I thought the hidden dollarsign referred to malware possibly embedded in non-free Javascript. As Stallman points out in TFA,
the idea that non-free programs mistreat their users is familiar
This mistreatment can take many forms, including collecting user data without informed consent, for example, a user profile which can then be used for marketing (and/or sold). That's what I thought the "hidden dollarsign" was referring to.
I can see why Apple and M$ want an ad campaign where the users equate themselves with the product, but I fail to see why the Linux community would want to blindly follow that dubious example.
I am not Linux. I am a Linux user. My reaction to the "I'm a PC" ad campaign is to reply, "You might as well call yourself a toaster. Moron."
Of course, we're still years away from that sort of computing power
I disagree; I think the computing power is available now. What we are years away from is being able to accept the public safety implications of a self driving car. For my part I think a machine can already do a better job than 90% of the drivers out there under typical circumstances. It's the atypical circumstances, when something unexpected happens, that I worry about.
But you're right, in order to make "flying cars" practical we'd need very good, automated collision-avoidance systems. And if we had those, traffic congestion problems would become a moot point...
Seriously, I don't understand this Slashdot obsession with flying cars. You would need a pilot's license and really it becomes the same thing as flying an airplane. Even in the highly unlikely event you could find takeoff and landing space for your daily commute, you would still need clearance from an air traffic controller to get airborne. You'd be trading a traffic jam on the road for a traffic jam in the airspace.
I actually did RTFA, but the article fails to mention the *unbelievable* stupidity we witness in our fellow humans every day, from national politics down to rush-hour traffic.
There is another way to simulate stupidity, which is to model it. When people act stupidly, it's very not because they can't think, but because they don't. They're preoccupied. Humans have limited attention, and sometime fixate on the wrong things (_especially_ in national politics). So that would be another way to make an AI "stupid."
Google could never have done this if they had to settle with every author who ever wrote anything, but in a class action lawsuit every author out there is bound to the settlement, even if they don't like it and didn't even know about it
So what this means is that the little guy (an individual author) can't have an enforceable copyright any more. Copyright is only for companies big enough to fight Google. I fail to see what is great about that.
By driving the cost of software to zero, OSS developers have made it difficult for many people to act creatively due to the high cost of development.
It depends on the target market. By providing zero-cost tools and libraries, OSS developers have made it easier for me to act creatively in providing custom software solutions to my customers.
The whole point of OSS is to eliminate vendor lock-in and pointless duplication of effort. It would be difficult to compete with Apache or gcc or Mozilla, yea verily. But I believe there is a much more rewarding and satisfying living to be had in solving complex problems for big customers than in trying to make mass-market, shrinkwrapped software for end users.
The shrinkwrap market has always been extremely tough -- well, since the early 1990s at least. Not only is there OSS to undercut you, but Microsoft also kill your product by adding a similar feature to Windows.
Wilcox says he sees a profitable future in which many book, magazine, and newspaper publishers will turn to e-paper
With DRM, your license to read the content lasts exactly as long as the copyright holder wants it to. In this "profitable future," public libraries won't be able to keep archives of periodicals.
You don't need a reference from your current employer if you already have accepted another position. So what are you worried about? Seriously.
The more crap you put up with, the more crap you get. If you let this employer intimidate you, prepare to be a doormat in your next job, too.
How exactly you want to handle your departure depends on the kind of person you want to be. Ignore the threat, give an angry counter-demand, sit down with your boss and try to talk about it like reasonable people, ask HR to mediate, hire a lawyer... you have lots of options. Do whatever will be best for your self-respect.
FOSS (free/open-source software) has been doing fine without government funding so far. Federal money always comes with strings attached. Do you really want Congress (or more likely some low-level, unqualified bureaucrat) meddling in your development project?
Now, funding for the government to migrate to using to FOSS would make a lot of sense to me, but directly funding development? No thanks. I code better without Uncle Same breathing down my neck.
I'd be wondering why a child was playing on the freeway in the middle of nowhere.
Only partly right. First you'd kill the child. Then you'd wonder why she was playing on the freeway. Then you'd blame the child for the "accident", because clearly from your point of view, she's the one at fault.
When I was in college, I used to eat subs, eye drops in my eye, splash cold water on my face (long drives), take off a jacket, even pull off a pullover while driving. Once, I even had a plate of spaghetti on my lap.
So what do you think would happen if a ball rolled out into the street in front of your car, followed by a laughing child?
You were a complete asshole when you drove like that. I hope you've wised up, but it sounds like you still think your masterful driving expertise allows you to control things outside your card.
That there's a network admin somewhere that has giant ethical nuts.
Only if 100% of what Childs says is true. I'm not so sure I'm ready to believe him -- the circumstances of his confrontation with management suggests there may be layers to this story that aren't making it into the media.
Reporters are judged firstly on the amount they produce, and secondly on how interesting the writing is. Correctness only factors in because a correct article may be more somewhat interesting than an incorrect one.
I agree that correctness isn't the first priority, but I think it is more important than you suggest. If the newspaper loses credibility, it will correspondingly lose circulation, and advertising revenue.
It is hard work to write the required number of column-inches before the deadline, while being interesting and accurate at the same time. That's why journalism is a profession. Any amateur can get 2 out of those 3.
The German and international press picked up the wrong name from Wikipedia -- including well-known newspapers, Internet sites, and TV news such as spiegel.de, Bild, heute.de, TAZ, or Süddeutsche Zeitung.
