A friend of mine was doing an engineering degree several years ago, and as one of the modules he had to do architecture.
Now, for a bit of background, this guy is now in his late forties, and only started Uni about five years ago. He has always done very hands on jobs before, like building, engineering and a variety of other physical yet technical jobs.
Well his lecturer for this module was the head of the faculty, considered to be one of the best in the south west of England.
So one day he shows the class an example of the modern styalised building, where everything had been thought out, it used the latest technology and engineering etc etc etc.
Anyway, after looking at these plans, my friend sticks his hand up and says that it would not work. Of course the lecturer asked why he thought it wouldn't work, and what made him an expert after only a couple of weeks, and my friend pointed out that the design of the roof didn't have enough support, and would collapse (OK, could be subjective, could have worked it out wrongly but...), and that water didn't flow up hill without assistance.
Thats right, when they had designed this wonderful building they had neglected to consider the fact that gravity has a small amount to play in the process of removing water from toilets and sinks and into the sewage system. Some pipes ran perfectly horizontally, while others ran upwards from the source.
Now even to me this seems very basic, and I suppose proves that even the best professionals make mistakes, but what most amused me about the story was that the lecturer wouldn't even accept it at first, convinced that my friend must be wrong since he was only a student!
I think there are two points here which everyone seems to have missed.
First there is the question of what use the Internet would to people in second world countries. A few people have commented that it would be enable people to learn and gain knowledge, but there is more to it than that.
With the Internet as we currently see it, one of the major uses which we in the developed world have is purchasing things on-line. These purchases are invariably cheaper than they are to buy in a shop, so we save money. In Britain the government has already commented that they want to get more of the deprived areas onto the Internet. They recognise that those people who most need to save money, are loosing out on the chance to do so. Those who can afford an Internet connection can save a lot, thus increasing the economic divide within the country. This divide is obviously even bigger between the developed and developing countries for in part the same reasons.
Secondly. Those people who have questioned the merits of a scheme like this, on the grounds that there are more important things which developing countries need seem to have missed the point. Yes, they do need food, water and shelter. Of course we shouldn't stop giving that and start giving them PC's. But there is a limit to the amount of food and cloths which can be donated at any time, and once this limit has been reached, we should not sit back and say we are doing all that we can, we should strive forward to find more ways in which we can help, which IMHO is exactly what this scheme is setting out to achieve.
To me it makes no sense at all to get a highly skilled computing professional, lugging sacks, building walls etc, when he/she has rare skills which can be put to use instead.
This may be read as a pedantic comment, or a humourous asside, you decide...
Shouldn't "Those of you who don't sprechen das Deutsch" from the original post read 'sprechen sie Deutsch', it's been seven years since I did German, but doesn't das (or der or die for other genders) mean 'the'?!?
I think people are looking at this in the wrong way. In a perfect world we could depend on organisations playing fair. When they found that something was already patented they would step back with a smile and congratulate everyone for getting there first.
This however isn't a perfect world, and as we have seen in the past, there are ways of getting around / avoiding patents which already exist. As has been commented before, it is easy enough for companies to get patents on technological ideas when patents for the same things already exist.
Where everyone's efforts should be concentrated (IMHO) is following up the bogus cliams made and accepted, and pushing for a change in the patent rules to stop it from being done.
As a possible thought, how about setting up an organisation to check up on these things (as has been discussed), but in order to provide finance for inevitable law suits to contest patents when needed, the organisation pushs the large (and not so large) corporations for support. Get enough on side and the cost to each is minimal, yet the potential positive publisity is very large. Also, if company x patents something illegally which it's competitors would like to use, it would be in their own best interest to collaborate with the organisation and each other to overturn the patent.
With centralisation to manage how it is all organised, and pulling the right levers in many companies, it could become a force to recone with. Companies might not be worried by the threat of government intervention on these matters, but how would they feel if they knew that if they tried to break the rules, they would find themselves alone, up against the whole (or the majority) of the computer industry.
Another reason not to buy tec for a geek is that you will inevitably look at the prices and not understand that it should cost a lot of money. You will then buy what you consider the be the same thing at half the price. We will see it, play with it for a while, realise that it doesn't do half the things we wanted it to do and spend a load of money buying the expensive version, not using the one given to us, and in the end wasting a load of money. Just give us money. If you want, put a definition of what you want us to get with it. We can then add our own money to it, and buy something which does the job properly, and not just looking nice, but doing very little.
