite being relatively expensive (ZAR700 per month, or US$80 per month, for a 512K ADSL line) compared to other broadband-utilizing countries.
Considering the fact that Australia is a more advanced country than South Africa, it seems to me that, judging by the Australian broadband fiasco, and the various Internet censorship fiascos that raged in Australia a while ago, Australia's current administration is trying to impede technological progress in Australia.
I don't know how they do it but I've been to many poor countries where lots of people seemed to be using cell phones. Maybe it's because the GSM market is very competitive that the services can be so cheap.
This is either quite perceptive of you, or the story author doesn't know what cellular networks in poor countries (including many countries in Africa, such as South Africa, where I live), are like. A pay-as-you-go package from Vodacom, Cell-C or MTN will cost you very little, basically, a year of incoming phone calls will cost you R120 ($12), that is unlimited incoming calls, for a year. A R110 package ($11) will give you 110 minutes of outgoing airtime, plus an additional month of incoming calls.
It's not uncommon to see even some of the poorest of people in South Africa having cellular phones. I can't really understand the US stance on cellular phones and wireless technologies, here, at least, they are a great alternative to land-lines. I've seen rural villages and townships being connected to the outside world via cellular phones and wireless radio links, where it would otherwise be very difficult to install land-lines and have conventional internet access. I realize that the USA is a far richer country than South Africa and thus doesn't need measures like this for basic communication, but not having easier access, or in some cases even the option of GSM is a clear case of US corporations screwing the general population, as usual.
To comment on just a few of your points - elves aren't magic as in 'look, I can do magical tricks' - they don't cast spells; neither do the wizards, for that matter. They have great spiritual power which they can use to cause things with.
Agreed. I never suggested that what the elves did were parlour tricks or anything of the sort. Which is why I used the word "magic" in quotation marks. Most manifestations of the Elves' power was in their crafting of items of power, like the rings, elven cloaks, etc. All I was pointing out to the parent poster is that it's ridiculous to assume that Arwen wouldn't have the ability to use this power, especially considering her heritage, which doesn't only include powerful Elves, but also a Maia.
To smack the poster a couple of levels up with a big clue stick, Elrond != Ainur.
Elrond is descended from an Ainur - Melian. Melian was indeed an Ainur, a Maia. Elrond and Elros' mother, Elwing, is a descendent of Melian and Thingol (through their daughter Luthien, Luthien's son Dior, and finally Dior's daughter Elwing), therefore, Elrond does have Ainur ancestry. I don't remember saying that Elrond was himself an Ainur, but that he has Ainur ancestry, and therefore so does his daughter, Arwen, is true. Sorry if there was any confusion.
I must advise you not to have anything to do with this adulteration. If you haven't read the book then you'll get much more out of that than out of the film. If you have read the book then after seeing the Two Towers you should know better.
I've read the novel and watched both movies, and while I agree with you that the novel offers more than the movies from a general perspective, both offer great entertainment. Your attitude towards the movies seems unneccessarily hostile.
The Lord of the Rings is a great piece of work and the fact is that if the One Ring ever went to Gondor then Sauron would've noticed it, GAME OVER
Not neccessarily. If you recall the original story, the closer to Mordor the ring got, the more its power increased. Surely from that point of view, taking it to Mordor, which is basically what they did, would be worse? (And as we all know, that is the basis of the quest - they are going to take the ring to Mordor). My point is, just because the movie had a detour to Osgiliath, I fail to see what you're getting your knickers in a knot about. Yes, it does change the original story's details, but it isn't as terrible as you're making it out to be.
The Lord of the Rings is a great piece of work and the fact is that if the One Ring ever went to Gondor then Sauron would've noticed it, GAME OVER. Journey to Mount Doom was only possible because Faramir unlike his hot headed brother had the good sense to allow Frodo onto Mordor unmolested. (I walked out of the last movie when this bit went wrong.) I have to say that other than this crucially important departure from plot the visualisation has generally been great; while I give Jackson some credit for a good rendition, the fact is that the book paints the original picture.
You walked out? Because a detail of the story was changed in leui of the movie adaptation? Ok, I'm not going to comment on that. Let's examine the rest of what you said, anyway.
If you read the original story closely, Faramir was NOT entirely pleasant while holding the Hobbits hostage. He was thinking about taking the ring to Gondor and interrogated the Hobbits pretty efficiently. Now, I agree that he was less hot-headed and far wiser than his brother, and during the section of the story where he and his men hold the hobbits hostage, he did have a change of heart and allow them to proceed with their quest unhindered. However, to say that they "weren't molested" is cutting it thin. They were blindfolded, tied up, and held against their will for a long time, interrogated, and not all that Faramir had to say to them was pleasant (in the beginning, it's hard to miss the threatening undertones of what he was saying, unless you are very unperceptive). Yes - the movie changed the details of this part of the story. Did it remain true to the spirit of the story, though? I believe so. Re-read this part of the story if you don't believe me. Crucially important departure from the story? Not really. The outcome is going to be exactly the same. I didn't like some parts of this departure either, but you're really making a mountain out of a molehill.
