As someone working in insurance, I can tell you
that they are really fired up about cross-selling
data. Make sure if you ever buy an insurance policy for anything, pester your agent to death
that you will not accept the policy issue until some promise is made on paper that your name
will not be sold to anyone else, for any reason, period.
If they can't promise, walk away. And eventually
they'll get the message (Agents are usually
pretty good about pestering the home office if
policies are not being sold for some reason)
---
Still the thought of millions of people being
permanently connected on-line without adequate security 'common sense' should concern
us. You just have to assume that the vast majority will have to put their trust in 'the experts' to keep their networks from being broken into.
I've been playing around with linux for 2 years now, and quite frankly I am daunted by the amount of RTFM'ing I have to do before I will feel comfortable being permanently on-line.
I guess the first thing is to shut off most of your network listening services unless you REALLY know your stuff, and change root password every 30 days.
---
Then perhaps the questions should merely
be rephrased. Society still needs the equivalent
of libraries, even if no more paper books
exist. Your argument merely dodges the
issue, it does not adequately address it.
Without coming out in favor of or in opposition
to a boycott, I would point out that a boycott
does not have to be 100% successful to be effective.
I think most companies would be concerned if faced with, say, a consistent 8% drop in sales.
Ironically, perhaps the key to a success of a good boycott may be marketing - the company has to know they are being boycotted, and if a partial boycott is being used, which products or subsidiaries are being targeted and why.
However, I must point out that I am only
speaking hypothetically, since I have no experience in organizing boycotts.
Even though I participate in many boycotts the original poster makes a good point that it is hard to make them effective.
---
Why does free software require free documentation? This point has been made often, but I don't see what's wrong with the O'Reilly books - doesn't that constitute paid support for free software? Isn't that one of the "approved" ways of making money using free software?
Granted, it's great to have Free documentation, such as my much "loved on" version of my emacs lisp manual, but why for example do we need a free Perl manual at this point?
I cannot reasonably read and understand all your papers on fractal attractors in just one night. Would you be interested in explaining how attractors of dynamical systems can shed some light on AI? What type of mathematical systems do you use to describe the attractor? How is this related to the domain of what the computer is trying to 'learn'.
Such different ways of working! It is daunting to think about the transition.
But it definitely would be nice to
run emacs on the mainframe instead of these old fashioned (but powerful for their time) editors
download files without dealing with proprietary hassles. Just cp it (or the secure version,whatever that is)
I think the best advantage is the appeal to a younger generation of programmers who might have otherwise avoided the mainframe now have hope not to hate their fscking jobs.
A linux fileserver can serve me my datasets so I can work from home remotely
Just dreamin' away....I have no idea if these ideas are practical. ---
Sure. But that is part of value. Ultimately no matter what you do, you have only twenty four hours in a day, and you have to choose not to do other things if you, perchance, say choose to learn Irish.
It was not implied in my post that everything be done purely for monetary profit, but only that the value (and that depends on taste) exceeds the cost (not strictly monetary).
I certainly can't say that my love of Scheme is ever going to pay me big bucks. Hobbies are great, don't get me wrong, but there is not enough time for me to learn every language in the world! Cost does come into it. ---
</begin ramble > I take objection to the general tone of arguments that americans know only one language because of a flaw in our national character. Language acquisition is like any other investment, and will be happily undertaken if perceived value is greater than economic cost.
Note that value is largely a matter of taste here. I'm not simply talking about value from trade. I'll never make a dime off my knowledge of french, but I think the value it would add to a trip there is far greater than the cost of maintaining my level in French
Europeans will place different values and costs of learning each others language depending on difficulty and frequency of contact, but it is not a matter of simply saying "I know 5 languages so I'm better than you".
In Miami, if you want to do business you have to speak Spanish. Americans down there learn Spanish without being "made" to. It really comes down to free market economics, and the market for languages is no difference. People will learn a a language if the value perceived exceeds the costs. (Including the cost of having people laugh hysterically when you make certain mistakes)
For another example, I have had a number of people tell me - don't learn Chinese - enough people speak english, and if you go over there (in this context, Hong Kong) it is easy to trade for the Chinese you need by hiring an interpreter. I guess what it comes down to is the cost of learning chinese (for me) is considerably greater than the cost of a Chinese to learn english. Ergo it is economical (for me, in my situation) to trade rather than invest time to learn.
