I don't know why EWeek is specifically highlighting open source software. I don't see how closed source software is immune from this concern.
If you're a nonprofit, you need to look at all the software you're, open-source or not. If you're using software you need to examine it to make sure its not sending a message at odds with your organization.
Even that might not be true. You're disregarding the vast amounts of data stored in databases, on web sites, and off "home computers" in general. Given that Microsoft's presence in the server space isn't nearly as dominating as their presence on the desktop, I don't think that's going to be a huge issue as well.
Of course, another factor (as the sibling poster mentioned) is that NTFS has been thoroughly reverse engineered, with open source tools allowing read/write access to the filesystem.
Disregarding the fact that the Roman republic started centuries after the fall of Greece (there was this dude called Alexander in the middle, y'know), you can't speak of "Greece" as a unified entity. It'd rather a bit like calling "Europe" a unified entity. So, while its valid to speak of "Athens", or "Sparta", or "Delos", it is invalid to speak of a unified Greek political entity.
Greece vs. Greece
As stated previously, Greece was a large collection of individual city-states, each with its own political system. As far as I know, only Athens practiced direct democracy, with each citizen having an equal vote. The other Greek states ranged from monarchies to oligarchies, where a sole king or group of nobles wielded political power.
USA vs. CSA
Now you're presuming that the CSA was ever a recognized and viable political entity. Again, with a few exceptions, the CSA was never recognized as an individual country (except by Britain, who wanted Southern cotton).
Even disregarding the fact that most of the world's knowledge is still probably printed out on pieces of paper (in books or otherwise), I'd hardly say that Word documents comprise 80% of our online knowledge.
What about HTML? Does the vast majority of the world-wide-web count for nothing? What about databases? Those certainly aren't in.doc format. PDF files aren't Word formatted either.
And those are just text formats. Lets not even start with things like images, audio and video.
And I see you're of the mindset that ignores facts. Don't you get it? Japan is abandoning kaizen. The things that made the Japanese system so exceptional (lifetime employment, employee loyalty) are being abandoned by the Japanese people in order to make their economy more flexible and able to respond dynamically to market demands.
There is simply no historical example of a peaceful dis-empowering of a democratic government, let alone centralized power in general.
Well, this may be borderline, but what about the Indian independence movement, led by Gandhi? That was largely peaceful, and it certainly did "disempower" the British from their rule over India. Also, what about the South African anti-apartheid movement? The government of South Africa today certainly has less control over its citizens now than it did before apartheid was abolished.
I suggest we think long and hard about this, because it spells out the eventual outcome of all democracies, and indeed, all governments: economic collapse, or war.
Upon what basis do you make that claim? Indeed, can you even name a single example where two democracies have gone to war against one another?
Democracy does not protect against the worst result. That's what constitutions and checks on the power of government are for. Democracy, in an unchecked form, is little different from mob rule.
japanese made it to the top of the world with their small population, cooperating instead of competing like u.s. does. now there's china with the same social mindset, group mindset rather than individualism.
And again, I repeat. The late '80s/early '90s called and want their competition theories back. Yes, everyone was afraid of Japan, along with Korea and the other "Asian tigers" back then. Their businesses were large, integrated firms, working closely with the state, emphasizing cooperation rather than competition. However, as we saw in the Japanese recession, and in the Asian financial crisis of '98, these large firms often only appeared to be profitable and productive. They hid large amounts of unprofitable ventures and bad loans because the "cooperation" mindset meant that the government was unwilling to let any corporation fail, no matter how badly it was doing. Of course, this distorted equity and debt markets, making the eventual recession much much worse.
Now even Japanese admit that their social and economic policies contributed to their eventual economic downfall. Rather than work and fight to preserve existing businesses, Japanese policymakers readily admit that they should have encouraged competition and allowed ossified ventures to fail, much like what happened in the '80s in America.
now there's china with the same social mindset, group mindset rather than individualism. and they have multiples of japan's population. their impact is gonna be much higher.
