Yup, you said it right. Unfortunately, being the worst system out there (except for all the others) apparently makes a very large number of US citizens think they've got the right to yell "You traitor!" at anybody who merely suggests at the possibility of improvement. Guarding the guardians (to rape an old latin saying) is indeed an important step to make in improving the system.
You are somewhat right, and you make a good point. However, I don't think you go far enough. I mean, we (I'm not american, but dutch right don't really differ all that much where it really counts) can all celibrate how "Free" we all are because we allow others to say things we disagree with, but the real strength of a Free country comes with the resulting discussion. "so you think we suck because of X. How would you do things differen then?" Of course this doesn't work for quite a lot of folks (on both sides of the discussion) because they are too rigidly set in their opinion, but the real freedom lies in the fact that the discussion can take place and make the country as a whole stronger as a result.
The only solution that I can see is a global/central white list function. If it was possible to register my site as a "good practice pop-up site" at the various pop-up blocker suppliers, that would could us the pop-up back as a useful tool.
Which would work fine until the second the company running the registry realize they can make money by selling entries in the white list.
Cynical? Maybe, but remember it's advertising we're talking about
If you listen to some of the Peter Jackson interviews on sound effects in TTT, he mentions that people have to to expect that sound (and indeed mentions Monty Python as well) so they more or less have to put it in or people thing it will sound fake...
If those letters are indeed an attempt to get the press to look in a certain direction, then we should ignore it. Pretend they don't exist. If it's press coverage they want, then it's press coverage we want denied. So if you do have one of those letters, do NOT post them.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I find that the customers who do go for cheapest are usually the ones that give me big headaches by not wanting to pay at all. Good riddance to them. I find the following remarks to work very well with the kind of customers that do indeed want a good ongoing relation: "you have the code, so it's in my interest to keep you happy about the quality of my work, or you'll walk. You could by closed product X, but if they treat you like crap you're lost." This is indeed about building a good relationship with your customer, and you're right, some will walk, but most of the time you're better off without them. Oh, and I could tell you stories about those kind of customers coming back 6 months later when it turns out the cheap shop they found won't deliver anything at all...
You're on the right track, but you need to do some more thinking before you make your decision. The big question isn't wether there's a place for closed source, the big question is how *you* make your money. Is it by selling the lines of code you write, or is it by the service you deliver to your customers? If your customers pay you for customizations of your code, tuned for them in a very special way, what do you care what happens to the code? You don't get paid for that, you get paid for what's between your ears: the experience and knowledge to make your customers happy. Would you still get enough customers because of your knowlegde and experience if your old projects where "out there", advertising for you that you do indeed know your stuff?
I guess that's where we basically disagree, but that's problably because of my security background. I feel the strength of the system is dependent on its weakest component, and I tend to take a holistic view on developing new systems. I cannot afford to look at just one little thing, and the kind of focus you describe is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster. I admit that it is also very, very difficult to please me, and I don't easily call something "secure" or "trustworthy". Of course Einstein did excellent work, but working in an area where it is an absolute given that you're breaking new ground is fundamentaly different from working on something that absolutely has to work correctly, every time. Einstein could afford to make monumental mistakes, a voting system cannot.
You're probably correct in saying that the system is fully trustworthy, in the limited subset of circumstances you describe: in terms of accurate voting tallys. My worries are broader than that, but as I said, I'm very difficult to please.
As I said, I don't think you, or the people you worked with, are in any way incompetent. I just question the sanity of those "above" them, including those who wrote "the rules" you have to follow without questioning (a worrying trend in itself, but that's another discussion). And I agree with the statements you make about backups, since I've indeed done them myself (and I've been very lucky with losing, or rather not losing, stuff). My worries remain the same: any one who can "enforce" the rigorous set of rules you describe and not follow through all the way (with rules about backups) is probably making the same mistake(s) in other areas as well, thus lowering the overall worth of the system. Anyway, thank you for your comments!
I believe you. I think your description about what their intentions are is correct. However, it doesn't really matter how well-intentioned they are, because they are also incompetent. If they really, really had their procedures done correctly, there wouldn't be a silly limit for 200 lines, or rather, folks would know why the limit was there. But the real eye-opener is the fact that a company that is that anal about procedures still manages to lose all backups. On one hand they know that procedures and following them is vital in their line of business, and on the other hand such a scew-up can happen. Their coders may indeed be decent and honest people, like you describe, but their management is a bunch of nitwits.
You're absolutely right, except for one point. Such a company won't have the technical expertise, but hire it. Hire a developer for a while, and after that, hire somebody to maintain it. I've landed a few development jobs that way, and I always make it a point to show the advantages of this setup: the client doesn't need me, and if at some point in time they're fed up with me, there's plenty others who they can hire. That gives me some incentive to deliver them a good product, and since I can walk away just as easily it gives them an incentive to keep good relations with the guy who's giving them good service..