As far as the internet is concerned, and I hope this paragraph brings me back on topic 8), I definitely value being able to look around French sites to keep up my knowledge of the language, and having access to French markets, particularly for books and music. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I guess to say that there will be more language collisions. Which will survive? Will many languages borrow more from English? These are questions for the sociolinguists, I guess. </end ramble > ---
I'm not so sure about this. There is definitely a level of frustration if the problems that you're trying to solve stem from poor design choices so that it becomes much harder to write a robust program. It is also doubleplusunfun to debug in batch mode, logical pleasure notwithstanding.
So it does matter to some degree what computing environment you are using.
On a tangent, I suppose to a certain extent it makes a difference to be patient - there are a few applications at our company that could benefit from a beowulf cluster! But someone's got to understand the issues and make a business case for it. So I guess what I'm saying here is that perhaps your job may be a potential linux job and you just don't know it yet!
I thought it was a decent satire of today's business culture. One wishes he put some interesting economic analysis behind his conclusion - I'm not sure a worldwide currency necessarily implies a lack of diversification.
Occasionally, I think he's way to verbose
So our old-fashioned exuberant market fell right off a cliff. Then we dog-piled so much computer analysis on top of it that it no longer roller-coasters. And except for those colorful mixed metaphors, today's market acts very sensibly and predictably. Basically, our ultrasophisticated market fell to earth, and it can't get back up. Today's market goes nowhere in particular, and it does pretty much nothing at all.
Pretty language, but what is he saying that he couldn't say in two sentences?
Let's face it. States *THEMSELVES* are an anachronism, and the debate on internet taxes demonstrates this.
I think the current scheme for internet taxation in the US is unconstitutional, but I also think it is necessary. So perhaps time to amend the constitution. Or better yet, get rid of most state governments. In today's world with airlines and fast communication, we can govern more square miles much more efficiently than in 1787. Get rid of about 40 state governments, tax intrastate commerce, and you'll be able to do more with less. ---
I still think the newspapers have an edge in quality of writing over most web sites, where poor grammar and poor spelling seem to rule the day. Even the poorest papers, IMO, seem to have better usage than some of the better web sites. I think having a high standard of your native language is important.
The writer above would probably benefit from reading newspapers more often.
I know how you feel...When I first got my yahoo mail account for the purpose of receiving primarily commercial email, I was excited about the idea of targeted specific advertisements. I figured - hey - if they want to sell stuff without killing trees, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.
But now my trust has eroded considerably. I question the viability of the middle ground simply because there is nothing to keep these merchants honest. True, they can lose business if word gets back, but it's a big if. Meanwhile they're making money selling your name behind your back and despite lip service to "trust" and "privacy"
I'd like to see aggressive enforcement of these trust agreements. Every company must be required to disclose the source of data collected for each person, upon request.
Consumers should be allowed to track back and verify who sold their name without permission. Then the heavy fines can begin - it's no different from the no-call lists for telemarketers. If they call you back against your will, you can collect penalties.
Even taking into account all the various posts on marketing and economics - even if there were a magazine aimed 100% at men and no woman would ever read it - that would still not justify the extremely crass and dehumanizing messages about women depicted in these ads.
This type of message is as bad for men as it is for women. Just because it's legal and economical doesn't make things right. Just because we have a free society doesn't mean we benefit from a complete lack of restraint on sexual advertising.
Regulation would be a cure worse than the disease, of course, but people really should ask themselves - "Is my action causing more problems than benefits?" Unfortunately most such assessments stop with their wallet and do not consider broader social consequences.
And how do you plan on changing things? How can an individual have close to an equal chance against a multi-billion dollar corporation except to use these tactics?
Companies don't change their ways unless they're forced to or punished. This means either legislative and judicial change. Unfortunately, the big money interests have the ear of the legislators, and you don't. So looks like a trip to the courts.....
There is also the issue of why benefits are so expensive, but there is so much noise and no consensus. Unlikely to change soon.
The temp issue is more than individual whining about money. Companies have been using pseudo-contractors as a way to avoid paying benefits. It is right for the courts to have a look at this. It is a societal issue.
You do have a point in that lawsuits are really only bandaids for larger societal changes. But they are necessary for maintaining the balance of power between powerful corporate bureaucracies and individuals.
Some lawyers are slimy, sure, but if you want to go up against Goliath, guess who's the only ones willing to be on your side.
I see pluses and minuses. On the one hand, Once you open the door for people to waive their rights, employers will begin to pressure their people to be "flexible". In short, it completely guts the spirit of the protection.
I'm going through something like this right now arranging for part time telecommuting. I don't have a satisfactory chair for work. Should my employer be forced to buy me one?
Also, although I like the notion of my employer not getting a free ride anymore, I certainly don't like the idea of OSHA inspectors or my employer inspecting my house!
ps. I do think the employer should provide a PC for this purpose. They should not be entitled to free storage on mine.