Its funny how China only became a major economic power after abandoning socialistic policies.
starts from high school. you are indoctrinating children with that 'winner/loser' syndrome early in life, causing them to take on emotional distortions and distresses for the rest of their life. there can be only one winner in a competition.
Except, y'know, that's exactly the opposite of what NCLB is. NCLB is meant to reduce inequality, not increase it. The fact that it has reduced inequality by holding back the smart kids rather than pushing the dumb kids is another topic entirely.
you may be still brainwashed with the competition thing and be stupid as to think that it provides success. not as such. it would be true only if japanese werent on the face of the earth as an example.
Oh yeah, because decade long recessions due to mismanagement, lack of initiative, and cozying of companies in order to "protect the workers" are a real good thing.
Seriously, 1992 called and it wants its troll back.
That's because, all too often, the sports department isn't really fully underneath the control of the school. Sports departments are often dominated by alumni associations and booster clubs that raise funding, help with recruitment (in areas that allow open enrollment) and generally push the athletes and coaches to have a winning record.
On a side note, this is often why schools cannot transfer their athletics budget to academics. Much of the athletics budget is, in fact, private money raised by booster clubs, and donated solely for use in improving a certain athletic program. This means that, even if the school has a surplus in that program, it can't transfer the money out to address a shortfall somewhere else.
So, if I am realistic and see, that I will only get near the top if I learn 16 hours a day, I fall in despair and see no motivation to be even good, because, it is "gold or bust" situation.
Either that or you get off your lazy ass, pull those 16 hour days and make the top of the class.
Imagine that in your workplace only top 10 workers would get all the salaries and only way to get anything would be becoming one of them. Would you accept the system?
That's not what he's proposing at all. The parent poster's system is similar to one that companies already employ, where everyone gets a salary, but there's an annual bonus that goes to the top X performers.
While I personally laud "hard work", this idea of elevating effort over value smacks of the Protestant Work Ethic run amok.
Worse, it smacks of Marx's key mistake. Marx felt that all value came from labor, and therefore the laborers should own the capital. However, by rewarding effort (labor) over results Marxist doctrine led directly to Soviet factories whose output was worth more as scrap metal than as finished product.
In other words, hard work isn't enough. Hard work must be backed up by brightness and direction. Otherwise, labor is as likely to remove value as it is to add value.
Why do you think they do everything they can to stay away from it [prison]?
Except, y'know, they don't do everything they can to stay out of prison. In many gang cultures, going to prison is a mark of pride — it shows your dedication to the gang.
I stand corrected... sort of. While Clarke's proposal was fairly detailed, he still didn't mention exactly how any of the prerequisite technologies were to be developed. Now, arguably, that doesn't detract from his idea, but you still have to admit that his idea didn't help get the satellite built. Also, arguably, the idea of putting things into orbit such that they'd remain in a fixed position relative to the ground was obvious enough that, if he hadn't proposed it, someone else would have.
While I agree with most of what you say, I don't see the reasoning behind this:
New energy technologies (which ever ones turn out to win in the market) will help defund them as well.
As far as we can tell, the 9/11 attacks (which were the most elaborate of the Al Qaeda operations in America and Europe) cost about $450,000 to $500,000. That's hardly a significant expense even to a poor government. I don't see how even drastic reductions in our oil consumption will reduce revenue enough so that no one in the Middle East will be able to spare to occasional half-million for operations against the US.
To be quite fair, though, there are plenty of private corporations that would have done precisely the same thing in the Massachusetts situation. CYA extends into the corporate world as well.
Its true that government functions (i.e. decision making powers) haven't been delegated to private industry. However, the U.S. government, specifically DARPA has a long history of leaving the implementation of those decisions to private industry. As another poster pointed out above, once DARPA (then ARPA) decided to build the ARPANet, it left the actual building of the network to BBN and other contractors.
Arguably, the government's recruitment of private telcos to monitor phone calls and internet traffic is simply the logical extension of a trend that has been continuing since the '70s.
