Yeah, I'm rather dubious about this whole "Enterprise" branding shtick. What's the problem with running PostgreSQL in a failover configuration on Debian? Support? It's not "certified"? You won't get the same ROI without an ISV SLA? Phghlght.
Of all the systems I've ever used, the best support I've ever recieved has been the community support associated with actively maintained Free/OSS software projects. Don't believe me? Get on a PostgreSQL list sometime, and try to stump them. You won't find a more professional, courteous, and knowledgeable community anywhere. And so on. If you can't find a maillist or newsgroup full of people trying to solve the same problems you are, you aren't trying very hard.
I really want to know what these "Enterprise" OS's offer. For example, when an ISV "Certifies" that their overpriced product will run on an "Enterprise" OS, what does that mean? Does that mean that if you have problems they will assume responsibility? Does that mean that they don't have bugs? Does it mean that if they do have bugs, and you report them, that they will issue patches faster? What specific technologies distinguish RH Advance Server from what I can download elsewhere? Is everything still published w/ an OSS license?
Red Hat makes fine products. They hire very talented people. They should be commended for all they've done for the community. But when did the marketing department take over? And what's the future going to be like, now that marketing is driving?
SCO is one of many member organizations comprising UnitedLinux. The other companies in this mix should abandon SCO. If they don't, they are implicitly supporting SCO. This includes SuSE, Conectiva, and TurboLinux.
I not only refuse to patronize SCO, I refuse to support any organization who's affiliation with SCO bolsters their cause.
Even if they own the IP they can't use your code without your permission.
Sure. But say for the sake of argument that the GPL were invalidated. What would people who had GPL'd code do? They'd basically either (1) keep it to themselves or (2) release it under a BSD style license. Any BSD code could be used by a commercial entity as they saw fit.
I realize I don't have a fully fleshed out theory here, but as far as what SCO is up to, I don't think anyone does. Maybe they don't even know themselves.
But in any case, it won't surprise me in the slightest, now that the OSS/Free Software movement has gotten so large, to see non-techie folks, like lawyers, repeat a lot of the same arguments we've been having for years, but in a different forum. Like "BSD is 'more free'" vs. "You're just an opportunist! Use the GPL!" vs. "No way you hippie communist!" etc. In the courts. Tomorrow at 11:00.
If slick lawyers like Boies can continue duping the dunderheads at SCO into paying his legal fees, he'll keep concocting lawsuits. It's his job.
If they defeat the GPL, then they will also be defeating copyright law, so it won't matter who has copies of what; everything will be free!
I'd like to think so. But I can imagine otherwise. The argument could go something like "just as your right to free speech doesn't give you the right to shout 'fire' in a theatre, neither does copyright allow you to create licenses which are 'viral' yada yada." Which would be a bunch of horse pucky, but nevertheless certain people never fail to let one bad turn beget another.
Plus if you can get a GPL challenge into the court room, you could subpoena Richard Stallman. Wouldn't that be fun? You could demonstrate the perversion of the GPL by making a public spectacle of its author! Sick, but how could anyone who reads/. be surprised? We see this kind of behaviour every day.
They said they won't sue people using SCO Linux, not that it was ok with them for the code to be used.
Which perhaps points to the real reason for this lawsuit. They want to challenge the GPL. Why not? They've got nothing to lose. Who would be surprised to see this pathetic group of vainglorious losers butter themselves up for yet another opportunity to crap all over everyone, including themselves? If they win, they'll be the only linux vendor with a legal drop in replacement for all the suddenly invalidated installations. Sure. And I'm an elf.
Their argument will go something like "the GPL prevents us from protecting our IP, therefore the GPL is an invalid license" blah blah blah.
Also GNU Classpath. Seems to me that if Redhat wants a free Java implementation, they would do well to contribute to existing effort, rather than starting yet another one.
The fear among artists is that the work of art they put together, the album, will become a thing of the past," says attorney Fred Goldring, whose firm represents Will Smith and Alanis Morissette.
I didn't realize that Will Smith's albums were even a thing of the present.