I'm not a purist, I accepted that the films weren't going to be a mirror image, couldn't understand the need to screw up the end of the Fellowship, even managed to swallow Glorfindel being replaced by an Arwen who could cast spells, but this distortion of the fabric is unacceptable
Sorry to tell you this, but Elves are "magical" in nature, and therefore can cast spells, and create magical items, to greater or lesser degree depending on the individuals themselves. Arwen is the daughter of Elrond, who has not only great Elf, but also Ainur heritage. To believe that she would be an Elf with little power is, well, shockingly ignorant on your part, to be brutally honest. If you don't understand this, read the Silmarillion, which deals with the nature of
Every time technology advances, the definition of what tasks can be said to require "true intelligence" changes. For example, before the advent of calculating machines, arithmetic was considered something that was uniquely human. Now, people dismiss computers' abilities to do lightning fast arithmetic, and, in fact, use it as a basis for putting down other abilities of computers/other high technology ("But that all comes down to number crunching. It's not true intelligence.").
Of course, you (and they) could be right about it. But it's interesting to note that chess is another prime example of this. Computers became extremely good at number crunching and large-scale analysis, and people shrugged it off. "A computer would never be able to compete with competent chess player, and could certainly never compete with a Grandmaster. Chess requires true human intelligence." 20 years later, a computer tied with the reigning Chess Champion. Now - Chess doesn't really require true intelligence, it all boils down to number crunching.
The problem is, where do we draw the line? As computers start adding more and more to their lists of abilities, especially in areas such as pattern recognition and expert systems, are we going to claim that those things don't require intelligence, and can also all be brought down to number crunching? To me, it seems like a form of denial. Instead of clinging to the old ways, why not recognize that computers might just be better at a lot of things that we previously thought were "human-only" areas of skill, and adapt accordingly.
Most companies who feel this way just aren't informed or have people working for them who are not informed enough to know what open source is all about. I hear a lot of arguments along the lines of: "Well, we are an [insert non-software speciality] company, we don't have any software skills, so we need to buy commercial products to get support. This is bunk.
Our company is about as far from a software company as a company could get, yet we use a lot of software to improve our productivity, and a lot of that software is open source, which improves the cost/performance ratio that we get from our software. For example, our firewall runs OpenBSD, most of our servers run FreeBSD, and we have Linux and FreeBSD workstations running OpenOffice, Mozilla and KDE. Now admittedly, we do still have Win32 machines, but if we took all of the machines that we are running Open Source software on and replaced the open source packages on them with commercial software, we would be looking at thousands of dollars in additional costs, and for what? Support? Which brings me to the point: Hire I.T staff. So your company does something other than software. So what? Nothing stops you from hiring one or two I.T guys to run the systems that you need and provide in-house support. Or - gasp - shock - horror - read up on the products in question and learn about them!
If these solutions still aren't acceptable to commercial-mindset companies using MS Office in particular, they could always buy StarOffice from Sun. It's basically the commercial version of OpenOffice (based on OpenOffice), that Sun distributes. With this distribution you're looking at spending money, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to buying MS licenses. Some companies won't realize this and will either use MS software out of habit (everyone else uses it so it must be the right thing to use type mentality) or because they honestly believe that MS is better value for money. I feel sorry for those companies, but at the end of the day, the choices that their management makes will stand. If a company's management hasn't the foresight to hire professionals to advise them on matters such as this, that is their problem entirely.
That our company has switched over to OpenOffice exclusively. It's been a year since we switched over from Microsoft Office, and there have only had a handful of documents that have had MS Office/Open Office incompatibilities.
Plus, OpenOffice is totally free. Retraining was a non-issue. We told the employees when we switched over that they were welcome to use MS Office, but they would have to buy the software themselves and keep the licenses handy. There were no complaints about switching over after that.
So we can sit back smugly as all of our branches are unaffected and read stories like this without blanching:) If you haven't checked out OpenOffice, I highly recommend that you do.
For God's sake, South African men are raping babies out there in hopes that having sex with virgins will cure them of AIDS.
(Don't believe me? Read this. http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,4729 6.jsp)
These are awful facts for sure, but if you think that South Africa is the only country where rape happens, you are very sheltered.
There are most certainly a whole host of other problems with living/working there, starting with the fact that just about any country on earth (except Canada and Australia) has a lot less respect for life and liberty than the US
Care to explain this? From what I've seen, Australia is the censorship capital of the world, and just as Dimitri Skylarov or Kevin Mitnick what they think of the USA's attitude towards human liberty.
That and nowadays they are issuing all kinds of travel advisories to Americans (you can thank the Second Gulf War for that).