A reporter who quotes facts from Wikipedia, when those facts are not directly supported by another source (specifically, by a citation), should be fired. The job of a reporter is to obtain, verify, and evaluate information. For obtaining information, we now have Wikipedia and Google, which beat any newspaper for availability and breadth of coverage. So the remaining useful parts of the reporter's job are to verify and evaluate. A reporter who fails to do those has made himself obsolete. A middle-school kid could do the job of searching the Web and copying and pasting the findings together into an article (in fact, I understand that's how kids write research papers these days).
Slashdot Mirror
This mistreatment can take many forms, including collecting user data without informed consent, for example, a user profile which can then be used for marketing (and/or sold). That's what I thought the "hidden dollarsign" was referring to.
OK, if you feel that strongly, then let me spell out your options.
The above are listed in the order I've chosen to apply them. I have done 1) and am entertaining 2). Which method are _you_ currently applying?
I'm with parent. If I had mod points, the "flamebait" mods would be flowing like water...
The universe really IS out to get me!
I suppose the statement is still true if one leaves out the adjective "religious."
I can see why Apple and M$ want an ad campaign where the users equate themselves with the product, but I fail to see why the Linux community would want to blindly follow that dubious example.
I am not Linux. I am a Linux user. My reaction to the "I'm a PC" ad campaign is to reply, "You might as well call yourself a toaster. Moron."
Seriously, I don't understand this Slashdot obsession with flying cars. You would need a pilot's license and really it becomes the same thing as flying an airplane. Even in the highly unlikely event you could find takeoff and landing space for your daily commute, you would still need clearance from an air traffic controller to get airborne. You'd be trading a traffic jam on the road for a traffic jam in the airspace.
I actually did RTFA, but the article fails to mention the *unbelievable* stupidity we witness in our fellow humans every day, from national politics down to rush-hour traffic.
There is another way to simulate stupidity, which is to model it. When people act stupidly, it's very not because they can't think, but because they don't. They're preoccupied. Humans have limited attention, and sometime fixate on the wrong things (_especially_ in national politics). So that would be another way to make an AI "stupid."
What alternative business model do you suggest? Advertising? Screw that.
Speaking as an author, I do not want my works digitized by Google because it screws me out of the ability to sell digital copies myself.
Really, if you're worried about what potential employers might think of you, you could just try not acting like a dick.
Or you could just use a made-up name. Do as I say or do as I do. Take your pick.
The entire White House staff of the former Bush Administration, evidently. ;-)
It depends on the target market. By providing zero-cost tools and libraries, OSS developers have made it easier for me to act creatively in providing custom software solutions to my customers.
The whole point of OSS is to eliminate vendor lock-in and pointless duplication of effort. It would be difficult to compete with Apache or gcc or Mozilla, yea verily. But I believe there is a much more rewarding and satisfying living to be had in solving complex problems for big customers than in trying to make mass-market, shrinkwrapped software for end users.
The shrinkwrap market has always been extremely tough -- well, since the early 1990s at least. Not only is there OSS to undercut you, but Microsoft also kill your product by adding a similar feature to Windows.
With DRM, your license to read the content lasts exactly as long as the copyright holder wants it to. In this "profitable future," public libraries won't be able to keep archives of periodicals.
You don't need a reference from your current employer if you already have accepted another position. So what are you worried about? Seriously.
The more crap you put up with, the more crap you get. If you let this employer intimidate you, prepare to be a doormat in your next job, too.
How exactly you want to handle your departure depends on the kind of person you want to be. Ignore the threat, give an angry counter-demand, sit down with your boss and try to talk about it like reasonable people, ask HR to mediate, hire a lawyer... you have lots of options. Do whatever will be best for your self-respect.
FOSS (free/open-source software) has been doing fine without government funding so far. Federal money always comes with strings attached. Do you really want Congress (or more likely some low-level, unqualified bureaucrat) meddling in your development project?
Now, funding for the government to migrate to using to FOSS would make a lot of sense to me, but directly funding development? No thanks. I code better without Uncle Same breathing down my neck.
Only partly right. First you'd kill the child. Then you'd wonder why she was playing on the freeway. Then you'd blame the child for the "accident", because clearly from your point of view, she's the one at fault.
It's a good thing if the people multi-tasking are my opponents. ;-)
So what do you think would happen if a ball rolled out into the street in front of your car, followed by a laughing child?
You were a complete asshole when you drove like that. I hope you've wised up, but it sounds like you still think your masterful driving expertise allows you to control things outside your card.
Only if 100% of what Childs says is true. I'm not so sure I'm ready to believe him -- the circumstances of his confrontation with management suggests there may be layers to this story that aren't making it into the media.
Who's to say TechFragments plagiarized Wikipedia, and not the other way around?
I agree that correctness isn't the first priority, but I think it is more important than you suggest. If the newspaper loses credibility, it will correspondingly lose circulation, and advertising revenue.
It is hard work to write the required number of column-inches before the deadline, while being interesting and accurate at the same time. That's why journalism is a profession. Any amateur can get 2 out of those 3.
A reporter who quotes facts from Wikipedia, when those facts are not directly supported by another source (specifically, by a citation), should be fired. The job of a reporter is to obtain, verify, and evaluate information. For obtaining information, we now have Wikipedia and Google, which beat any newspaper for availability and breadth of coverage. So the remaining useful parts of the reporter's job are to verify and evaluate. A reporter who fails to do those has made himself obsolete. A middle-school kid could do the job of searching the Web and copying and pasting the findings together into an article (in fact, I understand that's how kids write research papers these days).