Contrary to the general theme of this discussion, my recent experience is that there is a bidding war right now in Silicon Valley for experienced software engineers that have deep experience in large system web applications. I have not seen things this hot since early 2000. Google is leading the charge by offering extremely generous stock compensation.
There may be a lot of new ones in China, but they'd better have content approved by the communist government there. China has a track record of internet censorship that should bother anyone who values the free and open expression of ideas. The Chinese Government that won't even acknowledge regret for running over their teenagers with tanks will not allow a free and open market place of ideas to develop in China.
This is an interesting vision for the world. At what point will you want to cross over from the idea that consuming commercial software is 'morally wrong' to making it 'legally wrong'.
I'm assuming that voluntary compliance will only take you so far and that, some day, you'll need the law to enforce your vision. When is that day?
Does Stallman think it's ok that some consumers make a free and voluntary choice to pay for commercially licensed software? Or, does he want that freedom of choice taken away because his model is better for mankind?
Java is practical for some applications
on
James Gosling on Java
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Everytime java is discussed on slashdot, I'm amazed at how some junior leaguers try to dismiss it because they can point out one application where java is a poor choice.
There are some applications where it does not make sense to implement in java. However, I say that java is a great choice for the top layer of a web application server stack. There are a lot of web apps that take the form of:
1. Gather data from one or more databases.
2. Perform some consolidation and express the output in html.
In this example, java is a consolidator of data from disparate data sources. It needs to hang on to several network connections and do some simple IO but it does not need to burn the CPU at 100% because it spends most of it's time blocked on IO. Java is a great choice for applications like this because there is a very large and active community working to make java dynamic web serving better and better. Every year your organization can, for free, upgrade to a new version of java and simple app server like Tomcat and reap the rewards of the communities improvements. Also, in my experience with server applications, the promise of portability is real. I've ported from windows to solaris and then to linux without changing the java application.
Communism is grounded in the jealousy that unproductive losers feel towards those who are rewarded for making something that other people are willing to pay for.
That is what is happening to Google now. They have built a successful business by creating something people voluntarily pay for in a free and open society. Now, the jealous nit wits who hate success are coming out of the woodwork to attack Google. I'd rather that these communists spent their energy creating rival competitive products in a free and open market.
Anybody can sue anybody for anything. That's easy. It's winning and collecting a judgement that is hard.
I'm sure Google has a line item in their budget for legal defense against this sort of nonsense. That's the cost of doing business when you are a high profile and successful company.
Because the author made a free and voluntary choice to publish a physical book and require payment to get the book. You, as the consumer, are free to make the voluntary choice to pay that money and read the book or to not pay and not read. There is no coercion here. No rights are violated.
The USA bashers come out and distract everyone everytime there is an article on Slashdot that is critical of China. In the mean time, while we argue the distraction, oppression goes on in China. I'm sure the bloody handed fat cats in the PRC government love that.
Respect for individual liberties and freedom of expression is not a team sport. This action performed by China is oppressive and if it happened here in the USA, then that would be oppressive as well.
Why don't we argue about global moral absolutes rather than team sport politics. Here is my absolute moral stance on this issue: Respect for individual liberty and freedom of expression means that this move by China is morally wrong. I would say the same about the USA government if it happened here.
Copyright taxes already exist. They are called 'income taxes'.
If you are so bothered by the terms of copyright for music then why don't you do the following: Record some music, make sure it's a hit, and then surrender your copyright for the good of your fellow man. This would mean you could lead by example. You can make this free and voluntary choice for yourself. What's stopping you?
Why not let well informed people make a voluntary choice? I use a variety of closed and open source software. I am free to choose as a consumer. As a software producer I am free to choose an open or closed licensing scheme for distributing my work. Nobody is compelling consumers or producers to do anything they do not want to do.
Why would anyone want to use force (government power) to deny those freedoms?
The time, 1996, referred to by the article was a time when a lot of people working at Netscape were resting on their laurels and sure that they would always have dominant market share. Many (not all, but enough to hurt) of the original Netscape millionares were taking it easy. They drove their expensive new cars to the office and spent their day sneering at IE and, most destructively, at the legions of new employees Netscape was hiring. They should have spent their time being great mentors for the new people in order to continue the energetic innovation that fueled their initial success.
I am aware of the rights and restrictions when I purchase music. Why aren't the French people? Do they need a special extra degree of protection from their own ignorance?
Did you pay for the music you downloaded first? In your little Utopia, it sounds like the way to avoid usage restriction contracts is to just steal whatever you want without paying. Then you have no obligations to anyone.
How do you square that with yourself on a moral basis? What do you say to the content producer when you and the producer are in a quiet room together?
A just government should not step in to prevent a free and voluntary contract between two individuals. If I am an producer and you are a consumer, you and I should be free to enter into a voluntary agreement that I, as the producer, will give you, the consumer, a file with a condition agreed to that you will not copy that file and share it with others.
This contract is voluntary for both the producer and the consumer. Why does the French government feel compelled to step in restrict that freedom? Can't we just live and let live? Nobody is forcing anyone to producer or consume anything.
Slashdot Mirror
You said: That's the main problem with our country we claim democracy, but its only for the wealthy.
Prove it. Can you give me an example of, in the USA, someone who was denied voting rights recently because they were not wealthy?
Contrary to the general theme of this discussion, my recent experience is that there is a bidding war right now in Silicon Valley for experienced software engineers that have deep experience in large system web applications. I have not seen things this hot since early 2000. Google is leading the charge by offering extremely generous stock compensation.