I would not trust South Africa (or most other nations, for that matter) to provide stable roads
ROFTL. You've never been to South Africa, have you? I go to the USA, Canada, UK, and New Zealand on business semi-frequently. I would hold South Africa's roads up favourably or at least comparably with any of these.
access to food
Please tell me you're kidding? Or are you really that ignorant?
adequate and fair law enforcement (which is itself shitty enough in the States)
It's a problem in most countries. Admittedly, this includes South Africa. Just go to K5 and read up on the latest article on American justice.
accessible medical care, and so on
Medical care in South African private clinics (which anyone in South Africa with medical aid (medical insurance) has access to) is top notch, in fact, better than I've seen in the UK (had to go to hospital there once). I can't comment on the Canadian/American health services, since I've never experienced them firsthand. I've heard that medical care is pretty good in Canada thanks to Medicare, but reports vary wildly about US medical care.
And I'm not trolling, nor am I saying everyone else is in the Stone Age... I could envision moving to Britain, France, Australia or Canada.. but not South Africa.
Just out of curiousity, how many of those countries have you actually been to? I wouldn't move to France if you paid me, I'd be fairly happy in Australia (it's remarkably similar to South Africa in a lot of ways, especially with regard to way of life), and I absolutely couldn't take the British or Canadian climates. But I do like Canandians, and not only because Canada is one of our company's biggest overseas markets:)
But no matter where you move to, you are going to face a lot of changes in your life
Agreed
starting with what human rights you have
Spoken like someone who is either very sheltered or very ignorant, or just overly patriotic.
that even the prospect of going from chronically unemployed to gainfully employed, does not make up for the loss of stability in all these other areas
Personally, I don't think there'd be a loss of stability in these areas. And I have been to Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, most of Europe, Namibia, Botswana, Mozambique and the Far East (Malaysia, Thailand, Japan). I haven't been to South America or Central America yet, but I am working on it:) I don't like to make judgements about other countries, since even after visiting you've usually only seen some facets of the particular country, but I definitely don't like to comment unless I've at least been there. Certainly not only on the strength of hyped up media reports. I don't think you're trolling. I just think that you need to get out more. The world is a lot bigger than just the USA, Canada and Australia.
I'm not a big gamer, to say I play a game every two months would be optimistic. Having said that, I used to play slightly more, and the games I've seen the most promise in have been strategy type games.
Not purely for entertainment value, but for training. Simulations of activities that could ahve some real-world application. Surely this would be a better place for electronic games (or should we say, simulations/training programs, if games start taking root in this way) to be deployed?
The fact that not only geeks play Everquest is interesting, but I would like to see more progress being made in using games (and other digital tools) to further education. In a country like South Africa where the national Matric pass rate is as low as 55%, alternative education methods are desperately needed.
I think it's great that people and companies supporting Linux are finally starting to reach the masses with their message. It seems the only things that are really missing from Linux (and other *ixes, for the most part) are games and a few key apps like Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver etc etc. Since I'm not a graphics guy and I don't play games, the switch was pretty easy for me to make on the majority of my PCs.
Personally I prefer FreeBSD + KDE, but I think any market share taken away from Microsoft on the desktop will be good for diversity. Of course, for gamers and graphics nuts, switching over will be more troublesome. Hopefully even that will change as Linux gains more market share and companies start realizing it and diverting more development efforts towards non-MS platforms (ideally cross-platform, although I'd imagine the prospect of supporting too many platforms would be prohibitive for some companies).
It's still nice to be able to keep contact with someone you'd normally not be able to communicate with without working up an amazing phonebill.
Granted, but I find email a better medium for this. I don't deny that if someone feels more comfortable with IM'ing their relatives or friends overseas, that it would be a very handy tool for that kind of communication, though.
That doesn't mean you have to chat whole days (and nights) with them, though. Besides that, you can easily multi-task between instant messaging and some other, more useful computer task. Furthermore, a group chat can be useful for quickly discussing some matter, such as which pub you and your friends will be going to tonight. Finally, instant messaging can lower the threshold for some people in some situations that are too shy in real life (not that this isn't a problem that should be addressed in real life).
Excellent points, and none that I can argue against outright. I just associate IM'ing with business contacts in other branches and contacts overseas, and I don't feel comfortable using IM for social purposes.
There are some good uses to instant messaging. However, you can certainly get by without it. I truly hate the way instant messaging and technologies such as SMS seems to affect today's youth with the Trash-talk virus: thye wil b typin liek this til u lose ur mind and don't even see a problem with it.
Ugh. This is so true that it's actually scary. "R U going 2 " is considered formal speech by a lot of youth in South Africa, some that aren't strictly stupid, but have just been caught up in using SMS'ing for communication as a craze, and I agree fully that this could be dangerous, in that it might desensitise some of these people to using language like that in other situations.
All in all, excellent post. It should be moderated up.
I don't actually get it. I think instant messaging is great, but only for business purposes (communicating with other branches, overseas contacts, etc).