Another factor is the role of technology within the military. The Yugoslav conflict was notable for how extremely high tech. it was. I mean, we didn't even send in ground forces - it was all remote controlled, GPS and laser guided bombs. And best of all, everything worked. Sure, we did bomb the Chinese embassy by mistake, but there weren't any accidental massacres of civilians, nor any truly embarrassing failures in our weapons systems.
Iraq seems to be quite the opposite. Here's a conflict in which every bit of technology we use has either turned out to be useless or has been perverted to suit the enemy. Our much vaunted air power is useless when the enemy actively mingles with civilians on a day-to-day basis. Our advanced radios and GPS systems fail nearly completely inside crowded urban areas where dense buildings block signals and only serve to alert the enemy to our presence. The field computers we've mounted in the Humvees have turned out to be buggy and unreliable. Meanwhile the insurgents outfight and outsmart us with technology like commodity PCs and cell phones. Is it any surprise that the military has lost its interest in high tech. solutions?
Turn it around. Why *expletive* would anyone want to work for it? Including DARPA.
Well, in the old days at least, it was because DARPA had the coolest stuff. The military (usually DARPA) always seemed to have the fastest computers, the most advanced networks, and the most gee-whiz electronics around. Now, that's no longer the case, and it shows in recruitment.
Also, don't forget the coolness factor. During the cold war the military invested significant sums into basic research. Therefore the most advanced computers and electronics were often found in a military setting. Now, the military doesn't fund basic research to nearly the same extent, and, as a result, one is equally likely to find advanced technology in a private setting.
The reason that DARPA isn't pulling in talent the way they once did is because the private sector is simply more lucrative and more exciting right now.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with the "more exciting" bit of your comment. As far as I know, the private sector has always been more lucrative than government work. However, in the Cold War, the government funded far more basic research than it does today. Therefore, as a scientist you were far more likely to encounter cool new technology in a government setting than in a private setting. With the decline in government funded research, government simply doesn't have that card to play anymore, and we're seeing the consequences.
But it wasn't DARPA that invented those mini-helicopters. They were invented by private companies, who then marketed them to the military, and, as volumes increased, sold them to private individuals.
By your logic, we should give Arthur C. Clarke credit for inventing comsats and space stations, because he was the first one to conceptualize them.
If you'd like to actually compare the US treatment of Native Americans with actual instances of genocide, as evident in world history, I think you'll find you come up plenty short.
Indeed, in the sense that none of the other examples of genocide were nearly as thorough as the genocide of the Native Americans. I mean, even Hitler could only get a few percent of the Jews. Americans took out over 90% of the Native Americans they came across.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why EWeek is specifically highlighting open source software. I don't see how closed source software is immune from this concern.
If you're a nonprofit, you need to look at all the software you're, open-source or not. If you're using software you need to examine it to make sure its not sending a message at odds with your organization.
Even that might not be true. You're disregarding the vast amounts of data stored in databases, on web sites, and off "home computers" in general. Given that Microsoft's presence in the server space isn't nearly as dominating as their presence on the desktop, I don't think that's going to be a huge issue as well.
Of course, another factor (as the sibling poster mentioned) is that NTFS has been thoroughly reverse engineered, with open source tools allowing read/write access to the filesystem.
Disregarding the fact that the Roman republic started centuries after the fall of Greece (there was this dude called Alexander in the middle, y'know), you can't speak of "Greece" as a unified entity. It'd rather a bit like calling "Europe" a unified entity. So, while its valid to speak of "Athens", or "Sparta", or "Delos", it is invalid to speak of a unified Greek political entity.
Greece vs. GreeceAs stated previously, Greece was a large collection of individual city-states, each with its own political system. As far as I know, only Athens practiced direct democracy, with each citizen having an equal vote. The other Greek states ranged from monarchies to oligarchies, where a sole king or group of nobles wielded political power.
USA vs. CSANow you're presuming that the CSA was ever a recognized and viable political entity. Again, with a few exceptions, the CSA was never recognized as an individual country (except by Britain, who wanted Southern cotton).
Even disregarding the fact that most of the world's knowledge is still probably printed out on pieces of paper (in books or otherwise), I'd hardly say that Word documents comprise 80% of our online knowledge.