Instead of all this theorizing, why don't we just find out what would happen if the RIAA goes under. Let's put them out of business, and then see if people stop making music. That's their argument, right? Unless the RIAA's clients can tightly control the distribution of their copyrighted work, we are headed for a cultural dark age.
Well, let's see. We've seen what the RIAA can give us. We've been eating that puss pie for years. Let's turn things around, and see what happens without them. Take a five year hiatus. Let's stop all of this hand waving and bullshit mumbo jumbo, and declare a five year abstenance from copyright enforcement. Then we'd actually *learn* something, instead of just hypothesizing.
The RIAA, MPAA, and their other chicken little friends keep saying "Bad things will happen! Beware!" Let's put their assertions to the test.
What's the difference between NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC? And gee, do you think there's any conflict of interest in having an IP lawyer not only work, but anchor a media organization?!
Someday naming your daughter Hillary will be as favorable as naming your son Adolph.
Whatever. It's not the law against speeding that slows people down, it's the police. No wait, it's the punitive threats. No wait, it's the judicial system that enforces such threats. Blah blah.
The GPL does exactly what I said. To get around the restriction, you need another license - hence the dual licensing you mention. Can you incorporate GPL'd software into your proprietary product without the copyright holder giving you permission? No. And I'm sure you know better. Stop blowing smoke.
Of course there are other open source licenses than the GPL. That doesn't change the fact that the GPL predominates, nor diminish its important role in the promotion of OSS ideals. As of Apr. 4, 2002, sourceforge reported that 73% of the projects it hosted were GPL'd. The Linux kernel is GPL'd, for christsake. So you think it's o.k. for the UK to outlaw the use of Linux?! On what grounds?
Don't even pretend you are a friend of the open source movement when you make statements like yours.
The reason these companies want to eliminate the GPL from consideration is obvious: the GPL prohibits them from incorporating other people's work into their proprietary software. Now why should the government, in other words *you*, via your tax dollars, be financing work which proprietary software vendors can then appropriate for nothing and sell at a profit? Welfare programs should be reserved for people that need help, not Bill Gates.
I hope you're right. Elections are non-violent revolutions, after all. Democracy doesn't mean that bad ideas can't take hold. But it does mean that one party can overthrow another without a shot being fired. At one time, that was a very revolutionary idea.
But democracy presumes an informed public. What happens when big media becomes conflicted about political issues? What would have become of the American Revolution without anonymous pamphleteering? Now we see states outlawing any attempt to hide the origins of communication. These are troubling issues.
How much will people tolerate? I think there's an ironic trend at work: the better off people are, the more oppression they will tolerate. "I have food on the table, why should I cause any trouble?"
I don't think the issue of copyrights will become an election decider because the media have a vested interest in promoting copyright. It will never become an election issue. People like us may be canaries in the mine shaft that collapses. Yippie.
Back in the day, being asked to give a couple bucks to King George III for some tea caused quite an outrage. First there were tea boycotts. Then some guys dressed up like Mohawk Indians, boarded three ships and threw their tea into the harbor. Later guns started firing. Lots of people died. A new country was born. And we're all (those of us in the US) very proud of all this.
All because of tea.
Now money that is spent on the media used to promote free communication should be taxed? Certain senators want to destroy people's computers? The US attorney general wants to circumvent the right to a fair trial? Blowing up Palistinian families, children and all, with US missles is "defense", but the impoverished occupied Palistinian nation's response is "terrorism"? Launching thousands and thousands of sorties, killing tens of thousands of unwilling soldiers to prevent "mass destruction" by weapons that cannot be found is not ironic? Our economy is a shambles. The rich are laughing. And our commander-in-chief wants to appoint this penis to the bench!
Osama bin Laden is free today. US citizens are not. And we would like the rest of the world to follow our lead. God bless Sweden for seeing the way. I'm Swedish. American. And pissed.
Flamebait? It's a/. high crime. Fomenting an uncomfortable discussion. And that's just talking! God forbid anyone ever actually did anything!
Whenever you add or modify a file, WinFS adds the file's attributes to its indexes. The attributes stored are customizable...