To me, a buddies are people that you go to pubs with, go to cricket matches with, etc. I'll never be online after work hours or on the weekends, those time should be reserved for outdoor pursuits or social pursuits. There's nothing like doing 4x4 trails on the weekend, especially in Southern Africa. Or going horse-riding, playing golf, etc. Come on, guys.
I don't know. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I don't think sitting on PCs for hours a day chatting with MSN/AIM/Yahoo buddies is healthy. The USA is an amazing country with plenty of things to do. Go and check them out. That goes for people in other countries as well - there's more for you to do than just sit on your PC. There's a wealth of recreational activities in any given country that's waiting to be explored. Heck, one of the programmers at work used to be like that, sitting on his PC for hours a day playing games or chatting. We've converted him to an outdoor man by going camping, sky-diving and horse-riding. Now he seems a lot more relaxed and has a wider social circle of people - In real life!
It's interesting to note how many people from the United States on/. and other boards are complaining about the lack of jobs in the tech industry. It seems that although jobs elsewhere pay less, there are far more of them.
Here in South Africa, the tech industry hasn't been through a so-called slump, in fact, the job market is probably better now than it was in 1999. The difference I see, though, is that most people here are talking about programming jobs. Going by pure numbers, most tech jobs here are either in networking or hardware.
Even at our company, which isn't a tech company by any means, we have 4 full time techs working on the in-house system (post-sales, customer relations, operations, call tracking) written (mainly) in Java and Python, and doing general network/system admin.
Friends that I met at Unisa who graduated with Computer Science degrees haven't by and large had any problems finding jobs, although it seems that more experienced people are sought after in more advanced areas. But the so-called lower-end jobs (and yes, I know that there are more advanced sub-divisions of each of these, but I'm talking about entry-level to mid-level) - Networking, System Admin, Hardware, Support - are pretty easy to get into.
I have developed a large system that deals with end-to-end running of a large supplier of outdoor leather goods. Including B2B transactions, custom querying, post-sales tracking.
Most of the system is written in Java, with a good deal of Python code on the back end. The front-ends are fully Java/Swing based, and run comfortably on a P3-500 with 256MB of RAM. The back-end is mostly written in Java, but retains some Python code (the project started out as a web-based app for post-sales/customer relations management).
Add to this the quick deployment time of the Java language, the extremely easy portability (compared to some other languages), and the ease-of-use, and you can see why Java is a good choice for scalable business applications. The stuff we have managed to add to this program is amazing, I'll wager that our system has more features than any single commercial solution. There is definitely something to be said for in-house development.
Smarter compilers and more powerful hardware will definitely negate the need for strongly typed and down-to-the metal languages that we've seen in the past to some extent, but VB has several limitations that will prevent it from taking over other languages:
Lack of portability
This will become increasingly important as companies and inviduals move away from Microsoft as Microsoft pushes its luck further and further by strangling the market.
Basic sytax, hacked OO
The use of Basic syntax can cripple larger projects, add to this the lack of proper OO in VB, and you have a problem.
Too many power-user addons
VB has become a language for people who just want to buy third party addons and plug them in. While this is fine theoretically, it makes the program segment's modules difficult to integrate with the rest of the project, as well as encouraging lazy practices or even lack of knowledge in the programmer.
The only way VB will retain any large number of its current userbase is by being completely committed to the.NET infrastructure.
Meanwhile, languages like Java, Python, Perl and PHP will continue to grow and gain more and more users amoung tech savvy individuals.
What Interface? Jabber is a protocol. There are hundreds of interfaces you can have.
Well, that's kind of a problem in itself. But the interface I was talking about was the "main" Jabber distribution. (Sorry, it's been a while since I last tried it...) I am willing to give it another try, though, and will download later. The inter-protocol support and XML-based structure (if I remember correctly) was intruiging.
The problem with having multiple clients is that although they may all start off using the standard Jabber protocol, if you want to call it that, they will eventually grow apart and some will have features that are exclusive to that particular client, and cause problems for people running other clients. This is why I would prefer a standard client distribution like MSN/ICQ/Yahoo have. (Although Jabber's more open nature, as well as it's ability to do inter-protocol messaging and integration, is a big bonus). Perhaps if they created a standard client distribution, and created a superior interface for it, Jabber would take off amoung the masses. Until then, it looks doubtful that it will enjoy success that MSN, ICQ and Yahoo have.
The last version of Jabber I downloaded had an absolutely awful interface. It was usuable, although I think that for Joe Sixpack, it wouldn't be a serious option. I am quite computer savvy, (Java, PHP, Python, Perl, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows 2000) but I couldn't get to grips with it. The most popular system in South Africa seems to be MSN Messenger, followed by Yahoo Instant Messenger and ICQ's Messaging System.
Slashdot Mirror
The Inner Party were watched, but they had a limited amount of freedom (i.e, they were allowed to turn off their telescreens for limited amounts of time).
The Outer Party (of which Winston was a member) were watched continuously.The Poletarians, as you say, could do pretty much what they wanted to.
