The commonest error is the failure to recognise that innovation it is an innately incremental and collaborative process. Technological progress, like almost any human endeavour, is a social activity. The greatest philosophers and innovators have always recognised that they were standing on the shoulders of giants.
The current IP-obsessed culture inhibits collaboration, and hampers the natural process of innovation in society.
Fortunately, initiatives like the Free Software movement have shown that innovation can thrive without creating artificial monopolies.
Good thing i don't have a linked (or even a doubly linked) list memory, then to remember what i did a few years ago, i would have to go through every single memory from now until then.
Normal memory things in an ad-hoc, unstructured fashion.
Mnemonic systems link things in a deliberate, structured way.
The latter method is slower and less flexible, but much more reliable.
The bottom 50% of wage-earners in the US pay less than 3% of the tax burden (with many at the bottom paying nothing). The top 5% pay over 60% - the top 1% almost half themselves.
I worked for a long time on mainframes, and never heard of Richard Stallman or the GNU Manifesto during that time. Yet, I saw first hand how much easier it is to fix something if you've got the source code than not.
"Free Software [1] is the term coined by Richard Stallman in the 80s to denote programs whose sources are available to whoever receives a copy of the software and come with the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."
On the contrary, Free Software has always been about ethics.
From the GNU Manifesto:
"Why I Must Write GNU: I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way.I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it."
True, but the GP referred specifically to 'armed resistance'. Also, the term 'resistance' traditionally refers to an anti-occupation movement - so the civil rights movement isn't really that relevant.
It's not necessarily easy to exercise restraint--the U.S. military certainly didn't want to cause civilian casualties in Iraq
It's not a question of 'easy' or 'difficult' - it's a question of what they are prepared to do to maintain control.
It doesn't take a huge attack to provoke an overreaction [...] the reason these tactics are so commonly employed is that they work, after all.
I repeat: creating an 'overreaction' not the primary goal of a resistance movement, despite the claims of propagandists to the contrary.
The theory how armed resistance can be used to overthrow government is very old and goes along the lines of: provoke the authorities with violence until they start to react as violent, but against their own innocent civilians.
That's a very slanted view. It is commonly put about by those keen to portray resistance movements as cruel and callous, and occupiers as mere 'victims of circumstance'.
In general, the goal of a resistance movement is to weaken and undermine the occupier's rule.
Increased repression and abuse of power is a common outcome, but hardly the primary goal.
Also, if the strategy were as simplistic as you claim, then it could be easily defeated by the occupier refusing to respond violently.
If Dell introduced a hardware certification programme:
1. They would not have to do any post-sales linux support. 2. Such a programme would have a finite cost-per-system, and would give their product-line a clear competitive advantage. 3. It would buy lots of good karma and word-of-mouth marketing from the community. 4. It would reduce the impediments to widespread Linux adoption - and MS's leverage in business deals.
We should leave that job to hired shills like Rob "Ferrari Laptop" Enderle:
"One impressive piece of execution is that when you fire the machine up it plays a WAV file of a Ferrari race car revving its engine. That alone is worth the relatively low $1,899 price of admission. Even when I'm in a meeting, I don't turn the sound off because of the unbridled envy that seems to show up in the eyes of my, granted mostly male, co-attendees. So far no one has complained."
Slashdot Mirror
I think software patents are ultimately the issue that most people have the most problems with.
Software patents are a serious problem, but they are not the only issue.
The IP consensus in the Real World (outside Slashdot) is very cultish and 'faith-based'.
Actually, the role of patents is to support incremental advances. Everbody gets to see the design rather than it remaining hidden.
That was the original rationale, certainly.
I don't think it has been the reality for a long time.
The commonest error is the failure to recognise that innovation it is an innately incremental and collaborative process. Technological progress, like almost any human endeavour, is a social activity. The greatest philosophers and innovators have always recognised that they were standing on the shoulders of giants.
The current IP-obsessed culture inhibits collaboration, and hampers the natural process of innovation in society.
Fortunately, initiatives like the Free Software movement have shown that innovation can thrive without creating artificial monopolies.
Good thing i don't have a linked (or even a doubly linked) list memory, then to remember what i did a few years ago, i would have to go through every single memory from now until then.
Normal memory things in an ad-hoc, unstructured fashion.
Mnemonic systems link things in a deliberate, structured way.
The latter method is slower and less flexible, but much more reliable.
In any mnemonic system, linking is a key component.
The assumption is that any given item of information can only be reliably retrieved if it is linked to something already known.
