Legislation ultimately runs into international borders and places where U.S. law cannot go. It can help, but honestly I am not sure how to craft a good law that will keep up with the pace of technology. Also, a law does not guarantee effective enforcement.
A better strategy, IMO, is to work on the commercial level. It has been said here on/. many times that if there were no money for spammers, there will be no spam. When spam becomes an issue which decides where money goes (who wins and who looses), the economics will take over. We need to convince people and businesses of simple ways to stop spam.
Forcing monitoring is counter-productive. ISP's need to voluntarily enact monitoring schemes for their own benefit and that of other parties. When an ISP is convinced that they can contribute to stopping spam and that this is in their best interests, their efforts are more likely to be aimed at succeeding not simply complying.
Also consumers need to get involved, but not with lobbying Congress (on this particular matter). ISP's and webhosts need to believe that consumers will factor spam tolerance into their decisionmaking. Consumers (and other buyers) need to follow up and practice this a little - at least a vocal plurality.
On the community side, black-lists need to be scrapped in favor of informative lists of known, proven spam havens and spammers. What host's are the real problem? That is what buyers need to know. Block them if you want, but that is counter to how the Internet works and will not ultimately succeed. Instead, inform buyers who is responsible for letting spam through. Who should you not do business with? Do not be condescending or militant - be simple and clear. "So-and-so sends spam to your inbox."
I agree, technical work needs to be done. But beyond protocols, formats, and other standards this is problem which can be solved through small changes in behavior across many groups. It cannot be centralized and squashed.
It seems that Larry McVoy has a fine line between a replacement and reverse-engineering (in this case compatibility?).
From the article (Torvald's statement):
" What Larry is _not_ fine with, is somebody writing a free replacement by just reverse-engineering what _he_ did."
I always am sympathetic to reverse engineering efforts, because frankly interoperability is ultimately a good thing. I am not sure what sort of principle we can follow if reverse-engineering is bad in this case. Where is the line? Is it a property line?
I tend to like/dislike products and deal even-handedly with companies. "Trusting" a corporation, for me, means contractual behavior we both operate by. They are not my personal accountant or attorney and I'm not disillusioned that they will do anything in "good faith." I expect our behavior to be governed by explicit word or common practice behavior.
However, Google has a unique place because I simply use their service all the time. It's grown slightly personal because - if Google wanted to - they could know a hell of a lot about me. They have my email, they could grab all my search results, etc. It's hard not to be comfortable with Google the corportation when I like and use all their products. I'm sure this is how Apple fans feel.
I read one entrepreneur who said that "brands are a promise." When you like a company's products, you tend to trust their promise more and more. But in the end a brand is an asset and a promise is based wholly in results - i.e. a product. So long as Google retains the good products, I will have some "trust" in their brand. But not for a minute am I trusting them because of their brand.
"Nice", "evil" don't really help me describe something, only my feelings toward it.
You meet the demands of the project/customer. I'm not really arguing with you, but this is sort of the point of a thread about Python. It's a tool that helps balance this process for the developer - this in turn should result in benefits to the enduser.
It is nice to have a perfect balance, but efficiency is relative and (developer) resources are finite. Always.
Actually, I would love to be able to simply find documents Google-style without having to know their exact location (much like web content). As long as there is decent, readable structure (in the case I need manual browsing) I would prefer to never look at the file hierarchy.
But my desktop experience with Windows has not reached this point. I still need to know the physical location of everything, I still have to do filesystem chores, and organize.
"it's rather difficult to get a feel of the other person's mood."
Mood is really key. Everyday I am surprised at how many people (myself included) comprehend messages based solely on mood.
When I can read someone's mood, I adjust the message accordingly. Otherwise I have to tone it down, maybe go around what I'm saying, and avoid being too personal or expressive. It can actually defeat the purpose.
Re:This book is nothing but lies
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 1
Baseball fans can have their own specialization in stats and other records. Some of these people simply have a technical edge to their interest (a geek spirit surely). For that crowd, citing the wrong game or other "obvious" errors is the/. equivalent of trolling.
The "many eyes" concept was always underdeveloped, because it assumes that someone cares and knows what they are doing. There are only so many of those people. However, the core advantage is still there: the code is available for modification. Let some basic economics sort the rest.
Consistent and straightforward versioning is the only solid rationale. If you can explain a system in a few sentences and things don't get hairy, it's probably good enough. Beyond that, the choice of versioning scheme, as you know, is arbitrary.
