I see your principle, but has browsing the Internet been established as a Human Right? If that is the case, were we all deprived of our Human Rights before the US Military (DARPA) invented the Internet?
(If the answer is "Yes", I do find it a little amusing that the US Military is credited with creating a Human Right; it is usually accused of the opposite)
While Cisco and the rest may not be...
I also understand, and partially agree, with your point, but where is the logical end? Take the case of providing aid to the poor in third world countries. I know that some portion of that aid will be stolen by some dictator as tribute or whatnot, and, therefor, my sending aid is helping a dictator.
Of course, Cisco's intentions are no where near as pure as someone giving aid, I'm just trying to point out an extreme end to the same line of reasoning. The Department of State (I believe) establishes export controls to police this sort of thing. If Cisco is not in violation of export controls, are they doing something that society has deemed wrong?
Does your company use contractors? I've a rather low opinion of the trustworthiness of traditional contractors and subcontractors.
I work for a consulting company. One of our larger expenses is liability insurance, and we carry loads of it. I head up a practice, and I am very careful to protect confidentiality of clients and their IP. I work for companies that compete with each other, so I have to be very careful about keeping these walls up. I wouldn't generalize that contractors (such as consulting companies) are any more or less scrupulous than the business world at large.
Open Source people that I've interacted with are some of the *most* upstanding when it comes to following licenses correctly.
I think engineers in general are upstanding. It is perhaps unfair to compare open-source to closed-source engineers. Many engineers I know in the closed-source world I know also contribute to OSS.
I am one of those realists that believes a fair amount of infringement is happening all over the software world. I'm not terribly pleased with it, so don't think that I am defending it, but software has had a very lax attitude toward this (unlike, say, pharma, that takes IP seriously).
Back to the topic, I think insurance is a great way to manage risk. I feel that I am more liable in OSS, because I have the ability to know (because I get the source) where, in closed-source, I can always plead that there was no way for me to know, because my license agreement specifically forbids reverse-engineering, among other things, and I don't have the source. This insurance gives me a way to mitigate that risk, although it does eliminate part of the cost-justification of OSS.
Because the way I see it is that if someone sold you something, and you bought it legally and in good faith, there's nothing a patent holder can do about it other than go after the party that "made, sold or offered for sale" the invention.
Perhaps, but as soon as you know it is illegal, you may be required to stop using it, or face legal consequences. That could hurt your business.
Consider the situation of accidentally buying a stolen item. You will probably face no consequences as long as you immedatly return the stolen item (of course, you lose what you paid). You do not get to say "Hey, I didn't know it was stolen", and then assume you have ownership.
I don't fault folks for not knowing what dihydrogen monoxide is, but for charging ahead, guns blazing, completely unburdened by the thought process. Sounds like presidential material to me.
The part that embarasses me as an American? That applies to both of the major party candidates.
I think you should have to vote on a ballot without names or parties. Their should just be a list of their honest views and their platform, and next to that their voting record on those issues. No rhetoric. No "invoking the flag," thank you Mr President. No BS catch phrases like "bring it on," thank you Mr Senator.
Of course, most people would go to the poles, read what was in front of them, get disgusted, and leave with their ballot unmarked.
Those EULAs are a bunch of crap. Just clicking "yes" on a pop-up so it will go the F*%& away does not constitute informed consent. Also, if a user agrees to take one piece of adware, 8 or 9 others join in unannounced, and leave a door open for more. All spyware should be illegal pop-up "agreements" or not.
How ya like dat?
I've got a particularly strong conspiracy theory about this. It goes like this:
1. The government should invest all the money for consumer protection in consumer education and programs to inform the public; do away with regulation; let the market make decisions.
2. Informed consumers would not simply click on something, or buy something etc.
3. Making it harder to sell things, more expensive, lowering profits.
4. So the government actually helps big business by pretending to hurt them with regulations. It doesn't abolish regulations and invest in education, empowering people to vote with their pocketbook, because it would work.
The only thing I can't figure out is if harboring this idea makes me ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative...
Several years ago from a random sample it was estimated that about 70% of software patents would not actually hold up in court.
Ok, I've seen this sort of thing on/. for a while, and thought someone else would say it, no one did, now I am: the purpose of the vast majority of software patents is not to enforce them.
They are marketing gimics. "Acme Graphical Design: Using patented Make-It-Better technology...". Some companies advertise using the absolute number of patents they've been granted, like it was some sort of race, and buyers would buy from whoever won. The companies know they are not enforceable; thats not the point.
This is not, of course, universally true. Companies like Rambus are deadly serious about enforcement. I am just saying that an awful lot of these are simply to claim some percieved intellectual leadership.
Doing away with IP can insure that good inventions will be available to all, instead of rotting on the shelf waiting for those mythical millions to appear.
Without Intellectual Property protection perhaps those good inventions would never have been invented at all.
Without IP, drug companies could not poor the billions they do into drug research, because the cost reduction caused by generics would mean they could never recoup their R&D. IP allows drug companies to invest heavily, and make their money back. Notice, I'm not talking about getting rich vs. making a good living. I'm talking about avoiding bankrupcy: inventing a drug is not cheap.
