I believe you're right. It is Ms. Magazine. No ads makes it more expensive, but for most readers, I'd expect that that's worthwhile for uncompromising copy.
Microsoft advertise with Slashdot, so they don't appear to punish negative comment excessively.
Game theory comes into play, so the most recent action is rewarded, not aggregate (Bittorrent used to use average download rates to regulate its upload, but using recent data as feedback is much better strategy).
They didn't get that artcle for free. They had to buy an ad to get it!
It's called "appropriate context". A feminist magazine (I forget which one) stopped taking ads because the advertisers wanted to influence the editorial content. In this case, the NYT is rewarding the free software community as both a signal "we reward our advertisers" and an inducement for the community to advertise further.
We may still have a good article, but it wouldn't be excellent, and it wouldn't be now. Oddball minorities need a lot of "balance" to make an article appear neutral. Mainstream entities (and this ad. makes Firefox mainstream) can have more positive reviews without so much appearance of bias, and NYT readers having seen the ad. will see Firefox as mainstream.
The need for reward, and entering the mainstream both make this kind of coverage possible.
It is time for software developers to donate potential patents to the FSF. If copyright is no longer a defense against one's code being ripped off by commersial competitors. Microsoft must be secretly wishing that this guy wins his case.
Perhaps, also the Gallery of CSS Descramblers could come is useful. Greg Aharonian's filing is taramount to saying that code is not speech, after all.
I got the impression that you were arguing for more than you were.
I still think that natural selection acting upon companies is less potent than you imply. Internal mechanisms can only go so far in fixing human flaws, and the marketplace determines the distribution of the managment workforce to a very much greater extent than its membership.
I agree that internal mechanisms will help make a company more sucessful regardless of management, but a successful company tends to make more profit per head; this means that they will be underrepresented in terms of workforce for their market penetration, so that good practice is not strongly selected for. Rather, satisficing is selected for, as that is the behaviour that distinguishes survival from outright failure.
Internal mechanisms are in any case interpretted by current management. The management workforce is not a fast-changing pool, and it is being renewed by those that poor companies promote as much as it is by good ones.
I agree that companies do slowly learn as entities, but satisficing behaviour makes learning a slow process.
Is not necessarily maximum profit. If a management-serving idea is prevalent within management, there will be few environments where that idea doesn't hold sway, the effort taken in deprogramming new management may not be worth the returns, and besides, it may not be what shareholders are selecting for.
Companies. Even the best companies, hire humans, and whilst they can draw in superior management while they are still small, as they grow, they have to promote in order to motivate. Also, sheer numbers force mediocrity: the cream is already taken, or else is needed higher up in the company structure.
Regardless of the advantage that better companies have over inferior ones, they're still faced with the same (aggregate) workforce, and as redundant management are redeployed into other companies (possibly the one[s] that defeated the inferior one), the workforce still has to suffer the same degree of inferiority, as the same people have simply been shuffled around.
The rest of what you write about empiricism reveals that your faith in the market is too strong, for the market is not perfect, although it is usually better than government. In this case the market does not eliminate inferior management, but simply moves it to where it will do the least strictly economic harm. People will still have to suffer the same degree of awful management, it's just that they'll be people in more economically marginal jobs. In fact, economic efficiency is likely to result in more people suffering inferior management, as the same situations that make in worthwhile to hire superior management also can afford not to overburden that management, so that they are better able to make good strategic decisions. This means: fewer workers. This must imply that fewer people have good managers.
Read Dilbert: it is based upon empirical observation.
In fact, the point is to be "policy free" with regard to hierachy. There are already several keyservers.
The idea of a public key is that anyone can contact you securely, and out of the blue! There is no need for unencrypted traffic. For there to be an exchange of keys requires that you make yourself visible and to some extent, identifiable.
The "public" in "public key cryptography" is so-called because the idea is that keys are published, not merely privately exchanged.
Two licenses could even be "friends of SCO". Does Microsoft UK have an SCO UNIX license?
It's even possible that licenses arise from internal politics; if a manager wants to hold his IT department in check, and stay with the conservative and familiar, buying licenses is an excellent way to prevent the IT department from making strategic decisions by stealth, since further penetration of Linux requires a purchasing decision!
If you don't recognize the ethical implications of doing experiments on living humans, regardless of gestational state, then you don't understand the issues.
"regardless of gestational state" is no minor waiver. Also "understanding the issues" is code for "what bothers those who are opposed to it", ie. politics and religion, rather than principle, which would be argued for instead of insinuated. Consciousness is surely the real issue here.
... is its own patent portfolio. Thus, large companies daren't sue.