I keep wondering whether this sytem will incorporate any of the ideas being formulated by Prof. Rudolf Bayer and his team. The first paper in this series probably best summarizes the ideas being generated here. There's some really cool stuff here. From the abstract:
With the new method, a single UB-tree can replace an arbitrary number of secondary indexes. For updates this means that only one UB-tree must be managed instead of several secondary indexes. This reduces runtime and storage requirements substantially. For queries and in particular range queries the UB-tree has mul- tiplicative complexity instead of the additive complexity of multiple secondary indexes. This results in dramatic performance improvements over secondary indexes.
I'm not saying there's no such thing as ADHD, but remember this: ADHD is primarily a behavioural, not a physiological, diagnosis. Be careful in your dealings with doctors who's reputation and career may very well hinge on "helping" people with this problem. I'm not saying all mental health professionals are quacks, but our very sketchy knowlege of the mind allows these types of professions to harbor more than their fair share of kooks, quacks, and well-intentioned nebbishes.
SCO is silent, and/. abhors a vacuum. It makes me wonder how differently Boies and Co. see things today than when they first announced this lawsuit. How convenient for them to simply sit back and let the comments pour in. Then they can pick through them at their leisure, looking to find something faintly legitimate with which to prop up their case. This case is legal vaporware. They're not going to bother with an actual implementation until they have managed to glom onto something worth pursuing. Kind of like Whitewater. First it was a land deal, and then it became Monica Lewinski. Here we have copyright, no patent, no export, god-knows-what-next alleged violation. These guys are fishing without a paddle. Can't wait 'till they hit the waterfall.
Nice idea. I've seen bricks fall off of tall buildings before. Here's my question: if the bricks are so shot that they are falling off, why would we expect that the sensors are still intact and working? Should we install sensor sensors, to detect sensor failure? I'm no luddite, but this is really pie-in-the-sky.
Like I said, I'd spend my money on a good engineer and good masons before I bought smart bricks. How many deaths are caused annually by bricks falling off of skyscrapers? Nevermind that skyscrapers are clad with curtainwall, not brick. Not that you can't integrate brick into a curtainwall structure (I've done it), but it's not typical.
I really do wonder how long it will be before actuarial accounts rule the earth, and make us all wear helmets all day.
Jesus Christ, most people can't even afford enough regular bricks to build a house. You know, the kind that are basically made out of dirt. Maybe more people would be better off if we concentrated on affordable housing than if we concentrated on making this kind of stupid shit.
You know, there's a solution to buildings falling down. It's called structural engineering. Tempered by a dose of common sense. Like if you don't want your house to fall on your head don't build it on a fault line or next a sandy ocean cliff.
Darwin will take care of this idea just like Darwin takes care of the people who would benefit from these stupid things.
Re:What would they rather have?
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
I'm an environmentalist also, and I second your critique of these puerile pretenders. I'd add this to your list of alternatives: (11) Living in pre-industrial society.
The organization behind this windmill effort is Cape Wind. Their site includes a map which shows that the proposed windfarm lies at least three miles from any landmass. I can't think of a less obtrusive way to create this much energy. Most people in the world would give a kidney to live in these environs! What a bunch of self-absorbed clueless whiners!
Adversarial nincompoops will surface to decry any large public initiative, no matter how benificial or banal. The important thing is to make sure we don't structure our legislative processes such that a handful of nitwits can derail or impede public works with such immense support. Of course we must alway protect the minority opinion. But we cannot allow yippy little chihauhaus to rule the pack. Not when our future is at stake.
It is infinitely better for the EU to harmonise laws
More Europeans are beginning to realize there are disadvantages to harmonising their respective systems of goverment. For example, if you are an EU country with inflation problems, you might like to raise interest rates. But a central currency prevents that. Moreover, all this bullshit about harmonization presumes there is a right way to do things. It is central planning on a vast scale. Rather than allowing different competing ideas about how to approach patent law compete, some self-important commission will decide, for everyone, what the best system is. Show, don't tell, I say. Somewhere in the world, we need a country with a thriving software industry to reject business methods and patents outright. And then let us see where innovation thrives.