I am not for (or against, I guess) inherited patents, and other such nonsense, as it seems a little silly to keep Micky Mouse under protection for so long (that was copyright, right), but some allowance must be made for the protection of truely original work. It is not greed to expect grand compensation for a grand invention - or fair compensation for a fair invention. Many inventors show a level of focus and dedication that is almost super-human; why not reward them?
The USA was the big proponent of setting up the UN, that it turned into what it is now is something you can in part blame the same USA for due to its absurd abuse of its veto power (look it up, there are more vetos from the USA then all other members of the security council together)
This statement is patently false. The Soviet Union in fact has more vetos than any other permanent member.
Now, historically speaking, that may be the U.S's fault. The U.S. used to introduce resolutions condemning the USSR for this or that, just to embarass the USSR and force them into the veto, so you can't squarly place the blame anywhere. However, the fact is, the USSR (now Russia, but quickly heading back to being the USSR) is the leading user of vetors.
Back in the 1700s there was a group of terrorists in this country. They won their independance. Insane and murderous? I think not.
This is so far off topic, I hate to respond, but...
The rebels in the 1700s (a better term) would not be terrorists by today's definition of the word. They wore uniforms, had a flag, and had battles with the British soldiers usually out of civilians way.
There is also no evidence they ever used civilians as sheilds, hid among civilians, or even tried to hide their identity. Remember the large number of signatures on the Declaration of Independance?
They also did not consider non-combantants to be fair targets of lethal force. Nor did they blow up buildings in London.
This entire analogy between terrorists and the rebels in the British colonies (as they would have been known had they lost the war) doesn't pass the smell test, let alone any reasonable analysis.
3. The government has a duty to be responsible to the people's will so long as it does not violate constitutional principles.
4. The government has a duty to provide certain consumer and employee protections because the market cannot make these guarantees on its own. (Libertarians: Please take a look at 19th century American history.)
I think these two points are in contradiction. I say this because there is really no purer and cleaner way to express the true will and values of the populace than through the free-market.
Take this example: Let's say that I started a car company, and I offered car prices that were 20% less than anyone else. I did this through abusive labor and supplier contracts and relationships (in other words, I was a terrible employer and partner). (For this example to work, by the way, we have to put in what I believe is a duty of the government: to make sure the populace is informed so the free-market can work.)
So, given this situation, the population votes with its pocket-books. Does the populace value good treatment of employees or lower prices more? Whatever the outcome, no matter if its good or bad, it is the true will of the populace being expressed. What is wrong with that?
I could be wrong, but I think that one of capitalism's biggest problems is industries that require a large infrastructure. I know that socialist approaches to most things tend to be less efficient (due to the lack of competition), but in a case like this I think it's better, since to get REAL competition we need multiple infrastructures reaching every single house, the cost of which of course would still get passed on to the consumer.
But isn't the purpose in competition consumer benefit? Actually, competition has no implicit purpose, I guess, but in the US we tend to look for consumer benifit in areas of corporate competition (other areas restrict competition because of different interests involved, for instance, with laws that protect organized labor and stop competition among labor).
Anyway, the type of thing you mention results in natural monopolies, or monopolies that represent the most efficient form of business for all concerned, and so are nearly impossible to compete with.
In the future, I see convergance between communications providers so that they will compete on the whole spectrum. I also think the competition will be intermodal, so cable will compete with wireline who maybe will compete with the power infrastructure. I think that all services (TV, data, phone) will be naturally purchased from a single provider, at least for the masses.
If this delivers better quality and lower prices, then is letting a series of natural monopolies develop all that bad?
I think it is somewhat depressing that anyone with a lawyer and no conscience can try to force us into the most ridiculous legal situations purely for the hell (and profit) of it. What a complete waste of time, tax dollars and effort by all concerned to try to force consumers into an unfair position.
I am an advocate of a law that says the loser in a tort must pay the winner's court costs. That would prevent fishing expiditions like SCO's because they are too expensive.
It also prevents all of the pain-and-suffering fishing expeditions. Right now, I can sue [insert-mega-corp-here] for $20k for nearly anything, and be almost sure they will settle because it is cheaper for them. However, if I had to pay all of their court costs, then they would be motivated to only settle if it was indeed their fault (because not only do they pay the 20k, they also pay my court costs). If I sue them frivilously, then I have to pony up their multiple hundred-thousands in court costs (including time, attorney fees, etc).
America is law-suit crazy because their is very little penalty. Could the RIAA take the shotgun/mass-sue approach if they had to cover the legal defense costs for everyone they wrongly sued? This law would make people much more honest in their claims I believe, and much more likely to defend themselves instead of rolling over an playing dead.
They would be more likely to defend themselves because, if they are right and win, they are not out a single cent. They can hire any high-priced attorney they feel like, because, when they were vindicated, the loser would pay up (the RIAA, for instance). Of course, you better be sure you are actually right, and not trying to win on a technicality or something:)
Know more than just a programming language. I will give you a for instance: if you are in telecom, buy and read IEC's "The Basics of Telecommunications."