Linus has his preference. As long as I don't have to start maintaining the kernel, this won't affect me at all. I will sort of miss the old even/odd dichotomy though;)
Obviously, copyright provides no right to purchase.
Being a regulated monopoly, IP doesn't always play well with market demand. The problem is a monopoly provides some facility to distort the market. Divided among a million independent owners this is largely ignored, but aggregated into a large pool of assets it can be fully manipulative. The sponsors of the RIAA/MPAA manipulate the market and thereby attempt to manipulate you.
Not only parents raise a kid. Family, friends, teachers, etc. all have a part to play. The family connection is definite though. It's not always easy to pick out what really influences a child and what they don't attach to.
For example, I was a real ass to my younger brother when we were growing up. I know that affected him and at the time I didn't care. How much did it influence him? I don't know, and frankly it's sad to think about. He never committed any crimes, but he had some spells of anger where he went crazy though. Now, I don't take full responsibility for his actions, but I should take some responsibility for raising him even if I was only his brother.
People have been ignorant of their own political condition for millenia. In history, it is rare that the majority of a society understands and acts on liberal democratic principles - even in so-called democracies.
Sharing computers is not out of the question in a respectable community. College campuses, schools, libraries, etc. in industrialized nations do this all the time.
Low-cost tech can give a significant boost to education, which in turn may increase salaries. The UN Millenium Goals include free education, for example. This and multiuser terminal boxes may aid in the education of billions with the right funding.
Re:The iPod hardware is too weak for anything usef
on
Piezo-Acoustic iPod Hack
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's not about Linux, music, or the iPod.
It's about hacking.
It's like when an artist draws something on a napkin. Creative energy expands in every direction.
Making the communication or possession of information *illegal* is dangerous business.
The problems with HTML links are that they are one way references - they are not necessarily interlinked. In other words, it requires no coordinate between two sources to make a link - one only need a reference to the other. Therefore collaboration or illegal intent, technically, can only be determined with other evidence. Links are only indicators, not necessarily locations. In this case (if I understand correctly), the page owner knew the content the links pointed to and intended the distribution of that content.
Napster-style piracy is not about money, but simply content. Using it as a metric against sales is probably foolish. There is a different relationship between music-sharers than between sellers/buyers.
However, copyright infringement that involves a sale is an actual threat, because it is competition. In terms of sensible law and a legal strategy for the RIAA, it makes far more sense to go after profit-driven infringment. The average file-sharer is not competition, but a potential customer. The profit-driven infringer is simply small-time competition.
One major problem is that the enduser needs an interface to navigate through and come to grips with every serious security feature. Since IE has trained millions of users in promiscuous computing, this is a particular challenge.
Every time something does not work, the enduser rarely cares why, in the technical sense. Instead, they want an abstracted answer to their unvoiced question along with a quick fix and the promise this will never happen again. For every feature, there also needs to be a user-handling sister feature.
A very simple example is a popup blocker, which must at once notify the user of a popup, prevent its display (the core functionality), and provide a way for the user to configure the feature (UI). While a popup blocker is a pretty much 2-second learning experience for myself, it takes other multiple sessions to come to grips with it.
IRC and USENET work fine. It would be interesting to propogate torrents through IM client buddy lists. The actual torrents and listings would, of course, be P2P, but the IM servers would faciliate the base network.
"x per lines of code" analysis has further less and less relevance to reality.
We need new metrics, because this was almost a waste of time to prove the obvious: the (somewhat) distributed, open source development process can produce competitive, professional software.
That aside, we need metrics that we can use to not only compare software, but direct improvement. Lowering bugs per lines of code, for example, does not necessary make better, or even more stable, software. It is just not that simple and we're dumbing down analysis when we try to make these figures dance. What kind of metrics judge good code?
Monitoring doesn't replace parenting. Therefore, it should only have a marginal affect on teen driving behavior. When teens know what responsible driving is and know their parents expect that - not just hope, *expect* - behavior will improve.
... a real problem (for infringers at least). BT is for many people centralized around a handfull of sites - even if they have mirrors. This means that it is both easier to troll for IP's and easier to choke the P2P networks. Enemies of P2P have a few huge eggbaskets to rock.
Slashdot Mirror
Legislation ultimately runs into international borders and places where U.S. law cannot go. It can help, but honestly I am not sure how to craft a good law that will keep up with the pace of technology. Also, a law does not guarantee effective enforcement.