But back to the main point - this kind of thing cannot happen so long as people of the world continue to pursue global treaties that compel international cooperation on the formulation of local laws and regulations. Contentious matters such as software patents are contentions for a reason - people don't agree what the best policy is. While international cooperation might benefit a few multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations, it is not at all obvious that such cooperation would have any salutory effect on the global economy. Truly free markets require giving local economies the ability to formulate their own regulations. The only global trade policies worth pursuing are those related to human rights, and to the abolishment of artificial trade restrictions. But this whole "make your laws just like my laws" crap has to stop.
Re:Do younger minds absorb quicker?
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
Do piano players benefit from their other life experiences? (Well, of course they do, but I mean in relation to playing the piano.) I don't know. But I think programmers certainly do.
I like to see programmers who can do more than program. Unless you're writing programs for programmers, it's useful to have expertise, or at least experience, in the problem domain the program addresses. For example, it's good to see database programmers in the financial arena with accounting experience. Or someone creating non-linear editing applications with videography experience. And so on.
Experience matters. And experience takes time. Regardless of whether programming paradigms, methods, etc. have changed, and I don't think they have really changed that much, tactile kick-it do-it been-there-done-that experience makes for better programmers.
You're absolutely right about Gen-X'ers being the first to grow up with computers. A lot of the problems this generation faces are not from below, but still from above. Some of us have made it into upper management, but most are still middle-management or senior programmer level folks. For the most part, upper management is still run by a generation that just missed the boat. It's not their fault or anything, but a lot of them have just never managed to come to grips with the possibilities and the limitation of computers. So you see a lot of chicken littles and a lot of pollyannas. Personally, I have more trouble relating to these people than I do working with the upcoming younger generation.
I like the younger generation. They have a lot to offer. They'll teach you a thing or two or ten, also, if you're willing to listen...
Slashdot Mirror
Oops is a more than worthy alternative, that was developed outside the US. I'm not sure how patent law applies in such a situation.
Yeah, I'm rather dubious about this whole "Enterprise" branding shtick. What's the problem with running PostgreSQL in a failover configuration on Debian? Support? It's not "certified"? You won't get the same ROI without an ISV SLA? Phghlght.
Of all the systems I've ever used, the best support I've ever recieved has been the community support associated with actively maintained Free/OSS software projects. Don't believe me? Get on a PostgreSQL list sometime, and try to stump them. You won't find a more professional, courteous, and knowledgeable community anywhere. And so on. If you can't find a maillist or newsgroup full of people trying to solve the same problems you are, you aren't trying very hard.
I really want to know what these "Enterprise" OS's offer. For example, when an ISV "Certifies" that their overpriced product will run on an "Enterprise" OS, what does that mean? Does that mean that if you have problems they will assume responsibility? Does that mean that they don't have bugs? Does it mean that if they do have bugs, and you report them, that they will issue patches faster? What specific technologies distinguish RH Advance Server from what I can download elsewhere? Is everything still published w/ an OSS license?
Red Hat makes fine products. They hire very talented people. They should be commended for all they've done for the community. But when did the marketing department take over? And what's the future going to be like, now that marketing is driving?
SCO is one of many member organizations comprising UnitedLinux. The other companies in this mix should abandon SCO. If they don't, they are implicitly supporting SCO. This includes SuSE, Conectiva, and TurboLinux.
I not only refuse to patronize SCO, I refuse to support any organization who's affiliation with SCO bolsters their cause.
Darl McBride should go to jail.
Even if they own the IP they can't use your code without your permission.
Sure. But say for the sake of argument that the GPL were invalidated. What would people who had GPL'd code do? They'd basically either (1) keep it to themselves or (2) release it under a BSD style license. Any BSD code could be used by a commercial entity as they saw fit.
I realize I don't have a fully fleshed out theory here, but as far as what SCO is up to, I don't think anyone does. Maybe they don't even know themselves.