There may be a lot of new ones in China, but they'd better have content approved by the communist government there. China has a track record of internet censorship that should bother anyone who values the free and open expression of ideas. The Chinese Government that won't even acknowledge regret for running over their teenagers with tanks will not allow a free and open market place of ideas to develop in China.
If you want a search engine that is not based on money, then how will its continued operation be funded?
This is an interesting vision for the world. At what point will you want to cross over from the idea that consuming commercial software is 'morally wrong' to making it 'legally wrong'.
I'm assuming that voluntary compliance will only take you so far and that, some day, you'll need the law to enforce your vision. When is that day?
I think GPL is great. There are true believers out there, though, who would use force to make it mandatory for everything. I'm against that.
Does Stallman think it's ok that some consumers make a free and voluntary choice to pay for commercially licensed software? Or, does he want that freedom of choice taken away because his model is better for mankind?
Everytime java is discussed on slashdot, I'm amazed at how some junior leaguers try to dismiss it because they can point out one application where java is a poor choice.
There are some applications where it does not make sense to implement in java. However, I say that java is a great choice for the top layer of a web application server stack. There are a lot of web apps that take the form of:
1. Gather data from one or more databases.
2. Perform some consolidation and express the output in html.
In this example, java is a consolidator of data from disparate data sources. It needs to hang on to several network connections and do some simple IO but it does not need to burn the CPU at 100% because it spends most of it's time blocked on IO. Java is a great choice for applications like this because there is a very large and active community working to make java dynamic web serving better and better. Every year your organization can, for free, upgrade to a new version of java and simple app server like Tomcat and reap the rewards of the communities improvements. Also, in my experience with server applications, the promise of portability is real. I've ported from windows to solaris and then to linux without changing the java application.
How come that did not carry into the real world implementations of communism in places like Russia and Cambodia?
Communism is grounded in the jealousy that unproductive losers feel towards those who are rewarded for making something that other people are willing to pay for.
That is what is happening to Google now. They have built a successful business by creating something people voluntarily pay for in a free and open society. Now, the jealous nit wits who hate success are coming out of the woodwork to attack Google. I'd rather that these communists spent their energy creating rival competitive products in a free and open market.
Anybody can sue anybody for anything. That's easy. It's winning and collecting a judgement that is hard.
I'm sure Google has a line item in their budget for legal defense against this sort of nonsense. That's the cost of doing business when you are a high profile and successful company.
You were lucky. My father kept the house so cold that I peed snow.
Gee, that's profound. Isn't what the author 'deserves' up to the author himself?
Because the author made a free and voluntary choice to publish a physical book and require payment to get the book. You, as the consumer, are free to make the voluntary choice to pay that money and read the book or to not pay and not read. There is no coercion here. No rights are violated.
What's wrong with that?
I like this book, except for the picture of the author. His hairdo is downright creepy.
Yes, but in this case the bubble is limited to one company.
Is this XXX rating compulsory? If so, then I protest.
The USA bashers come out and distract everyone everytime there is an article on Slashdot that is critical of China. In the mean time, while we argue the distraction, oppression goes on in China. I'm sure the bloody handed fat cats in the PRC government love that.
Respect for individual liberties and freedom of expression is not a team sport. This action performed by China is oppressive and if it happened here in the USA, then that would be oppressive as well.
Why don't we argue about global moral absolutes rather than team sport politics. Here is my absolute moral stance on this issue: Respect for individual liberty and freedom of expression means that this move by China is morally wrong. I would say the same about the USA government if it happened here.
Does anyone disagree?
Copyright taxes already exist. They are called 'income taxes'.
If you are so bothered by the terms of copyright for music then why don't you do the following: Record some music, make sure it's a hit, and then surrender your copyright for the good of your fellow man. This would mean you could lead by example. You can make this free and voluntary choice for yourself. What's stopping you?
I can see that I've been had. I didn't see that tongue firmly implanted in your cheek.
Now we'll see if someone who really believes your original post has the guts to stick his neck out.
Why not let well informed people make a voluntary choice? I use a variety of closed and open source software. I am free to choose as a consumer. As a software producer I am free to choose an open or closed licensing scheme for distributing my work. Nobody is compelling consumers or producers to do anything they do not want to do.
Why would anyone want to use force (government power) to deny those freedoms?
The time, 1996, referred to by the article was a time when a lot of people working at Netscape were resting on their laurels and sure that they would always have dominant market share. Many (not all, but enough to hurt) of the original Netscape millionares were taking it easy. They drove their expensive new cars to the office and spent their day sneering at IE and, most destructively, at the legions of new employees Netscape was hiring. They should have spent their time being great mentors for the new people in order to continue the energetic innovation that fueled their initial success.
I am aware of the rights and restrictions when I purchase music. Why aren't the French people? Do they need a special extra degree of protection from their own ignorance?
Lucas,
Did you pay for the music you downloaded first? In your little Utopia, it sounds like the way to avoid usage restriction contracts is to just steal whatever you want without paying. Then you have no obligations to anyone.
How do you square that with yourself on a moral basis? What do you say to the content producer when you and the producer are in a quiet room together?
A just government should not step in to prevent a free and voluntary contract between two individuals. If I am an producer and you are a consumer, you and I should be free to enter into a voluntary agreement that I, as the producer, will give you, the consumer, a file with a condition agreed to that you will not copy that file and share it with others.
This contract is voluntary for both the producer and the consumer. Why does the French government feel compelled to step in restrict that freedom? Can't we just live and let live? Nobody is forcing anyone to producer or consume anything.