Businesses do not have any right to sell whatever they want.
For example, if I form a company that will sell nuclear weapons to the public, do you think the government will stand idly by (assuming it's a sane country).
If a government sees that a product will harm it's citizens they have a responsibilty to purge it from the market (*cough*cigarettes*cough*, no pun intended). I suppose they see microsoft as being harmful, though, I can't imagine that if they ban it that any South Korean developers would profit.
If google has to work harder then it's accepted that MSN is a viable alternative. That would mean that competition exists. (Paraphrased, instead of quoted for the sake of consistency)
People are anti-ms because despite the existance of all these great operating systems, we have to face facts that the average user does not see them as a viable alternative. Thus, they are, by a de facto means, stifling competition. But hey, it's not like it's their fault they are a monopoly. *end sarcasm*
So thinking about microsoft promoting competition is like hearing that a person bullying you has decided to take up martial arts. Though, don't get me wrong, I'd love for them to have a really range of products, in particular an OS. It'd do the world a lot of good.
FTA: "Icann had tentatively approved the new domain name, called.xxx, several months earlier, but at the last moment the Department of Commerce removed its support, after it said it received thousands of letters of complaint from conservative Christian groups and others."
Why wouldn't these people be in favour of an.xxx domain? Hell, wouldn't it make it easier to block sites at work or home?
I mean, what's easier to spot as porn (domain names made up because I'm at work and cannot check for a good example):
Yes, as many managers will not hesitate to fire your insubordinate ass. Something had to be done to stop the threat to their authority, so the managers, having no choice will just have to do it.
Assume I work for a company with 100 programmers working on the same code.
Now, of course, I can't know what's going on with all 100 programmers at the same time. They may do something against the specs, and because of this, they FUBAR my code that follows said specs. Am I responsible? Do you trust a jury on that one, when you have to argue your case against your fellow employee? And what if the specs are absolute shit, who gets the blame there?
Furthermore, what's the incentive to me, a programmer, to tell you what's wrong with your program if you are just going to point the finger at me and try to get me sued? Why don't my fellow programmers and I have a pact that all debugging hooks, all error outputs, everything of the sort doesn't make the final product. Now it's harder to collect evidence to sue with. How does that help the consumer when things do go wrong? Why would any of us stick our necks out for them if they are just going to try to shoot us down?
Oh, and what happens when I'm working with say, MS software, and it's MS' fault that my program crashes (let's say a memory bug in windows caused it)? Then you have no idea who to sue (let's assume all programmers create a web of ignorance) and little evidence to do it with. And what of malicious intent? I shouldn't be held responsible if you are TRYING to break your machine and succeed for the sake of suing me.
And lastly, if it does happen programmers will have to unionize or something similar so they have the power to control their own work. This would destroy the software industry, because, we would have to adapt the best testing methods possible, and be very formal about it. Now, I don't think the average person in the software industry has the time, or even the training to do full formal evaluations. Now you need a higher quantity and quality of programmers, that because of their union will eventually start demanding more benefits, have fun paying for that.
Of course, this is just my 2 cents, but we all know what happens when union mentality creeps in.
"This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer."
I've been a windows admin and developer for different companies... And I've used win 3.1 to server 2k3 (except for ME) including CE and Pocket PC.
I've used OS 9 (OS 9 did suck, but to be fair I only used it for a month or two), OS X and various Linux distros (I've used BSD and Solaris, but not enough to claim that I know how to use them well).
After using Linux and windows, I can tell you that OS X is a great product. And pretty much what I want the desktop on Linux to become (except I do like apt-get, which isn't GUI, but is a part of the OS). After using these things, you realize just how clumsy windows is (I didn't realize that I was UI abused, at first).
Oh, and about the newer part, I also belong to generation "Y". So don't worry Dvorak, the next generation will be fine, and besides, it's not like you really write about specific technology anyway, just company strategy and such.