Re:What Linux needs is Napoleon and Snowball
on
Gartner Slams Linux
·
· Score: 1
And as I toggled between my operating systems, windows to linux, linux back to windows, I soon found it impossible to tell which was which...
And how would you like it if market forces resulted in only one software company? Or even if it were only one desktop applications vendor, that would be too powerful.
The market exists for us. We created it. We have the right to keep it from trampling us too.
When one company dominates the marketplace, it is not very free. That company acts as a substitute government within its domain. It is in society's best interests to break up monopolies when they become too powerful.
I have not seen this satisfactorily demonstrated. Merely mentioning it doesn't prove it.
My understanding of the GPL stems from: The mere aggregation of your code with GPL code does not bring your code within the scope of the GPL.
Anyway, thank you for further explaning your point of view. I still don't agree with it, and I still think that the use of pernicious language is unnecessary.
Passionate, intelligent people often express their views using fairly dramatic language. In this light, I have been cautioned to avoid giving the full weight of the negative connation of "viral". However, sometimes people go too far.
You are welcome to email me. I will not be posting more noise on this topic to/.
Slashdot Mirror
As someone working in insurance, I can tell you that they are really fired up about cross-selling data. Make sure if you ever buy an insurance policy for anything, pester your agent to death that you will not accept the policy issue until some promise is made on paper that your name will not be sold to anyone else, for any reason, period. If they can't promise, walk away. And eventually they'll get the message (Agents are usually pretty good about pestering the home office if policies are not being sold for some reason)
---
Still the thought of millions of people being permanently connected on-line without adequate security 'common sense' should concern us. You just have to assume that the vast majority will have to put their trust in 'the experts' to keep their networks from being broken into.
I've been playing around with linux for 2 years now, and quite frankly I am daunted by the amount of RTFM'ing I have to do before I will feel comfortable being permanently on-line.
I guess the first thing is to shut off most of your network listening services unless you REALLY know your stuff, and change root password every 30 days.
---
Then perhaps the questions should merely be rephrased. Society still needs the equivalent of libraries, even if no more paper books exist. Your argument merely dodges the issue, it does not adequately address it.
---
One factor favoring english for the future is that it absorbs new words, regardless of origin, so easily.
---
I think most companies would be concerned if faced with, say, a consistent 8% drop in sales.
Ironically, perhaps the key to a success of a good boycott may be marketing - the company has to know they are being boycotted, and if a partial boycott is being used, which products or subsidiaries are being targeted and why.
However, I must point out that I am only speaking hypothetically, since I have no experience in organizing boycotts.
Even though I participate in many boycotts the original poster makes a good point that it is hard to make them effective.
---
Granted, it's great to have Free documentation, such as my much "loved on" version of my emacs lisp manual, but why for example do we need a free Perl manual at this point?
---
Also, are people still using LISP for AI?
---
But it definitely would be nice to
- run emacs on the mainframe instead of these old fashioned (but powerful for their time) editors
- download files without dealing with proprietary hassles. Just cp it (or the secure version,whatever that is)
- I think the best advantage is the appeal to a younger generation of programmers who might have otherwise avoided the mainframe now have hope not to hate their fscking jobs.
- A linux fileserver can serve me my datasets so I can work from home remotely
Just dreamin' away....I have no idea if these ideas are practical.---
The restriction on unreasonable searches and seizures is taken to mean a right to privacy. Thus speaks the Supreme Court.
---
This is slander unless you can prove it.
Gosh, I just love a good RMS flamewar.
---
It was not implied in my post that everything be done purely for monetary profit, but only that the value (and that depends on taste) exceeds the cost (not strictly monetary).
I certainly can't say that my love of Scheme is ever going to pay me big bucks. Hobbies are great, don't get me wrong, but there is not enough time for me to learn every language in the world! Cost does come into it.
---
Note that value is largely a matter of taste here. I'm not simply talking about value from trade. I'll never make a dime off my knowledge of french, but I think the value it would add to a trip there is far greater than the cost of maintaining my level in French
Europeans will place different values and costs of learning each others language depending on difficulty and frequency of contact, but it is not a matter of simply saying "I know 5 languages so I'm better than you".
