I've seen evidence of what you are talking about in real-life, but usually only among the young, or those whom, due to enchanted lives, never really grew up.
Generally, it takes some time and experience to turn the random facts into usable knowledge, but I think "most people" do have the ability, few have the ability to do it quickly.
I would like to think of myself in the quicker than many, slower than many category. But I've a few years under my belt now to know that there's still much that I don't know.
IANAL but -- GPL, Section 3 (the section about source availability) starts with "copy and distribute", not just distribute.
Seriously, if I'm missing something (quite possible) let me know. But the way I'm reading this... if I modify the source, compile said source - all fine and well. If I make even one copy of the result, I need to make source available. This would seem common in a project distributed among "... up to 50 developers working simultaneously...".
From my perspective, you can not choose to modify the code, and wait. If you accept the GPL, then use it to modify code, there is no "go ahead and sit on it" clause.
Even if you make a tiny modification, you have to make the authors aware that such a modification exists. I, for one, have sent 1 and 2 line patches back to OSS dev lists on multiple occaions, and have never once been flamed for it (even if it's mundane).
The GPL, on the other hand, does NOT require me to say what the patch or patches ultimately accomplish - although it's generally a good practice.
If it's built like a console, then I'd rather buy an XBox (stand-alone) and mod-chip it to run Linux (like you can do with the current XBox machines). Similar capabilities exist for the standard PlayStation 2 as well.
However, if the CPU and Video card are decent enough, and it is as modifiable as a PC... it may be a better price point than an eMachines.
So I guess, Microsoft's own Open Source project is also a waste of money?
Lest we forget, Microsoft has at least one OpenSource project. While copyright, and restricted use, microsoft has many, many example source programs on MSDN as well. Not GPL, but certainly open (as in viewable and modifiable) source.
Um, checking my software history... it seems there would be no mega-microsoft-monopoly without IBM. So, in the original commercial, they were the same. IBM PC, Microsoft OS. One way to compute, no others are acceptable.
Since then, IBM has been trying to figure out how to squelch the monster they created. However, do not kid yourself, IBM did create this monster.
Excuse the dumbness here, but ...can't web site's be blocked (by places like China, and work networks)? Distributed news through P2P is unstoppable. Even if you run P2P on some of these campuses, you'll never be noticed if you never share but a single news feed.
The only reason why Music sharing has slowed down is that it's static (the same 100,000 songs are shared over and over again, and are easy to write programs to search for). News is different every couple of days. So as long as people find a way to look for news, then there's little chance it will be able to be blocked and stopped.
Speaking of news feed, USENET is also difficult to trace and block as well. It's been around for much longer than P2P, and has not yet been campaigned against on a large scale. It's problem is awareness and a total lack of decent (neat) client programs for USENET.
"What is really stopping you?" Inter-exchangability
Generally speaking it's not common, but it occurs often enough to matter - where a Word or Excel formatted document cannot display properly in OO.o. I run Linux on all my primary systems, but at work, for instance - I have a slave Windows XP/Office XP box which is used for Office XP access. I need to use it about once per week - as I deal with a lot of document exchange. This means I still use a Windows XP and an Office XP license.
Even if it were as little as once per month, the employees will rightly complain that OO.o isn't good enough. At that point, my judgement in this will be questioned. At the point that I never have to use the Windows XP/Office XP box for anything I do (except testing web sites in I.E. during development) - then I will be able to seriously consider pushing OO.o on Windows to all of my users.
I want to say that I found this story quite interesting, as I do make software decisions - and while to commentary surrounding the 'story' (as usual) had anti-Microsoft info, you should probably get over it.
Pro-OSS is closely tied to slashdot.
Not to mention that OSDN [Open Source Development Network] is the same parent organization that funds Linux kernel development. That means any marketing against an Open Source project qualifies under, Stuff that matters.
As far as your sample stories, honestly - I think the Boeing one quite qualifies as something I am very interested in (and though it's off topic for THIS article), thanks for posting it. The other two have no personal interest for me (I'm happily married). I don't want slashdot to start in the gutter, us geeks can bring it there with off-color (yet tastefully on-topic) jokes!
I have this sinking feeling that I'm actually feeding a troll - I hope not.