Ring Tones are important to me because when I'm intrupting a meeting with my mobile, I need a professional sounding ringtone to salvage any credibility.
Or when I'm in a lecture hall during an examination.
Or on a bus, where I'm sure that people want to hear the 82nd remix of "fly me to the moon."
And my personal favourite, during wedding vows, I'm sure the couple wants to hear "She Fuckin' Hates Me."
But, hey, that's just me.
"But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?"
and why would a person download from iTunes when free P2P networks exist?
I believe this documentary may be what you are looking for.
In the case of CNN, if you falsely report a story, that's not necessarily bias. The motivation behind airing the story might, but to be honest, not airing a story that you think would be big for the sake of protecting people's image would probably be biased. And it's not like he went unpunished (even if it was a self-inflicted resignation).
Then again, I have a tough time watching any major news outlet. Except maybe the BBC.
"If I was hiring a computer programmer and I had a choice between an Irish Lit Major who seemed excited and curious about technology and a CS major who seemed somewhat bored, I would hire the Irish Lit Major."
The problem with this argument is that there is probably a good subset of CS majors who were bored high school students interested in technology, who from experience can tell you why interest alone isn't enough.
Since any have yet to step up to the plate, I will:
In highschool I built lots of things, and learned lots of things. C++, MFC, robotics, etc. And it was all well and good at the time, and the knowledge and experience gained has served me well during programming courses (and even my IT jobs).
But I focused too much on programming and not enough on theory. And, after time, I realized that I was having a hard time finding direction in my studies. Reading is one thing, but I didn't have a good idea of what to read. And in retrospect and knowing the brash 18 year old that I was, I know that I wouldn't have read the right things even if I was told to. I needed to understand why they were right, and I have many math and CS professors to thank for that. It wasn't intellectual laziness that was holding me back, it was intellectual blindness (PC for stupidity, but before we use that term we must remember that there are plenty of/.ers who don't think the rigors of a CS degree are required to be a good programmer and from my experience are suffering of the very blindness that I speak of).
What does this have to do with interest? It's hard to push yourself to learn things you don't see as having merit. It's even harder to do so when you have deadlines (in the work place). Interest and enthusiasm count, but in the end, you want someone who can get the job done.
Besides, what happens if the lit major's excitement wanes? It's not like they've even had a deadline with a program before. Let alone a full time job where they just code all day long.
As a side note, you say you can hold your own mathematically. How have you come to this conclusion (what is your basis of comparison)? With humility I admit that there are fields in mathematics I could do better in, but I know at the end of the day, I've had to defend myself to some very gifted math and CS PhDs. I ask this, because imagine evaluating your mathematic credentials from the perspective of a potiential employer, or HR troll. Sure, you may know your shit, but they have no way to prove it.
What makes Linus Torvalds (or whoever) a programmer?
All of the above, because they all amount to the fact that he's programmed at a competent level.
I think the GP is trying to point out that a blogger -> journalist is like pre-schooler -> graduate student. While I don't fully agree with the point, because it doesn't take into account things like livejournal's ea_spouse, who, if we accept their credentials, is more than qualified to express concerns about EA. The problem is, do we consider their credentials as valid? And I think that is where the issue with the shield law comes into effect.
For example, what if ea_spouse is an articulate 14-year-old gamer that hates EA, or worse yet, is a person in a rival company, or even more damning, a former employee that is just bitter. Then a shit storm around EA has been caused for nothing (potientially causing a loss of business for EA) without any liability.
I wish I could suggest a solution for this situation, but I can't. And I don't trust the government to come up with a good one either.
I don't know about blue though. I mean, I don't want Brainy Smurfwriting the documentation and using the word "smurf" to describe every function I'll ever use.
For example:
"To smurf a new file, open the smurf, then adjust the smurf as you desire, if the file is smurf-only then you must smurf to smurf smurf..."
But then again, I have been biased against the smurfs since the 80s.