Read a good book on corporate finance. When the boss is having budget problems, help him work them out. Few managers really understand finance and the difference between Capitalizated Expenses and true expenses, and how to capitalize assets. Get the boss to start asking you questions on how to do his job.
Learn other people's jobs on your team. You want to be the "go-to" guy on stuff. It results in more hours, but more visibility. You want to be the guy sitting in requirements-gathering meetings with business owners. The more people who know (and respect) you, the better.
Don't be the guy in the trenches, be the one that people trust.
Above all, liberaly use the phase "I don't know." You want to use it so much, that when you say you do know something, there is not a doubt in anyone's mind that you are telling the truth. That builds trust. Trust builds respect. Respect=promotions.
Also, more personally (because my wife is in this situation), if you are in a company where you won't advance because it is too "good-ole-boy-system" or whatever, move on. Most companies these days really are a meritocracy, but I suspect that a third of them still are "the club" type places. You don't want to be in those systems. Work somewhere were your hard-work, knowledge and desire are rewarded (which is most, but not nearly all, companies).
Of course, I don't have all the answers. This is how I built my career, and I think it works. We all have to find our groove and work in it. But things like integrity and work-ethic transcend all industry and most political concerns.
Think before you slam an organization just because they don't share your world view.
It probably came across wrong, but I was slamming many of the organizations members, not the organization. My world-view and that of Green Peace are not far apart.
I find the membership of the organization (at least the ones I have experience with) irresponsible at best, malicious at worst. I saw one sleeping on the anchor-chain of a large ship. Any one of dozens of things could have happened to kill the guy (a fact I am sure he was oblivious to), but, know what? I bet the PR spin-doctors would have blamed it on the ship's captain had he been killed.
What about their members that have taken part in violent, destructive protests? I see little need to resort to violenece in almost anything (war, protest, crime, etc). I think it is the height of hypocracy to be a member of an organization with Peace in its name then take part in violence.
Again, please, understand, I support many organizations with goals of Peace, Understanding and Conservatation. While I have donated money, I do not join the organizations for fear of guilt by association of some of the members.
Maybe you still actually program, and thus still have a clue. Most people don't, once they reach management level, and thus no longer do.
In fact, I do. I take on little assignments myself (simple stuff like writing back-end loader processes or web-interfaces for systems) that I finish on nights and weekends. I try my best to not let me boss know I do these things, because he thinks it is a waste of my time.
I think it is vitally important to have a clue about what is doing on. Nothing makes me understand the data-model better than writing a program to load data in to it. Nothing makes me understand an interface more than writing a front-end for it. He thinks I don't need to really know and, if I do, I have people to explain "at a 50,000 foot level" what it is about.
(I hate that 50,000-foot level thing).
Of course, the higher I go, the less I know about what is going on. I spend most of my day working on budgets, organization, schedules and interfacing with other groups. There seems to be this belief that a manager should know every detail of what their staff is doing, and I wish that it were possible, but it is not.
Besides, I fundamentally hire people that I can trust. I don't want to back-seat drive for them; I give them the authority to get their job done and rarely second-guess their decisions. I even defend the original maker of the "one-word mistake" because she was working 12-hours a day writing hundreds of pages, and did a pretty good job. God knows I make my share of misktakes, so why should I berate her over one?
I guess any profession is a little like baseball. You don't hit every ball, you just try to keep your average as high as possible.
Well, responding to an old thread, so I guess no one well read it, but, just in case...
The missing word was the word "Line". The spec said (this is the telecom industry, btw) to do a certain data look up by 'NPA and NXX'. It should have been 'NPA, NXX and Line'. (those are the 3 components of a North American 10-digit Telephone Number).
The requirement had to do with seeing if something existed. They should have been checking if a certain TN existing, but instead wound up seeing if any TN in our inventory begin with the first 6 digits (the NPA+NXX part).
This resulted in, obviously, a massive error. You would be suprised how many "single words" can produce spectacular blunders.
BTW, back to my original point, a programmer with rudimentary knowledge of that the purpose of the requirement was would not have made this mistake. They would have seen the spec was wrong and asked about it, or just done it the right way. I have implemented a new policy that, after the spec is delivered, the spec writers have a conference call with developers where developers are free to ask questions. At the end of this process, they must explain (perhaps to me if I am on the call) what the requirements mean, not just what they say.
Its not a silver bullet, and I wish I was allocated the money for a full staff that I can see and touch and have open communication with the business owners, but I work in the confines I am given. I will see if this helps things.
You only think you can tell. If you really know so much, you would have caught the spec error that you sent to India AND having fucked up, you could fix it yourself. Fuck you for your attitude and get to work, bitch.
Interesting that you assume as an executive I don't know much about the IT systems I oversee. Would it suprise you to learn that I have published papers, articles, and a book on the subjects of distributed and parallel computing as well as object-oriented design theory? I rose through the ranks with technical skills, not business skills. I learned my business skills on the job.
