>>It is being developed by OTI, an IBM subsidiary who did Visual Age Smalltalk and Visual Age Java. These people have a lot of experience building IDEs
Hey! VAJ was developed in toronto, at the IBM Toronto Software Lab.
Credit where credit is due.
The US government needs to handle this very carefully. As we get closer to a settlement/ruling of one sort of another, we have to face the question: What might be the effects of a strong/harsh ruling against the biggest blue chip tech company on a stock market/economy which seems to be driven in large part by (arguably) overvalued tech stocks.
i.e. They don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
(p.s. does anyone know how much money, in terms of corporate and personal income taxes microsoft has contributed to the US government's coffers? I think those of us in the rest of the world may have to be concerned with conflict of interest!)
Let me say, first of all, I was one of the people saying that the company should not be unduly taken advantage of. Open source is about cooperation and trying to make things better. But this street must run both ways. If a company makes a mistake and misses a loophole, they should be given an opportunity to close it if the result of not closing it would be to drive them out of business. But crewing your customers and having your "service" reps laugh about it is inexcusable. They made a mistake, I was in favour of giving them a chance to fix it. They are running out of chances and good will.
There was an expedition down to bolivia a few year back to try to determine the final resting place of Butch Cassidy (He was supposed to have died in a shootout with the army and there is a grave in a remote village.)
There were also a series of experiments conducted on locks of hair, said to belong to Napoleon, to determine whether he died of arsenic poisoning on Elba.
Finally, I believe there is an ongoing effort to extract DNA from the Shroud of Turin.
well, you may be right That is certainly the Darwinian answer. Perhaps I'm just a little too philosophical about the whole thing. But I find it sad that that is all life is reduced to. Companies trying to take advantage of comsumers versus consumers trying to take advantage of companies. I didn't think open source was about trying to get something for nothing. I thought it was about working together to produce something better.
To summarize: I think that everybody agrees that this can be done (make changes, even glue etc won't entirely prevent it) The bug question is whether you _should_ do this. You can talk legalities all you like. And perhaps they should have made their model more explicit. But I think everybody knew how they wanted to run their business. The question is, just because you can do something which takes advantage of someone else, should you? If you found a wallet on the sidewalk, do you keep it or try to return it? Would you be so quick to try to take advantage of the i appliance if you bought it from the company face to face? A company is made up of people with jobs. Their jobs depend on the future of the company. Just because you don't see the faces, don't forget they are there. Ask yourself, what kind of person are you?
So an attack against a business that thousands of people rely on for their livelihood is good, but an attack on a smaller site is bad?
If sites are being taken down, one of two things are going to happen. 1) Business is going to abandon the net, and you can go back to your dial up bbs 2) Legislation, rules, tax dollars to fight "cyber crime" instead of poverty, hardware and software fixes that will limit what you can do with the net.
Who gives a shit if the FBI is involved. You know things are serious when the wall street journal is involved.
Try to get over the "Large Corporation = Bad" thing, it smacks of hypocrisy. Until you can build our own computer from the dirt in your back yard, you are going to have to live with the fact that the large corporations of the world have improved your life and the lives of 99.9% of the people you will ever know in your life.
The consumers have spoken. They don't want a wilderness. They want a park. If you want to maintain any semblance of wildlife, try to keep them from attacking the nice people in the cars.
You don't have to agree with it, but you may have to live with it.
>The battles of the 21st Century - individual humans versus greed and bigness - are underway, hey Katz who do you think is greedy, if not the individual humans? Each of us individuals must make responsible decisions and become aware of the consequences of our actions if we are to change the world. It does no good to protest in seattle, then go back home and eat a cheeseburger in your "tommy" jeans. We have power as citizens with voices, consumers in a global economy and (most of us) voters in a democratic country. Stand up and be counted or get out of the way!
I agree with most of your points But these are all problems with monsato, not genetic technology We (and yes I mean we, the geeks etc) have to find a way to use this tech to help the world. If you want something done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself
wrong again "nony" nobody "controls" the market one different corporations have larger market shares, but this is not control and in any case, you are ignoring the definition of what a monoploy is try not to confuse your moral outrage with superior knowledge you don't have a monoploy on thought or analysis p.s. this really should be private, get an account with an e-mail on it, even a hotmail
The flaw in your argument is that monsanto has nothing close to a monopoly. There are plenty of places to get seeds, and plenty more to get fertilizer. If farmers choose the "package" it is because they see an advantage.