Accordingly, the FSF, against their instincts, need to seek defensive patents on donated code, for the FSF has far more clout than any individual developer. Obviously, the FSF couldn't favour individual companies with cross-licenses, especially as it would deny them the ability to counterattack were a developer who hadn't donated his/her code sued, but MAD is very nearly as effective.
The Linux kernel has historically alternated between stable (even-numbered) sets: 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, and odd-numbered development sets. For this to be cast as a major disaster now that the next development kernel is expected to be starting up is extremely odd. If this is forking, it is forking only in the most pedantic sense, and yet Paul Krill's article paints this as a major problem. This portrays a simple lack of understanding of the Linux development process. The article is therefore more confusing than informative.
This is surely bad news as far as encouraging the curious to examine the kernel source?
This move has a fair rationale, but must disuade newbies slightly; it does not serve the goal of free software. Surely it's better to swallow the inconsistency?
I'm writing to you on intellectual property, but this time not specifically in Europe, but rather in the World Intellectual Property Organization. It appears that the body is not neutrally seeking informed democratic policy-making, but rather simply attempting to coerce its members into accepting strong IPR. I do not believe that this should be the way in which an international body should work, and I would hope that our government agrees.
Below, I have extracted relevant sections from the linked webpages.
Today at WIPO saw a flat-out disgraceful cooking of the deliberative process. The administrators of the meeting -- the chair and secretariat -- are pushing hard to make this treaty pass, even if no one wants it to. The solution to the deadlock is "regional meetings" in which countries that oppose the treaty can be isolated and arm-twisted into coming into line, and where few or no public-interest NGOs will be present. Some of the most populous countries in the world -- India and Brazil -- along with many others called for a better approach: any region that wants a meeting can have one, but the real action would be at an "inter-sessional meeting" held in Geneva, with all countries represented. Even though these countries presented a solution that would have given regional meetings to those who wanted them, the chair steadfastly refused to hear from them -- eventually, he used a straw poll to discard their proposal altogether, and then called it "democracy."
Both yesterday and again today, written statements provided by IP Justice and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which were placed on the table designated for floor papers, were stolen within minutes of being deposited on the table. Additionally yesterday documents provided by the Union for the Public Domain were also missing shortly after being placed on the table.
This morning, many of these documents were recovered from the trash can in the first floor men's restroom. Another set of IP Justice statements as well as copies of the alternative NGO Proposal for a Broadcasting Treaty were recovered from behind a desk on the ground floor. These documents provided by IP Justice, EFF, and the Union for the Public Domain were critical of the Broadcasting Treaty. The papers drafted by the broadcasting industry, urging the treaty's adoption, however, remain undisturbed on the table for floor papers.
Not all companies would condone this kind of behaviour, but it is becoming evident that the amoral progress towards global capitalism are shattering our freedoms...
What's happening here isn't capitalism, but is rather regulatory capture, whereby an entity distorts the regulators' criteria for judgement, yielding an inefficient outcome. The most potent captures of regulatory processes are typically state entities, but large companies come a close second.
They could, of course, simply refuse to calculate the hash--but that would either lead to dropped mail, or extremely low-scoring mail (which is much more likely to be dropped).
Mail that looks like it's from Sourceforge is unlikely to be spam. The purpose of the boost that hashcash gives you is that you can penetrate for sure when you have seriously important personal mail. Given other factors in detecting spam, Sourceforge is not a lot less likely to get stopped, and feedback will fix it rapidly anyway; Baysian inferencing works as ever.
Failing to deliver mail is unacceptable when dealing with user accounts.
I agree, but this is why a 'hard' whitelisting protocol is only for those who really know that they want it. Possible spam should therefore be marked with (say) "X-spam=yes", rather than deleted.
What you do need to bear in mind is that side-effects on mass-mailings are simply the side-effect of ensuring that really important mail does get through. That the rest is, as a result, less differentiated (but not undifferentiated) is worthwhile, on the basis that the feedback mechanism that differentiates spam will be sensitive to the extent that it is important.
Let me give you an example. You're on the Sourceforge mailing list. You're also looking for your next contract. Surely it's worth a small chance of having your mail from Sourceforge misclassified if you can be near-enough certain that all your potential clients will be able to get through?
Okay, my early reply was pithy and short, but the longer reply is that the practical use of hashcash in the field is more sophisticated than a simple whitelist.
If you read the article, you'll see that SpamAssassin use hashcash as a one factor amougst many in classifying spam.
Whitelisting is a simplifying concept, which one can understand more subtly as another factor to be accounted for in calculating probabilities, making your Baysian engine that much more efficient.
Someone with a valid stamp is less likely to be a spammer. Simply include it as a factor when calculating probabilities!
