Usually, SAP installations are multi-million projects that involve business processes redesigns and other unpleasant stuff for people involved.
Wow, do they ever!
SAP has been unkindly described as "corporate heroin", because it promises so much at the beginning, but then you become dependent on it, then it never seems to deliver, then it kills you. At least one or two companies have sued the makers because (they claim) their SAP programme was so bad a software disaster that it drove them into bankruptcy.
First thought: The idea that Linux could in some way facilitate this process fills me with the same ambiguous dread I would feel if I heard that it had been adopted as OS of choice by the Bosnian Serbs.
Second thought: The reason that SAP programs often fail so badly is that they are the classic "Cathedral" projects. The whole thing has to be done by a bunch of (yes, hugely paid) outside consultants, who have to basically inhale the structure of an entire multinational company, and then configure an application to mirror that structure. And you thought your website was a burden.
It would be nicer, of course, for the ERP system to be put in, bit by bit, by the people who know their local area best (the employees), and in response to their own needs. That way you could develop the management/information/computer nexus through a kind of "open" co-operative, non-hierarchical structure... remind you of anything? No, not socialism, the other one.
If I were the betting type, I'd guess that if Open Source creates any billionaires, it'll be in something like ERP, or these other "mega-app" projects where the development model currently used is so obviously screwed. Call it the "GNUERP" project or something, and make sure taht the software tools are built around (and mirror) a set of management practices resembling ESR's "Bazaar" essays. It won't be me -- I don't have the energy or motivation. But it might be Eric Raymond . . .
Oh gawd... revealing my true colours as a terrible political hack.
AC above is right that Blair and his bunch are frightening, paternalistic weasels. But:
1. This particular measure isn't likely to even reach the government. It's being put together by the "foundation", under the aegis of the European Commission (The Commission != the European Parliament -- it's kind of like a Civil Service sort of thing, but more powerful).
2. Because of this, it will be sorted out by civil servants. If the relevant UK minister (not sure who that would be -- prob Jack Straw?) ever sees it, it will be just to tick up the civil servants' decision to keep stalling. Unless it becomes a cause celebre, in which case his mind will be on damage limitation.
3. Why am I so sure that the UK civil servants will want to stall it forever? Well:
First, because they don't want to transfer any power to Brussels. They hate Brussels.
Second, if they allow the Commission to have jurisdiction on this one, they will be in a weak position to resist when the EC says that it should have jurisdiction in the matter of taxing the Internet when that comes up for negotiation. For a UK civil servant, the very Worst Thing You Can Possibly Do is to allow any tax power to go to Brussels.
Third, they will look at it and fear bad publicity. Civil service departments are more and more coming to be ruled by their Press Offices.
That's the reasoning behind my attack strategy. We can't do anything about the first and second points, but the third depends on how much of a media sh*tstorm can be generated. The rule of thumb is always that if two out of UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are against something, it's dead. I think that this is achievable.
jsm
(who, in a past life, was one of these bloodsucking drones)
I envision something in the leiu of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand when the movers just got fed up with the way things were being run and dealing with the system, so they went off to live amongst themselves.
Maybe the "cognitive elite" of the world will decide to do just that!
Sadly this is a European Commission (!=European Parliament) initiative, so your MEP will be about as much use as a pair of chocolate socks. The EP is, IMO, one of the most useless bodies ever created and pretty much powerless in the face of the Commission. (Political scientists politely call this the "democratic deficit" at the heart of Europe -- how charming).
The strategy has to be to work on the national governments. As a rule of thumb, if two out of UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are opposed to a European measure, it's dead. The best way to achieve this is to generate negative publicity -- I doubt that there is any real enthusiasm among politicians to be seen as a) censoring the Net and b) bowing to Brussels. The MEPs are dead letters. So, if you have a local newspaper (and it isn't owned by the Bertelsmann group), get friendly with a journalist, and feed him this as a story. I know that's what I'm going to do.
Actually, what the/. community could do would be to (communally?) write their own newspaper articles and submit them as free-lance journalists. It's not too difficult to do this if you've been blessed with a "Pushy" personality. If I get a bit of time today, I'll put up a few selections from my "mugs' list" of publications which have often in the past seemed receptive to articles.
Remember, the only thing that politicians care about these days is bad media publicity. Sad, but that's the facts. Let's hold their feet to the fire. It's worked for the anti-GMO crowd, so it can work for us.
The European Commission's plan runs from January 1999 to December 2002, four years. 1999 is scheduled for development and meetings. 2000 is scheduled for rollout and beta testing. 2001 and 2002 are allocated for the encouragement process and tweaking - making sure everyone is toeing the line.
Well... having had some experience of the European Commission, I'd say that it won't be as simple as this. Getting a quorum behind a draft Directive on anything controversial (particularly when there are differing national cultures) is a difficult, time-consuming and painful business. I would imagine that the Brits will hold this one up in process for years.
