I completely agree with you and the article on this. If Linus didn't do it, someone would have. Some of his personality (notably the infamous flame war) would not be exactly the same, and anyone else who designed a GNU kernel would not necessarily have the notariety. Of course the converse could also be true, and speculation is notorius for making asses of speculators. I'd be interested to see exactly what you mean "libertarian / non-libertarian lines" though I completely agree about entrepreneurs / non-entrepreneurs. The reason I ask is that I am indeed libertarian and I like the article. I don't necessarily see it as "pro or con" though. Thanks for the interesting debate.:-)
Agree, but disagree. He says that OSS communities like to paint themselves as combatting the "evil commercial software" vendors. And I find that is correct. How many people, if you asked on/., would respond that they favor open source because it is a more ethical idea? I should think that this number is quite high. The article states that "religious communities" with people such as Linus Torvalds would never have gotten off the ground so rapidly if there hadn't been an internet. In other words, the classical model of development, to have experts gather and design software and then centrally distribute the software has worked and continues to work. Without an internet, this would be the only method of distribution viable. Walker's thesis is correct about the floppy disks; such a material-intensive approach is just ludocris and wasteful. Torvalds would be required to spend huge amounts to get the Linux kernel off the ground, and this is highly unlikely for a college student. In essence, we are OSS/FSF junkies because we see the advantages of it over commercial software, rather than as an avenue to "purify" software development.
What I will agree with you about is the fact that "open source communities" do exist. What I will also say, however, is that many of the projects on sourceforge are ghost-projects. Many of them are excellent ideas, but lack of interest and group dissolution tore them apart. The idealistic "good versus evil" is not strong enough to hold the projects together, so only a certain percentage of the projects ever acheieve even beta status. Walker says that without the internet, OSS communities would have never sprung up, as some OSS pundits would like you to believe. Many of us would preach about our ideals and our hatred of the software giants, especially the Redmond Giant, and act as if we were some outshoot of local game-enthusiast meetings. Not true. I would never have gotten involved in OSS had there not been an internet. I would have no reason to. It would have been totally preposterous, a waste of time, and a waste of money. With the internet I was able to learn programming and learn about OSS. I personally believe that OSS is a better approach to design than commercial software, and I think Walker is saying this. We can't keep treating OSS as just some holy crusade against the commercial industry.
The only point of contention that we do really follow religiously is the idea of intellectual property. Many OSS/FSF supporters indeed support intellectual property, but only as a method of naming authors. I support IP insofar as credit is given where credit is due. Money and excessive restrictions (such as DRM) are completely invalid (in my view). This is the only valid "cause" that I think OSS really has. Otherwise we would get along quite well with M$ and the other big guys. Walker in his article points out that IBM and other big names have latched on to OSS as a means for symbiosis. This is the strength of his argument. It is really a good article.
The simple fact is that only a small percentage of the population has the requisite knowledge of mathematics, and only a small percentage of them have the passion and drive to pursue math even further. I am one of those mathephiles, and I'm proud of it. The problem with the article is that non-mathletes don't necessarily understand mathletes. It raises privacy problems and such as problems in the mathematical world, but the real fact is, math really does nothing to avert privacy. Maty can be used to devise algorithms which may or may not undermine privacy. The real fact is, however, that overzealous entrepreneurs will attempt to bastardize the good applications of math for their own ill gain. I don't really see a problem with the mathematical progress we make. I personally think that if businesses use math, and consumers are too stupid to realize they are being pimped, for lack of a better term, by industry, then they deserve what they get. I will still be an alert person and protect my privacy by being careful. There is no substitute for common-sense.
The other problem I have is that we need to lure women and "ethnic minorities" into mathematics. Sure, it would be wonderful if there were more female mathematicians. But we can't simply set up a quota system for mathematicians. This is more of a society problem than education or anything. Big entertainment has put out this message that being intelligent is "uncool," especially when one is good at math. In fact, society scorns illiterates, but people brag about inneptities in mathematics. Look at the news media. They are preaching about this avian flu, but their already fragile case for hysteria is flattened by their fouled up statistics (no pun intended). They say the mortality rate is something like 75%. With a logistic growth model, that would knock off huge amounts of the population in its second stage, which has definitely not happened yet. But if you look at the sources of their statistics, they only accounted for people who have been confirmed with avian flu, and specifically those who died or were critically ill. The actual numbers of people who have been infected is probably much higher, and in past years many people have probably been affected by it and then overcame it, thinking it was a "normal" flu. With these people taken into account, the true mortality rate is probably much less. The lack of math knowledge in the media is terrible, because these people just utter words that they think they understand. "Mortality rate" is the ratio of deaths (with respect to something) per 1000 people. If you looked up infant mortality rate, it would be quoted as "n deaths per 1000 live births". When society en masse becomes more attentive to mathematics, then we will start to see women enter the field.