Certainly. But if you're truly the author, the copyright holder, you can license a new version of the code any time you want. Several companies actually do this. The original code maintains its license; again, no different from BSD. Your new version, which may have a few modifications, doesn't need to. If you're not the copyright holder, you don't have a legal right to complain.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think where we diverge in opinion has to do with what we think about changes to the said code by third parties being made propreitry. I don't think that it's neccessarily a bad thing, or that the original author of a work should be denied this option, or any 3rd party that wants to close the code or incorporate it into propreitry works, should be denied this option, either. Of course, if the author would prefer the changes being kept open and not being made propreitry, and also has no intention of ever making a program with the said changes by third parties propreitry, the GPL would be perfect, and it certainly has its place amoung people who hold these views on development.
If code protection (ie, ensuring any changes made to a GPL'd peice of code aren't made propreitry) is the only concern, the GPL is obviously the ideal choice. But whether or not that makes for the most progress in the software development field is another story. I don't believe that an OSS (GNU GPL-style) only software would will make for the most progress in the software development field, I believe that a combination of many licenses, and a combination of software including propreitry and open source, will allow software to progress faster and make for more refined software in the long run.
Have you read the GPL text?
*sigh*.
You completely missed the gist of what I said.
Maybe some people like the GPL because, say, they understand it, unlike you?
On the contrary. I understand it very well. And I'm not trying to put down the GPL. It's not a bad license per se, but it only allows certain kinds of freedom. Freedom should mean freedom for everyone, not only end-users and GPL proponents.
Any code he wrote himself and which was his own code he can re-release under any licence he wants, even if he already released it GPL
True, but that would also hold true for BSD'd code - and the added advantage of BSD'd code is that you are not prevented from taking changes to that code and using them in whatever way you want, including redistribution in binary form without the source code. Let's take an example of this and think it through: Project X is released under the GPL. Many changes are made in Project X 2.0. Suddenly the interest in Project X wanes, and only the original author wants to continue making changes. Additionally, Project X is used by a small clique of users. The author wants to start charging for changes in Project X 3.0, but under the GPL, there is no way to do this since providing access to the source code is mandatory (ie, he CAN charge for it, but most people would just laugh it off and download the source code without paying). If Project X had been released under the BSD license, people could still download the source code for Project X 1.x - 2.x, but the author would not be prevented from taking all of the changes made to Project X 1.x and 2.x and incorporating them into Project X 3.0, and charging for it, in binary form. Whether the users decided it was worth buying would depend on how good the changes he made to the product were. The users would still have the option of getting the source code or binary versions of Project X 1.x or 2.x, and other developers would still be able to pick up versions of 2.x or 1.x and continue open source development on those. All in all, the BSD license is more free, GNU zealot rhetoric aside.
It's disinformation to suggest that if somebody releases their own code as GPL, they can't later release it as something else. It's poor thinking to then take that incorrect assertion and use it as a basis for attacking the GPL.
I'm not attacking the GPL, I'm pointing out facts about the GPL, and nothing I have said about it is incorrect. Whether or not the GNU philosophy about freedom and the GPL's terms are good or bad is subjective. The ZPL, MIT, BSD and many other licenses I would consider more free. (My opinion only, feel free to disagree :) ).
That way, other people could still get the code, but at least he could re-incorporate all of the changes to date into a new propreitry system, and start charging for it. Whether people would buy it or not is a different story, but if he made changes people really wanted and they weren't in the free BSD-licensed version, he would at least have a shot of making money from it without depending entirely on donations. (AND there would still be a free version). Of course, this is Slashdot. People here are convinced the GPL is better for some reason.
Here in South Africa, broadband has only been out since about March 2002, and it's already had way more than a 2% takeup, despite being relatively expensive (ZAR700 per month, or US$80 per month, for a 512K ADSL line) compared to other broadband-utilizing countries.
Considering the fact that Australia is a more advanced country than South Africa, it seems to me that, judging by the Australian broadband fiasco, and the various Internet censorship fiascos that raged in Australia a while ago, Australia's current administration is trying to impede technological progress in Australia.
This is either quite perceptive of you, or the story author doesn't know what cellular networks in poor countries (including many countries in Africa, such as South Africa, where I live), are like. A pay-as-you-go package from Vodacom, Cell-C or MTN will cost you very little, basically, a year of incoming phone calls will cost you R120 ($12), that is unlimited incoming calls, for a year. A R110 package ($11) will give you 110 minutes of outgoing airtime, plus an additional month of incoming calls.
It's not uncommon to see even some of the poorest of people in South Africa having cellular phones. I can't really understand the US stance on cellular phones and wireless technologies, here, at least, they are a great alternative to land-lines. I've seen rural villages and townships being connected to the outside world via cellular phones and wireless radio links, where it would otherwise be very difficult to install land-lines and have conventional internet access. I realize that the USA is a far richer country than South Africa and thus doesn't need measures like this for basic communication, but not having easier access, or in some cases even the option of GSM is a clear case of US corporations screwing the general population, as usual.
