"Without these helmets the soldiers would likely be dead"
So what?
"but instead they have brain damage caused by survived explosions, not the helmet."
The f* article clearly states that the brain damage, even after "improvised explosive devices and other moderate-sized blasts" is a direct effect of the dynamics of the blasting *interacting* with the helmet.
If you have a car crash that otherwise would have kill you and your security belt saves your life but still seriously cuts through your neck due to its design, your neck damage is a result of the security belt's design, isn't it?
You misleadingly forgot about the previous sentence, didn't you? Anyway, while not identical, they share in common enough for the comparation I stablished, or else I wouldn't do it, yes.
"what an ungrateful retard for spitting on those who have helped you."
Help... me? They did it to help me? Well, I have news for them, then: guys, I didn't ask for your help. But, obviously, they didn't do it to help me but for their own profit, be it by means of patents or -and that's the interesting point, by any other means. As long as there is the potential of profits, somebody will try it. If the invention is good, there's the potential of benefits; if the invention is no good, well, you already read my comparation.
"Several key inventions, like the steam engine, electricity, airplanes, cars, electronic transistors have launched entire industries that have provided jobs and other material benefits to millions of people for over a century."
And those that launched it already got part of the benefits. And -this is another interesting point, if those that invented it didn't get returns of benefits, they could very properly spend their time anywhere else and, probably, others that were in the position to get the benefits would developed it. You chose very bad examples in that all those inventions and discoveries (you really put at the same level "electricity" and the "steam engine"? My fart comparation is not so out of target) already were "in the air" and for the most part the History winner, the name we remember, is just the one that better make it to the public and/or put the invention under proper industrial methods, both circumnstances out of the reach of the patent system. In other words, without Daimler, Watt or Wright brothers we can be certain that we would still have cars, planes or steam engines.
"Nobody is asking for a handout, just what is rightfully, and justly owed."
Like a state-granted monopoly as in "your invention is indeed so worthy that without Government help you wouldn't be able to make a penny out of it"?
" instead of throwing the baby with the bathwater, there should be a mechanism to disallow these trivial patents -- the patent writer must write in plain English what the innovative part about the patent is, instead of the hard-to-understand patent lingo used today. "
The problem is no one (as in "really, no one") wants this. In the case of software, having that achieved would be stupidly easy: you just need to append to your patente claim the source code that achieves its effects. Anybody with a different source code would be free from the patent. Now, I see you getting your hands to your head "that's not possible! it's trivial to change the code and get the same results! that could deal to unenforceable software patents!"
Exactly: software patents *are* unforceable; that's why lobbies press hard to change what a patent is so it could cover ideas and processes too, things they both that never were thougth to be patentable.
"Wrong, inventions within in a successful software product will be copied within a few days without this protection."
As in Operative Systems are not protected by patents, therefor anyone could copy Microsoft within few days, therefor *this* will be the year of Linux on the desktop?
C'mon: big software names have reached their status *without* patents; I think this would offer you some food for mind.
"But where do government, big business, or consuming public get off thinking they have a natural right to these innovations, to get them for free?"
That's not even a "natural right" but a "natural fact": once you make it public, *is* public.
"Without patents, the inventor is just a slave, working for free to improve the life of others, but receiving nothing in return."
I claim bullshit on that. What's the problem for an inventor working on wages for, let's say, IBM? If they pay me for it, I'll do it; if I think I'll be able to get a fair return of investment I'll do it. If there's no money to get from it, I'll just do something else. You know what? I find farting funny and sometimes even liberating, but I don't fart for a living. Do I claim "without fart taxes, the farter is just a slave, working for free to provide farts to others but receiving nothing in return"? No: I just look for something else for a living.
"That's what I was trying to say: "Free will exists." is not a scientific statement. You can not incorporate it into a scientific model."
No, no, no: that wasn't what I told. Free will is quite easy to demonstrate: you just need an operative definition and a test for it "free will exists" is as proveable as "the Moon exists". What "free will exists" is not is a theory but an observable. Since it's just an observably you can't falsify it; you just measure it (aka observe) or not.
!Oh, yes, then if I would use gcc/g++ to compiler my code shall I feel forced to released the app under the GPL?"
1) That's false. Code compiled with GCC is forced to be released under the GPL no more than text edited with emacs is force to be released under the GPL 2) Even if that wasn't false, compile it with Intel's or Microsoft, or anyother else's compiler; nobody forces you to use GCC. 3) Even if there would no other choice than GCC and GCC would force you to release under the GPL, develop your own compiler if usage terms of GCC are such a burden to you. I find Microsoft's Visual Studio to be too much a burden to me, therefore I don't ask them to release it under GPL, I simply don't use it.