I stated the shareholders part in the context of fair-play. Not advocating the negation of such privilages.
There are different forms of accountibility. If I'm a bad employee who posts on/. too much, and doesn't do my work, then I can be held accountable (and fired for it). This form of punishment would be in the HR sence and not the legal sence, as suing individual employees would be. If I am a bad manager or higher (president, CEO, etc.) then my responsibility is to the board and shareholders, and any fault of mine would most likely result in my termination. The only way I can see individual legal responsibility is if I malicously do something (like steal from the company), and, if warrented, a body like the SEC should investigate. But that is much different than incompetence in general (and what I see the article promoting legal responsibility over).
Of course, I am talking 98% out of my ass here, because IANAL. But all I tried to contribute was my remaining 2 perCENT[sic S] of the situation at hand. If I am wrong about personal responsibility in corporations from the context of the legal system, then I apologize for wasting people's time, and feel free to mod me down for not contributing anything of worth.
I think in the case of open source one could argue that responsibility falls on the executioner of the code. Because they could have hired a programmer to proof-read it for them. Much like laywers proof-read contracts.
Of course, I believe that executing code from a closed source entity is like signing a blank contract in faith. And IANAL so I leave the legality of that open to them. And if responsibility is determined to be in the hands of the application providers then we will assign the lawsuits based on this very topic. But I wish the suer good luck on figuring out in a 100+ department who designed and wrote the bad code. Let alone knowing what the bad code is.
Going to court with a "it's broke but I don't know how or who broke it" case would be difficult. You'd have to get "experts" to be able to read and understand the code, duplicate the exact error, and prove that the error occured. Without very exact logs (why in god's name would any self-interested programmer release those in anything but the debugging models if this law came into effect), good luck.
I disagree with "conscious discrediting of peer organizations software process improvement efforts" being a bad thing though. What if my organization believes that sacrificing a monkey to Rachichan, the god of software, is the best way to improve software?
On a similar topic, I believe Dijkstra, the prophet of formal verification, preached frequently about the negligence on the part of software development models. Something tells me that I don't want to challenge his code having too many errors.
CMM is the creation of an assembly line and inspection process. But if I built a perfect assembly line, and had my product inspected in the most formal and costly way possible, with all possible considerations taken into account, where it means my specs perfectly, what does it matter if I'm building Yugos?
The only way that programmers should be personally resposible for their actions is if they can be directly given the rewards. I don't know how this system would work. All I know is that when you currently sign a EULA it is not with a programmer, it is with a company.
If we are not directly given rewards, then I'm going to study for an MBA after my CS degree to limit my personal responsibility (paradoxically increasing overall responsibility), and most likely make more money anyway. People (shareholders) in corporations get to legally hide behind "the corporate entity" to shield them from personal finanical litigation, their employees should have the same benefit.
But I think your doctor example is correct, and would describe much more than you pointed out (for example, we would be forced to become as through as possible, like doctors, which would force us to ensure that employers permit it, which may cause unions or something similar, and I doubt business people want unions, especially in IT. I know there are arguments against that, but think, if fewer people enter the field and those that do are more responsible, then the result is higher paid, and more powerful people that need control of their work)
FTA: "Ms. McLellan noted that law-enforcement officials will still have to obtain a warrant from a judge to intercept e-mail or Internet transmissions, as they always have with telephone wiretaps."
Therefore, people are not being searched unreasonably, meaning this won't be challenged. Having the capacity to do something and actually doing it are two different things.
Slashdot Mirror
Businesses do not have any right to sell whatever they want.
For example, if I form a company that will sell nuclear weapons to the public, do you think the government will stand idly by (assuming it's a sane country).
If a government sees that a product will harm it's citizens they have a responsibilty to purge it from the market (*cough*cigarettes*cough*, no pun intended). I suppose they see microsoft as being harmful, though, I can't imagine that if they ban it that any South Korean developers would profit.