Elrond is descended from an Ainur - Melian. Melian was indeed an Ainur, a Maia. Elrond and Elros' mother, Elwing, is a descendent of Melian and Thingol (through their daughter Luthien, Luthien's son Dior, and finally Dior's daughter Elwing), therefore, Elrond does have Ainur ancestry. I don't remember saying that Elrond was himself an Ainur, but that he has Ainur ancestry, and therefore so does his daughter, Arwen, is true. Sorry if there was any confusion.
I've read the novel and watched both movies, and while I agree with you that the novel offers more than the movies from a general perspective, both offer great entertainment. Your attitude towards the movies seems unneccessarily hostile.
Not neccessarily. If you recall the original story, the closer to Mordor the ring got, the more its power increased. Surely from that point of view, taking it to Mordor, which is basically what they did, would be worse? (And as we all know, that is the basis of the quest - they are going to take the ring to Mordor). My point is, just because the movie had a detour to Osgiliath, I fail to see what you're getting your knickers in a knot about. Yes, it does change the original story's details, but it isn't as terrible as you're making it out to be.
You walked out? Because a detail of the story was changed in leui of the movie adaptation? Ok, I'm not going to comment on that. Let's examine the rest of what you said, anyway.
If you read the original story closely, Faramir was NOT entirely pleasant while holding the Hobbits hostage. He was thinking about taking the ring to Gondor and interrogated the Hobbits pretty efficiently. Now, I agree that he was less hot-headed and far wiser than his brother, and during the section of the story where he and his men hold the hobbits hostage, he did have a change of heart and allow them to proceed with their quest unhindered. However, to say that they "weren't molested" is cutting it thin. They were blindfolded, tied up, and held against their will for a long time, interrogated, and not all that Faramir had to say to them was pleasant (in the beginning, it's hard to miss the threatening undertones of what he was saying, unless you are very unperceptive). Yes - the movie changed the details of this part of the story. Did it remain true to the spirit of the story, though? I believe so. Re-read this part of the story if you don't believe me. Crucially important departure from the story? Not really. The outcome is going to be exactly the same. I didn't like some parts of this departure either, but you're really making a mountain out of a molehill.
Sorry to tell you this, but Elves are "magical" in nature, and therefore can cast spells, and create magical items, to greater or lesser degree depending on the individuals themselves. Arwen is the daughter of Elrond, who has not only great Elf, but also Ainur heritage. To believe that she would be an Elf with little power is, well, shockingly ignorant on your part, to be brutally honest. If you don't understand this, read the Silmarillion, which deals with the nature of
Of course, you (and they) could be right about it. But it's interesting to note that chess is another prime example of this. Computers became extremely good at number crunching and large-scale analysis, and people shrugged it off. "A computer would never be able to compete with competent chess player, and could certainly never compete with a Grandmaster. Chess requires true human intelligence." 20 years later, a computer tied with the reigning Chess Champion. Now - Chess doesn't really require true intelligence, it all boils down to number crunching.
The problem is, where do we draw the line? As computers start adding more and more to their lists of abilities, especially in areas such as pattern recognition and expert systems, are we going to claim that those things don't require intelligence, and can also all be brought down to number crunching? To me, it seems like a form of denial. Instead of clinging to the old ways, why not recognize that computers might just be better at a lot of things that we previously thought were "human-only" areas of skill, and adapt accordingly.Most companies who feel this way just aren't informed or have people working for them who are not informed enough to know what open source is all about. I hear a lot of arguments along the lines of: "Well, we are an [insert non-software speciality] company, we don't have any software skills, so we need to buy commercial products to get support. This is bunk.
Our company is about as far from a software company as a company could get, yet we use a lot of software to improve our productivity, and a lot of that software is open source, which improves the cost/performance ratio that we get from our software. For example, our firewall runs OpenBSD, most of our servers run FreeBSD, and we have Linux and FreeBSD workstations running OpenOffice, Mozilla and KDE. Now admittedly, we do still have Win32 machines, but if we took all of the machines that we are running Open Source software on and replaced the open source packages on them with commercial software, we would be looking at thousands of dollars in additional costs, and for what? Support? Which brings me to the point: Hire I.T staff. So your company does something other than software. So what? Nothing stops you from hiring one or two I.T guys to run the systems that you need and provide in-house support. Or - gasp - shock - horror - read up on the products in question and learn about them!
If these solutions still aren't acceptable to commercial-mindset companies using MS Office in particular, they could always buy StarOffice from Sun. It's basically the commercial version of OpenOffice (based on OpenOffice), that Sun distributes. With this distribution you're looking at spending money, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to buying MS licenses. Some companies won't realize this and will either use MS software out of habit (everyone else uses it so it must be the right thing to use type mentality) or because they honestly believe that MS is better value for money. I feel sorry for those companies, but at the end of the day, the choices that their management makes will stand. If a company's management hasn't the foresight to hire professionals to advise them on matters such as this, that is their problem entirely.