US$11million doesn't really sound like that much of a budget, when you consider how fantastically overpaid and over-expensed EC personnel are. It's important not to see this as an inevitability.
So what can we do? Hassle them! Hassle them to death! Make sure that every Euro politician knows that he'll have to face election as "The guy who's trying to censor the Internet". Or even better "The guy who's trying to let Brussels censor the Internet for us". Politicians hate that stuff -- anything which appears to be "complicated" or "unpopular" tends to be avoided.
Start creating the impression that it is technically impossible to censor the Internet. If I were really Machiavellian, I would suggest "extending" the META tag formats into a million and one incompatible versions, so that the keyword approach wouldn't work. But just suggesting to non-techie bureaucrats that it's a technological nightmare will suffice to raise millions of "issues" which slow the whole thing down.
It seems like unsatisfactory, but to my certain knowledge the Takeover Directive has been held up in this fashion by vested interests for 20 years. Let's all be a vested interest.
Self rating for "Extreme Hate Speech" has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. If someone thinks that the Holocaust never happened, he[1] doesn't consider that to be hate speech, he thinks that it's the correct version of history. Even the Reverend Fred Phelps thinks that "God Hates Fags" is an expression of love.
Perhaps the European Union will come up with categories like "Aryan Self-defence" or "Christian Truth -- Homosexuality" that people would actually use, but I rather suspect that political correctness will interfere with effective lawmaking here.
Not that I actually want to see effective lawmaking... which side am I on again? I'm confused and I can't remember what my name is...
Electronic format material is different. There is no human interaction. The software cannot be coaxed into bending the rules. Once it is implemented, you are censored
Dilbert: "Johnny here is testing my new software filter. It will prevent kids from getting access to smut on the Net"
Dogbert: "Do you know, if you put a little hat on a snowball, it can last a long time in Hell?"
Dilbert: "Nonsense. His youthful curiosity is no match for my engineering skills!"
[boing!]
Dilbert: "I hope that wasn't the sound of eyeballs getting really big".
jsm
typed from memory and copyright Scott Adams, it wasn't my fault your honour, I didn't know it was stealing... and... information wants to be free? sorry
Slashdot Mirror
Usually, SAP installations are
... remind you of anything? No, not socialism, the other one.
multi-million projects that involve business
processes redesigns and other unpleasant stuff
for people involved.
Wow, do they ever!
SAP has been unkindly described as "corporate heroin", because it promises so much at the beginning, but then you become dependent on it, then it never seems to deliver, then it kills you. At least one or two companies have sued the makers because (they claim) their SAP programme was so bad a software disaster that it drove them into bankruptcy.
First thought: The idea that Linux could in some way facilitate this process fills me with the same ambiguous dread I would feel if I heard that it had been adopted as OS of choice by the Bosnian Serbs.
Second thought: The reason that SAP programs often fail so badly is that they are the classic "Cathedral" projects. The whole thing has to be done by a bunch of (yes, hugely paid) outside consultants, who have to basically inhale the structure of an entire multinational company, and then configure an application to mirror that structure. And you thought your website was a burden.
It would be nicer, of course, for the ERP system to be put in, bit by bit, by the people who know their local area best (the employees), and in response to their own needs. That way you could develop the management/information/computer nexus through a kind of "open" co-operative, non-hierarchical structure
If I were the betting type, I'd guess that if Open Source creates any billionaires, it'll be in something like ERP, or these other "mega-app" projects where the development model currently used is so obviously screwed. Call it the "GNUERP" project or something, and make sure taht the software tools are built around (and mirror) a set of management practices resembling ESR's "Bazaar" essays. It won't be me -- I don't have the energy or motivation. But it might be Eric Raymond . . .
jsm
Oh gawd ... revealing my true colours as a terrible political hack.
AC above is right that Blair and his bunch are frightening, paternalistic weasels. But:
1. This particular measure isn't likely to even reach the government. It's being put together by the "foundation", under the aegis of the European Commission (The Commission != the European Parliament -- it's kind of like a Civil Service sort of thing, but more powerful).
2. Because of this, it will be sorted out by civil servants. If the relevant UK minister (not sure who that would be -- prob Jack Straw?) ever sees it, it will be just to tick up the civil servants' decision to keep stalling. Unless it becomes a cause celebre, in which case his mind will be on damage limitation.
3. Why am I so sure that the UK civil servants will want to stall it forever? Well:
First, because they don't want to transfer any power to Brussels. They hate Brussels.
Second, if they allow the Commission to have jurisdiction on this one, they will be in a weak position to resist when the EC says that it should have jurisdiction in the matter of taxing the Internet when that comes up for negotiation. For a UK civil servant, the very Worst Thing You Can Possibly Do is to allow any tax power to go to Brussels.