In Miami, if you want to do business you have to speak Spanish. Americans down there learn Spanish without being "made" to. It really comes down to free market economics, and the market for languages is no difference. People will learn a a language if the value perceived exceeds the costs. (Including the cost of having people laugh hysterically when you make certain mistakes)
For another example, I have had a number of people tell me - don't learn Chinese - enough people speak english, and if you go over there (in this context, Hong Kong) it is easy to trade for the Chinese you need by hiring an interpreter. I guess what it comes down to is the cost of learning chinese (for me) is considerably greater than the cost of a Chinese to learn english. Ergo it is economical (for me, in my situation) to trade rather than invest time to learn.
As far as the internet is concerned, and I hope this paragraph brings me back on topic 8), I definitely value being able to look around French sites to keep up my knowledge of the language, and having access to French markets, particularly for books and music. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I guess to say that there will be more language collisions. Which will survive? Will many languages borrow more from English? These are questions for the sociolinguists, I guess. < /end ramble >
---
Why do you think this format been abandoned as the linux documentation standard?
---
So it does matter to some degree what computing environment you are using.
On a tangent, I suppose to a certain extent it makes a difference to be patient - there are a few applications at our company that could benefit from a beowulf cluster! But someone's got to understand the issues and make a business case for it. So I guess what I'm saying here is that perhaps your job may be a potential linux job and you just don't know it yet!
Michael
---
Occasionally, I think he's way to verbose
---
I think the current scheme for internet taxation in the US is unconstitutional, but I also think it is necessary. So perhaps time to amend the constitution. Or better yet, get rid of most state governments. In today's world with airlines and fast communication, we can govern more square miles much more efficiently than in 1787. Get rid of about 40 state governments, tax intrastate commerce, and you'll be able to do more with less.
---
I still think the newspapers have an edge in quality of writing over most web sites, where poor grammar and poor spelling seem to rule the day. Even the poorest papers, IMO, seem to have better usage than some of the better web sites. I think having a high standard of your native language is important.
The writer above would probably benefit from reading newspapers more often.
< /rant >
---
---
But now my trust has eroded considerably. I question the viability of the middle ground simply because there is nothing to keep these merchants honest. True, they can lose business if word gets back, but it's a big if. Meanwhile they're making money selling your name behind your back and despite lip service to "trust" and "privacy"
I'd like to see aggressive enforcement of these trust agreements. Every company must be required to disclose the source of data collected for each person, upon request.
Consumers should be allowed to track back and verify who sold their name without permission. Then the heavy fines can begin - it's no different from the no-call lists for telemarketers. If they call you back against your will, you can collect penalties.
This type of message is as bad for men as it is for women. Just because it's legal and economical doesn't make things right. Just because we have a free society doesn't mean we benefit from a complete lack of restraint on sexual advertising.
Regulation would be a cure worse than the disease, of course, but people really should ask themselves - "Is my action causing more problems than benefits?" Unfortunately most such assessments stop with their wallet and do not consider broader social consequences.
Companies don't change their ways unless they're forced to or punished. This means either legislative and judicial change. Unfortunately, the big money interests have the ear of the legislators, and you don't. So looks like a trip to the courts.....
There is also the issue of why benefits are so expensive, but there is so much noise and no consensus. Unlikely to change soon.
The temp issue is more than individual whining about money. Companies have been using pseudo-contractors as a way to avoid paying benefits. It is right for the courts to have a look at this. It is a societal issue.
You do have a point in that lawsuits are really only bandaids for larger societal changes. But they are necessary for maintaining the balance of power between powerful corporate bureaucracies and individuals.
Some lawyers are slimy, sure, but if you want to go up against Goliath, guess who's the only ones willing to be on your side.
I'm going through something like this right now arranging for part time telecommuting. I don't have a satisfactory chair for work. Should my employer be forced to buy me one?
Also, although I like the notion of my employer not getting a free ride anymore, I certainly don't like the idea of OSHA inspectors or my employer inspecting my house!
ps. I do think the employer should provide a PC for this purpose. They should not be entitled to free storage on mine.
Apologies to George Orwell
The market exists for us. We created it. We have the right to keep it from trampling us too.
When one company dominates the marketplace, it is not very free. That company acts as a substitute government within its domain. It is in society's best interests to break up monopolies when they become too powerful.
I have not seen this satisfactorily demonstrated. Merely mentioning it doesn't prove it.
My understanding of the GPL stems from: The mere aggregation of your code with GPL code does not bring your code within the scope of the GPL.
Anyway, thank you for further explaning your point of view. I still don't agree with it, and I still think that the use of pernicious language is unnecessary.
Passionate, intelligent people often express their views using fairly dramatic language. In this light, I have been cautioned to avoid giving the full weight of the negative connation of "viral". However, sometimes people go too far.
You are welcome to email me. I will not be posting more noise on this topic to /.
Good day.