I have hired as many people since the "bubble-burst" in March 2000 in the US as in India (actually, probably a bit more in the US). Of course, that probably interfers with your world-view of my type. I have also spent no training money in India, but plenty in the US. I require my outsourcing company to provide trained people, but I hire "fresh" people and train them routinely. Of course, that probably interferes with your world-view of my type as well.
You are free to think I am overpaid, but I can point to plenty of my fellow executives (defined as Director level and above by most business-experts) that make well less that highly-skilled software engineers.
The spec error I missed was buried in hundreds of pages of specs, reviewed by teams of people. You may find this hard to believe, but I have never in my life seen a perfect spec. If you pick up great works of fine literature, you can easily find spelling and gramatical errors. The mistake that I missed was a single missing word.
But, you obviously have a view that no one can change. I feel sorry for people who are so convinced they know everything.
So in order to compete against people in India I need two majors? Gee, I see your point about not having to worry about my job. At this rate I'm never going to graduate and leave my work study position.
Who said anything about 2 majors? Hell, there are plenty of IT multi-millionairs with no majors.
I said learn the business. Your CS degree is one part of the formula. In your "out of college seriously low-paying job," make it a point to learn whatever business you are in. You should even take a lower-paying job if you have a chance to learn more.
As an example, for my "first real job," I had 2 job offers. One paid a full US$10/hour less than the other, but the one that paid less obviously had more opportunity, and the other was more comfortable and secure, but I knew it would not lead anywhere. I took the lower-paying (obviously), learned, left that company a few years later, and was very successful with the skills I picked up.
Education does not start or stop at college. It is a continual, life-long excercise. Doing well requires keeping on top of things.
"Yes, but how do you raise a family properly without money", the jackass says.
I was rasied in an exceedingly poor family. To quote a song: "People that say 'Money is the root of all that kills' have never had the joy of a welfare Christmas."
We were so poor, we didn't even qualify for welfare (actually, we were denied welfare because we were white... we were told that if we were a minority, we would have qualified. I like to spin the story to "too poor to get welfare," I find it more amusing than the sad truth).
My wife's first and foremost responsibility is to raise our children. Mine is to feed them. You can call me sexist, or money hungry, or anything you want, but my children will never know want the way I did, and if that requires me to work 24 hours a day for the rest of my life, so be it.
Fortunatly, I am quite successful and do get plenty of time for family, and have plenty of money. That has not always been the case, and there was a time in my life where I would work 40 straight hours, sleep 6 to 8, then do it again. If I ever need to work that way again to provide my family a comfortable lifestyle, I will.
As if having ambition in your job is a virtue. How about having ambition in being a better human being. How about having ambition to do the right thing. Are people in Greenpeace ambition free... I think not. I think they are a lot more ambitious than most of us here...
Don't get me started on Greenpeace. In my experience, most have no understanding of what it is they are protesting. How many anti-Globalization types (of which most Greenpeaces-types ascribe) actually truly know what globalization is? Give those types some ambition to learn and have an informed opinion. They would do more good getting a job, working during their protesting time, and send their pay to feed starving people. But that wouldn't be as cool, I guess.
Want to know how many starving people those jerks could feed? I once fed over a dozen people enough food for 3 days in South Asia for less than 1 US dollar. But, thats not as cool and sexy as protesting, and will never land you on TV or get you laid, so I guess they don't want to do that.
If you still have an insanely high-paying IT job, give thanks and keep saving. Chances are good that you won't have it much longer between offshore outsourcing and a whole ton of unemployed IT ppl willing to do your job for less $$$.
As an executive who out-sourced some work to India and also hires plenty of US talent, I can tell you that highly-skilled US programmers who understand the domain they are working in (health care, telecom, finance, etc) will still command top-dollar.
Just today (yes, today), I had a major schedule slip that could cost the company millions over that cheap labor. In their defense, the requirement that was given to them was incorrect, and they did a superb job of implementing the system. However, a US based programmer with knowledge of the domain (telecom in this case) would have recognized the requirement as incorrect and would have implemented correct code anyway. As an aside, she said the Big-5 consultancies do a horrible job and providing people with domain expertise, in spite of claims to the contrary.
Just this week I spent time with a fellow executive from a major ILEC. She told me that they are outsourcing Java work to India like there is no tommorow. However, highly-skilled programmers with true knowledge of the business are still paid as high as they ever were (which is my experience in my organization as well).
If you want my advise, learn the industry you want to work in. Programming skills are cheap, I don't care how good you are. Business knowledge is still a damn rarity. Business knowledge and the ability to implement it in systems is almost impossible to find. That means it is paid well for.
Oh yeah, most resumes I see from programmers who think they know the business don't know nearly as much as they think. Spend as much time learning the business as your programming skills, and I think you'll be fine.
CNN is liberal? I wouldn't know from all the American flags, gushy presidential commentary, glorification of the war and other corporate fed infotainment.
What's wrong with the American flag? I'm a liberal myself (a free-thinking one, not to be confused with the Democratic party, which is not liberal... explain to me how liberalism and ultra-powerful teacher's unions and trail lawyers go together?). Being a liberal does not make me not a patriot; I had an American flag stuck in my garden during the Afghan campaign to support the troops.