I picked it for the same reason I chose to study computer science: money, women, power.
But then again, I've never been good at making decisions.
If google has to work harder then it's accepted that MSN is a viable alternative. That would mean that competition exists. (Paraphrased, instead of quoted for the sake of consistency)
People are anti-ms because despite the existance of all these great operating systems, we have to face facts that the average user does not see them as a viable alternative. Thus, they are, by a de facto means, stifling competition. But hey, it's not like it's their fault they are a monopoly. *end sarcasm*
So thinking about microsoft promoting competition is like hearing that a person bullying you has decided to take up martial arts. Though, don't get me wrong, I'd love for them to have a really range of products, in particular an OS. It'd do the world a lot of good.
FTA: "Icann had tentatively approved the new domain name, called .xxx, several months earlier, but at the last moment the Department of Commerce removed its support, after it said it received thousands of letters of complaint from conservative Christian groups and others."
.xxx domain? Hell, wouldn't it make it easier to block sites at work or home?
Why wouldn't these people be in favour of an
I mean, what's easier to spot as porn (domain names made up because I'm at work and cannot check for a good example):
searchmovies.com or searchmovies.xxx
Yes, as many managers will not hesitate to fire your insubordinate ass. Something had to be done to stop the threat to their authority, so the managers, having no choice will just have to do it.
Well, let's see what would happen...
Assume I work for a company with 100 programmers working on the same code.
Now, of course, I can't know what's going on with all 100 programmers at the same time. They may do something against the specs, and because of this, they FUBAR my code that follows said specs. Am I responsible? Do you trust a jury on that one, when you have to argue your case against your fellow employee? And what if the specs are absolute shit, who gets the blame there?
Furthermore, what's the incentive to me, a programmer, to tell you what's wrong with your program if you are just going to point the finger at me and try to get me sued? Why don't my fellow programmers and I have a pact that all debugging hooks, all error outputs, everything of the sort doesn't make the final product. Now it's harder to collect evidence to sue with. How does that help the consumer when things do go wrong? Why would any of us stick our necks out for them if they are just going to try to shoot us down?
Oh, and what happens when I'm working with say, MS software, and it's MS' fault that my program crashes (let's say a memory bug in windows caused it)? Then you have no idea who to sue (let's assume all programmers create a web of ignorance) and little evidence to do it with. And what of malicious intent? I shouldn't be held responsible if you are TRYING to break your machine and succeed for the sake of suing me.
And lastly, if it does happen programmers will have to unionize or something similar so they have the power to control their own work. This would destroy the software industry, because, we would have to adapt the best testing methods possible, and be very formal about it. Now, I don't think the average person in the software industry has the time, or even the training to do full formal evaluations. Now you need a higher quantity and quality of programmers, that because of their union will eventually start demanding more benefits, have fun paying for that.
Of course, this is just my 2 cents, but we all know what happens when union mentality creeps in.
"This reality is not going to change. In fact it will only get worse as technology coverage is handed to newer, less-qualified observers who simply cannot use a Microsoft Windows computer."
I've been a windows admin and developer for different companies... And I've used win 3.1 to server 2k3 (except for ME) including CE and Pocket PC.
I've used OS 9 (OS 9 did suck, but to be fair I only used it for a month or two), OS X and various Linux distros (I've used BSD and Solaris, but not enough to claim that I know how to use them well).
After using Linux and windows, I can tell you that OS X is a great product. And pretty much what I want the desktop on Linux to become (except I do like apt-get, which isn't GUI, but is a part of the OS). After using these things, you realize just how clumsy windows is (I didn't realize that I was UI abused, at first).
Oh, and about the newer part, I also belong to generation "Y". So don't worry Dvorak, the next generation will be fine, and besides, it's not like you really write about specific technology anyway, just company strategy and such.
Linux is on my desktop, and on the desktop of my family.
/.er, but let the use of windows be the penalty in and of itself.