Again, you are trying to leech others' efforts to your own purpouses against the voluntee of those that made the work.
"Researchers have been sounding this alarm for years, if not decades. But what makes this significant is hearing it from the likes of BusinessWeek. If the Wall Street Journal ever catches on, we might be close to some real change"
Don't think so when what the "Businessweek-alikes" are really telling is "somebody else should pay us a lot of money so we could maintain the 'statu quo' -short term returns, while producing basic science". No that I guilt them... after all, if it worked for the bailed-out banks why other wouldn't want to ride on the free money wagon?
"You have obviously never been in the situation of discovering a thrid party library you'd love to use in your commercial application, only to discover its GPLd."
What does it mean? "I thought I could use all this good work for free but, alas, I can't"? What a pity.
"the LGPL is poorly understood and overly complicated"
What!!!??? You obviously never been in the situation of examining the legality of your contracts with third party vendors when you want to use their closed source codebases. LGPL is crystal-clear in comparation.
"and really - when it comes right down to it - just as unsuitable."
Unstated assertion, not backed by facts (my company develops on top of both GPL and LGPL code with no problems, thanks).
"Most business actually have no intention whatsoever of taking GPLd code and "locking it up"."
Maybe the fact that it's obviously unlegal and quite a bad press when discovered has something to do.
"why would I also want to maintain a copy of _someone else's_ code? There's no benefit in it to me."
Maybe you see it from the developer's point of view where less code in-house means less coders to maintain it and so, maybe you'll be fired. From the company's point of view, if helping maintaining _someone else's_ code means cheaper than fully maintaining _your own code_, it's a deal.
"If I don't want to offer my software for free, I may very well write up a library to take the place of a GPLed library."
True.
"After doing that, I may very well license that library using a BSD/MIT or LGPL license"
True... in theory. In practice what are the bets for a company that already wants to produce closed source software to distribute some parts of its hard earned codebase under a license any more free than that of its main product?
If they are going to develop such a library on its enterity on their own for the sole purpouse of being able to use it within their closed source application you can bet they'll distribute it under the very same closed-source license than their main app.
In fact, can you provide any example of software companies *not* doing that, given the case? For all that I know, companies only have developed from the ground up BSD-like software when trying to get into new markets by means of stablishing new standards (ala NFS). In all other cases companies have only develop free/open source when pushed by market forces (like the ability of being able to use 99% of a third party code base for free at the cost of being forced to follow the original license on their 1% addition). In those situations GPL will produce much new free software than LGPL or BSD by means of the snowball effect.
"Wine gravitated from MIT to LGPL, because of concerns about proprietary forks not giving anything back."
In fact, I'd consider better aligned to reality that LGPL is the middleground towards GPL, not GPL towards BSD. LGPL works because still a lot of software producers think that there's bussiness in proprietary software, and their believes are backed up in the fact that most end users won't give a damn about the modification and redistribution licenses the software given to them comes with.
The more end users become accustomed to their advantages when using open source software (even if they are not going to modify/redistribute themselves) the less place proprietary software will have and the less for a need of a LGPL-like license in favour of a GPL-like one (would Nokia make this move towards LGPL -at a cost for them, if there were nobody interested on developing proprietary apps on top of Maemo? don't think so).
It's true that if such a path would eventually reach its end point, then wouldn't be a need for a copyright law-backed copyleft license (ala GPL), since it would be undistinguishable from a BSD-like in practical terms but still, I don't think we will ever proscribe proprietary licenses and even if we did, the GPL preventions would still be a (now unused) deterrent for future reborns of the proprietary path.
"There's more to free software than the GPL, and there's more to free software than BSD. Consider your options, consider the project's needs and make a judgement call that best befits the situation. Don't just do as the last flag-waver told you."
That's an insightfull down-to-earth consideration.
"You are not considering the main point of the argument: that GPL is more restrictive than BSD, and that someday, somebody will have a problem with those restrictions and he/she will sit down and create a BSD version."
That both seems illogical and contrary to observed reality. More a form of whisful thinking (in that you *want* to believe others will develop code under BSD than you in fact getting to develop it yourself) than a fact.