In computer science, the concept of the linked mist is probably most analogous.
Clearly an index plays a vital role in such a system.
That sure is a lot of straw men you set up there...
Right, the GPL restricts your freedom to restrict freedom.
The GPL creates a more limited, but more sustainable form of freedom.
The bottom 50% of wage-earners in the US pay less than 3% of the tax burden (with many at the bottom paying nothing). The top 5% pay over 60% - the top 1% almost half themselves.
This is a very misleading statistic.
The elite are not "wage-earners".
And the Truly Wealthy do not pay tax.
So...Iraq has been invaded by MSCEs?
Actually, it was liberated by MBAs.
foxit reader
...free, but not Free unfortunately.
I worked for a long time on mainframes, and never heard of Richard Stallman or the GNU Manifesto during that time. Yet, I saw first hand how much easier it is to fix something if you've got the source code than not.
"Free Software [1] is the term coined by Richard Stallman in the 80s to denote programs whose sources are available to whoever receives a copy of the software and come with the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003dsa..confE..57C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
Free Software has never been about ethics
On the contrary, Free Software has always been about ethics.
From the GNU Manifesto:
"Why I Must Write GNU: I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way.I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it."
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html
A sensible post on this thread at last!
Makes me wonder why so many otherwise intelligent people are blind to these things.
Do they think that propaganda comes with an 'approved by the government' sticker?
Give me the choice of an iPhone and a plain black-and-white nokia bar-of-soap... I'll take the Nokia.
Perhaps... but your boss will take the iPhone.
Violence isn't necessarily the only tactic, here.
True, but the GP referred specifically to 'armed resistance'. Also, the term 'resistance' traditionally refers to an anti-occupation movement - so the civil rights movement isn't really that relevant.
It's not necessarily easy to exercise restraint--the U.S. military certainly didn't want to cause civilian casualties in Iraq
It's not a question of 'easy' or 'difficult' - it's a question of what they are prepared to do to maintain control.
It doesn't take a huge attack to provoke an overreaction [...] the reason these tactics are so commonly employed is that they work, after all.
I repeat: creating an 'overreaction' not the primary goal of a resistance movement, despite the claims of propagandists to the contrary.
The theory how armed resistance can be used to overthrow government is very old and goes along the lines of: provoke the authorities with violence until they start to react as violent, but against their own innocent civilians.
That's a very slanted view. It is commonly put about by those keen to portray resistance movements as cruel and callous, and occupiers as mere 'victims of circumstance'.
In general, the goal of a resistance movement is to weaken and undermine the occupier's rule.
Increased repression and abuse of power is a common outcome, but hardly the primary goal.
Also, if the strategy were as simplistic as you claim, then it could be easily defeated by the occupier refusing to respond violently.
How about floating a platform at sea?
Choppy waters are generally easier to find than earthquakes (at least where I come from).
Yeah, what chance would a few guys with guns and improvised munitions stand against a modern, well-trained, professional army...
Maybe the war in Iraq can provide us with some clues. How's that thing going, anyway?
When people start saying things like this, you just know the empire is in trouble.
Perhaps that was a poor choice of words.
What I meant was: limited, predictable, measurable, one-off.
Which means that the business risk is also limited.
Dell don't have to sell or support Linux.
They simply have to test and certify their hardware.
Sometimes I wish posts could get modded to '6'.
If Dell introduced a hardware certification programme:
1. They would not have to do any post-sales linux support.
2. Such a programme would have a finite cost-per-system, and would give their product-line a clear competitive advantage.
3. It would buy lots of good karma and word-of-mouth marketing from the community.
4. It would reduce the impediments to widespread Linux adoption - and MS's leverage in business deals.
IT shouldn't be an advocate of any product
Of course not.
We should leave that job to hired shills like Rob "Ferrari Laptop" Enderle:
"One impressive piece of execution is that when you fire the machine up it plays a WAV file of a Ferrari race car revving its engine. That alone is worth the relatively low $1,899 price of admission. Even when I'm in a meeting, I don't turn the sound off because of the unbridled envy that seems to show up in the eyes of my, granted mostly male, co-attendees. So far no one has complained."
Click here for more shameless whoring...
That's a really insightful comment!
Look at all the flak NVidia's binary-only drivers take from the GNU-types, and those are FREE.
They might be FREE, but they aren't Free.
In other words - you will pay for using them, just not with money.
How much you pay depends on how much you value your freedom.
Incredible what the in-house propaganda machine can get away with
Those were exactly my thoughts reading the comments attached to this article.