IP is hampering innovation by promoting laziness among IP owners. It creates a government-enforced monopoly on certain ideas, so companies do some R&D, find one idea, and stop doing R&D to profit from the only single idea that they came up with.
Maximization of profit stem from innovation rate, not government enforcement of ideas and information scarcity. It's the fucking dark ages elitism. Old stuff is new again.
I used to believe that Richard Stallman had the key to the salvation of our industry, but nowadays the guy seems to have pretty much lost it.
Free and Open Source Software would probably do much better without that dump of fanaticism.
I'm all for free and open source software, and I don't support intellectual property in the form of patents and copyrights. I recognize that the FSF has brought us the GPL and a coherent set of free software tools. But it's the FSF itself and Stallman's intransigence who has also debilitated us into stupid internal fights over Free Software vs Open Source. It's very good that the people actually writing the software don't care much and just keep doing their wonderful contributions.
Don't listen much to RMS these days, but focus on reducing patent and copyright reaches.
Mobile phones are mostly harmless, and if it's not you can just root it and flash it. There are fully open-source software distributions that you can put into your phone and will not contain impossible-to-audit software. You can even audit what closed source programs are transmitting over the Internet and to whom. It's reasonable to trust certain companies with information about your location in exchange for a service. I like to use Latitude for example. I believe the privacy contract that I accepted with Google is enforceable, and that my data is generally safe for them. It just takes disabling it for it not to transmit my location anymore. I have open source software in my phone that I can audit and check. I can disable my data connection. I have no reason to believe that Google will use my location information for nefarious purposes, and I could chose not to share it otherwise.
Keep it real people. Paranoia is never good. Control over your phone is good, intellectual property is bad. But the beyond-1984-esque paranoia is no subject matter for a civilized conversation. It's just a touch of senility and some Luddite behavior of RMS. I believe he's desperately looking for attention since most of the things he has done are not very visible outside nerdland. He's probably a bit angry at the fact that Free Software (as he calls it) is thriving as Open Source, and GNU is thriving as Linux, and Ubuntu, and Android, and that no one knows who's the FSF outside our industry. Jealousy and the need for an ego stroke seems to be behind all his recent ranting.
I'd tell RMS to keep doing software, keep preaching on the moral good of free vs proprietary, but cut on the paranoia speeches, and the extreme fundamentalism. It's not good for the image of our community. We've been trying hard to go mainstream for many years. It's better to have more freedom than non, and in that same line then mainstream is actually a good thing that RMS seems to be trying to undermine.
What's the problem of having a few proprietary packages in a mostly open stack?, not using mobiles?, not using computers?. Come on, even RMS had to use proprietary Unix once to develop GNU. Before it used to be all proprietary. Now that's the other way around in many industries, including mobile, servers, embedded, I mean, all computing but PCs is quite open. If else we should be celebrating the widespread use of free software on mobiles instead of going into a tantrum.
I for one congratulate Google for Android, Canonical and Shuttleworth for Ubuntu, heck, I even congratulate Apple for WebKit, and Oracle for Btrfs. Heck, even the big proprietary software vendors are all contributing their wares under FSF approved licenses, just as RMS prescribed.
Quit ranting and celebrate old man, your contribution is all over the place. The philosophical side of it is well understood by a large group within the industry. You've won for all what's worth. Change that face. It seems you're hardwired for negative thinking.
I live in Geneva, and here everything government does supports Linux. The government is using open source software everywhere and they haven't complained a bit about it. Just the opposite. Software for taxes is available on Windows, Linux and MacOS X. Although I don't think is FOSS (haven't seen the license yet).
I've been migrating people to open source servers and desktops in Latin America for years, and sometimes I've found the classical resistance from users. I mean, you really must give the users a great experience in order for them to like the switch. I've seen users complain vocally when forced to use old desktop environments (particularly old KDE releases). But usually if you move them to a more modern and better configured desktop system they appreciate it, especially if they're coming from Windows XP or older.
Printer support was quite ugly in the olden days, not to mention the odd (but functional) Xsane software for scanning. Things have been getting better in the last two years, but still these German users probably had to deal with some pretty ugly things. They may have been switched too early.
