A lot of what is being sent offshore is stuff like back office banking coding, not a whole lot of FOSS software for that
And that is precisely why open-source software will never cause the demise of closed-source code. There are too many highly-specialized things that people use software for to expect to always find a viable open-source solution.
Where open-source really shines is when you have many people who need to do the same basic thing (a critical mass, if you will). That's why Linux is success: everyone needs to have an operating system. And Linux largely came about because of the monopoly cost associated with commercial UNIX and/or Windows.
Does anyone believe that the Open Office project would have devoted all that time and effort had Microsoft made it's version of Office available for UNIX/Linux at a reasonable cost (reasonable being open to debate here)?
And does anybody else see the irony of an organization whining about the evils of open-source software from a website running on a FreeBSD server?
Okay. Let me make sure I've got this. Some anonymous paedophile may track some random unique identifier through the park from some great distance. As a parent, I'd be much more concerned with a paedophile using the decidedly low-tech approach of actually following my kid around.
And if you're worried about said paedophile cracking the (presumably) secure system to somehow tie a unique braclet ID to a person, I'd be more worried about said cracker breaking into the billing system and getting the credit card data I used to buy the tickets.
As the parent said, the biggest risk is that some negligent parents will decide that such a system obviates the need to actually keep an eye on their kid. As the saying goes, if you make it idiot-proof, someone somewhere will just build a better idiot...
I understand your point, but consider a hypothetical:
I'm an employer in a business where it's difficult to monitor precisely the hours worked by an employee. Under your scenario, picture an employee with an axe to grind who decides to start padding his hours to start collecting some ill-gotten overtime. Knowing that if I go to court and lose I'm out 15,000 times his hourly rate (time and a half times hourly rate times your penalty multiplier), how am I supposed to keep my employees honest? Your solution is as much an invitation for fraud as the problem you seek to redress.
Not to mention that the granparent here seems to think that these employees, who aren't going to be making a whole lot to begin with, will just be waiting by the phone to come in and solve all of your problems for you.
I learned the hard way long ago that if you want someone reliably on-call to help in case of crisis, you have to pay them to wait by the phone. So now we're back to square one...
The first amendment does not give anyone a blanket protection to say, print or assemble for any illegal purpose. If it did, you could libel or defame anyone you wanted. Or print and distribute all the kiddie porn you heart desired. Or shout fire in crowded theaters. Or host a lynching. Or...
Take a constitutional law course or two. Then we'll talk.
Slashdot Mirror
And that is precisely why open-source software will never cause the demise of closed-source code. There are too many highly-specialized things that people use software for to expect to always find a viable open-source solution.
Where open-source really shines is when you have many people who need to do the same basic thing (a critical mass, if you will). That's why Linux is success: everyone needs to have an operating system. And Linux largely came about because of the monopoly cost associated with commercial UNIX and/or Windows.
Does anyone believe that the Open Office project would have devoted all that time and effort had Microsoft made it's version of Office available for UNIX/Linux at a reasonable cost (reasonable being open to debate here)?
And does anybody else see the irony of an organization whining about the evils of open-source software from a website running on a FreeBSD server?
And the damndest thing is, that compiles under Perl...
And if you're worried about said paedophile cracking the (presumably) secure system to somehow tie a unique braclet ID to a person, I'd be more worried about said cracker breaking into the billing system and getting the credit card data I used to buy the tickets.
As the parent said, the biggest risk is that some negligent parents will decide that such a system obviates the need to actually keep an eye on their kid. As the saying goes, if you make it idiot-proof, someone somewhere will just build a better idiot...
I understand your point, but consider a hypothetical:
I'm an employer in a business where it's difficult to monitor precisely the hours worked by an employee. Under your scenario, picture an employee with an axe to grind who decides to start padding his hours to start collecting some ill-gotten overtime. Knowing that if I go to court and lose I'm out 15,000 times his hourly rate (time and a half times hourly rate times your penalty multiplier), how am I supposed to keep my employees honest? Your solution is as much an invitation for fraud as the problem you seek to redress.
Not to mention that the granparent here seems to think that these employees, who aren't going to be making a whole lot to begin with, will just be waiting by the phone to come in and solve all of your problems for you.
I learned the hard way long ago that if you want someone reliably on-call to help in case of crisis, you have to pay them to wait by the phone. So now we're back to square one...
"the upcoming Windows XP Service Pack 2 could break some 'unsecure applications.'" I thought service packs were supposed to FIX the operating system.
This was modded to a 4? Really?
The first amendment does not give anyone a blanket protection to say, print or assemble for any illegal purpose. If it did, you could libel or defame anyone you wanted. Or print and distribute all the kiddie porn you heart desired. Or shout fire in crowded theaters. Or host a lynching. Or...
Take a constitutional law course or two. Then we'll talk.