Since the internet is a global phenomena, a global resource, a truly profound asset for humanity regardless of class, creed, race, or heritage, the question before any regulation is even considered should be "How does this regulation serve the whole of humanity?".
Were this question to be answered in the affirmative, then the world would agree, and applaud the action.
The internet has united humanity worldwide. This must be understood and acknowledged before any actions are even considered.
Given the above, my question is this: What are your considerations prior to deliberations on internet related issues?
Having been exactly where the poser of the question stands, I sympathize with the frustration of not being listened to due to being too "young".
From the perspective of where I sit now, I don't see it quite the same way. I think it is more a matter of a perceived difference in values and perspective which can be described as "age". If you want your boss to listen to you, listen to your boss. If your boss dresses nicely, dress nicely too. It really boils down to "marketing" yourself to your coworkers and employer. Let them know that what is important to them is important to you as well. Let them know that what is of value to them is of value to you as well.
Also, facial hair does not hurt for the XY's out there.
By doing the above, you are showing them that you are the "same" as they are, instead of being "different". When you are the "same", you give them an excuse to listen to you, instead of having your being "different" being an excuse for them to not listen.
By open sourcing the drivers, the potential size of the market for the hardware is increased.
This is because of Customer Good Will and porting efforts of individuals who use platforms for which the drivers are not currently available.
Management may need to be reminded about what the source of revenue is. If they are in the business of selling software, then maybe they should not open source their Golden Goose. However, if they are in the business of making and selling hardware, then maybe they should concentrate their efforts on those things that they do "well", and leave the software to those who want to do that.
If one looks at software costs, say 1 or 2 developers, plus various versions of relevant OS's and platforms, one soon gets a very large cost just in hardware, software, and salaries, without a commensurate return on investment, especially when the size of the market for each one of the Hardware/OS combinations supported.
So, as I look at it, from a purely balance sheet point of view, Open Sourcing the drivers, with a developer or two available to lead and support driver development, and to act as company liaison to the open source community at large, is a win win situation. The company is happy, because they have increased the size of the market they compete in, and their development/support costs are reduced.
Broadcasting, means indiscriminate distribution. What MP3 did was not indiscriminate at all. What if Yahoo were to notice that they could save a lot of disc space if they could detect when users uploaded duplicate copies of the same data, then made hardlinks to the actual files. Technologically this has been doable for decades. And if Yahoo were to do this, then the only difference between them and MP3 is that they force the consumer to actually upload the data they are going to disgard. This ruling cannot be but overturned.
The split between Science and Religion occured in the 1700's with the age of enlightenment.
This was when the "Church", banned encyclopedias and had them burned by the clergy.
But now, scientists world wide are questioning what is moral and what is ethical. The weekly magazine "Science", published by the AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science) has had countless articles on this topic over the past few years. In last weeks issue, the editorial raised this very issue, and put forth the notion of a code of ethics for scientists.
Another good read regarding this issue is: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5 395/1813
1). I believe that the rest of the world will continue to strive toward development regardless. Man as a creature is basicly not satisfied with the status quo, under any condition. This is why religions and philosophies the world over have always talked about being satisfied with what one has. If man had changed, then the religions/philosophies would have changed as well.
2). While I agree with the concern over resource consuption, there is a more worrisome concern for all of us, no matter which hemisphere, or continent we live on. There is an increase in global travel, and incidents like the "west nile virus" in New York and New Jersey earlier this month are no longer rare.
The World Health Organization(WHO) is aware of this issue and comments by health officials the world over repeatedly voice concern. The movie "VIRUS" was based on this kind of scenario.
In conclusion, I will be very surprised if the world population reaches 9 billion. What with simply AIDS(and ARC) in Africa, as well as southeast Asia, we have major populations that cannot apply resources to development. They must instead use them to take care for aids victims.
Consider China, and the consequence of their one child per family policy. In the past, as has been said earlier, children were an asset. They were the retirement plan. Now, the pyramid is reversed, and instead of having many grandchildren per retiree, there will be many retirees per working adult. There is no Social Security in China. This is a disaster that is a result of negative population growth rates. It was a required policy, but the consequences have yet to be dealt with. And based on the size of the problem, China will not be able to deal with it alone.
What the world needs is for everyone, worldwide, to employ a vision of themselves and their place in the universe which is world embracing. If we do not, the future will not be bright, but not because of overpopulation.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the internet is a global phenomena, a global resource, a truly profound asset for humanity regardless of class, creed, race, or heritage, the question before any regulation is even considered should be "How does this regulation serve the whole of humanity?".