But in any case, it won't surprise me in the slightest, now that the OSS/Free Software movement has gotten so large, to see non-techie folks, like lawyers, repeat a lot of the same arguments we've been having for years, but in a different forum. Like "BSD is 'more free'" vs. "You're just an opportunist! Use the GPL!" vs. "No way you hippie communist!" etc. In the courts. Tomorrow at 11:00.
If slick lawyers like Boies can continue duping the dunderheads at SCO into paying his legal fees, he'll keep concocting lawsuits. It's his job.
If they defeat the GPL, then they will also be defeating copyright law, so it won't matter who has copies of what; everything will be free!
/. be surprised? We see this kind of behaviour every day.
I'd like to think so. But I can imagine otherwise. The argument could go something like "just as your right to free speech doesn't give you the right to shout 'fire' in a theatre, neither does copyright allow you to create licenses which are 'viral' yada yada." Which would be a bunch of horse pucky, but nevertheless certain people never fail to let one bad turn beget another.
Plus if you can get a GPL challenge into the court room, you could subpoena Richard Stallman. Wouldn't that be fun? You could demonstrate the perversion of the GPL by making a public spectacle of its author! Sick, but how could anyone who reads
They said they won't sue people using SCO Linux, not that it was ok with them for the code to be used.
Which perhaps points to the real reason for this lawsuit. They want to challenge the GPL. Why not? They've got nothing to lose. Who would be surprised to see this pathetic group of vainglorious losers butter themselves up for yet another opportunity to crap all over everyone, including themselves? If they win, they'll be the only linux vendor with a legal drop in replacement for all the suddenly invalidated installations. Sure. And I'm an elf.
Their argument will go something like "the GPL prevents us from protecting our IP, therefore the GPL is an invalid license" blah blah blah.
Also GNU Classpath. Seems to me that if Redhat wants a free Java implementation, they would do well to contribute to existing effort, rather than starting yet another one.
The fear among artists is that the work of art they put together, the album, will become a thing of the past," says attorney Fred Goldring, whose firm represents Will Smith and Alanis Morissette.
I didn't realize that Will Smith's albums were even a thing of the present.
Instead of all this theorizing, why don't we just find out what would happen if the RIAA goes under. Let's put them out of business, and then see if people stop making music. That's their argument, right? Unless the RIAA's clients can tightly control the distribution of their copyrighted work, we are headed for a cultural dark age.
Well, let's see. We've seen what the RIAA can give us. We've been eating that puss pie for years. Let's turn things around, and see what happens without them. Take a five year hiatus. Let's stop all of this hand waving and bullshit mumbo jumbo, and declare a five year abstenance from copyright enforcement. Then we'd actually *learn* something, instead of just hypothesizing.
The RIAA, MPAA, and their other chicken little friends keep saying "Bad things will happen! Beware!" Let's put their assertions to the test.
What's the difference between NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC? And gee, do you think there's any conflict of interest in having an IP lawyer not only work, but anchor a media organization?!
Someday naming your daughter Hillary will be as favorable as naming your son Adolph.
Whatever. It's not the law against speeding that slows people down, it's the police. No wait, it's the punitive threats. No wait, it's the judicial system that enforces such threats. Blah blah.
The GPL does exactly what I said. To get around the restriction, you need another license - hence the dual licensing you mention. Can you incorporate GPL'd software into your proprietary product without the copyright holder giving you permission? No. And I'm sure you know better. Stop blowing smoke.
Of course there are other open source licenses than the GPL. That doesn't change the fact that the GPL predominates, nor diminish its important role in the promotion of OSS ideals. As of Apr. 4, 2002, sourceforge reported that 73% of the projects it hosted were GPL'd. The Linux kernel is GPL'd, for christsake. So you think it's o.k. for the UK to outlaw the use of Linux?! On what grounds?
Don't even pretend you are a friend of the open source movement when you make statements like yours.
The reason these companies want to eliminate the GPL from consideration is obvious: the GPL prohibits them from incorporating other people's work into their proprietary software. Now why should the government, in other words *you*, via your tax dollars, be financing work which proprietary software vendors can then appropriate for nothing and sell at a profit? Welfare programs should be reserved for people that need help, not Bill Gates.