As a member of the mail lists (same purpose of user groups) I never presume to steer the roadmap of a project without contributing source, patches or HOW-TO impliment what I want (of some detailed form).
I do use the software, and read the mail-lists (user groups, if you will) - but I don't try to change software features lists. I don't believe that I have the right to do so without contributing value. Perhaps this is mis-guided of me, but eventually most projects get the features to meet my needs without my prodding and whining.
Uh, yeah - that's why they BUY software. I don't have time to put meaningful contributions into OpenSource anymore (I did 7-8 years ago). I'll write to developers, and join the mail lists for some projects (even contribute answers from time-to-time), but I don't have time (or staffing money) to build the project I want. That's what I pay RedHat for. Yes, I admit it - I bought RHEL ES 3.
Don't fret. I talk to IT directors and managers all of the time that "get it" - though the ones who get it are usually from smaller companies (like me).
A large company often doesn't find the 'time' involved in setting up and working with open source solutions is worth the savings. So, by the time that company is huge and they start to care about how much each upgrade costs, the amount of time and energy required to retrain the entire workforce is insurmountable.
This is a particularly good point, especially as the EU decision yesterday makes it much easier for Microsoft to sue the butts off Open Source projects that use Microsoft proprietary formats (that were reverse engineered).
If they start encrypting their protocol communications they could be protected by the DMCA as well (scary thought).
Regardless of these issues...I find the velocity behind OpenSource right now, is better than it's ever been. And, I think more and more IT management types (like me) are using OpenSource solutions to save money for thier companies.
I found this at RFID News.com. I think this may make the microwave idea moot.
"When questioned about the durability of the transponder, Trovan explained some of the tests the transponder has successfully passed. The tests included: repeated shot blasting, heated to 300 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes, dropped into liquid nitrogen, exposed to high doses of radiation and subjected to 100,000 volts of electricity."
RFIDs are enormously large numbers - and I have little doubt that (for Wal-Mart and the like) to make use of them, they will probably be linked with UPC (or similar code) in a logical way. Part of the number, or a simple mathematical jump within.
Second, RFID ranges of 20 feet are not difficult to obtain, which for most homes, you'd get pings back from everything save the items in the most inner rooms.
Finally - the only glimmering hope that I see is the fact that RFID tags have some major standard hurtles to overcome. Including a biggie - inability to guarantee that a transponder really is globally unique.
Of course, in technology - all hurtles will be overcome enough so that the technology will be adopted with it's current faults in-tact.
I was particularly interested to find out that RFID standards have been in development since 1996.
Foremost, such a law should not specifically use the term, RFID. See my solution in another part of this discussion.
The FUD surrounding this comes from the fact that once RFIDs are in place, then the infrastructure to install a single RFID reader, and track comings and goings is minimal. Basically if WalMart starts selling RFID enabled clothing, then tracking becomes easy. Distributed tracking over many locations is so expensive as to qualify as Science Fiction. Yet, it's feasable that an influential company could do so, think McDonalds size.
Such laws can only be enforced if the law prohibits selling items that include individually identifyable remote or proximity tracking capabilities without explicit labelling.
Cell phones are trackable and individually identifyable. The law shouldn't prohibit sale of Cell Phones. What if you want to buy RFID tracking clothing for your children (lowjack for kids) - fine - but label the item as having said device. Where the device does not explitly depend on the tracking functionality, instructions on how to disable the functionality without damaging your product should be included. (Squeeze this location with a pliar until you hear a faint click, or snap).
O.K. If Wal-Mart want's to sell every piece of merchanise with a permanant RFID tag included - fine, but label each and every item with a sticker or a hanging tag. (I believe their shotgun sales will drop through the floor pretty quick if they do).
Basically, if you have a law that blanket says, that you can sell this without labelling, but can't USE the data - well then you've got a wiretap style law, that can't be enforced; RFID whitelists are too difficult to enfoce (it simply won't happen). It will become a private wiretap issue. Where this scenario, "We know the murderer was in the house, because we got an RFID reading from his sneakers , pants, shirt and underwear," becomes indamissable in court.