That our company has switched over to OpenOffice exclusively. It's been a year since we switched over from Microsoft Office, and there have only had a handful of documents that have had MS Office/Open Office incompatibilities.
Plus, OpenOffice is totally free. Retraining was a non-issue. We told the employees when we switched over that they were welcome to use MS Office, but they would have to buy the software themselves and keep the licenses handy. There were no complaints about switching over after that.
So we can sit back smugly as all of our branches are unaffected and read stories like this without blanching :) If you haven't checked out OpenOffice, I highly recommend that you do.
For God's sake, South African men are raping babies out there in hopes that having sex with virgins will cure them of AIDS. (Don't believe me? Read this. http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,4729 6.jsp)
These are awful facts for sure, but if you think that South Africa is the only country where rape happens, you are very sheltered.
There are most certainly a whole host of other problems with living/working there, starting with the fact that just about any country on earth (except Canada and Australia) has a lot less respect for life and liberty than the US
Care to explain this? From what I've seen, Australia is the censorship capital of the world, and just as Dimitri Skylarov or Kevin Mitnick what they think of the USA's attitude towards human liberty.
That and nowadays they are issuing all kinds of travel advisories to Americans (you can thank the Second Gulf War for that).
I would not trust South Africa (or most other nations, for that matter) to provide stable roads
ROFTL. You've never been to South Africa, have you? I go to the USA, Canada, UK, and New Zealand on business semi-frequently. I would hold South Africa's roads up favourably or at least comparably with any of these.
access to food
Please tell me you're kidding? Or are you really that ignorant?
adequate and fair law enforcement (which is itself shitty enough in the States)
It's a problem in most countries. Admittedly, this includes South Africa. Just go to K5 and read up on the latest article on American justice.
accessible medical care, and so on
Medical care in South African private clinics (which anyone in South Africa with medical aid (medical insurance) has access to) is top notch, in fact, better than I've seen in the UK (had to go to hospital there once). I can't comment on the Canadian/American health services, since I've never experienced them firsthand. I've heard that medical care is pretty good in Canada thanks to Medicare, but reports vary wildly about US medical care.
And I'm not trolling, nor am I saying everyone else is in the Stone Age... I could envision moving to Britain, France, Australia or Canada.. but not South Africa.
Just out of curiousity, how many of those countries have you actually been to? I wouldn't move to France if you paid me, I'd be fairly happy in Australia (it's remarkably similar to South Africa in a lot of ways, especially with regard to way of life), and I absolutely couldn't take the British or Canadian climates. But I do like Canandians, and not only because Canada is one of our company's biggest overseas markets:)
But no matter where you move to, you are going to face a lot of changes in your life
Agreed
starting with what human rights you have
Spoken like someone who is either very sheltered or very ignorant, or just overly patriotic.
that even the prospect of going from chronically unemployed to gainfully employed, does not make up for the loss of stability in all these other areas
Personally, I don't think there'd be a loss of stability in these areas. And I have been to Canada, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Britain, most of Europe, Namibia, Botswana, Mozambique and the Far East (Malaysia, Thailand, Japan). I haven't been to South America or Central America yet, but I am working on it :) I don't like to make judgements about other countries, since even after visiting you've usually only seen some facets of the particular country, but I definitely don't like to comment unless I've at least been there. Certainly not only on the strength of hyped up media reports. I don't think you're trolling. I just think that you need to get out more. The world is a lot bigger than just the USA, Canada and Australia.
AMD started naming their cores after horses (Palomino, Thoroughbred, etc). Now Intel has brought out the Canterwood. Is the Gallopwood next? :)
I'm not a big gamer, to say I play a game every two months would be optimistic. Having said that, I used to play slightly more, and the games I've seen the most promise in have been strategy type games.
Not purely for entertainment value, but for training. Simulations of activities that could ahve some real-world application. Surely this would be a better place for electronic games (or should we say, simulations/training programs, if games start taking root in this way) to be deployed?
The fact that not only geeks play Everquest is interesting, but I would like to see more progress being made in using games (and other digital tools) to further education. In a country like South Africa where the national Matric pass rate is as low as 55%, alternative education methods are desperately needed.
I think it's great that people and companies supporting Linux are finally starting to reach the masses with their message. It seems the only things that are really missing from Linux (and other *ixes, for the most part) are games and a few key apps like Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver etc etc. Since I'm not a graphics guy and I don't play games, the switch was pretty easy for me to make on the majority of my PCs.
Personally I prefer FreeBSD + KDE, but I think any market share taken away from Microsoft on the desktop will be good for diversity. Of course, for gamers and graphics nuts, switching over will be more troublesome. Hopefully even that will change as Linux gains more market share and companies start realizing it and diverting more development efforts towards non-MS platforms (ideally cross-platform, although I'd imagine the prospect of supporting too many platforms would be prohibitive for some companies).