Or ignore the X-Hashcash field completely. As you choose.
If you read the article, you'd see that this was precisely the way in which SpamAssassin uses hashcash : as one factor amoungst many in a general system of spam classification.
Slashdot Mirror
If there's one thing that I cannot stand, it's pedanticism!
It's far more likely that they had their domain closed down. Prohibited is a lot stronger than withdrawn, for example.
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
I believe you're right. It is Ms. Magazine. No ads makes it more expensive, but for most readers, I'd expect that that's worthwhile for uncompromising copy.
[trnjw@eveningstar home]$ whois suprnova.orgn terestregistry.net] .
[Querying whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
[whois.publici
. .
Domain ID:D96700160-LROR
Domain Name:SUPRNOVA.ORG
Created On:04-Apr-2003 21:28:07 UTC
Last Updated On:06-Dec-2004 15:03:21 UTC
Expiration Date:04-Apr-2009 21:28:07 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Go Daddy Software, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-07362285
Registrant Name:Registration Private
Registrant Organization:Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Registrant Street1:15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160
Registrant Street2:PMB353
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province:Arizona
Registrant Postal Code:85260
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:SUPRNOVA.ORG@domainsbyproxy.com
. . .
It's called "appropriate context". A feminist magazine (I forget which one) stopped taking ads because the advertisers wanted to influence the editorial content. In this case, the NYT is rewarding the free software community as both a signal "we reward our advertisers" and an inducement for the community to advertise further.
We may still have a good article, but it wouldn't be excellent, and it wouldn't be now. Oddball minorities need a lot of "balance" to make an article appear neutral. Mainstream entities (and this ad. makes Firefox mainstream) can have more positive reviews without so much appearance of bias, and NYT readers having seen the ad. will see Firefox as mainstream.
The need for reward, and entering the mainstream both make this kind of coverage possible.
I'd knit-pick, but I can't be darned to.
It is time for software developers to donate potential patents to the FSF. If copyright is no longer a defense against one's code being ripped off by commersial competitors. Microsoft must be secretly wishing that this guy wins his case.
Perhaps, also the Gallery of CSS Descramblers could come is useful. Greg Aharonian's filing is taramount to saying that code is not speech, after all.
I still think that natural selection acting upon companies is less potent than you imply. Internal mechanisms can only go so far in fixing human flaws, and the marketplace determines the distribution of the managment workforce to a very much greater extent than its membership.
I agree that internal mechanisms will help make a company more sucessful regardless of management, but a successful company tends to make more profit per head; this means that they will be underrepresented in terms of workforce for their market penetration, so that good practice is not strongly selected for. Rather, satisficing is selected for, as that is the behaviour that distinguishes survival from outright failure.
Internal mechanisms are in any case interpretted by current management. The management workforce is not a fast-changing pool, and it is being renewed by those that poor companies promote as much as it is by good ones.
I agree that companies do slowly learn as entities, but satisficing behaviour makes learning a slow process.
Companies. Even the best companies, hire humans, and whilst they can draw in superior management while they are still small, as they grow, they have to promote in order to motivate. Also, sheer numbers force mediocrity: the cream is already taken, or else is needed higher up in the company structure.
Regardless of the advantage that better companies have over inferior ones, they're still faced with the same (aggregate) workforce, and as redundant management are redeployed into other companies (possibly the one[s] that defeated the inferior one), the workforce still has to suffer the same degree of inferiority, as the same people have simply been shuffled around.
The rest of what you write about empiricism reveals that your faith in the market is too strong, for the market is not perfect, although it is usually better than government. In this case the market does not eliminate inferior management, but simply moves it to where it will do the least strictly economic harm. People will still have to suffer the same degree of awful management, it's just that they'll be people in more economically marginal jobs. In fact, economic efficiency is likely to result in more people suffering inferior management, as the same situations that make in worthwhile to hire superior management also can afford not to overburden that management, so that they are better able to make good strategic decisions. This means: fewer workers. This must imply that fewer people have good managers.
Read Dilbert: it is based upon empirical observation.
In fact, the point is to be "policy free" with regard to hierachy. There are already several keyservers.
The idea of a public key is that anyone can contact you securely, and out of the blue! There is no need for unencrypted traffic. For there to be an exchange of keys requires that you make yourself visible and to some extent, identifiable.
The "public" in "public key cryptography" is so-called because the idea is that keys are published, not merely privately exchanged.
The moderators are clearly culturally lacking.
It's even possible that licenses arise from internal politics; if a manager wants to hold his IT department in check, and stay with the conservative and familiar, buying licenses is an excellent way to prevent the IT department from making strategic decisions by stealth, since further penetration of Linux requires a purchasing decision!