Linux is mostly ready for the desktop now: for an office clerk desktop is good enough, even better. For a programmer is excellent. For most people is fine. But there are some proprietary software that some people won't be able to do without. Fortunately it isn't Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer anymore, so we've gained some ground. People are happy with OpenOffice.org and Firefox/Chrome these days, they have even started dreading some bloated proprietary packages already (e.g. Internet Explorer).
We're nerds, for us a command line is enough, but for users change is stressful enough. And there's the issue of the helpdesk people, who feel really threatened by the switch, especially when they're not so smart, like is usually the case in government positions. Supporting Windows means upgrading antivirus and formatting computers. Most users have administrator access in their machines, so no problems with file permissions or the like. Windows networking is dead simple, and desktop hardware support for Windows is really easy to get. It's ugly, inelegant, but it's there, and it sort-of works, and its quirks are well-known. Habits get engrained.
The lesson to learn here would be to look at what the users need. Look at the shortcomings they might find, and anticipate them. If you know they'll need to use Xsane to scan, because they need some complex stuff, provide some documentation in a Wiki already before the migration. Provide little howtos on common tasks. Make the documents editable by them. Give them help and let them help one another. Move the users to the new system in small groups and have a technical person exclusively assigned to help the last migrated bunch of ten or so. Don't ram change down their throats, let them drive it.
If the company is large enough, hire some expert programmers, or a programming outsourcing firm to improve on some open source packages that are essential for business. That will not cost so much.
If there's technical people that dread change, that will refuse to upgrade their skills and embrace the new OS, _fire them_, Change is necessary and your team needs to be able to cope with it, especially the technology people.
He was just saying that web development is hard, and indeed it is with it's mishmash of HTML, JavaScript, CSS, server-side languages, asynchronicity, multiple browsers to support. It's not easy, and most don't get it right even after the third try, it's kind of a hideously complex art nowadays.
We fortunately have jQuery and frameworks and all kinds of aids, but this still doesn't make it too easy on the developer.
You find it easy because you're at the other end of the learning curve, as most slashdotters, but don't tell me you didn't sweat it.
Well, America is a large country. What about being able to accommodate more immigrants?
Most Americans are very happy to say that theirs is a country of immigrants, why trying to revert that? Just find a way for those Mexicans that would rather be Americans to be useful.
Heck, maybe America can recover some of the industries that went to China for cheap labor. More made-in-USA stuff would be really cool to have. And all that cultural mix could only be enriching to both groups. Instead of being afraid of that immigration, America could benefit from it as a whole. Those Mexican immigrants would be better citizens if they feel more welcome.
These people are willing to work a lot, to send their children to am
Among the many north poles, let us rejoice that Santa Claus did not choose the magnetic pole for his home, for he would have to spend as much time moving as delivering presents.
I congratulate and thank the Pirate Bay founders for taking the IP wars personally and fighting it with honor and courage, not bending under the pressure and willingly withstanding the evils that have befallen upon them. Long live the Pirate Bay! Down with intellectual property laws!
As you well put it, they're a mafia, a mafia that controls government and that make the law as they see fit. These are not reasonable people, but unscrupulous and greedy weasels. Let this DDoS stack their moral. Let them experience the power of those they oppress.
Market regulates itself through sometimes initially non-obvious mechanisms. If wages are kept artificially low by a cartel, there's great chance for a better paying new player to kick the table by paying more and sucking some of the other companies employees.
The wages being paid are within those established by the market. There are circumstances that have lead to the reduction of IT salaries, but most of it is unrelated to cartels formed by the industry biggest players. I find it hard to believe that a system administrator or programmer will not have a choice but to go to work for these companies.
And about the visas, outsourcing and foreign workers, aren't they supposed to participate and compete?. Don't they have the right to do the same work you do for less?. It's a matter of efficiency. The foreigner is providing more value for less. And that means the company will be able to improve it's ability to compete.
Now companies agreeing to pay less is no worse than employees forming unions to press for higher salaries. If companies shouldn't be able to do this, certainly unions shouldn't exist. It's unfair leverage.