Wrong again, but thanks for coming out. The plants were sterilized due to pressure from eco groups to prevent the GM plants from getting into the wild. Monsanto would sell the same amount, because western farmers don't re-use seeds anyway
exactly! I can't think of a single area of science that hasn't produced bad effects, either intentionally or unintentionally. We should always move carefully, but we must move forwards.
yeah, well I should point out that the proper use of GM foods would permit less use of chemicals for the growth of foods. GM is the least of your worries, I would be far more concerned about the pesticides and fertilizers.
actually the classic example that you are describing was not insecticide, it was a chemical designed to kill other plants (RoundUp). Given this context, it makes perfect sense to do things that way around (making chem resistant plants). I would caution you against making generalities based on certain instances. Are you against GM on principle, or against certain apecific applications of the technology. I think that this is a technology that has great promise. I am also not naive enough to believe that everything these companies will do is good. Just because certain drug companies are unscrupulous doesn't mean you should call for an end to medical research. I think that the government and NGO's are the ones that should really be supporting GM food research. The incremental difference in food production in 1st world countries is nothing compared to the possible positive changes that this could make in food production in the developing countries. What if we could develop potatoes that grow in briny water, or crops that would permit two harvests in africa. This is the future. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Vigilance is good, paranoia is bad.
I'm sorry, but how do you see a GM crop crossing with a non-GM crop to produce a sterile variant? And even if this happened, so what? You seem to be forgetting that if the result of the cross pollenation is sterile, it will die out and be supplanted by the natural product. If I misunderstood you, please correct me. But I just don't understand your concern, or how it could work from a genetic point of view.
This whole thing is outrageous enough that I really doubt it's veracity. I did a search of the leonardo site, and came up with a couple of interesting things. If you do a search based on the word lawsuit, you get three hits, one of them being this page: http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isas t/spec.projects/karnow.html check it out. it has some really good thoughts on exactly the issues we are all discussing.
Well, I'm Canadian, but it occurs to me, if you are an american taxpayer, maybe you should sue the US government for wasting your tax dollars by not using Linux and Star Office. Any idea how much the choice to run windows on all of the US government's computers must be costing?
ok two things 1) you seriously take your political advice from bands? 2) there is much talk about how the WTO has super-governmental powers, yet the only sanction they are really able to enforce is non-membership in the WTO. Yet despite this, most of the governments in the world believe that they are better off accepting the decisions of the WTO because of the BENEFITS they recieve from trade
what is a sweat shop? this question is not meant to be stupid or sarcastic, just to promote some thought the fact is, that if an american company goes into mexico and hires a bunch of workers to work at a given wage, the workers do this because they want the jobs if the wages are seriously too damn low then: a) why the hell aren't these int'l labour groups helping them to organize b) nobody would take the jobs and the company would have to leave but face it, people take the jobs because its better than what was there before
Slashdot Mirror
What is really interesting is the code name.
What is it, exactly that IBM is trying to eclipse?
>>It is being developed by OTI, an IBM subsidiary who did Visual Age Smalltalk and Visual Age Java. These people have a lot of experience building IDEs
Hey! VAJ was developed in toronto, at the IBM Toronto Software Lab.
Credit where credit is due.
why do you think michigan?
poster is canadian.
And keeping all of the books locked up in a library isn't isolating and arrogant?
Democracy based on ignorance and non-disclosure doesn't work.
The US government needs to handle this very carefully.
As we get closer to a settlement/ruling of one sort of another, we have to face the question:
What might be the effects of a strong/harsh ruling against the biggest blue chip tech company on a stock market/economy which seems to be driven in large part by (arguably) overvalued tech stocks.
i.e. They don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
(p.s. does anyone know how much money, in terms of corporate and personal income taxes microsoft has contributed to the US government's coffers? I think those of us in the rest of the world may have to be concerned with conflict of interest!)
Let me say, first of all, I was one of the people saying that the company should not be unduly taken advantage of.
Open source is about cooperation and trying to make things better.
But this street must run both ways.
If a company makes a mistake and misses a loophole, they should be given an opportunity to close it if the result of not closing it would be to drive them out of business.
But crewing your customers and having your "service" reps laugh about it is inexcusable.
They made a mistake, I was in favour of giving them a chance to fix it.
They are running out of chances and good will.
There was an expedition down to bolivia a few year back to try to determine the final resting place of Butch Cassidy (He was supposed to have died in a shootout with the army and there is a grave in a remote village.)
There were also a series of experiments conducted on locks of hair, said to belong to Napoleon, to determine whether he died of arsenic poisoning on Elba.
Finally, I believe there is an ongoing effort to extract DNA from the Shroud of Turin.
well, you may be right
That is certainly the Darwinian answer.
Perhaps I'm just a little too philosophical about the whole thing.
But I find it sad that that is all life is reduced to.
Companies trying to take advantage of comsumers versus consumers trying to take advantage of companies.
I didn't think open source was about trying to get something for nothing.
I thought it was about working together to produce something better.
Maybe I was wrong.
To summarize:
I think that everybody agrees that this can be done (make changes, even glue etc won't entirely prevent it)
The bug question is whether you _should_ do this.
You can talk legalities all you like.
And perhaps they should have made their model more explicit.
But I think everybody knew how they wanted to run their business.
The question is, just because you can do something which takes advantage of someone else, should you?
If you found a wallet on the sidewalk, do you keep it or try to return it?
Would you be so quick to try to take advantage of the i appliance if you bought it from the company face to face?
A company is made up of people with jobs.
Their jobs depend on the future of the company.
Just because you don't see the faces, don't forget they are there.
Ask yourself, what kind of person are you?
I like to think that it's the giant mushrooms.