Legacy applications. There's still some crufty, yet well-worn and oft-used stuff out there that runs best on older OS's.
I hope you're right. Elections are non-violent revolutions, after all. Democracy doesn't mean that bad ideas can't take hold. But it does mean that one party can overthrow another without a shot being fired. At one time, that was a very revolutionary idea.
But democracy presumes an informed public. What happens when big media becomes conflicted about political issues? What would have become of the American Revolution without anonymous pamphleteering? Now we see states outlawing any attempt to hide the origins of communication. These are troubling issues.
How much will people tolerate? I think there's an ironic trend at work: the better off people are, the more oppression they will tolerate. "I have food on the table, why should I cause any trouble?"
I don't think the issue of copyrights will become an election decider because the media have a vested interest in promoting copyright. It will never become an election issue. People like us may be canaries in the mine shaft that collapses. Yippie.
Back in the day, being asked to give a couple bucks to King George III for some tea caused quite an outrage. First there were tea boycotts. Then some guys dressed up like Mohawk Indians, boarded three ships and threw their tea into the harbor. Later guns started firing. Lots of people died. A new country was born. And we're all (those of us in the US) very proud of all this.
/. high crime. Fomenting an uncomfortable discussion. And that's just talking! God forbid anyone ever actually did anything!
All because of tea.
Now money that is spent on the media used to promote free communication should be taxed? Certain senators want to destroy people's computers? The US attorney general wants to circumvent the right to a fair trial? Blowing up Palistinian families, children and all, with US missles is "defense", but the impoverished occupied Palistinian nation's response is "terrorism"? Launching thousands and thousands of sorties, killing tens of thousands of unwilling soldiers to prevent "mass destruction" by weapons that cannot be found is not ironic? Our economy is a shambles. The rich are laughing. And our commander-in-chief wants to appoint this penis to the bench!
Osama bin Laden is free today. US citizens are not. And we would like the rest of the world to follow our lead. God bless Sweden for seeing the way. I'm Swedish. American. And pissed.
Flamebait? It's a
Whenever you add or modify a file, WinFS adds the file's attributes to its indexes. The attributes stored are customizable...
I keep wondering whether this sytem will incorporate any of the ideas being formulated by Prof. Rudolf Bayer and his team. The first paper in this series probably best summarizes the ideas being generated here. There's some really cool stuff here. From the abstract:
With the new method, a single UB-tree can replace an arbitrary number of secondary indexes. For updates this means that only one UB-tree must be managed instead of several secondary indexes. This reduces runtime and storage requirements substantially. For queries and in particular range queries the UB-tree has mul- tiplicative complexity instead of the additive complexity of multiple secondary indexes. This results in dramatic performance improvements over secondary indexes.
Now look at the list of partners.
I'm not saying there's no such thing as ADHD, but remember this: ADHD is primarily a behavioural, not a physiological, diagnosis. Be careful in your dealings with doctors who's reputation and career may very well hinge on "helping" people with this problem. I'm not saying all mental health professionals are quacks, but our very sketchy knowlege of the mind allows these types of professions to harbor more than their fair share of kooks, quacks, and well-intentioned nebbishes.
A better law would be to make it illegal for legislators to make laws that are illegal. Oh wait..
Now where did I put my drink? Oh, in my hand..
SCO is silent, and /. abhors a vacuum. It makes me wonder how differently Boies and Co. see things today than when they first announced this lawsuit. How convenient for them to simply sit back and let the comments pour in. Then they can pick through them at their leisure, looking to find something faintly legitimate with which to prop up their case. This case is legal vaporware. They're not going to bother with an actual implementation until they have managed to glom onto something worth pursuing. Kind of like Whitewater. First it was a land deal, and then it became Monica Lewinski. Here we have copyright, no patent, no export, god-knows-what-next alleged violation. These guys are fishing without a paddle. Can't wait 'till they hit the waterfall.
Nice idea. I've seen bricks fall off of tall buildings before. Here's my question: if the bricks are so shot that they are falling off, why would we expect that the sensors are still intact and working? Should we install sensor sensors, to detect sensor failure? I'm no luddite, but this is really pie-in-the-sky.