But governments have been intervening in the natural development of markets to give unfair advantages and privileges forever. First they created the patents and copyright monsters, which are the true culprits of all distortions in the current IT industry, giving the large players too much power. Well, if you wish the government to go in a regulation spree to compensate for the negative effects of previous regulations, be aware that further regulation and bureaucracy will surely be required to compensate the negative effects of the current one. More government spending, and more economic stagnation.
They are allowed to this kind of practices. The Law enables them to take such an abusive action. Nowadays every device contains intellectual property in a way that is practically impossible to tamper with the thing and do grassroots incremental innovation. The big IP companies has us by the balls. They are bullies using coertion by the government to abuse of the natural right to property. Imaginary property isn't property. We should fight patent and copyright laws, because they are the cause of our current lack of freedom. Technology and art should be yanked out of soulless corporate beasts, and Law should change to best serve individual freedom.
The turtles have probably evolved very well. I mean, their cuteness makes us humans feel sorry for them and help them survive. Appealing to another species that can benefit their long term survival is a relative advantages. I'm sure not many people would care if a disgusting creature like the cockroach goes extinct, unless that would become a problem for a more liked creature.
I think turtles are going to do just fine, if only because some of us help them out when they are having a hard time. It's fortunate that humans can act on behalf of other creatures, new generations tend have a soft spot for biodiversity.
I for one would like to see that my grandchildren will have the opportunity to see such a wonderful creature. Even if they might not care, I don't see why we should leave them to face extinction. Biodiversity can benefit us in ways that go beyond simple exotic amusement.
Now I think this is not a task that should be covered by the government with taxpayer funds, but rather by private foundations.
I thought scientists are a bunch of people usually very willing to share their knowledge for the wellbeing of mankind. I tended to think they were like open source people. But I've found that scientific papers on the Internet aren't normally available for free. That's sad.
As soon as I got the computer, school became uninteresting, and I woul spend most of my time at the machine learning the skills that now I use to pay my bills. School is frankly boring. I think most kids will find a way to learn interesting skills using the computer, just not the skills school teachers are interested in. We don't need no education.
What is at stake here is the fundamental definition of freedom itself. Patents and copyrights stand in the way of full non-coercive freedom, as a once carefully drafted social contract for utilitarian purposes.
The utilitarian doctrine doesn't stand up for freedom but for the amount of happiness output, meaning the amount of well-being that can come out of certain policies.
Copyrights and patents have been put in place as a compromise between freedom and utility. At some point copyrights where only valid for about 14 years, and then intellectual works would go to the public domain to benefit mankind. This was not such a large compromise then, and it seemed "fair".
But what happened is that fair is not always right, and once the genie was out of the bottle, and the government started granting monopolies on ideas and information, things started to go out of hand. Copyrights are now granted for 70 years, or more, and trading of information and ideas has become a dangerous business. The monopolies the government granted are now out of control. And people is confused about whether to follow common sense and freely share information, art and ideas for the benefit of all, and the "poor" artists, composers, and creators that are "being left out".
I think the dimensions of it are becoming frankly ridiculous, and the spirit of sharing and solidarity that is the foundation of the growth of our entire species, is being struck by a few arrogant individuals that think they "own" the intangible, and a group of sheep that follows them without ever stopping to think that the status-quo is immoral.
Law isn't perfect. Sometimes errors are made. Patents and copyrights should be entirely abolished to allow for further and faster growth of our species. I applaud the clarity of mind of Eleanor, and I invite her to participate in the copyright wars in the freedom defender's camp.
At that time, the economic liberties were pretty good.
Today everything is regulated to a very deep extent in most of the World. Government has made an incursion very deep into the private lives of citizens.
Getting rid of bad laws can give back some of the power that has been stolen from the people by government, specially in the economic sense.
I doubt life in the 19th century was better than what it is today, but it's true that economic freedoms where as healthy as they get, much healthier than today.
Slashdot Mirror
IP is hampering innovation by promoting laziness among IP owners. It creates a government-enforced monopoly on certain ideas, so companies do some R&D, find one idea, and stop doing R&D to profit from the only single idea that they came up with.
Maximization of profit stem from innovation rate, not government enforcement of ideas and information scarcity. It's the fucking dark ages elitism. Old stuff is new again.
...let the fucking market deal with this?
I used to believe that Richard Stallman had the key to the salvation of our industry, but nowadays the guy seems to have pretty much lost it.