What about HTML? Does the vast majority of the world-wide-web count for nothing? What about databases? Those certainly aren't in .doc format. PDF files aren't Word formatted either.
And those are just text formats. Lets not even start with things like images, audio and video.
And I see you're of the mindset that ignores facts. Don't you get it? Japan is abandoning kaizen. The things that made the Japanese system so exceptional (lifetime employment, employee loyalty) are being abandoned by the Japanese people in order to make their economy more flexible and able to respond dynamically to market demands.
Well, this may be borderline, but what about the Indian independence movement, led by Gandhi? That was largely peaceful, and it certainly did "disempower" the British from their rule over India. Also, what about the South African anti-apartheid movement? The government of South Africa today certainly has less control over its citizens now than it did before apartheid was abolished.
I suggest we think long and hard about this, because it spells out the eventual outcome of all democracies, and indeed, all governments: economic collapse, or war.Upon what basis do you make that claim? Indeed, can you even name a single example where two democracies have gone to war against one another?
Democracy does not protect against the worst result. That's what constitutions and checks on the power of government are for. Democracy, in an unchecked form, is little different from mob rule.
And again, I repeat. The late '80s/early '90s called and want their competition theories back. Yes, everyone was afraid of Japan, along with Korea and the other "Asian tigers" back then. Their businesses were large, integrated firms, working closely with the state, emphasizing cooperation rather than competition. However, as we saw in the Japanese recession, and in the Asian financial crisis of '98, these large firms often only appeared to be profitable and productive. They hid large amounts of unprofitable ventures and bad loans because the "cooperation" mindset meant that the government was unwilling to let any corporation fail, no matter how badly it was doing. Of course, this distorted equity and debt markets, making the eventual recession much much worse.
Now even Japanese admit that their social and economic policies contributed to their eventual economic downfall. Rather than work and fight to preserve existing businesses, Japanese policymakers readily admit that they should have encouraged competition and allowed ossified ventures to fail, much like what happened in the '80s in America.
now there's china with the same social mindset, group mindset rather than individualism. and they have multiples of japan's population. their impact is gonna be much higher.Its funny how China only became a major economic power after abandoning socialistic policies.
Except, y'know, that's exactly the opposite of what NCLB is. NCLB is meant to reduce inequality, not increase it. The fact that it has reduced inequality by holding back the smart kids rather than pushing the dumb kids is another topic entirely.
you may be still brainwashed with the competition thing and be stupid as to think that it provides success. not as such. it would be true only if japanese werent on the face of the earth as an example.Oh yeah, because decade long recessions due to mismanagement, lack of initiative, and cozying of companies in order to "protect the workers" are a real good thing.
Seriously, 1992 called and it wants its troll back.
That's because, all too often, the sports department isn't really fully underneath the control of the school. Sports departments are often dominated by alumni associations and booster clubs that raise funding, help with recruitment (in areas that allow open enrollment) and generally push the athletes and coaches to have a winning record.
On a side note, this is often why schools cannot transfer their athletics budget to academics. Much of the athletics budget is, in fact, private money raised by booster clubs, and donated solely for use in improving a certain athletic program. This means that, even if the school has a surplus in that program, it can't transfer the money out to address a shortfall somewhere else.
Either that or you get off your lazy ass, pull those 16 hour days and make the top of the class.
Imagine that in your workplace only top 10 workers would get all the salaries and only way to get anything would be becoming one of them. Would you accept the system?That's not what he's proposing at all. The parent poster's system is similar to one that companies already employ, where everyone gets a salary, but there's an annual bonus that goes to the top X performers.
Worse, it smacks of Marx's key mistake. Marx felt that all value came from labor, and therefore the laborers should own the capital. However, by rewarding effort (labor) over results Marxist doctrine led directly to Soviet factories whose output was worth more as scrap metal than as finished product.
In other words, hard work isn't enough. Hard work must be backed up by brightness and direction. Otherwise, labor is as likely to remove value as it is to add value.