If I need to go through the nuisance of writing enterilly from the bottom up, specially if that's so I can add my propritary bits on top of it, what makes you think I'll "gift" my hard work to anyone else? If I'm going to enterily rewrite it, I'd better license it under proprietary terms if I want to recover my efforts in money or under GPL if I don't want others to go through my same problems ever again.
"for utility libraries one expects to use them as LGPL"
For utility libraries *you* expect to use them as GPL.
"Again, I'm in favour of open source, but in favour of a free choice for developers/publishers as well."
Sorry, but I don't eat that dogfood. You are free to use the library as GPL *or* pay for its proprietary license, so you can choose to develop under GPL *or* under your proprietary license of choice.
You are not in favour to choose but in favour to leech (you want to develop proprietary software using others' code so others will pay for your code but you don't want to pay in turn those whose code you're using for a foundation).
"You mentioned in an earlier post how professional developers have above-average communication skills"
Yes.
"then you post a run-on, non-parsable sentence like this?!?"
What's the non-parseable part? My question is twofold: 1) Since I'm not native English, I can certainly had it wrong on syntax. 2) It might be the case that even if its construction is correct you find it too complex. If the same can be said more clearly and succintly, then it's my fault. But if the problem is just that your mind blows at a fifty words sentence, then the problem is yours. Writing to adults as if they were fourth graders is not good communication skills but just dumbing down the message.
"I take it you aren't one of the myriad "professional developers" to which you referred."
Anyway, you are true: I'm not a professional developer.
"If you want me to have fuller information, please answer my phone call or e-mail."
And I think that's the whole story. It was you wanting my information, not me wanting you to publish it, remember?
"Use plain language, not jargon."
What you think to be "jargon" *is* "plain language". "Jargon" is the plainest, most concise and precise way to say something. That's known from the days of Euclides: there's no royal paths even for kings, remember?
Again, you are the one with the problem: an article asked by your boss, and again you are trying to pass your burden to something else. You want others to stay by *your* deadlines and you want others to cover *your* ignorance in the issues you are about to comment. You even ask others to write *your* article for you (I won't go through the FAQs; I won't take the time to read the "about" page or wander a bit through your web site: I want a copy-and-paste "for press" resource").
"Everyone trying to get press coverage should read it"
I understand what you mean, and I take you as right... provided that sentence. But we were not talking here about someone wanting "to get press coverage" but about someone wanting to make an unasked for press release. If *I* want something, it's my burden to do what it takes to have it done (like having fast reponse and doing sensible efforts to make things easy for the press guys). But if *you* want something, then it's your problem, not mine.
"In that case, I have no option but to finish the assigned article as best I can within the deadline given by my editor."
Your choice, of course.
"That may mean that somebody's getting left out of the article. That is also the nature of the beast."
That may mean the due to both your ignorance and your hurryness your article will be an utter nonsense. On one hand, I may prefer not being relationed with such abhorrence; in the other me and a lot of others may take some fun laughing at a slower pace at your ignorance and inconsistences as you yourself can guest in places like, right here, Slashdot, when put on your place. That is also the nature of the beast.
"A lot of reporters aren't given the luxury of oodles of extra time by their assigning editors and those editors expect results, not requests for more time because "they have to get the corporate wheels rolling over there." "
Then it is the reporter the one with a problem, not the happy hacker or the professional developer paid to do different things than attend the press. When somebody has a problem is both good education and proper path to resolve it to take himself the path to its solution, not trying to pass the problem to other that neither ask for them nor will feel the result one way or the other.
"How many brilliant developers have you met who send emails that sound like they were written by a 4th grader? Too many..."
Not a single one. It's true I found a number of bozos that out of their ignorance think they are ununderstood prima donnas that write like 4th graders. But really good professional developers? They all have above-average comunication skills. What of extrange do you find in people able to express difficult concepts in computer languages being able to express simpler concepts in natural languages too?
Slashdot Mirror
"many developers will just dismiss the extra work."
Or it will be their managers?
"Note that it doesn't say the shockwaves are created by the helmet... only that they "make it through""
Well, lads, I want you for tomorrow a 100 words article about the Huygens principle.
"it's not at all obvious that the helmet is at fault from the way they worded that."
+- Science: Military Helmet Design Contributes To Brain Damage
Can it get any more clear than that?
"The title of this article is misleading."
Your (lacky) reading comprehension misleads you.
"Without these helmets the soldiers would likely be dead"
So what?
"but instead they have brain damage caused by survived explosions, not the helmet."