Like I said, I'd spend my money on a good engineer and good masons before I bought smart bricks. How many deaths are caused annually by bricks falling off of skyscrapers? Nevermind that skyscrapers are clad with curtainwall, not brick. Not that you can't integrate brick into a curtainwall structure (I've done it), but it's not typical.
I really do wonder how long it will be before actuarial accounts rule the earth, and make us all wear helmets all day.
Jesus Christ, most people can't even afford enough regular bricks to build a house. You know, the kind that are basically made out of dirt. Maybe more people would be better off if we concentrated on affordable housing than if we concentrated on making this kind of stupid shit.
You know, there's a solution to buildings falling down. It's called structural engineering. Tempered by a dose of common sense. Like if you don't want your house to fall on your head don't build it on a fault line or next a sandy ocean cliff.
Darwin will take care of this idea just like Darwin takes care of the people who would benefit from these stupid things.
I'm an environmentalist also, and I second your critique of these puerile pretenders. I'd add this to your list of alternatives: (11) Living in pre-industrial society.
The organization behind this windmill effort is Cape Wind. Their site includes a map which shows that the proposed windfarm lies at least three miles from any landmass. I can't think of a less obtrusive way to create this much energy. Most people in the world would give a kidney to live in these environs! What a bunch of self-absorbed clueless whiners!
Adversarial nincompoops will surface to decry any large public initiative, no matter how benificial or banal. The important thing is to make sure we don't structure our legislative processes such that a handful of nitwits can derail or impede public works with such immense support. Of course we must alway protect the minority opinion. But we cannot allow yippy little chihauhaus to rule the pack. Not when our future is at stake.
It is infinitely better for the EU to harmonise laws
More Europeans are beginning to realize there are disadvantages to harmonising their respective systems of goverment. For example, if you are an EU country with inflation problems, you might like to raise interest rates. But a central currency prevents that. Moreover, all this bullshit about harmonization presumes there is a right way to do things. It is central planning on a vast scale. Rather than allowing different competing ideas about how to approach patent law compete, some self-important commission will decide, for everyone, what the best system is. Show, don't tell, I say. Somewhere in the world, we need a country with a thriving software industry to reject business methods and patents outright. And then let us see where innovation thrives.
But back to the main point - this kind of thing cannot happen so long as people of the world continue to pursue global treaties that compel international cooperation on the formulation of local laws and regulations. Contentious matters such as software patents are contentions for a reason - people don't agree what the best policy is. While international cooperation might benefit a few multi-billion dollar multi-national corporations, it is not at all obvious that such cooperation would have any salutory effect on the global economy. Truly free markets require giving local economies the ability to formulate their own regulations. The only global trade policies worth pursuing are those related to human rights, and to the abolishment of artificial trade restrictions. But this whole "make your laws just like my laws" crap has to stop.
Do piano players benefit from their other life experiences? (Well, of course they do, but I mean in relation to playing the piano.) I don't know. But I think programmers certainly do.
I like to see programmers who can do more than program. Unless you're writing programs for programmers, it's useful to have expertise, or at least experience, in the problem domain the program addresses. For example, it's good to see database programmers in the financial arena with accounting experience. Or someone creating non-linear editing applications with videography experience. And so on.
Experience matters. And experience takes time. Regardless of whether programming paradigms, methods, etc. have changed, and I don't think they have really changed that much, tactile kick-it do-it been-there-done-that experience makes for better programmers.
You're absolutely right about Gen-X'ers being the first to grow up with computers. A lot of the problems this generation faces are not from below, but still from above. Some of us have made it into upper management, but most are still middle-management or senior programmer level folks. For the most part, upper management is still run by a generation that just missed the boat. It's not their fault or anything, but a lot of them have just never managed to come to grips with the possibilities and the limitation of computers. So you see a lot of chicken littles and a lot of pollyannas. Personally, I have more trouble relating to these people than I do working with the upcoming younger generation.
I like the younger generation. They have a lot to offer. They'll teach you a thing or two or ten, also, if you're willing to listen...