... is its own patent portfolio. Thus, large companies daren't sue.
Accordingly, the FSF, against their instincts, need to seek defensive patents on donated code, for the FSF has far more clout than any individual developer. Obviously, the FSF couldn't favour individual companies with cross-licenses, especially as it would deny them the ability to counterattack were a developer who hadn't donated his/her code sued, but MAD is very nearly as effective.
You can dual-license GPLed code.
Proprietry: get a special proprietry license from firm or individual.
GPL: get a special proprietry license from firm(s) or individual(s) OR abide by the terms of the GPL.
GPLed code is in fact less onerous.
Journalists tend to be ignorant, so a little education can come in useful. Here's my letter to the editor:
s ID=2648&Page=1&pagePos=2
Re: Is Linux about to fork?
Dear Kieren McCarthy,
I cannot believe this article:
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?New
The Linux kernel has historically alternated between stable
(even-numbered) sets: 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, and odd-numbered development
sets. For this to be cast as a major disaster now that the next
development kernel is expected to be starting up is extremely odd. If
this is forking, it is forking only in the most pedantic sense, and yet
Paul Krill's article paints this as a major problem. This portrays a
simple lack of understanding of the Linux development process. The
article is therefore more confusing than informative.
Yours sincerely,
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x8 6/#id850167
This is surely bad news as far as encouraging the curious to examine the kernel source?
This move has a fair rationale, but must disuade newbies slightly; it does not serve the goal of free software. Surely it's better to swallow the inconsistency?
Dear Anne Campbell,
0 02130
I'm writing to you on intellectual property, but this time not
specifically in Europe, but rather in the World Intellectual Property
Organization. It appears that the body is not neutrally seeking
informed democratic policy-making, but rather simply attempting to
coerce its members into accepting strong IPR. I do not believe that
this should be the way in which an international body should work,
and I would hope that our government agrees.
Below, I have extracted relevant sections from the linked webpages.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/002130.php#
WIPO: Day 3
November 19, 2004
Today at WIPO saw a flat-out disgraceful cooking of the deliberative
process. The administrators of the meeting -- the chair and secretariat
-- are pushing hard to make this treaty pass, even if no one wants it
to. The solution to the deadlock is "regional meetings" in which
countries that oppose the treaty can be isolated and arm-twisted into
coming into line, and where few or no public-interest NGOs will be
present. Some of the most populous countries in the world -- India and
Brazil -- along with many others called for a better approach: any
region that wants a meeting can have one, but the real action would be
at an "inter-sessional meeting" held in Geneva, with all countries
represented. Even though these countries presented a solution that would
have given regional meetings to those who wanted them, the chair
steadfastly refused to hear from them -- eventually, he used a straw
poll to discard their proposal altogether, and then called it
"democracy."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/002117.php
Both yesterday and again today, written statements provided by IP
Justice and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which were placed on the
table designated for floor papers, were stolen within minutes of being
deposited on the table. Additionally yesterday documents provided by the
Union for the Public Domain were also missing shortly after being placed
on the table.
This morning, many of these documents were recovered from the trash can
in the first floor men's restroom. Another set of IP Justice statements
as well as copies of the alternative NGO Proposal for a Broadcasting
Treaty were recovered from behind a desk on the ground floor. These
documents provided by IP Justice, EFF, and the Union for the Public
Domain were critical of the Broadcasting Treaty. The papers drafted by
the broadcasting industry, urging the treaty's adoption, however, remain
undisturbed on the table for floor papers.
Yours sincerely,
What you do need to bear in mind is that side-effects on mass-mailings are simply the side-effect of ensuring that really important mail does get through. That the rest is, as a result, less differentiated (but not undifferentiated) is worthwhile, on the basis that the feedback mechanism that differentiates spam will be sensitive to the extent that it is important.
Let me give you an example. You're on the Sourceforge mailing list. You're also looking for your next contract. Surely it's worth a small chance of having your mail from Sourceforge misclassified if you can be near-enough certain that all your potential clients will be able to get through?
Okay, my early reply was pithy and short, but the longer reply is that the practical use of hashcash in the field is more sophisticated than a simple whitelist.
Whitelisting is a simplifying concept, which one can understand more subtly as another factor to be accounted for in calculating probabilities, making your Baysian engine that much more efficient.
Someone with a valid stamp is less likely to be a spammer. Simply include it as a factor when calculating probabilities!
Or ignore the X-Hashcash field completely. As you choose.
If you read the article, you'd see that this was precisely the way in which SpamAssassin uses hashcash : as one factor amoungst many in a general system of spam classification.
Only unsolicited mail needs a hashcash field.