The f* article clearly states that the brain damage, even after "improvised explosive devices and other moderate-sized blasts" is a direct effect of the dynamics of the blasting *interacting* with the helmet.
If you have a car crash that otherwise would have kill you and your security belt saves your life but still seriously cuts through your neck due to its design, your neck damage is a result of the security belt's design, isn't it?
"So you're comparing farting to inventor's work?"
You misleadingly forgot about the previous sentence, didn't you? Anyway, while not identical, they share in common enough for the comparation I stablished, or else I wouldn't do it, yes.
"what an ungrateful retard for spitting on those who have helped you."
Help... me? They did it to help me? Well, I have news for them, then: guys, I didn't ask for your help. But, obviously, they didn't do it to help me but for their own profit, be it by means of patents or -and that's the interesting point, by any other means. As long as there is the potential of profits, somebody will try it. If the invention is good, there's the potential of benefits; if the invention is no good, well, you already read my comparation.
"Several key inventions, like the steam engine, electricity, airplanes, cars, electronic transistors have launched entire industries that have provided jobs and other material benefits to millions of people for over a century."
And those that launched it already got part of the benefits. And -this is another interesting point, if those that invented it didn't get returns of benefits, they could very properly spend their time anywhere else and, probably, others that were in the position to get the benefits would developed it. You chose very bad examples in that all those inventions and discoveries (you really put at the same level "electricity" and the "steam engine"? My fart comparation is not so out of target) already were "in the air" and for the most part the History winner, the name we remember, is just the one that better make it to the public and/or put the invention under proper industrial methods, both circumnstances out of the reach of the patent system. In other words, without Daimler, Watt or Wright brothers we can be certain that we would still have cars, planes or steam engines.
"Nobody is asking for a handout, just what is rightfully, and justly owed."
Like a state-granted monopoly as in "your invention is indeed so worthy that without Government help you wouldn't be able to make a penny out of it"?
" instead of throwing the baby with the bathwater, there should be a mechanism to disallow these trivial patents -- the patent writer must write in plain English what the innovative part about the patent is, instead of the hard-to-understand patent lingo used today. "
The problem is no one (as in "really, no one") wants this. In the case of software, having that achieved would be stupidly easy: you just need to append to your patente claim the source code that achieves its effects. Anybody with a different source code would be free from the patent. Now, I see you getting your hands to your head "that's not possible! it's trivial to change the code and get the same results! that could deal to unenforceable software patents!"
Exactly: software patents *are* unforceable; that's why lobbies press hard to change what a patent is so it could cover ideas and processes too, things they both that never were thougth to be patentable.
"Wrong, inventions within in a successful software product will be copied within a few days without this protection."
As in Operative Systems are not protected by patents, therefor anyone could copy Microsoft within few days, therefor *this* will be the year of Linux on the desktop?
C'mon: big software names have reached their status *without* patents; I think this would offer you some food for mind.
"But where do government, big business, or consuming public get off thinking they have a natural right to these innovations, to get them for free?"
That's not even a "natural right" but a "natural fact": once you make it public, *is* public.
"Without patents, the inventor is just a slave, working for free to improve the life of others, but receiving nothing in return."
I claim bullshit on that. What's the problem for an inventor working on wages for, let's say, IBM? If they pay me for it, I'll do it; if I think I'll be able to get a fair return of investment I'll do it. If there's no money to get from it, I'll just do something else. You know what? I find farting funny and sometimes even liberating, but I don't fart for a living. Do I claim "without fart taxes, the farter is just a slave, working for free to provide farts to others but receiving nothing in return"? No: I just look for something else for a living.
"That's what I was trying to say: "Free will exists." is not a scientific statement. You can not incorporate it into a scientific model."
No, no, no: that wasn't what I told. Free will is quite easy to demonstrate: you just need an operative definition and a test for it "free will exists" is as proveable as "the Moon exists". What "free will exists" is not is a theory but an observable. Since it's just an observably you can't falsify it; you just measure it (aka observe) or not.
!Oh, yes, then if I would use gcc/g++ to compiler my code shall I feel forced to released the app under the GPL?"
1) That's false. Code compiled with GCC is forced to be released under the GPL no more than text edited with emacs is force to be released under the GPL
2) Even if that wasn't false, compile it with Intel's or Microsoft, or anyother else's compiler; nobody forces you to use GCC.