I could have surrounded my house with American flags, building a patriot wall, and I would still be liberal (but perhaps a bit tacky). What is it with this opinion that if you put up and respect the American flag you are automatically a conservative?
Only thieves would be phased by restrictions of fair use.
Yes, I know the spirit of this post, but... Actual consumers cherish "fair use." IMHO, no DRM should interfere with fair use.
I should be able to make as many copies as I feel like on as any devices as I own. That is fair use. If the producers want to prevent infringing uses like Internet swapping, it is their responsibility to do it in such as way as to not interfere with fair use.
I am a solid IP and "rights of the copyright owner" supporter, but I am just as strong a fair use supporter. I will boycott anything that stops my fair use rights.
If Congress wants to allow taxing of internet access by the states, they will now have the ability, though they probably won't.
Actually, I think they will. The federal govervnment, along with most states and minicipalities, gets lots of money from the various Telecom taxes that are for "voice services."
Now, if VOIP keeps being rated as a "data service," and people switch in mass from POTS to VOIP, then a huge revenue stream dries up. Government, like most people, doesn't like money going away, so they will tax the new communication medium: data.
Regulation of telecom services (whether they be voice, data, access, or somewhere in between) is 90% about taxes and revenue, and don't look for the government to give that up easily, especially in a time of budget crunch instead of budget surplus.
(Ok, am I the only one getting lots of Server Errors on/. today?)
Slashdot Mirror
...on the Internet, invented in the good ole U S of A
I see your principle, but has browsing the Internet been established as a Human Right? If that is the case, were we all deprived of our Human Rights before the US Military (DARPA) invented the Internet?
(If the answer is "Yes", I do find it a little amusing that the US Military is credited with creating a Human Right; it is usually accused of the opposite)
While Cisco and the rest may not be...
I also understand, and partially agree, with your point, but where is the logical end? Take the case of providing aid to the poor in third world countries. I know that some portion of that aid will be stolen by some dictator as tribute or whatnot, and, therefor, my sending aid is helping a dictator.
Of course, Cisco's intentions are no where near as pure as someone giving aid, I'm just trying to point out an extreme end to the same line of reasoning. The Department of State (I believe) establishes export controls to police this sort of thing. If Cisco is not in violation of export controls, are they doing something that society has deemed wrong?
I work for a consulting company. One of our larger expenses is liability insurance, and we carry loads of it. I head up a practice, and I am very careful to protect confidentiality of clients and their IP. I work for companies that compete with each other, so I have to be very careful about keeping these walls up. I wouldn't generalize that contractors (such as consulting companies) are any more or less scrupulous than the business world at large.
Open Source people that I've interacted with are some of the *most* upstanding when it comes to following licenses correctly.
I think engineers in general are upstanding. It is perhaps unfair to compare open-source to closed-source engineers. Many engineers I know in the closed-source world I know also contribute to OSS.
I am one of those realists that believes a fair amount of infringement is happening all over the software world. I'm not terribly pleased with it, so don't think that I am defending it, but software has had a very lax attitude toward this (unlike, say, pharma, that takes IP seriously).
Back to the topic, I think insurance is a great way to manage risk. I feel that I am more liable in OSS, because I have the ability to know (because I get the source) where, in closed-source, I can always plead that there was no way for me to know, because my license agreement specifically forbids reverse-engineering, among other things, and I don't have the source. This insurance gives me a way to mitigate that risk, although it does eliminate part of the cost-justification of OSS.
Perhaps, but as soon as you know it is illegal, you may be required to stop using it, or face legal consequences. That could hurt your business.
Consider the situation of accidentally buying a stolen item. You will probably face no consequences as long as you immedatly return the stolen item (of course, you lose what you paid). You do not get to say "Hey, I didn't know it was stolen", and then assume you have ownership.
The part that embarasses me as an American? That applies to both of the major party candidates.
I think you should have to vote on a ballot without names or parties. Their should just be a list of their honest views and their platform, and next to that their voting record on those issues. No rhetoric. No "invoking the flag," thank you Mr President. No BS catch phrases like "bring it on," thank you Mr Senator.
Of course, most people would go to the poles, read what was in front of them, get disgusted, and leave with their ballot unmarked.
I've got a particularly strong conspiracy theory about this. It goes like this:
1. The government should invest all the money for consumer protection in consumer education and programs to inform the public; do away with regulation; let the market make decisions.
2. Informed consumers would not simply click on something, or buy something etc.
3. Making it harder to sell things, more expensive, lowering profits.
4. So the government actually helps big business by pretending to hurt them with regulations. It doesn't abolish regulations and invest in education, empowering people to vote with their pocketbook, because it would work.
The only thing I can't figure out is if harboring this idea makes me ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative...
Ok, I've seen this sort of thing on /. for a while, and thought someone else would say it, no one did, now I am: the purpose of the vast majority of software patents is not to enforce them.
They are marketing gimics. "Acme Graphical Design: Using patented Make-It-Better technology...". Some companies advertise using the absolute number of patents they've been granted, like it was some sort of race, and buyers would buy from whoever won. The companies know they are not enforceable; thats not the point.