There is NO excuse for not patching your software, like there is also no excuse for having security holes in your software.
To quote Morpheus, "welcome to the real world". What if your choice is between these two:
1) running software with a security hole, but being able to bill your customers, and
2) not running software because the patch breaks the application that allows you to bill your customers, thus not making any money and going out of business.
Unfortunately, sometimes this is a real situation, and not just with microsoft software.
This sort of confirms that most spam is sent by a small group. Take this sucker out, and a massive amount of spam drops off the planet. Do it with enough prejudice, just to make sure nobody takes over the vacancy.
I wasn't talking about that part of iTunes - on the contrary, I more or less agree with what you say. I was talking about the parts where folks are using iTunes in totally different - non-Apple-approved - ways...
I think what he's painting is a "worst case" scenario. Reality will be different, and I cannot predict what it will be like, but it will not be as bad as he thinks. Most really innovative work still has to be done. Did anybody here predict the social influence Google would have? I think not.
And to illustrate this with a recent development: iTunes. Conventional wisdom is that Apple seriously fucked up, the RIAA is going to sue Apple's pants off, and Apple's new iTunes Music Store will be shut down by the some seriously pissed off record companies.
Kottke would like to believe an alternative theory. Apple had to know what they were doing with iTunes. Their engineers aren't stupid. They left the whole thing wide open and had to know how trivial it would be for developers to figure out the protocol and write apps to download the music directly.
Things will be not develop in the way we are thinking now. Nevertheless, Lessig will remain a good read for quite a while!
Legalizing drugs won't stop people from committing other crimes to buy them.
Prices will go down dramatically by legalizing them, folks won't need to steal for them. Also, people do tend to commit crimes to get cocaine, heroin, and the like, pot is relatively cheap and non-addictive. If you're worried about people continuing to steal after legalizing, set up a program where you hand out free drugs or drugs replacements to registered addicts. Worked fine in Switzerland and several other European countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, you said it right. Unfortunately, being the worst system out there (except for all the others) apparently makes a very large number of US citizens think they've got the right to yell "You traitor!" at anybody who merely suggests at the possibility of improvement. Guarding the guardians (to rape an old latin saying) is indeed an important step to make in improving the system.
You are somewhat right, and you make a good point. However, I don't think you go far enough. I mean, we (I'm not american, but dutch right don't really differ all that much where it really counts) can all celibrate how "Free" we all are because we allow others to say things we disagree with, but the real strength of a Free country comes with the resulting discussion. "so you think we suck because of X. How would you do things differen then?" Of course this doesn't work for quite a lot of folks (on both sides of the discussion) because they are too rigidly set in their opinion, but the real freedom lies in the fact that the discussion can take place and make the country as a whole stronger as a result.
-John
You're right, no doubt about that.
Interesting, isn't it, that the same country claims to be the most Free in the world?
-John
And if you think it's just the UI that makes GIMP less powerful, you've clearly never seen a pro work on PhotoShop.
The only solution that I can see is a global/central white list function. If it was possible to register my site as a "good practice pop-up site" at the various pop-up blocker suppliers, that would could us the pop-up back as a useful tool.
Which would work fine until the second the company running the registry realize they can make money by selling entries in the white list.
Cynical? Maybe, but remember it's advertising we're talking about
-John
Sheesh, no dutch moderators today, looks like. The National Athem is called "Wilhelmus".
If you listen to some of the Peter Jackson interviews on sound effects in TTT, he mentions that people have to to expect that sound (and indeed mentions Monty Python as well) so they more or less have to put it in or people thing it will sound fake...
If those letters are indeed an attempt to get the press to look in a certain direction, then we should ignore it. Pretend they don't exist. If it's press coverage they want, then it's press coverage we want denied. So if you do have one of those letters, do NOT post them.
If you look up the definition here you'll see why they call it Cell Phone.
That is an exceptionally sad statement about "the Land of the Free". In more than one way...
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I find that the customers who do go for cheapest are usually the ones that give me big headaches by not wanting to pay at all. Good riddance to them. I find the following remarks to work very well with the kind of customers that do indeed want a good ongoing relation: "you have the code, so it's in my interest to keep you happy about the quality of my work, or you'll walk. You could by closed product X, but if they treat you like crap you're lost."
This is indeed about building a good relationship with your customer, and you're right, some will walk, but most of the time you're better off without them. Oh, and I could tell you stories about those kind of customers coming back 6 months later when it turns out the cheap shop they found won't deliver anything at all...