As for manufacturer support, if they don't want to support linux then they also don't want my money.
I hate seeing windows on a PC as much as the next
Ring Tones are important to me because when I'm intrupting a meeting with my mobile, I need a professional sounding ringtone to salvage any credibility. Or when I'm in a lecture hall during an examination. Or on a bus, where I'm sure that people want to hear the 82nd remix of "fly me to the moon." And my personal favourite, during wedding vows, I'm sure the couple wants to hear "She Fuckin' Hates Me." But, hey, that's just me.
porncasting
"But then who would pay $1.99 to download an episode of 'Lost' from iTunes if the iPod could also hook up to your television and record that same episode free?"
and why would a person download from iTunes when free P2P networks exist?
I believe this documentary may be what you are looking for.
In the case of CNN, if you falsely report a story, that's not necessarily bias. The motivation behind airing the story might, but to be honest, not airing a story that you think would be big for the sake of protecting people's image would probably be biased. And it's not like he went unpunished (even if it was a self-inflicted resignation).
Then again, I have a tough time watching any major news outlet. Except maybe the BBC.
Can we still imply and infer that microsoft is evil?
I prefer to look at it as engineering is a means to an end, while science is an end in itself.
"If I was hiring a computer programmer and I had a choice between an Irish Lit Major who seemed excited and curious about technology and a CS major who seemed somewhat bored, I would hire the Irish Lit Major."
/.ers who don't think the rigors of a CS degree are required to be a good programmer and from my experience are suffering of the very blindness that I speak of).
The problem with this argument is that there is probably a good subset of CS majors who were bored high school students interested in technology, who from experience can tell you why interest alone isn't enough.
Since any have yet to step up to the plate, I will:
In highschool I built lots of things, and learned lots of things. C++, MFC, robotics, etc. And it was all well and good at the time, and the knowledge and experience gained has served me well during programming courses (and even my IT jobs).
But I focused too much on programming and not enough on theory. And, after time, I realized that I was having a hard time finding direction in my studies. Reading is one thing, but I didn't have a good idea of what to read. And in retrospect and knowing the brash 18 year old that I was, I know that I wouldn't have read the right things even if I was told to. I needed to understand why they were right, and I have many math and CS professors to thank for that. It wasn't intellectual laziness that was holding me back, it was intellectual blindness (PC for stupidity, but before we use that term we must remember that there are plenty of
What does this have to do with interest? It's hard to push yourself to learn things you don't see as having merit. It's even harder to do so when you have deadlines (in the work place). Interest and enthusiasm count, but in the end, you want someone who can get the job done.
Besides, what happens if the lit major's excitement wanes? It's not like they've even had a deadline with a program before. Let alone a full time job where they just code all day long.
As a side note, you say you can hold your own mathematically. How have you come to this conclusion (what is your basis of comparison)? With humility I admit that there are fields in mathematics I could do better in, but I know at the end of the day, I've had to defend myself to some very gifted math and CS PhDs. I ask this, because imagine evaluating your mathematic credentials from the perspective of a potiential employer, or HR troll. Sure, you may know your shit, but they have no way to prove it.
What makes Linus Torvalds (or whoever) a programmer?
All of the above, because they all amount to the fact that he's programmed at a competent level.
I think the GP is trying to point out that a blogger -> journalist is like pre-schooler -> graduate student. While I don't fully agree with the point, because it doesn't take into account things like livejournal's ea_spouse, who, if we accept their credentials, is more than qualified to express concerns about EA. The problem is, do we consider their credentials as valid? And I think that is where the issue with the shield law comes into effect.
For example, what if ea_spouse is an articulate 14-year-old gamer that hates EA, or worse yet, is a person in a rival company, or even more damning, a former employee that is just bitter. Then a shit storm around EA has been caused for nothing (potientially causing a loss of business for EA) without any liability.
I wish I could suggest a solution for this situation, but I can't. And I don't trust the government to come up with a good one either.