So an attack against a business that thousands of people rely on for their livelihood is good, but an attack on a smaller site is bad?
If sites are being taken down, one of two things are going to happen.
1) Business is going to abandon the net, and you can go back to your dial up bbs
2) Legislation, rules, tax dollars to fight "cyber crime" instead of poverty, hardware and software fixes that will limit what you can do with the net.
Who gives a shit if the FBI is involved.
You know things are serious when the wall street journal is involved.
Try to get over the "Large Corporation = Bad" thing, it smacks of hypocrisy.
Until you can build our own computer from the dirt in your back yard, you are going to have to live with the fact that the large corporations of the world have improved your life and the lives of 99.9% of the people you will ever know in your life.
The consumers have spoken.
They don't want a wilderness.
They want a park.
If you want to maintain any semblance of wildlife, try to keep them from attacking the nice people in the cars.
You don't have to agree with it, but you may have to live with it.
>The battles of the 21st Century - individual humans versus greed and bigness - are underway,
hey Katz
who do you think is greedy, if not the individual humans?
Each of us individuals must make responsible decisions and become aware of the consequences of our actions if we are to change the world. It does no good to protest in seattle, then go back home and eat a cheeseburger in your "tommy" jeans.
We have power as citizens with voices, consumers in a global economy and (most of us) voters in a democratic country.
Stand up and be counted or get out of the way!
I agree with most of your points
But these are all problems with monsato, not genetic technology
We (and yes I mean we, the geeks etc) have to find a way to use this tech to help the world.
If you want something done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself
yes but:
You Can't Cross a Sterile Breed
this is by definition
if you could cross it, you would get seeds from the terminator crop
wrong again "nony"
nobody "controls" the market
one different corporations have larger market shares, but this is not control
and in any case, you are ignoring the definition of what a monoploy is
try not to confuse your moral outrage with superior knowledge
you don't have a monoploy on thought or analysis
p.s. this really should be private, get an account with an e-mail on it, even a hotmail
The flaw in your argument is that monsanto has nothing close to a monopoly. There are plenty of places to get seeds, and plenty more to get fertilizer. If farmers choose the "package" it is because they see an advantage.
Wrong again, but thanks for coming out.
The plants were sterilized due to pressure from eco groups to prevent the GM plants from getting into the wild.
Monsanto would sell the same amount, because western farmers don't re-use seeds anyway
exactly! I can't think of a single area of science that hasn't produced bad effects, either intentionally or unintentionally. We should always move carefully, but we must move forwards.
yeah, well I should point out that the proper use of GM foods would permit less use of chemicals for the growth of foods. GM is the least of your worries, I would be far more concerned about the pesticides and fertilizers.
actually the classic example that you are describing was not insecticide, it was a chemical designed to kill other plants (RoundUp). Given this context, it makes perfect sense to do things that way around (making chem resistant plants). I would caution you against making generalities based on certain instances. Are you against GM on principle, or against certain apecific applications of the technology. I think that this is a technology that has great promise. I am also not naive enough to believe that everything these companies will do is good. Just because certain drug companies are unscrupulous doesn't mean you should call for an end to medical research. I think that the government and NGO's are the ones that should really be supporting GM food research. The incremental difference in food production in 1st world countries is nothing compared to the possible positive changes that this could make in food production in the developing countries. What if we could develop potatoes that grow in briny water, or crops that would permit two harvests in africa. This is the future. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Vigilance is good, paranoia is bad.
I'm sorry, but how do you see a GM crop crossing with a non-GM crop to produce a sterile variant? And even if this happened, so what? You seem to be forgetting that if the result of the cross pollenation is sterile, it will die out and be supplanted by the natural product. If I misunderstood you, please correct me. But I just don't understand your concern, or how it could work from a genetic point of view.
This whole thing is outrageous enough that I really doubt it's veracity. I did a search of the leonardo site, and came up with a couple of interesting things. If you do a search based on the word lawsuit, you get three hits, one of them being this page:s t/spec.projects/karnow.html
http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isa
check it out.
it has some really good thoughts on exactly the issues we are all discussing.
Well, I'm Canadian, but it occurs to me, if you are an american taxpayer, maybe you should sue the US government for wasting your tax dollars by not using Linux and Star Office.
Any idea how much the choice to run windows on all of the US government's computers must be costing?
Just here to stir up trouble.
ok
two things
1) you seriously take your political advice from bands?
2) there is much talk about how the WTO has super-governmental powers, yet the only sanction they are really able to enforce is non-membership in the WTO. Yet despite this, most of the governments in the world believe that they are better off accepting the decisions of the WTO because of the BENEFITS they recieve from trade
what is a sweat shop?
this question is not meant to be stupid or sarcastic, just to promote some thought
the fact is, that if an american company goes into mexico and hires a bunch of workers to work at a given wage, the workers do this because they want the jobs
if the wages are seriously too damn low then:
a) why the hell aren't these int'l labour groups helping them to organize
b) nobody would take the jobs and the company would have to leave
but face it, people take the jobs because its better than what was there before