Well, everyone wants more teachers to be employed, but few are willing to pay the salaries.
Except, y'know, they don't do everything they can to stay out of prison. In many gang cultures, going to prison is a mark of pride — it shows your dedication to the gang.
I stand corrected... sort of. While Clarke's proposal was fairly detailed, he still didn't mention exactly how any of the prerequisite technologies were to be developed. Now, arguably, that doesn't detract from his idea, but you still have to admit that his idea didn't help get the satellite built. Also, arguably, the idea of putting things into orbit such that they'd remain in a fixed position relative to the ground was obvious enough that, if he hadn't proposed it, someone else would have.
While I agree with most of what you say, I don't see the reasoning behind this:
New energy technologies (which ever ones turn out to win in the market) will help defund them as well.As far as we can tell, the 9/11 attacks (which were the most elaborate of the Al Qaeda operations in America and Europe) cost about $450,000 to $500,000. That's hardly a significant expense even to a poor government. I don't see how even drastic reductions in our oil consumption will reduce revenue enough so that no one in the Middle East will be able to spare to occasional half-million for operations against the US.
To be quite fair, though, there are plenty of private corporations that would have done precisely the same thing in the Massachusetts situation. CYA extends into the corporate world as well.
Not to mention having to routinely deal with higher ups who don't have a clue as to what the technology is, or why they should be funding it.
Its true that government functions (i.e. decision making powers) haven't been delegated to private industry. However, the U.S. government, specifically DARPA has a long history of leaving the implementation of those decisions to private industry. As another poster pointed out above, once DARPA (then ARPA) decided to build the ARPANet, it left the actual building of the network to BBN and other contractors.
Arguably, the government's recruitment of private telcos to monitor phone calls and internet traffic is simply the logical extension of a trend that has been continuing since the '70s.
Another factor is the role of technology within the military. The Yugoslav conflict was notable for how extremely high tech. it was. I mean, we didn't even send in ground forces - it was all remote controlled, GPS and laser guided bombs. And best of all, everything worked. Sure, we did bomb the Chinese embassy by mistake, but there weren't any accidental massacres of civilians, nor any truly embarrassing failures in our weapons systems.
Iraq seems to be quite the opposite. Here's a conflict in which every bit of technology we use has either turned out to be useless or has been perverted to suit the enemy. Our much vaunted air power is useless when the enemy actively mingles with civilians on a day-to-day basis. Our advanced radios and GPS systems fail nearly completely inside crowded urban areas where dense buildings block signals and only serve to alert the enemy to our presence. The field computers we've mounted in the Humvees have turned out to be buggy and unreliable. Meanwhile the insurgents outfight and outsmart us with technology like commodity PCs and cell phones. Is it any surprise that the military has lost its interest in high tech. solutions?
Well, in the old days at least, it was because DARPA had the coolest stuff. The military (usually DARPA) always seemed to have the fastest computers, the most advanced networks, and the most gee-whiz electronics around. Now, that's no longer the case, and it shows in recruitment.
Also, don't forget the coolness factor. During the cold war the military invested significant sums into basic research. Therefore the most advanced computers and electronics were often found in a military setting. Now, the military doesn't fund basic research to nearly the same extent, and, as a result, one is equally likely to find advanced technology in a private setting.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with the "more exciting" bit of your comment. As far as I know, the private sector has always been more lucrative than government work. However, in the Cold War, the government funded far more basic research than it does today. Therefore, as a scientist you were far more likely to encounter cool new technology in a government setting than in a private setting. With the decline in government funded research, government simply doesn't have that card to play anymore, and we're seeing the consequences.
But it wasn't DARPA that invented those mini-helicopters. They were invented by private companies, who then marketed them to the military, and, as volumes increased, sold them to private individuals.
By your logic, we should give Arthur C. Clarke credit for inventing comsats and space stations, because he was the first one to conceptualize them.
Indeed, in the sense that none of the other examples of genocide were nearly as thorough as the genocide of the Native Americans. I mean, even Hitler could only get a few percent of the Jews. Americans took out over 90% of the Native Americans they came across.