Granted, but I find email a better medium for this. I don't deny that if someone feels more comfortable with IM'ing their relatives or friends overseas, that it would be a very handy tool for that kind of communication, though.
Excellent points, and none that I can argue against outright. I just associate IM'ing with business contacts in other branches and contacts overseas, and I don't feel comfortable using IM for social purposes.
Ugh. This is so true that it's actually scary. "R U going 2 " is considered formal speech by a lot of youth in South Africa, some that aren't strictly stupid, but have just been caught up in using SMS'ing for communication as a craze, and I agree fully that this could be dangerous, in that it might desensitise some of these people to using language like that in other situations.
All in all, excellent post. It should be moderated up.
I don't actually get it. I think instant messaging is great, but only for business purposes (communicating with other branches, overseas contacts, etc).
To me, a buddies are people that you go to pubs with, go to cricket matches with, etc. I'll never be online after work hours or on the weekends, those time should be reserved for outdoor pursuits or social pursuits. There's nothing like doing 4x4 trails on the weekend, especially in Southern Africa. Or going horse-riding, playing golf, etc. Come on, guys.
I don't know. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I don't think sitting on PCs for hours a day chatting with MSN/AIM/Yahoo buddies is healthy. The USA is an amazing country with plenty of things to do. Go and check them out. That goes for people in other countries as well - there's more for you to do than just sit on your PC. There's a wealth of recreational activities in any given country that's waiting to be explored. Heck, one of the programmers at work used to be like that, sitting on his PC for hours a day playing games or chatting. We've converted him to an outdoor man by going camping, sky-diving and horse-riding. Now he seems a lot more relaxed and has a wider social circle of people - In real life!
It's interesting to note how many people from the United States on /. and other boards are complaining about the lack of jobs in the tech industry. It seems that although jobs elsewhere pay less, there are far more of them.
Here in South Africa, the tech industry hasn't been through a so-called slump, in fact, the job market is probably better now than it was in 1999. The difference I see, though, is that most people here are talking about programming jobs. Going by pure numbers, most tech jobs here are either in networking or hardware.
Even at our company, which isn't a tech company by any means, we have 4 full time techs working on the in-house system (post-sales, customer relations, operations, call tracking) written (mainly) in Java and Python, and doing general network/system admin.
Friends that I met at Unisa who graduated with Computer Science degrees haven't by and large had any problems finding jobs, although it seems that more experienced people are sought after in more advanced areas. But the so-called lower-end jobs (and yes, I know that there are more advanced sub-divisions of each of these, but I'm talking about entry-level to mid-level) - Networking, System Admin, Hardware, Support - are pretty easy to get into.
I have developed a large system that deals with end-to-end running of a large supplier of outdoor leather goods. Including B2B transactions, custom querying, post-sales tracking.
Most of the system is written in Java, with a good deal of Python code on the back end. The front-ends are fully Java/Swing based, and run comfortably on a P3-500 with 256MB of RAM. The back-end is mostly written in Java, but retains some Python code (the project started out as a web-based app for post-sales/customer relations management).
Add to this the quick deployment time of the Java language, the extremely easy portability (compared to some other languages), and the ease-of-use, and you can see why Java is a good choice for scalable business applications. The stuff we have managed to add to this program is amazing, I'll wager that our system has more features than any single commercial solution. There is definitely something to be said for in-house development.
The only way VB will retain any large number of its current userbase is by being completely committed to the .NET infrastructure.
Meanwhile, languages like Java, Python, Perl and PHP will continue to grow and gain more and more users amoung tech savvy individuals.What Interface? Jabber is a protocol. There are hundreds of interfaces you can have.
Well, that's kind of a problem in itself. But the interface I was talking about was the "main" Jabber distribution. (Sorry, it's been a while since I last tried it...) I am willing to give it another try, though, and will download later. The inter-protocol support and XML-based structure (if I remember correctly) was intruiging.
The problem with having multiple clients is that although they may all start off using the standard Jabber protocol, if you want to call it that, they will eventually grow apart and some will have features that are exclusive to that particular client, and cause problems for people running other clients. This is why I would prefer a standard client distribution like MSN/ICQ/Yahoo have. (Although Jabber's more open nature, as well as it's ability to do inter-protocol messaging and integration, is a big bonus). Perhaps if they created a standard client distribution, and created a superior interface for it, Jabber would take off amoung the masses. Until then, it looks doubtful that it will enjoy success that MSN, ICQ and Yahoo have.
The last version of Jabber I downloaded had an absolutely awful interface. It was usuable, although I think that for Joe Sixpack, it wouldn't be a serious option. I am quite computer savvy, (Java, PHP, Python, Perl, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows 2000) but I couldn't get to grips with it. The most popular system in South Africa seems to be MSN Messenger, followed by Yahoo Instant Messenger and ICQ's Messaging System.