3) Even if there would no other choice than GCC and GCC would force you to release under the GPL, develop your own compiler if usage terms of GCC are such a burden to you. I find Microsoft's Visual Studio to be too much a burden to me, therefore I don't ask them to release it under GPL, I simply don't use it.
Again, you are trying to leech others' efforts to your own purpouses against the voluntee of those that made the work.
"But other than the transistor (and the aqueduct), what have we ever gotten out of government funded research?"
Latin, I suppouse. But yes, you a right, appart for that, nothing, as you thought.
"Researchers have been sounding this alarm for years, if not decades. But what makes this significant is hearing it from the likes of BusinessWeek. If the Wall Street Journal ever catches on, we might be close to some real change"
Don't think so when what the "Businessweek-alikes" are really telling is "somebody else should pay us a lot of money so we could maintain the 'statu quo' -short term returns, while producing basic science". No that I guilt them... after all, if it worked for the bailed-out banks why other wouldn't want to ride on the free money wagon?
" Doing research now that pays dividends 10 years from now is simply not OK. "
And that wouldn't even be considered basic science which means more of "30 years from now, or maybe never".
"At $1500 per head using the tool for proprietary solutions, most companies will put up with a lot of unpleasantries. "
That pays for about 15~30 hours per developer; I don't think that covers for "a lot" of unpleasantries.
"You have obviously never been in the situation of discovering a thrid party library you'd love to use in your commercial application, only to discover its GPLd."
What does it mean? "I thought I could use all this good work for free but, alas, I can't"? What a pity.
"the LGPL is poorly understood and overly complicated"
What!!!??? You obviously never been in the situation of examining the legality of your contracts with third party vendors when you want to use their closed source codebases. LGPL is crystal-clear in comparation.
"and really - when it comes right down to it - just as unsuitable."
Unstated assertion, not backed by facts (my company develops on top of both GPL and LGPL code with no problems, thanks).
"Most business actually have no intention whatsoever of taking GPLd code and "locking it up"."
Maybe the fact that it's obviously unlegal and quite a bad press when discovered has something to do.
"why would I also want to maintain a copy of _someone else's_ code? There's no benefit in it to me."
Maybe you see it from the developer's point of view where less code in-house means less coders to maintain it and so, maybe you'll be fired. From the company's point of view, if helping maintaining _someone else's_ code means cheaper than fully maintaining _your own code_, it's a deal.
"If I don't want to offer my software for free, I may very well write up a library to take the place of a GPLed library."
True.
"After doing that, I may very well license that library using a BSD/MIT or LGPL license"
True... in theory. In practice what are the bets for a company that already wants to produce closed source software to distribute some parts of its hard earned codebase under a license any more free than that of its main product?
If they are going to develop such a library on its enterity on their own for the sole purpouse of being able to use it within their closed source application you can bet they'll distribute it under the very same closed-source license than their main app.
In fact, can you provide any example of software companies *not* doing that, given the case? For all that I know, companies only have developed from the ground up BSD-like software when trying to get into new markets by means of stablishing new standards (ala NFS). In all other cases companies have only develop free/open source when pushed by market forces (like the ability of being able to use 99% of a third party code base for free at the cost of being forced to follow the original license on their 1% addition). In those situations GPL will produce much new free software than LGPL or BSD by means of the snowball effect.
"Wine gravitated from MIT to LGPL, because of concerns about proprietary forks not giving anything back."
In fact, I'd consider better aligned to reality that LGPL is the middleground towards GPL, not GPL towards BSD. LGPL works because still a lot of software producers think that there's bussiness in proprietary software, and their believes are backed up in the fact that most end users won't give a damn about the modification and redistribution licenses the software given to them comes with.
The more end users become accustomed to their advantages when using open source software (even if they are not going to modify/redistribute themselves) the less place proprietary software will have and the less for a need of a LGPL-like license in favour of a GPL-like one (would Nokia make this move towards LGPL -at a cost for them, if there were nobody interested on developing proprietary apps on top of Maemo? don't think so).
It's true that if such a path would eventually reach its end point, then wouldn't be a need for a copyright law-backed copyleft license (ala GPL), since it would be undistinguishable from a BSD-like in practical terms but still, I don't think we will ever proscribe proprietary licenses and even if we did, the GPL preventions would still be a (now unused) deterrent for future reborns of the proprietary path.
"There's more to free software than the GPL, and there's more to free software than BSD. Consider your options, consider the project's needs and make a judgement call that best befits the situation. Don't just do as the last flag-waver told you."
That's an insightfull down-to-earth consideration.