If I record my phone calls, nothing can be done to enforce the laws against it - so long as I don't "directly use" those recordings. Same will be true for RFID data readings. Privacy issues will abound anyway - but if I'm buying stuff that can be tracked, let me know.
Remember members of Congress are consumers to. Because privacy issues effect them directly (think National Enquirer reporters sneaking around politician's homes with RFID scanners**), it will pass, and probably more quickly than we might think.
The problem is always there someone who's doesn't fully understand the issues will amend related riders that use specific examples - making the whole thing easy to work around.
--
**I use National Enquirer here because they have broken real political stories. They are looking for relationships, personal info and that sort of thing, and find something that's worthy of 'real news'. When this happens, they typically sell the story to the Miami Herald, when they break something of political substance.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen evidence of what you are talking about in real-life, but usually only among the young, or those whom, due to enchanted lives, never really grew up. Generally, it takes some time and experience to turn the random facts into usable knowledge, but I think "most people" do have the ability, few have the ability to do it quickly. I would like to think of myself in the quicker than many, slower than many category. But I've a few years under my belt now to know that there's still much that I don't know.
True enough... If it weren't for newbies we'd have nobody to pick on. ;-)
IANAL but -- GPL, Section 3 (the section about source availability) starts with "copy and distribute", not just distribute.
Seriously, if I'm missing something (quite possible) let me know. But the way I'm reading this ... if I modify the source, compile said source - all fine and well. If I make even one copy of the result, I need to make source available. This would seem common in a project distributed among "... up to 50 developers working simultaneously ...".
Even if you make a tiny modification, you have to make the authors aware that such a modification exists. I, for one, have sent 1 and 2 line patches back to OSS dev lists on multiple occaions, and have never once been flamed for it (even if it's mundane).
The GPL, on the other hand, does NOT require me to say what the patch or patches ultimately accomplish - although it's generally a good practice.
However, if the CPU and Video card are decent enough, and it is as modifiable as a PC... it may be a better price point than an eMachines.
Lest we forget, Microsoft has at least one OpenSource project. While copyright, and restricted use, microsoft has many, many example source programs on MSDN as well. Not GPL, but certainly open (as in viewable and modifiable) source.
Since then, IBM has been trying to figure out how to squelch the monster they created. However, do not kid yourself, IBM did create this monster.
Yep, I couldn't get through the entire thing.
OMFG it's not even good enough for William Huang.
Real finally figured it out... someday, Macromedia may figure out the power of flexability.
What's a GPO?
The only reason why Music sharing has slowed down is that it's static (the same 100,000 songs are shared over and over again, and are easy to write programs to search for). News is different every couple of days. So as long as people find a way to look for news, then there's little chance it will be able to be blocked and stopped.
Speaking of news feed, USENET is also difficult to trace and block as well. It's been around for much longer than P2P, and has not yet been campaigned against on a large scale. It's problem is awareness and a total lack of decent (neat) client programs for USENET.
Inter-exchangability
Generally speaking it's not common, but it occurs often enough to matter - where a Word or Excel formatted document cannot display properly in OO.o. I run Linux on all my primary systems, but at work, for instance - I have a slave Windows XP/Office XP box which is used for Office XP access. I need to use it about once per week - as I deal with a lot of document exchange. This means I still use a Windows XP and an Office XP license.
Even if it were as little as once per month, the employees will rightly complain that OO.o isn't good enough. At that point, my judgement in this will be questioned. At the point that I never have to use the Windows XP/Office XP box for anything I do (except testing web sites in I.E. during development) - then I will be able to seriously consider pushing OO.o on Windows to all of my users.
Pro-OSS is closely tied to slashdot. Not to mention that OSDN [Open Source Development Network] is the same parent organization that funds Linux kernel development. That means any marketing against an Open Source project qualifies under, Stuff that matters.
As far as your sample stories, honestly - I think the Boeing one quite qualifies as something I am very interested in (and though it's off topic for THIS article), thanks for posting it. The other two have no personal interest for me (I'm happily married). I don't want slashdot to start in the gutter, us geeks can bring it there with off-color (yet tastefully on-topic) jokes!
I have this sinking feeling that I'm actually feeding a troll - I hope not.
Exchange business transaction information externally with customers and vendors.