Free and Open Source Software would probably do much better without that dump of fanaticism.
I'm all for free and open source software, and I don't support intellectual property in the form of patents and copyrights. I recognize that the FSF has brought us the GPL and a coherent set of free software tools. But it's the FSF itself and Stallman's intransigence who has also debilitated us into stupid internal fights over Free Software vs Open Source. It's very good that the people actually writing the software don't care much and just keep doing their wonderful contributions.
Don't listen much to RMS these days, but focus on reducing patent and copyright reaches.
Mobile phones are mostly harmless, and if it's not you can just root it and flash it. There are fully open-source software distributions that you can put into your phone and will not contain impossible-to-audit software. You can even audit what closed source programs are transmitting over the Internet and to whom. It's reasonable to trust certain companies with information about your location in exchange for a service. I like to use Latitude for example. I believe the privacy contract that I accepted with Google is enforceable, and that my data is generally safe for them. It just takes disabling it for it not to transmit my location anymore. I have open source software in my phone that I can audit and check. I can disable my data connection. I have no reason to believe that Google will use my location information for nefarious purposes, and I could chose not to share it otherwise.
Keep it real people. Paranoia is never good. Control over your phone is good, intellectual property is bad. But the beyond-1984-esque paranoia is no subject matter for a civilized conversation. It's just a touch of senility and some Luddite behavior of RMS. I believe he's desperately looking for attention since most of the things he has done are not very visible outside nerdland. He's probably a bit angry at the fact that Free Software (as he calls it) is thriving as Open Source, and GNU is thriving as Linux, and Ubuntu, and Android, and that no one knows who's the FSF outside our industry. Jealousy and the need for an ego stroke seems to be behind all his recent ranting.
I'd tell RMS to keep doing software, keep preaching on the moral good of free vs proprietary, but cut on the paranoia speeches, and the extreme fundamentalism. It's not good for the image of our community. We've been trying hard to go mainstream for many years. It's better to have more freedom than non, and in that same line then mainstream is actually a good thing that RMS seems to be trying to undermine.
What's the problem of having a few proprietary packages in a mostly open stack?, not using mobiles?, not using computers?. Come on, even RMS had to use proprietary Unix once to develop GNU. Before it used to be all proprietary. Now that's the other way around in many industries, including mobile, servers, embedded, I mean, all computing but PCs is quite open. If else we should be celebrating the widespread use of free software on mobiles instead of going into a tantrum.
I for one congratulate Google for Android, Canonical and Shuttleworth for Ubuntu, heck, I even congratulate Apple for WebKit, and Oracle for Btrfs. Heck, even the big proprietary software vendors are all contributing their wares under FSF approved licenses, just as RMS prescribed.
Quit ranting and celebrate old man, your contribution is all over the place. The philosophical side of it is well understood by a large group within the industry. You've won for all what's worth. Change that face. It seems you're hardwired for negative thinking.
So Ubuntu is evil because it's pushing innovation?
Canonical is evil because it wishes to make a profit?
To hold up to an ideal being poor is a pre-requirement?
All this from an article heavily loaded with publicity?
I'm sorry, but it's the lamest article I've read in months.
I live in Geneva, and here everything government does supports Linux. The government is using open source software everywhere and they haven't complained a bit about it. Just the opposite. Software for taxes is available on Windows, Linux and MacOS X. Although I don't think is FOSS (haven't seen the license yet).
I've been migrating people to open source servers and desktops in Latin America for years, and sometimes I've found the classical resistance from users. I mean, you really must give the users a great experience in order for them to like the switch. I've seen users complain vocally when forced to use old desktop environments (particularly old KDE releases). But usually if you move them to a more modern and better configured desktop system they appreciate it, especially if they're coming from Windows XP or older.
Printer support was quite ugly in the olden days, not to mention the odd (but functional) Xsane software for scanning. Things have been getting better in the last two years, but still these German users probably had to deal with some pretty ugly things. They may have been switched too early.
Linux is mostly ready for the desktop now: for an office clerk desktop is good enough, even better. For a programmer is excellent. For most people is fine. But there are some proprietary software that some people won't be able to do without. Fortunately it isn't Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer anymore, so we've gained some ground. People are happy with OpenOffice.org and Firefox/Chrome these days, they have even started dreading some bloated proprietary packages already (e.g. Internet Explorer).