Were this question to be answered in the affirmative, then the world would agree, and applaud the action.
The internet has united humanity worldwide. This must be understood and acknowledged before any actions are even considered.
Given the above, my question is this: What are your considerations prior to deliberations on internet related issues?
Is it age that matters?
;-)
Having been exactly where the poser of the question stands, I sympathize with the frustration of not being listened to due to being too "young".
From the perspective of where I sit now, I don't see it quite the same way. I think it is more a matter of a perceived difference in values and perspective which can be described as "age". If you want your boss to listen to you, listen to your boss. If your boss dresses nicely, dress nicely too. It really boils down to "marketing" yourself to your coworkers and employer. Let them know that what is important to them is important to you as well. Let them know that what is of value to them is of value to you as well.
Also, facial hair does not hurt for the XY's out there.
By doing the above, you are showing them that you are the "same" as they are, instead of being "different". When you are the "same", you give them an excuse to listen to you, instead of having your being "different" being an excuse for them to not listen.
Just my two cents worth
By open sourcing the drivers, the potential size of the market for the hardware is increased.
This is because of Customer Good Will and porting efforts of individuals who use platforms for which the drivers are not currently available.
Management may need to be reminded about what the source of revenue is. If they are in the business of selling software, then maybe they should not open source their Golden Goose. However, if they are in the business of making and selling hardware, then maybe they should concentrate their efforts on those things that they do "well", and leave the software to those who want to do that.
If one looks at software costs, say 1 or 2 developers, plus various versions of relevant OS's and platforms, one soon gets a very large cost just in hardware, software, and salaries, without a commensurate return on investment, especially when the size of the market for each one of the Hardware/OS combinations supported.
So, as I look at it, from a purely balance sheet point of view, Open Sourcing the drivers, with a developer or two available to lead and support driver development, and to act as company liaison to the open source community at large, is a win win situation. The company is happy, because they have increased the size of the market they compete in, and their development/support costs are reduced.
"That's Just My Opinion, I could be wrong"
Broadcasting, means indiscriminate distribution.
What MP3 did was not indiscriminate at all.
What if Yahoo were to notice that they could save a lot of disc space if they could detect when users uploaded duplicate copies of the same data, then made hardlinks to the actual files. Technologically this has been doable for decades. And if Yahoo were to do this, then the only difference between them and MP3 is that they force the consumer to actually upload the data they are going to disgard.
This ruling cannot be but overturned.
The split between Science and Religion occured in the 1700's with the age of enlightenment.
5 395/1813
This was when the "Church", banned encyclopedias and had them burned by the clergy.
But now, scientists world wide are questioning what is moral and what is ethical. The weekly magazine "Science", published by the AAAS(American Association for the Advancement of Science) has had countless articles on this topic over the past few years. In last weeks issue, the editorial raised this very issue, and put forth the notion of a code of ethics for scientists.
Another good read regarding this issue is:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/
Man as a creature is basicly not satisfied with the status quo, under any condition. This is why religions and philosophies the world over have always talked about being satisfied with what one has. If man had changed, then the religions/philosophies would have changed as well.
2). While I agree with the concern over resource consuption, there is a more worrisome concern for all of us, no matter which hemisphere, or continent we live on. There is an increase in global travel, and incidents like the "west nile virus" in New York and New Jersey earlier this month are no longer rare.
The World Health Organization(WHO) is aware of this issue and comments by health officials the world over repeatedly voice concern. The movie "VIRUS" was based on this kind of scenario.
In conclusion, I will be very surprised if the world population reaches 9 billion. What with simply AIDS(and ARC) in Africa, as well as southeast Asia, we have major populations that cannot apply resources to development. They must instead use them to take care for aids victims.
Consider China, and the consequence of their one child per family policy. In the past, as has been said earlier, children were an asset. They were the retirement plan. Now, the pyramid is reversed, and instead of having many grandchildren per retiree, there will be many retirees per working adult. There is no Social Security in China. This is a disaster that is a result of negative population growth rates. It was a required policy, but the consequences have yet to be dealt with. And based on the size of the problem, China will not be able to deal with it alone.
What the world needs is for everyone, worldwide, to employ a vision of themselves and their place in the universe which is world embracing.
If we do not, the future will not be bright, but not because of overpopulation.