For example: "To smurf a new file, open the smurf, then adjust the smurf as you desire, if the file is smurf-only then you must smurf to smurf smurf..."
But then again, I have been biased against the smurfs since the 80s.
I stated the shareholders part in the context of fair-play. Not advocating the negation of such privilages.
/. too much, and doesn't do my work, then I can be held accountable (and fired for it). This form of punishment would be in the HR sence and not the legal sence, as suing individual employees would be. If I am a bad manager or higher (president, CEO, etc.) then my responsibility is to the board and shareholders, and any fault of mine would most likely result in my termination. The only way I can see individual legal responsibility is if I malicously do something (like steal from the company), and, if warrented, a body like the SEC should investigate. But that is much different than incompetence in general (and what I see the article promoting legal responsibility over).
There are different forms of accountibility. If I'm a bad employee who posts on
Of course, I am talking 98% out of my ass here, because IANAL. But all I tried to contribute was my remaining 2 perCENT[sic S] of the situation at hand. If I am wrong about personal responsibility in corporations from the context of the legal system, then I apologize for wasting people's time, and feel free to mod me down for not contributing anything of worth.
I think in the case of open source one could argue that responsibility falls on the executioner of the code. Because they could have hired a programmer to proof-read it for them. Much like laywers proof-read contracts.
Of course, I believe that executing code from a closed source entity is like signing a blank contract in faith. And IANAL so I leave the legality of that open to them. And if responsibility is determined to be in the hands of the application providers then we will assign the lawsuits based on this very topic. But I wish the suer good luck on figuring out in a 100+ department who designed and wrote the bad code. Let alone knowing what the bad code is.
Going to court with a "it's broke but I don't know how or who broke it" case would be difficult. You'd have to get "experts" to be able to read and understand the code, duplicate the exact error, and prove that the error occured. Without very exact logs (why in god's name would any self-interested programmer release those in anything but the debugging models if this law came into effect), good luck.
Exactly. I forgot about the owning of code part...
Hell, then they really don't want to piss me off. Then I'll just GPL it and make ownership topple like dominos.
I disagree with "conscious discrediting of peer organizations software process improvement efforts" being a bad thing though. What if my organization believes that sacrificing a monkey to Rachichan, the god of software, is the best way to improve software?
On a similar topic, I believe Dijkstra, the prophet of formal verification, preached frequently about the negligence on the part of software development models. Something tells me that I don't want to challenge his code having too many errors.
CMM is the creation of an assembly line and inspection process. But if I built a perfect assembly line, and had my product inspected in the most formal and costly way possible, with all possible considerations taken into account, where it means my specs perfectly, what does it matter if I'm building Yugos?
The only way that programmers should be personally resposible for their actions is if they can be directly given the rewards. I don't know how this system would work. All I know is that when you currently sign a EULA it is not with a programmer, it is with a company.
If we are not directly given rewards, then I'm going to study for an MBA after my CS degree to limit my personal responsibility (paradoxically increasing overall responsibility), and most likely make more money anyway. People (shareholders) in corporations get to legally hide behind "the corporate entity" to shield them from personal finanical litigation, their employees should have the same benefit.
But I think your doctor example is correct, and would describe much more than you pointed out (for example, we would be forced to become as through as possible, like doctors, which would force us to ensure that employers permit it, which may cause unions or something similar, and I doubt business people want unions, especially in IT. I know there are arguments against that, but think, if fewer people enter the field and those that do are more responsible, then the result is higher paid, and more powerful people that need control of their work)
Bill Clinton. *Insert Clinton joke here*
FTA: "Ms. McLellan noted that law-enforcement officials will still have to obtain a warrant from a judge to intercept e-mail or Internet transmissions, as they always have with telephone wiretaps."
Therefore, people are not being searched unreasonably, meaning this won't be challenged. Having the capacity to do something and actually doing it are two different things.