We're nerds, for us a command line is enough, but for users change is stressful enough. And there's the issue of the helpdesk people, who feel really threatened by the switch, especially when they're not so smart, like is usually the case in government positions. Supporting Windows means upgrading antivirus and formatting computers. Most users have administrator access in their machines, so no problems with file permissions or the like. Windows networking is dead simple, and desktop hardware support for Windows is really easy to get. It's ugly, inelegant, but it's there, and it sort-of works, and its quirks are well-known. Habits get engrained.
The lesson to learn here would be to look at what the users need. Look at the shortcomings they might find, and anticipate them. If you know they'll need to use Xsane to scan, because they need some complex stuff, provide some documentation in a Wiki already before the migration. Provide little howtos on common tasks. Make the documents editable by them. Give them help and let them help one another. Move the users to the new system in small groups and have a technical person exclusively assigned to help the last migrated bunch of ten or so. Don't ram change down their throats, let them drive it.
If the company is large enough, hire some expert programmers, or a programming outsourcing firm to improve on some open source packages that are essential for business. That will not cost so much.
If there's technical people that dread change, that will refuse to upgrade their skills and embrace the new OS, _fire them_, Change is necessary and your team needs to be able to cope with it, especially the technology people.
If I were one of those kids I'd destroy the device disregarding the possible consequences as an act of disobedience to this 1984 attempt.
He was just saying that web development is hard, and indeed it is with it's mishmash of HTML, JavaScript, CSS, server-side languages, asynchronicity, multiple browsers to support. It's not easy, and most don't get it right even after the third try, it's kind of a hideously complex art nowadays. We fortunately have jQuery and frameworks and all kinds of aids, but this still doesn't make it too easy on the developer. You find it easy because you're at the other end of the learning curve, as most slashdotters, but don't tell me you didn't sweat it.
Well, America is a large country. What about being able to accommodate more immigrants? Most Americans are very happy to say that theirs is a country of immigrants, why trying to revert that? Just find a way for those Mexicans that would rather be Americans to be useful. Heck, maybe America can recover some of the industries that went to China for cheap labor. More made-in-USA stuff would be really cool to have. And all that cultural mix could only be enriching to both groups. Instead of being afraid of that immigration, America could benefit from it as a whole. Those Mexican immigrants would be better citizens if they feel more welcome. These people are willing to work a lot, to send their children to am
Among the many north poles, let us rejoice that Santa Claus did not choose the magnetic pole for his home, for he would have to spend as much time moving as delivering presents.
One night, that is.
I congratulate and thank the Pirate Bay founders for taking the IP wars personally and fighting it with honor and courage, not bending under the pressure and willingly withstanding the evils that have befallen upon them. Long live the Pirate Bay! Down with intellectual property laws!
As you well put it, they're a mafia, a mafia that controls government and that make the law as they see fit. These are not reasonable people, but unscrupulous and greedy weasels. Let this DDoS stack their moral. Let them experience the power of those they oppress.
Market regulates itself through sometimes initially non-obvious mechanisms. If wages are kept artificially low by a cartel, there's great chance for a better paying new player to kick the table by paying more and sucking some of the other companies employees.
The wages being paid are within those established by the market. There are circumstances that have lead to the reduction of IT salaries, but most of it is unrelated to cartels formed by the industry biggest players. I find it hard to believe that a system administrator or programmer will not have a choice but to go to work for these companies.
And about the visas, outsourcing and foreign workers, aren't they supposed to participate and compete?. Don't they have the right to do the same work you do for less?. It's a matter of efficiency. The foreigner is providing more value for less. And that means the company will be able to improve it's ability to compete.
Now companies agreeing to pay less is no worse than employees forming unions to press for higher salaries. If companies shouldn't be able to do this, certainly unions shouldn't exist. It's unfair leverage.
But governments have been intervening in the natural development of markets to give unfair advantages and privileges forever. First they created the patents and copyright monsters, which are the true culprits of all distortions in the current IT industry, giving the large players too much power.