/. many times that if there were no money for spammers, there will be no spam. When spam becomes an issue which decides where money goes (who wins and who looses), the economics will take over. We need to convince people and businesses of simple ways to stop spam.
A better strategy, IMO, is to work on the commercial level. It has been said here on
Forcing monitoring is counter-productive. ISP's need to voluntarily enact monitoring schemes for their own benefit and that of other parties. When an ISP is convinced that they can contribute to stopping spam and that this is in their best interests, their efforts are more likely to be aimed at succeeding not simply complying.
Also consumers need to get involved, but not with lobbying Congress (on this particular matter). ISP's and webhosts need to believe that consumers will factor spam tolerance into their decisionmaking. Consumers (and other buyers) need to follow up and practice this a little - at least a vocal plurality.
On the community side, black-lists need to be scrapped in favor of informative lists of known, proven spam havens and spammers. What host's are the real problem? That is what buyers need to know. Block them if you want, but that is counter to how the Internet works and will not ultimately succeed. Instead, inform buyers who is responsible for letting spam through. Who should you not do business with? Do not be condescending or militant - be simple and clear. "So-and-so sends spam to your inbox."
I agree, technical work needs to be done. But beyond protocols, formats, and other standards this is problem which can be solved through small changes in behavior across many groups. It cannot be centralized and squashed.
It seems that Larry McVoy has a fine line between a replacement and reverse-engineering (in this case compatibility?).
From the article (Torvald's statement):
" What Larry is _not_ fine with, is somebody writing a free replacement by just reverse-engineering what _he_ did."
I always am sympathetic to reverse engineering efforts, because frankly interoperability is ultimately a good thing. I am not sure what sort of principle we can follow if reverse-engineering is bad in this case. Where is the line? Is it a property line?
I tend to like/dislike products and deal even-handedly with companies. "Trusting" a corporation, for me, means contractual behavior we both operate by. They are not my personal accountant or attorney and I'm not disillusioned that they will do anything in "good faith." I expect our behavior to be governed by explicit word or common practice behavior.
However, Google has a unique place because I simply use their service all the time. It's grown slightly personal because - if Google wanted to - they could know a hell of a lot about me. They have my email, they could grab all my search results, etc. It's hard not to be comfortable with Google the corportation when I like and use all their products. I'm sure this is how Apple fans feel.
I read one entrepreneur who said that "brands are a promise." When you like a company's products, you tend to trust their promise more and more. But in the end a brand is an asset and a promise is based wholly in results - i.e. a product. So long as Google retains the good products, I will have some "trust" in their brand. But not for a minute am I trusting them because of their brand.
"Nice", "evil" don't really help me describe something, only my feelings toward it.
"Speed is important"
...just like price, just like quality.
You meet the demands of the project/customer. I'm not really arguing with you, but this is sort of the point of a thread about Python. It's a tool that helps balance this process for the developer - this in turn should result in benefits to the enduser.
It is nice to have a perfect balance, but efficiency is relative and (developer) resources are finite. Always.
Actually, I would love to be able to simply find documents Google-style without having to know their exact location (much like web content). As long as there is decent, readable structure (in the case I need manual browsing) I would prefer to never look at the file hierarchy.
But my desktop experience with Windows has not reached this point. I still need to know the physical location of everything, I still have to do filesystem chores, and organize.
"it's rather difficult to get a feel of the other person's mood."
Mood is really key. Everyday I am surprised at how many people (myself included) comprehend messages based solely on mood.
When I can read someone's mood, I adjust the message accordingly. Otherwise I have to tone it down, maybe go around what I'm saying, and avoid being too personal or expressive. It can actually defeat the purpose.
...Just reinstall it.
Baseball fans can have their own specialization in stats and other records. Some of these people simply have a technical edge to their interest (a geek spirit surely). For that crowd, citing the wrong game or other "obvious" errors is the /. equivalent of trolling.
That's what Canseco seems to be doing - trolling.
Honda Civic Hybrids have a similar 8-year warranty, or so the dealer told me.
They've been advertising hype for 10 years. Real development time is questionable.
Meanwhile, Google has a free app which is great at local searching and incredibly fast. And it doesn't take a new filesystem to use it.
You're point is strong though.
The "many eyes" concept was always underdeveloped, because it assumes that someone cares and knows what they are doing. There are only so many of those people. However, the core advantage is still there: the code is available for modification. Let some basic economics sort the rest.