Now IMHO, THAT is funny! So I need MS Office for this, when Microsoft's OWN solution is to use PDF. Talk about making your own counter-point!
I myself cannot drop Windows entirely until an open source office solution (such as OpenOffice) starts taking real market-share on the Windows side.
Then, of course, there's that damn "how to train the users" problem.
I do use the software, and read the mail-lists (user groups, if you will) - but I don't try to change software features lists. I don't believe that I have the right to do so without contributing value. Perhaps this is mis-guided of me, but eventually most projects get the features to meet my needs without my prodding and whining.
Uh, yeah - that's why they BUY software. I don't have time to put meaningful contributions into OpenSource anymore (I did 7-8 years ago). I'll write to developers, and join the mail lists for some projects (even contribute answers from time-to-time), but I don't have time (or staffing money) to build the project I want. That's what I pay RedHat for. Yes, I admit it - I bought RHEL ES 3.
A large company often doesn't find the 'time' involved in setting up and working with open source solutions is worth the savings. So, by the time that company is huge and they start to care about how much each upgrade costs, the amount of time and energy required to retrain the entire workforce is insurmountable.
If they start encrypting their protocol communications they could be protected by the DMCA as well (scary thought).
Regardless of these issues...I find the velocity behind OpenSource right now, is better than it's ever been. And, I think more and more IT management types (like me) are using OpenSource solutions to save money for thier companies.
"When questioned about the durability of the transponder, Trovan explained some of the tests the transponder has successfully passed. The tests included: repeated shot blasting, heated to 300 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes, dropped into liquid nitrogen, exposed to high doses of radiation and subjected to 100,000 volts of electricity."
Second, RFID ranges of 20 feet are not difficult to obtain, which for most homes, you'd get pings back from everything save the items in the most inner rooms.
Finally - the only glimmering hope that I see is the fact that RFID tags have some major standard hurtles to overcome. Including a biggie - inability to guarantee that a transponder really is globally unique.
Of course, in technology - all hurtles will be overcome enough so that the technology will be adopted with it's current faults in-tact.
I was particularly interested to find out that RFID standards have been in development since 1996.
I, for one, don't want to microwave my PDA or my Personal cassette deck.
Foremost, such a law should not specifically use the term, RFID. See my solution in another part of this discussion.
The FUD surrounding this comes from the fact that once RFIDs are in place, then the infrastructure to install a single RFID reader, and track comings and goings is minimal. Basically if WalMart starts selling RFID enabled clothing, then tracking becomes easy. Distributed tracking over many locations is so expensive as to qualify as Science Fiction. Yet, it's feasable that an influential company could do so, think McDonalds size.
Cell phones are trackable and individually identifyable. The law shouldn't prohibit sale of Cell Phones. What if you want to buy RFID tracking clothing for your children (lowjack for kids) - fine - but label the item as having said device. Where the device does not explitly depend on the tracking functionality, instructions on how to disable the functionality without damaging your product should be included. (Squeeze this location with a pliar until you hear a faint click, or snap).
O.K. If Wal-Mart want's to sell every piece of merchanise with a permanant RFID tag included - fine, but label each and every item with a sticker or a hanging tag. (I believe their shotgun sales will drop through the floor pretty quick if they do).
Basically, if you have a law that blanket says, that you can sell this without labelling, but can't USE the data - well then you've got a wiretap style law, that can't be enforced; RFID whitelists are too difficult to enfoce (it simply won't happen). It will become a private wiretap issue. Where this scenario, "We know the murderer was in the house, because we got an RFID reading from his sneakers , pants, shirt and underwear," becomes indamissable in court.
If I record my phone calls, nothing can be done to enforce the laws against it - so long as I don't "directly use" those recordings. Same will be true for RFID data readings. Privacy issues will abound anyway - but if I'm buying stuff that can be tracked, let me know.
The problem is always there someone who's doesn't fully understand the issues will amend related riders that use specific examples - making the whole thing easy to work around.
--
**I use National Enquirer here because they have broken real political stories. They are looking for relationships, personal info and that sort of thing, and find something that's worthy of 'real news'. When this happens, they typically sell the story to the Miami Herald, when they break something of political substance.