Well, if you wish the government to go in a regulation spree to compensate for the negative effects of previous regulations, be aware that further regulation and bureaucracy will surely be required to compensate the negative effects of the current one. More government spending, and more economic stagnation.
It seems mortality rate should be equal for abstainers and drinkers alike, falling around 100%.
We're all guys here you insensitive clod.
So dragging a bunch of old, junked cars out, welding them together, and transporting 30 tons of scrap as a display dedicated to a cartoon... is green?
No, it is supergreen!
So the iPhone antenna is goa'uld technology, but the dissappearing signal would be the Nox.
They are allowed to this kind of practices. The Law enables them to take such an abusive action. Nowadays every device contains intellectual property in a way that is practically impossible to tamper with the thing and do grassroots incremental innovation. The big IP companies has us by the balls. They are bullies using coertion by the government to abuse of the natural right to property. Imaginary property isn't property. We should fight patent and copyright laws, because they are the cause of our current lack of freedom. Technology and art should be yanked out of soulless corporate beasts, and Law should change to best serve individual freedom.
The turtles have probably evolved very well. I mean, their cuteness makes us humans feel sorry for them and help them survive. Appealing to another species that can benefit their long term survival is a relative advantages. I'm sure not many people would care if a disgusting creature like the cockroach goes extinct, unless that would become a problem for a more liked creature.
I think turtles are going to do just fine, if only because some of us help them out when they are having a hard time. It's fortunate that humans can act on behalf of other creatures, new generations tend have a soft spot for biodiversity.
I for one would like to see that my grandchildren will have the opportunity to see such a wonderful creature. Even if they might not care, I don't see why we should leave them to face extinction. Biodiversity can benefit us in ways that go beyond simple exotic amusement.
Now I think this is not a task that should be covered by the government with taxpayer funds, but rather by private foundations.
Upgrade their navigation systems.
I thought scientists are a bunch of people usually very willing to share their knowledge for the wellbeing of mankind. I tended to think they were like open source people. But I've found that scientific papers on the Internet aren't normally available for free. That's sad.
As soon as I got the computer, school became uninteresting, and I woul spend most of my time at the machine learning the skills that now I use to pay my bills. School is frankly boring. I think most kids will find a way to learn interesting skills using the computer, just not the skills school teachers are interested in. We don't need no education.
What is at stake here is the fundamental definition of freedom itself. Patents and copyrights stand in the way of full non-coercive freedom, as a once carefully drafted social contract for utilitarian purposes.
The utilitarian doctrine doesn't stand up for freedom but for the amount of happiness output, meaning the amount of well-being that can come out of certain policies.
Copyrights and patents have been put in place as a compromise between freedom and utility. At some point copyrights where only valid for about 14 years, and then intellectual works would go to the public domain to benefit mankind. This was not such a large compromise then, and it seemed "fair".
But what happened is that fair is not always right, and once the genie was out of the bottle, and the government started granting monopolies on ideas and information, things started to go out of hand. Copyrights are now granted for 70 years, or more, and trading of information and ideas has become a dangerous business. The monopolies the government granted are now out of control. And people is confused about whether to follow common sense and freely share information, art and ideas for the benefit of all, and the "poor" artists, composers, and creators that are "being left out".
I think the dimensions of it are becoming frankly ridiculous, and the spirit of sharing and solidarity that is the foundation of the growth of our entire species, is being struck by a few arrogant individuals that think they "own" the intangible, and a group of sheep that follows them without ever stopping to think that the status-quo is immoral.
Law isn't perfect. Sometimes errors are made. Patents and copyrights should be entirely abolished to allow for further and faster growth of our species. I applaud the clarity of mind of Eleanor, and I invite her to participate in the copyright wars in the freedom defender's camp.
The crime of all is the crime of none.
And rant shall we.
That's right,
At that time, the economic liberties were pretty good.
Today everything is regulated to a very deep extent in most of the World. Government has made an incursion very deep into the private lives of citizens.
Getting rid of bad laws can give back some of the power that has been stolen from the people by government, specially in the economic sense.
I doubt life in the 19th century was better than what it is today, but it's true that economic freedoms where as healthy as they get, much healthier than today.
You're right, but it used to be much better in the XIX century.