This is not, of course, universally true. Companies like Rambus are deadly serious about enforcement. I am just saying that an awful lot of these are simply to claim some percieved intellectual leadership.
Without Intellectual Property protection perhaps those good inventions would never have been invented at all.
Without IP, drug companies could not poor the billions they do into drug research, because the cost reduction caused by generics would mean they could never recoup their R&D. IP allows drug companies to invest heavily, and make their money back. Notice, I'm not talking about getting rich vs. making a good living. I'm talking about avoiding bankrupcy: inventing a drug is not cheap.
I am not for (or against, I guess) inherited patents, and other such nonsense, as it seems a little silly to keep Micky Mouse under protection for so long (that was copyright, right), but some allowance must be made for the protection of truely original work. It is not greed to expect grand compensation for a grand invention - or fair compensation for a fair invention. Many inventors show a level of focus and dedication that is almost super-human; why not reward them?
This statement is patently false. The Soviet Union in fact has more vetos than any other permanent member.
Now, historically speaking, that may be the U.S's fault. The U.S. used to introduce resolutions condemning the USSR for this or that, just to embarass the USSR and force them into the veto, so you can't squarly place the blame anywhere. However, the fact is, the USSR (now Russia, but quickly heading back to being the USSR) is the leading user of vetors.
This is so far off topic, I hate to respond, but...
The rebels in the 1700s (a better term) would not be terrorists by today's definition of the word. They wore uniforms, had a flag, and had battles with the British soldiers usually out of civilians way.
There is also no evidence they ever used civilians as sheilds, hid among civilians, or even tried to hide their identity. Remember the large number of signatures on the Declaration of Independance?
They also did not consider non-combantants to be fair targets of lethal force. Nor did they blow up buildings in London.
This entire analogy between terrorists and the rebels in the British colonies (as they would have been known had they lost the war) doesn't pass the smell test, let alone any reasonable analysis.
4. The government has a duty to provide certain consumer and employee protections because the market cannot make these guarantees on its own. (Libertarians: Please take a look at 19th century American history.)
I think these two points are in contradiction. I say this because there is really no purer and cleaner way to express the true will and values of the populace than through the free-market.
Take this example: Let's say that I started a car company, and I offered car prices that were 20% less than anyone else. I did this through abusive labor and supplier contracts and relationships (in other words, I was a terrible employer and partner). (For this example to work, by the way, we have to put in what I believe is a duty of the government: to make sure the populace is informed so the free-market can work.)
So, given this situation, the population votes with its pocket-books. Does the populace value good treatment of employees or lower prices more? Whatever the outcome, no matter if its good or bad, it is the true will of the populace being expressed. What is wrong with that?
But isn't the purpose in competition consumer benefit? Actually, competition has no implicit purpose, I guess, but in the US we tend to look for consumer benifit in areas of corporate competition (other areas restrict competition because of different interests involved, for instance, with laws that protect organized labor and stop competition among labor).
Anyway, the type of thing you mention results in natural monopolies, or monopolies that represent the most efficient form of business for all concerned, and so are nearly impossible to compete with.
In the future, I see convergance between communications providers so that they will compete on the whole spectrum. I also think the competition will be intermodal, so cable will compete with wireline who maybe will compete with the power infrastructure. I think that all services (TV, data, phone) will be naturally purchased from a single provider, at least for the masses.
If this delivers better quality and lower prices, then is letting a series of natural monopolies develop all that bad?
I am an advocate of a law that says the loser in a tort must pay the winner's court costs. That would prevent fishing expiditions like SCO's because they are too expensive.
It also prevents all of the pain-and-suffering fishing expeditions. Right now, I can sue [insert-mega-corp-here] for $20k for nearly anything, and be almost sure they will settle because it is cheaper for them. However, if I had to pay all of their court costs, then they would be motivated to only settle if it was indeed their fault (because not only do they pay the 20k, they also pay my court costs). If I sue them frivilously, then I have to pony up their multiple hundred-thousands in court costs (including time, attorney fees, etc).
America is law-suit crazy because their is very little penalty. Could the RIAA take the shotgun/mass-sue approach if they had to cover the legal defense costs for everyone they wrongly sued? This law would make people much more honest in their claims I believe, and much more likely to defend themselves instead of rolling over an playing dead.
They would be more likely to defend themselves because, if they are right and win, they are not out a single cent. They can hire any high-priced attorney they feel like, because, when they were vindicated, the loser would pay up (the RIAA, for instance). Of course, you better be sure you are actually right, and not trying to win on a technicality or something :)
What do I have to learn? How can I best learn it?
Know more than just a programming language. I will give you a for instance: if you are in telecom, buy and read IEC's "The Basics of Telecommunications."
Read a good book on corporate finance. When the boss is having budget problems, help him work them out. Few managers really understand finance and the difference between Capitalizated Expenses and true expenses, and how to capitalize assets. Get the boss to start asking you questions on how to do his job.
Learn other people's jobs on your team. You want to be the "go-to" guy on stuff. It results in more hours, but more visibility. You want to be the guy sitting in requirements-gathering meetings with business owners. The more people who know (and respect) you, the better.