"You are not considering the main point of the argument: that GPL is more restrictive than BSD, and that someday, somebody will have a problem with those restrictions and he/she will sit down and create a BSD version."
That both seems illogical and contrary to observed reality. More a form of whisful thinking (in that you *want* to believe others will develop code under BSD than you in fact getting to develop it yourself) than a fact.
If I need to go through the nuisance of writing enterilly from the bottom up, specially if that's so I can add my propritary bits on top of it, what makes you think I'll "gift" my hard work to anyone else? If I'm going to enterily rewrite it, I'd better license it under proprietary terms if I want to recover my efforts in money or under GPL if I don't want others to go through my same problems ever again.
"for utility libraries one expects to use them as LGPL"
For utility libraries *you* expect to use them as GPL.
"Again, I'm in favour of open source, but in favour of a free choice for developers/publishers as well."
Sorry, but I don't eat that dogfood. You are free to use the library as GPL *or* pay for its proprietary license, so you can choose to develop under GPL *or* under your proprietary license of choice.
You are not in favour to choose but in favour to leech (you want to develop proprietary software using others' code so others will pay for your code but you don't want to pay in turn those whose code you're using for a foundation).
"Do you know how painful it is to write GUI applications with GTK?"
It seems not painful enough to make paying Troll Tech's fee (which was not excesive) worth it.
"You mentioned in an earlier post how professional developers have above-average communication skills"
Yes.
"then you post a run-on, non-parsable sentence like this?!?"
What's the non-parseable part? My question is twofold:
1) Since I'm not native English, I can certainly had it wrong on syntax.
2) It might be the case that even if its construction is correct you find it too complex. If the same can be said more clearly and succintly, then it's my fault. But if the problem is just that your mind blows at a fifty words sentence, then the problem is yours. Writing to adults as if they were fourth graders is not good communication skills but just dumbing down the message.
"I take it you aren't one of the myriad "professional developers" to which you referred."
Anyway, you are true: I'm not a professional developer.
"If you want me to have fuller information, please answer my phone call or e-mail."
And I think that's the whole story. It was you wanting my information, not me wanting you to publish it, remember?
"Use plain language, not jargon."
What you think to be "jargon" *is* "plain language". "Jargon" is the plainest, most concise and precise way to say something. That's known from the days of Euclides: there's no royal paths even for kings, remember?
Again, you are the one with the problem: an article asked by your boss, and again you are trying to pass your burden to something else. You want others to stay by *your* deadlines and you want others to cover *your* ignorance in the issues you are about to comment. You even ask others to write *your* article for you (I won't go through the FAQs; I won't take the time to read the "about" page or wander a bit through your web site: I want a copy-and-paste "for press" resource").
"Everyone trying to get press coverage should read it"
I understand what you mean, and I take you as right... provided that sentence. But we were not talking here about someone wanting "to get press coverage" but about someone wanting to make an unasked for press release. If *I* want something, it's my burden to do what it takes to have it done (like having fast reponse and doing sensible efforts to make things easy for the press guys). But if *you* want something, then it's your problem, not mine.
"this one odd word messes with the flow."
Rare, curious, surprinsing.
"In that case, I have no option but to finish the assigned article as best I can within the deadline given by my editor."
Your choice, of course.
"That may mean that somebody's getting left out of the article. That is also the nature of the beast."
That may mean the due to both your ignorance and your hurryness your article will be an utter nonsense. On one hand, I may prefer not being relationed with such abhorrence; in the other me and a lot of others may take some fun laughing at a slower pace at your ignorance and inconsistences as you yourself can guest in places like, right here, Slashdot, when put on your place. That is also the nature of the beast.
"A lot of reporters aren't given the luxury of oodles of extra time by their assigning editors and those editors expect results, not requests for more time because "they have to get the corporate wheels rolling over there." "
Then it is the reporter the one with a problem, not the happy hacker or the professional developer paid to do different things than attend the press. When somebody has a problem is both good education and proper path to resolve it to take himself the path to its solution, not trying to pass the problem to other that neither ask for them nor will feel the result one way or the other.
"How many brilliant developers have you met who send emails that sound like they were written by a 4th grader? Too many..."
Not a single one. It's true I found a number of bozos that out of their ignorance think they are ununderstood prima donnas that write like 4th graders. But really good professional developers? They all have above-average comunication skills. What of extrange do you find in people able to express difficult concepts in computer languages being able to express simpler concepts in natural languages too?