In my opinion, in a situation like this it is the responsibility of the person/people using a piece of software to ensure that they use it responsibly. If it weren't for this ideal within computing, many systems would not be as secure as they are now, due to a lack of tools to enable people to ensure that their systems are not vulnerable to many of the commonly known attacks.
Some might say that programs which allow this kind of detection of vulnerability should not be made available, and that they make it far too easy for someone wanting to break into a server to do so with little or no experience. These people would be ignoring the fact that the information is readily available on the internet already, and that these programs only serve to make life easier for people. As long as the systems administrators ensure that they use these programs on their machines, and follow the advice given, they can be in no danger of someone using the software against them. In my opinion, any administrator who fails to do this simple task shouldn't be doing the job. They would also be ignoring the fact that these programs are not generally written to be easy to use. Anyone managing to make use of them must have at least some experience, and therefore would be able to do the same thing (though not as quickly) without the software to help them. On the legal side, I don't know if there is any law against this kind of software. But with the prevalence of these pieces of software in existence, and the fact that I have heard of no court cases relating to the author being sued (I'm sure there are several large corporations who would like to do it), I can only assume that there is no such law, or at least none which is strong enough to bring a court case against anyone.
Perhaps in light of this post we should consider changing the Slashdot title bar? After all, by the definition made, there should only be geeks using this site, as nerds would not be into it, prefering to play games all day, an not wanting the social interaction that comes with Slashdot!
Of course some might say that 'News for Geeks. Stuff that matters' doesn't sound right to them, but perhaps in this new age of enlightenment, we should cast aside this petty quibbles, stand up and be proud to be geeks.
Perhaps the answer is to set up a department for computing within the government. That might encourage some of the people now working in the industry to move to politics, thus moving some of the intelligence to somewhere that it can be of more real use. Who really cares if someone keeps a system running, or creates a new wonder program, to most people on the street they are not even aware of the changes, and if they knew they wouldn't see what the fuss was about. Get IT professionals into government. Get the legislation relating to the Internet and IT worked on by professionals, who know what they are talking about, and the real issues at stake. So what if you didn't earn as much, money isn't everything, but having a job which really means something is a lot more satisfying. Most of the legislative problems around now are caused by people with no knowledge making decisions of things they have no understanding of, and having no one to ask that can be trusted. This is the area that needs change in government.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, for a bit of background, this guy is now in his late forties, and only started Uni about five years ago. He has always done very hands on jobs before, like building, engineering and a variety of other physical yet technical jobs.
Well his lecturer for this module was the head of the faculty, considered to be one of the best in the south west of England.
So one day he shows the class an example of the modern styalised building, where everything had been thought out, it used the latest technology and engineering etc etc etc.
Anyway, after looking at these plans, my friend sticks his hand up and says that it would not work. Of course the lecturer asked why he thought it wouldn't work, and what made him an expert after only a couple of weeks, and my friend pointed out that the design of the roof didn't have enough support, and would collapse (OK, could be subjective, could have worked it out wrongly but...), and that water didn't flow up hill without assistance.
Thats right, when they had designed this wonderful building they had neglected to consider the fact that gravity has a small amount to play in the process of removing water from toilets and sinks and into the sewage system. Some pipes ran perfectly horizontally, while others ran upwards from the source.
Now even to me this seems very basic, and I suppose proves that even the best professionals make mistakes, but what most amused me about the story was that the lecturer wouldn't even accept it at first, convinced that my friend must be wrong since he was only a student!
First there is the question of what use the Internet would to people in second world countries. A few people have commented that it would be enable people to learn and gain knowledge, but there is more to it than that.
With the Internet as we currently see it, one of the major uses which we in the developed world have is purchasing things on-line. These purchases are invariably cheaper than they are to buy in a shop, so we save money. In Britain the government has already commented that they want to get more of the deprived areas onto the Internet. They recognise that those people who most need to save money, are loosing out on the chance to do so. Those who can afford an Internet connection can save a lot, thus increasing the economic divide within the country. This divide is obviously even bigger between the developed and developing countries for in part the same reasons.