Third, they will look at it and fear bad publicity. Civil service departments are more and more coming to be ruled by their Press Offices.
That's the reasoning behind my attack strategy. We can't do anything about the first and second points, but the third depends on how much of a media sh*tstorm can be generated. The rule of thumb is always that if two out of UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are against something, it's dead. I think that this is achievable.
jsm
(who, in a past life, was one of these bloodsucking drones)
I envision something in the leiu of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand when the movers just got fed up with the way things were being run and dealing with the system, so they went off to live amongst themselves.
Maybe the "cognitive elite" of the world will decide to do just that!
Bags me not cleaning out the toilets if we do.
jsm
Sadly this is a European Commission (!=European Parliament) initiative, so your MEP will be about as much use as a pair of chocolate socks. The EP is, IMO, one of the most useless bodies ever created and pretty much powerless in the face of the Commission. (Political scientists politely call this the "democratic deficit" at the heart of Europe -- how charming).
/. community could do would be to (communally?) write their own newspaper articles and submit them as free-lance journalists. It's not too difficult to do this if you've been blessed with a "Pushy" personality. If I get a bit of time today, I'll put up a few selections from my "mugs' list" of publications which have often in the past seemed receptive to articles.
The strategy has to be to work on the national governments. As a rule of thumb, if two out of UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are opposed to a European measure, it's dead. The best way to achieve this is to generate negative publicity -- I doubt that there is any real enthusiasm among politicians to be seen as a) censoring the Net and b) bowing to Brussels. The MEPs are dead letters. So, if you have a local newspaper (and it isn't owned by the Bertelsmann group), get friendly with a journalist, and feed him this as a story. I know that's what I'm going to do.
Actually, what the
Remember, the only thing that politicians care about these days is bad media publicity. Sad, but that's the facts. Let's hold their feet to the fire. It's worked for the anti-GMO crowd, so it can work for us.
jsm
This from the article:
... having had some experience of the European Commission, I'd say that it won't be as simple as this. Getting a quorum behind a draft Directive on anything controversial (particularly when there are differing national cultures) is a difficult, time-consuming and painful business. I would imagine that the Brits will hold this one up in process for years.
The European Commission's plan runs from January 1999 to December 2002, four years. 1999 is scheduled for development and meetings. 2000 is scheduled for rollout and beta testing. 2001 and 2002 are allocated for the encouragement process and tweaking - making sure everyone is toeing the line.
Well
US$11million doesn't really sound like that much of a budget, when you consider how fantastically overpaid and over-expensed EC personnel are. It's important not to see this as an inevitability.
So what can we do? Hassle them! Hassle them to death! Make sure that every Euro politician knows that he'll have to face election as "The guy who's trying to censor the Internet". Or even better "The guy who's trying to let Brussels censor the Internet for us". Politicians hate that stuff -- anything which appears to be "complicated" or "unpopular" tends to be avoided.
Start creating the impression that it is technically impossible to censor the Internet. If I were really Machiavellian, I would suggest "extending" the META tag formats into a million and one incompatible versions, so that the keyword approach wouldn't work. But just suggesting to non-techie bureaucrats that it's a technological nightmare will suffice to raise millions of "issues" which slow the whole thing down.
It seems like unsatisfactory, but to my certain knowledge the Takeover Directive has been held up in this fashion by vested interests for 20 years. Let's all be a vested interest.
jsm
Self rating for "Extreme Hate Speech" has to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. If someone thinks that the Holocaust never happened, he[1] doesn't consider that to be hate speech, he thinks that it's the correct version of history. Even the Reverend Fred Phelps thinks that "God Hates Fags" is an expression of love.
... which side am I on again? I'm confused and I can't remember what my name is ...
Perhaps the European Union will come up with categories like "Aryan Self-defence" or "Christian Truth -- Homosexuality" that people would actually use, but I rather suspect that political correctness will interfere with effective lawmaking here.
Not that I actually want to see effective lawmaking
jsm
[1] in principle, "he or she", in practice, "he".
How do you think I feel? I live in Essex, I work in Middlesex and my parents live in Scunthorpe.
jsm
Electronic format material is different. There is no human interaction. The software cannot be coaxed into bending the rules. Once it is implemented, you are censored
... and ... information wants to be free? sorry
Dilbert: "Johnny here is testing my new software filter. It will prevent kids from getting access to smut on the Net"
Dogbert: "Do you know, if you put a little hat on a snowball, it can last a long time in Hell?"
Dilbert: "Nonsense. His youthful curiosity is no match for my engineering skills!"
[boing!]
Dilbert: "I hope that wasn't the sound of eyeballs getting really big".
jsm
typed from memory and copyright Scott Adams, it wasn't my fault your honour, I didn't know it was stealing