Don't be the guy in the trenches, be the one that people trust.
Above all, liberaly use the phase "I don't know." You want to use it so much, that when you say you do know something, there is not a doubt in anyone's mind that you are telling the truth. That builds trust. Trust builds respect. Respect=promotions.
Also, more personally (because my wife is in this situation), if you are in a company where you won't advance because it is too "good-ole-boy-system" or whatever, move on. Most companies these days really are a meritocracy, but I suspect that a third of them still are "the club" type places. You don't want to be in those systems. Work somewhere were your hard-work, knowledge and desire are rewarded (which is most, but not nearly all, companies).
Of course, I don't have all the answers. This is how I built my career, and I think it works. We all have to find our groove and work in it. But things like integrity and work-ethic transcend all industry and most political concerns.
It probably came across wrong, but I was slamming many of the organizations members, not the organization. My world-view and that of Green Peace are not far apart.
I find the membership of the organization (at least the ones I have experience with) irresponsible at best, malicious at worst. I saw one sleeping on the anchor-chain of a large ship. Any one of dozens of things could have happened to kill the guy (a fact I am sure he was oblivious to), but, know what? I bet the PR spin-doctors would have blamed it on the ship's captain had he been killed.
What about their members that have taken part in violent, destructive protests? I see little need to resort to violenece in almost anything (war, protest, crime, etc). I think it is the height of hypocracy to be a member of an organization with Peace in its name then take part in violence.
Again, please, understand, I support many organizations with goals of Peace, Understanding and Conservatation. While I have donated money, I do not join the organizations for fear of guilt by association of some of the members.
In fact, I do. I take on little assignments myself (simple stuff like writing back-end loader processes or web-interfaces for systems) that I finish on nights and weekends. I try my best to not let me boss know I do these things, because he thinks it is a waste of my time.
I think it is vitally important to have a clue about what is doing on. Nothing makes me understand the data-model better than writing a program to load data in to it. Nothing makes me understand an interface more than writing a front-end for it. He thinks I don't need to really know and, if I do, I have people to explain "at a 50,000 foot level" what it is about.
(I hate that 50,000-foot level thing).
Of course, the higher I go, the less I know about what is going on. I spend most of my day working on budgets, organization, schedules and interfacing with other groups. There seems to be this belief that a manager should know every detail of what their staff is doing, and I wish that it were possible, but it is not.
Besides, I fundamentally hire people that I can trust. I don't want to back-seat drive for them; I give them the authority to get their job done and rarely second-guess their decisions. I even defend the original maker of the "one-word mistake" because she was working 12-hours a day writing hundreds of pages, and did a pretty good job. God knows I make my share of misktakes, so why should I berate her over one?
I guess any profession is a little like baseball. You don't hit every ball, you just try to keep your average as high as possible.
The missing word was the word "Line". The spec said (this is the telecom industry, btw) to do a certain data look up by 'NPA and NXX'. It should have been 'NPA, NXX and Line'. (those are the 3 components of a North American 10-digit Telephone Number).
The requirement had to do with seeing if something existed. They should have been checking if a certain TN existing, but instead wound up seeing if any TN in our inventory begin with the first 6 digits (the NPA+NXX part).
This resulted in, obviously, a massive error. You would be suprised how many "single words" can produce spectacular blunders.
BTW, back to my original point, a programmer with rudimentary knowledge of that the purpose of the requirement was would not have made this mistake. They would have seen the spec was wrong and asked about it, or just done it the right way. I have implemented a new policy that, after the spec is delivered, the spec writers have a conference call with developers where developers are free to ask questions. At the end of this process, they must explain (perhaps to me if I am on the call) what the requirements mean, not just what they say.
Its not a silver bullet, and I wish I was allocated the money for a full staff that I can see and touch and have open communication with the business owners, but I work in the confines I am given. I will see if this helps things.
Interesting that you assume as an executive I don't know much about the IT systems I oversee. Would it suprise you to learn that I have published papers, articles, and a book on the subjects of distributed and parallel computing as well as object-oriented design theory? I rose through the ranks with technical skills, not business skills. I learned my business skills on the job.
I have hired as many people since the "bubble-burst" in March 2000 in the US as in India (actually, probably a bit more in the US). Of course, that probably interfers with your world-view of my type. I have also spent no training money in India, but plenty in the US. I require my outsourcing company to provide trained people, but I hire "fresh" people and train them routinely. Of course, that probably interferes with your world-view of my type as well.
You are free to think I am overpaid, but I can point to plenty of my fellow executives (defined as Director level and above by most business-experts) that make well less that highly-skilled software engineers.
The spec error I missed was buried in hundreds of pages of specs, reviewed by teams of people. You may find this hard to believe, but I have never in my life seen a perfect spec. If you pick up great works of fine literature, you can easily find spelling and gramatical errors. The mistake that I missed was a single missing word.
But, you obviously have a view that no one can change. I feel sorry for people who are so convinced they know everything.
Who said anything about 2 majors? Hell, there are plenty of IT multi-millionairs with no majors.