Secondly. Those people who have questioned the merits of a scheme like this, on the grounds that there are more important things which developing countries need seem to have missed the point. Yes, they do need food, water and shelter. Of course we shouldn't stop giving that and start giving them PC's. But there is a limit to the amount of food and cloths which can be donated at any time, and once this limit has been reached, we should not sit back and say we are doing all that we can, we should strive forward to find more ways in which we can help, which IMHO is exactly what this scheme is setting out to achieve.
To me it makes no sense at all to get a highly skilled computing professional, lugging sacks, building walls etc, when he/she has rare skills which can be put to use instead.
Shouldn't "Those of you who don't sprechen das Deutsch" from the original post read 'sprechen sie Deutsch', it's been seven years since I did German, but doesn't das (or der or die for other genders) mean 'the'?!?
Ok, maybe I should get my coat!
This however isn't a perfect world, and as we have seen in the past, there are ways of getting around / avoiding patents which already exist. As has been commented before, it is easy enough for companies to get patents on technological ideas when patents for the same things already exist.
Where everyone's efforts should be concentrated (IMHO) is following up the bogus cliams made and accepted, and pushing for a change in the patent rules to stop it from being done.
As a possible thought, how about setting up an organisation to check up on these things (as has been discussed), but in order to provide finance for inevitable law suits to contest patents when needed, the organisation pushs the large (and not so large) corporations for support. Get enough on side and the cost to each is minimal, yet the potential positive publisity is very large. Also, if company x patents something illegally which it's competitors would like to use, it would be in their own best interest to collaborate with the organisation and each other to overturn the patent.
With centralisation to manage how it is all organised, and pulling the right levers in many companies, it could become a force to recone with. Companies might not be worried by the threat of government intervention on these matters, but how would they feel if they knew that if they tried to break the rules, they would find themselves alone, up against the whole (or the majority) of the computer industry.
Another reason not to buy tec for a geek is that you will inevitably look at the prices and not understand that it should cost a lot of money. You will then buy what you consider the be the same thing at half the price. We will see it, play with it for a while, realise that it doesn't do half the things we wanted it to do and spend a load of money buying the expensive version, not using the one given to us, and in the end wasting a load of money. Just give us money. If you want, put a definition of what you want us to get with it. We can then add our own money to it, and buy something which does the job properly, and not just looking nice, but doing very little.
Some might say that programs which allow this kind of detection of vulnerability should not be made available, and that they make it far too easy for someone wanting to break into a server to do so with little or no experience. These people would be ignoring the fact that the information is readily available on the internet already, and that these programs only serve to make life easier for people. As long as the systems administrators ensure that they use these programs on their machines, and follow the advice given, they can be in no danger of someone using the software against them. In my opinion, any administrator who fails to do this simple task shouldn't be doing the job. They would also be ignoring the fact that these programs are not generally written to be easy to use. Anyone managing to make use of them must have at least some experience, and therefore would be able to do the same thing (though not as quickly) without the software to help them. On the legal side, I don't know if there is any law against this kind of software. But with the prevalence of these pieces of software in existence, and the fact that I have heard of no court cases relating to the author being sued (I'm sure there are several large corporations who would like to do it), I can only assume that there is no such law, or at least none which is strong enough to bring a court case against anyone.
Of course some might say that 'News for Geeks. Stuff that matters' doesn't sound right to them, but perhaps in this new age of enlightenment, we should cast aside this petty quibbles, stand up and be proud to be geeks.
Perhaps the answer is to set up a department for computing within the government. That might encourage some of the people now working in the industry to move to politics, thus moving some of the intelligence to somewhere that it can be of more real use. Who really cares if someone keeps a system running, or creates a new wonder program, to most people on the street they are not even aware of the changes, and if they knew they wouldn't see what the fuss was about. Get IT professionals into government. Get the legislation relating to the Internet and IT worked on by professionals, who know what they are talking about, and the real issues at stake. So what if you didn't earn as much, money isn't everything, but having a job which really means something is a lot more satisfying. Most of the legislative problems around now are caused by people with no knowledge making decisions of things they have no understanding of, and having no one to ask that can be trusted. This is the area that needs change in government.