Consistent and straightforward versioning is the only solid rationale. If you can explain a system in a few sentences and things don't get hairy, it's probably good enough. Beyond that, the choice of versioning scheme, as you know, is arbitrary.
;)
Linus has his preference. As long as I don't have to start maintaining the kernel, this won't affect me at all. I will sort of miss the old even/odd dichotomy though
Obviously, copyright provides no right to purchase.
Being a regulated monopoly, IP doesn't always play well with market demand. The problem is a monopoly provides some facility to distort the market. Divided among a million independent owners this is largely ignored, but aggregated into a large pool of assets it can be fully manipulative. The sponsors of the RIAA/MPAA manipulate the market and thereby attempt to manipulate you.
Not only parents raise a kid. Family, friends, teachers, etc. all have a part to play. The family connection is definite though. It's not always easy to pick out what really influences a child and what they don't attach to.
For example, I was a real ass to my younger brother when we were growing up. I know that affected him and at the time I didn't care. How much did it influence him? I don't know, and frankly it's sad to think about. He never committed any crimes, but he had some spells of anger where he went crazy though. Now, I don't take full responsibility for his actions, but I should take some responsibility for raising him even if I was only his brother.
People have been ignorant of their own political condition for millenia. In history, it is rare that the majority of a society understands and acts on liberal democratic principles - even in so-called democracies.
Sharing computers is not out of the question in a respectable community. College campuses, schools, libraries, etc. in industrialized nations do this all the time.
Low-cost tech can give a significant boost to education, which in turn may increase salaries. The UN Millenium Goals include free education, for example. This and multiuser terminal boxes may aid in the education of billions with the right funding.
It's not about Linux, music, or the iPod.
It's about hacking.
It's like when an artist draws something on a napkin. Creative energy expands in every direction.
Making the communication or possession of information *illegal* is dangerous business.
The problems with HTML links are that they are one way references - they are not necessarily interlinked. In other words, it requires no coordinate between two sources to make a link - one only need a reference to the other. Therefore collaboration or illegal intent, technically, can only be determined with other evidence. Links are only indicators, not necessarily locations. In this case (if I understand correctly), the page owner knew the content the links pointed to and intended the distribution of that content.
This line will be blurred in the future.
That's an important point.
Napster-style piracy is not about money, but simply content. Using it as a metric against sales is probably foolish. There is a different relationship between music-sharers than between sellers/buyers.
However, copyright infringement that involves a sale is an actual threat, because it is competition. In terms of sensible law and a legal strategy for the RIAA, it makes far more sense to go after profit-driven infringment. The average file-sharer is not competition, but a potential customer. The profit-driven infringer is simply small-time competition.
One major problem is that the enduser needs an interface to navigate through and come to grips with every serious security feature. Since IE has trained millions of users in promiscuous computing, this is a particular challenge.
Every time something does not work, the enduser rarely cares why, in the technical sense. Instead, they want an abstracted answer to their unvoiced question along with a quick fix and the promise this will never happen again. For every feature, there also needs to be a user-handling sister feature.
A very simple example is a popup blocker, which must at once notify the user of a popup, prevent its display (the core functionality), and provide a way for the user to configure the feature (UI). While a popup blocker is a pretty much 2-second learning experience for myself, it takes other multiple sessions to come to grips with it.
IRC and USENET work fine. It would be interesting to propogate torrents through IM client buddy lists. The actual torrents and listings would, of course, be P2P, but the IM servers would faciliate the base network.
"x per lines of code" analysis has further less and less relevance to reality.
We need new metrics, because this was almost a waste of time to prove the obvious: the (somewhat) distributed, open source development process can produce competitive, professional software.
That aside, we need metrics that we can use to not only compare software, but direct improvement. Lowering bugs per lines of code, for example, does not necessary make better, or even more stable, software. It is just not that simple and we're dumbing down analysis when we try to make these figures dance. What kind of metrics judge good code?
Monitoring doesn't replace parenting. Therefore, it should only have a marginal affect on teen driving behavior. When teens know what responsible driving is and know their parents expect that - not just hope, *expect* - behavior will improve.
... a real problem (for infringers at least). BT is for many people centralized around a handfull of sites - even if they have mirrors. This means that it is both easier to troll for IP's and easier to choke the P2P networks. Enemies of P2P have a few huge eggbaskets to rock.
It seems an excellent beginning to a general, national registry of persons.
Credit card companies probably already have a similar, healthy-sized list.