I said learn the business. Your CS degree is one part of the formula. In your "out of college seriously low-paying job," make it a point to learn whatever business you are in. You should even take a lower-paying job if you have a chance to learn more.
As an example, for my "first real job," I had 2 job offers. One paid a full US$10/hour less than the other, but the one that paid less obviously had more opportunity, and the other was more comfortable and secure, but I knew it would not lead anywhere. I took the lower-paying (obviously), learned, left that company a few years later, and was very successful with the skills I picked up.
Education does not start or stop at college. It is a continual, life-long excercise. Doing well requires keeping on top of things.
I was rasied in an exceedingly poor family. To quote a song: "People that say 'Money is the root of all that kills' have never had the joy of a welfare Christmas."
We were so poor, we didn't even qualify for welfare (actually, we were denied welfare because we were white... we were told that if we were a minority, we would have qualified. I like to spin the story to "too poor to get welfare," I find it more amusing than the sad truth).
My wife's first and foremost responsibility is to raise our children. Mine is to feed them. You can call me sexist, or money hungry, or anything you want, but my children will never know want the way I did, and if that requires me to work 24 hours a day for the rest of my life, so be it.
Fortunatly, I am quite successful and do get plenty of time for family, and have plenty of money. That has not always been the case, and there was a time in my life where I would work 40 straight hours, sleep 6 to 8, then do it again. If I ever need to work that way again to provide my family a comfortable lifestyle, I will.
As if having ambition in your job is a virtue. How about having ambition in being a better human being. How about having ambition to do the right thing. Are people in Greenpeace ambition free ... I think not. I think they are a lot more ambitious than most of us here ...
Don't get me started on Greenpeace. In my experience, most have no understanding of what it is they are protesting. How many anti-Globalization types (of which most Greenpeaces-types ascribe) actually truly know what globalization is? Give those types some ambition to learn and have an informed opinion. They would do more good getting a job, working during their protesting time, and send their pay to feed starving people. But that wouldn't be as cool, I guess.
Want to know how many starving people those jerks could feed? I once fed over a dozen people enough food for 3 days in South Asia for less than 1 US dollar. But, thats not as cool and sexy as protesting, and will never land you on TV or get you laid, so I guess they don't want to do that.
As an executive who out-sourced some work to India and also hires plenty of US talent, I can tell you that highly-skilled US programmers who understand the domain they are working in (health care, telecom, finance, etc) will still command top-dollar.
Just today (yes, today), I had a major schedule slip that could cost the company millions over that cheap labor. In their defense, the requirement that was given to them was incorrect, and they did a superb job of implementing the system. However, a US based programmer with knowledge of the domain (telecom in this case) would have recognized the requirement as incorrect and would have implemented correct code anyway. As an aside, she said the Big-5 consultancies do a horrible job and providing people with domain expertise, in spite of claims to the contrary.
Just this week I spent time with a fellow executive from a major ILEC. She told me that they are outsourcing Java work to India like there is no tommorow. However, highly-skilled programmers with true knowledge of the business are still paid as high as they ever were (which is my experience in my organization as well).
If you want my advise, learn the industry you want to work in. Programming skills are cheap, I don't care how good you are. Business knowledge is still a damn rarity. Business knowledge and the ability to implement it in systems is almost impossible to find. That means it is paid well for.
Oh yeah, most resumes I see from programmers who think they know the business don't know nearly as much as they think. Spend as much time learning the business as your programming skills, and I think you'll be fine.
Or trail lawyers or labor unions.
And yes, labor unions are businesses.
What's wrong with the American flag? I'm a liberal myself (a free-thinking one, not to be confused with the Democratic party, which is not liberal... explain to me how liberalism and ultra-powerful teacher's unions and trail lawyers go together?). Being a liberal does not make me not a patriot; I had an American flag stuck in my garden during the Afghan campaign to support the troops.
I could have surrounded my house with American flags, building a patriot wall, and I would still be liberal (but perhaps a bit tacky). What is it with this opinion that if you put up and respect the American flag you are automatically a conservative?
Yes, I know the spirit of this post, but... Actual consumers cherish "fair use." IMHO, no DRM should interfere with fair use.
I should be able to make as many copies as I feel like on as any devices as I own. That is fair use. If the producers want to prevent infringing uses like Internet swapping, it is their responsibility to do it in such as way as to not interfere with fair use.
I am a solid IP and "rights of the copyright owner" supporter, but I am just as strong a fair use supporter. I will boycott anything that stops my fair use rights.
Actually, I think they will. The federal govervnment, along with most states and minicipalities, gets lots of money from the various Telecom taxes that are for "voice services."
Now, if VOIP keeps being rated as a "data service," and people switch in mass from POTS to VOIP, then a huge revenue stream dries up. Government, like most people, doesn't like money going away, so they will tax the new communication medium: data.
Regulation of telecom services (whether they be voice, data, access, or somewhere in between) is 90% about taxes and revenue, and don't look for the government to give that up easily, especially in a time of budget crunch instead of budget surplus. (Ok, am I the only one getting lots of Server Errors on /. today?)