-John
You're on the right track, but you need to do some more thinking before you make your decision. The big question isn't wether there's a place for closed source, the big question is how *you* make your money. Is it by selling the lines of code you write, or is it by the service you deliver to your customers? If your customers pay you for customizations of your code, tuned for them in a very special way, what do you care what happens to the code? You don't get paid for that, you get paid for what's between your ears: the experience and knowledge to make your customers happy. Would you still get enough customers because of your knowlegde and experience if your old projects where "out there", advertising for you that you do indeed know your stuff?
I guess that's where we basically disagree, but that's problably because of my security background. I feel the strength of the system is dependent on its weakest component, and I tend to take a holistic view on developing new systems. I cannot afford to look at just one little thing, and the kind of focus you describe is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster. I admit that it is also very, very difficult to please me, and I don't easily call something "secure" or "trustworthy". Of course Einstein did excellent work, but working in an area where it is an absolute given that you're breaking new ground is fundamentaly different from working on something that absolutely has to work correctly, every time. Einstein could afford to make monumental mistakes, a voting system cannot.
You're probably correct in saying that the system is fully trustworthy, in the limited subset of circumstances you describe: in terms of accurate voting tallys. My worries are broader than that, but as I said, I'm very difficult to please.
-John
As I said, I don't think you, or the people you worked with, are in any way incompetent. I just question the sanity of those "above" them, including those who wrote "the rules" you have to follow without questioning (a worrying trend in itself, but that's another discussion). And I agree with the statements you make about backups, since I've indeed done them myself (and I've been very lucky with losing, or rather not losing, stuff). My worries remain the same: any one who can "enforce" the rigorous set of rules you describe and not follow through all the way (with rules about backups) is probably making the same mistake(s) in other areas as well, thus lowering the overall worth of the system. Anyway, thank you for your comments!
I believe you. I think your description about what their intentions are is correct. However, it doesn't really matter how well-intentioned they are, because they are also incompetent. If they really, really had their procedures done correctly, there wouldn't be a silly limit for 200 lines, or rather, folks would know why the limit was there. But the real eye-opener is the fact that a company that is that anal about procedures still manages to lose all backups. On one hand they know that procedures and following them is vital in their line of business, and on the other hand such a scew-up can happen. Their coders may indeed be decent and honest people, like you describe, but their management is a bunch of nitwits.
I *love* the standard disclaimer on that cache:
Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content
You're absolutely right, except for one point. Such a company won't have the technical expertise, but hire it. Hire a developer for a while, and after that, hire somebody to maintain it. I've landed a few development jobs that way, and I always make it a point to show the advantages of this setup: the client doesn't need me, and if at some point in time they're fed up with me, there's plenty others who they can hire. That gives me some incentive to deliver them a good product, and since I can walk away just as easily it gives them an incentive to keep good relations with the guy who's giving them good service..
-John
There is NO excuse for not patching your software, like there is also no excuse for having security holes in your software.
To quote Morpheus, "welcome to the real world". What if your choice is between these two:
1) running software with a security hole, but being able to bill your customers, and
2) not running software because the patch breaks the application that allows you to bill your customers, thus not making any money and going out of business.
Unfortunately, sometimes this is a real situation, and not just with microsoft software.
This sort of confirms that most spam is sent by a small group. Take this sucker out, and a massive amount of spam drops off the planet. Do it with enough prejudice, just to make sure nobody takes over the vacancy.
I wasn't talking about that part of iTunes - on the contrary, I more or less agree with what you say. I was talking about the parts where folks are using iTunes in totally different - non-Apple-approved - ways...
I think what he's painting is a "worst case" scenario. Reality will be different, and I cannot predict what it will be like, but it will not be as bad as he thinks. Most really innovative work still has to be done. Did anybody here predict the social influence Google would have? I think not.
And to illustrate this with a recent development: iTunes. Conventional wisdom is that Apple seriously fucked up, the RIAA is going to sue Apple's pants off, and Apple's new iTunes Music Store will be shut down by the some seriously pissed off record companies.
Kottke would like to believe an alternative theory. Apple had to know what they were doing with iTunes. Their engineers aren't stupid. They left the whole thing wide open and had to know how trivial it would be for developers to figure out the protocol and write apps to download the music directly.
Things will be not develop in the way we are thinking now. Nevertheless, Lessig will remain a good read for quite a while!
-John
This one? I guess so, but I had to start up IE to see if I was correct; my usual browser is Safari..
-John
Just one rule about coding in c#:
Don't.
Legalizing drugs won't stop people from committing other crimes to buy them.
Prices will go down dramatically by legalizing them, folks won't need to steal for them. Also, people do tend to commit crimes to get cocaine, heroin, and the like, pot is relatively cheap and non-addictive. If you're worried about people continuing to steal after legalizing, set up a program where you hand out free drugs or drugs replacements to registered addicts. Worked fine in Switzerland and several other European countries.
Okay, so I don't have access to MIT or their chips, will this do?