'Ethnic minorities' was the phrase that stumped me. Why do we beat around the bush and use this PC "ethnic minority" crap? I work in a physics lab with physicists, enginneers, and mathematicians. Its like the friggin' UN in there. A guy from Thailand, one from India, a Pacific Islander, a guy from China, a black guy, then two white guys (another guy and I) all work in an office. There is no clear majority! The only real fact is that we're all men. What pisses me off is that we can't say "we wish more blacks would enter the mathematics field," we have to say "we hope 'ethnic minorities' enter mathematics." Ethnic minorities are distributed all throughout mathematics in the US. Asians, Indians, and Arabs are all present in mathematical fields. Maybe when ignorance by the media is overcome, and the real truth is confronted, then we'll see mathematics interest really spike across the board.
Well, ya see, we have to think about the new name that a Sun-Apple merger would create. In their effort to end litigation with the Apple records (the record company for the Beatles), Apple and Sun have agreed to infringe on a less potent copyright: enter Snapple Computer.
Britain could not stop the Germans in either World War. In fact, if the British and the French of the time had accepted Wilson's plan for peace as the Treaty of Versailles, World War II would likely never have happened. Also, the Allies were for a time losing the first World War. The American entrance in retaliation to the German provocation as well as the Zimmerman telegram (admittedly provided by the British secret service) tipped the scales of the war in favor of Allied forces, especially with a revolution and pull-out of Russia. In WWII, Germany nearly obliterated the UK, though America could have definitely learned from the British knowledge base. I don't recall, however, seeing that the British stopped the Germans from invading France in 18 days. The British seemed to buy that argument about the Ardennes forest. Ironically, Blitzkrieg was originally thought of by a French guy (and they were too proud to enact it). I also didn't see the French or the British laying down the law on the Germans after they signed the Treaty of Versailles (the US became very isolationist afterward and did not even ratify the treaty). History has all but proven that Hitler's rise stemmed from punishment of the Germans following World War I. Without the US in either World War, Britain would have put up a strong fight, but there is as good a chance the Central/Axis powers would have been victorious. As for the American Revolution, you are indeed correct. This is no small contribution, but when we returned the favor in World War I and II and then in Vietnam (after which we were deserted by the French) the French government outspokenly criticizes the US so they can sell weapons and equipment to a ruthless dictator? Also keep in mind that early in the US's history, the French provocated war on the US in several instances, such as the XYZ affair. The French simply do not have superb military gift. The British and the Americans combined make up the force to win wars, but Britain needed external man-power and equipment in World War II, especially after the air-raids by the Nazis. Britain contributing "substantially more" is outrageous; only after US involvent in both World Wars, did the Allied powers come out ahead.
Yeah, I'm American and I notice a "French-bashing" population here. However, it more had to do with the fact (or percieved fact) that France was very eager to sell weapons and equipment to Sadaam. Also, many Americans have stated the arrogance they faced in Paris. It is a fairly popular opinion, or at least an opinion of the loudest voices, that the French treat the US with hostility and arrogance, such as France's rigid resistance toward English. I can't exactly blame France for trying to protect its national unity, but English is indeed the language of business, thanks to the French archrival, Britain, and thus the French response, creating new "official" words for American products with English names, absolutely disgusts us. Language for the sake of national unity is one valid goal, but language for the sake of pride is just ridiculous. The US's frustration with France really stems from the fact that the US absolutely saved France's posterior in both World War I and World War II. It is said, "if not for English-speakers, French-speakers would be speaking German." That said, the US also sees room to poke fun at France for its failures in military, being only marginally successful when being led by Joan of Arc and Napoleon Bonaparte. The other American criticism of France is its outspoken criticism of the US going to war, as if the UN Security Council had to absolutely approve the war. In fact, each country is still allowed to act in its own interests; the US asked the UN, and upon denial, struck anyway. Back home, many of us, including myself, believe that WMD should never have been used as a reason for war. The US's interests were indeed the fight against radical islam, but psuedocauses were leaked out of the White House on many occasions, leading Americans and the world to believe that Bush acted for the sake of oil (which is absurd; we could simply invade Venezuela for oil) or other causes . The US really wished to blackmail Saudi Arabia and threaten Libya, Syria, and other nations sponsoring radical islamic terrorism. Everyone honestly thought that Sadaam did indeed have WMD, including the French and the Germans. You mentioned Sweden's opposition, but keep in mind that Sweden is a historically Neutral country since the Viking ages and that they were no outspoken critic, as France and Germany were. Of course, you raise a valid point about Chirac. In Germany, a new ruling coalition is much more in favor of US policy, and Chirac's slide of popularity is indicating a much more US-friendly government in France at the next election. I mentioned that I am not a Bush fan, and I am almost certain that after this term, his party will not get a reelection. Hope I provided some insight into how America feels. I don't really justify the hateful anti-French messages, but I do occasionally poke fun.:-X
For what product isn't this the case? I have a VAIO which was the first to have the TV tuner, the 3.06 GHz processor, the hyperthreading. It's a great machine, but there are definitely bugs that had to be worked out with the hardware. My powerbook, in contrast, is just killer. The thing hasn't crashed ONCE since I've used it. My windows box crashes probably twice a week; security isn't the issue: I run all of the spyware/virus/adware search and destroy software. Its just that Microsoft writes more "prototype" code than others. That's why their stuff sucks. Every new product has some sort of bug or kink that is worked out. Look at those plasma TVs. When they first came out a 45" or 50" TV would go routinely for 8 to 10 grand a piece. The real kicker? The technology ran so hot that the life was about a third of a standard CRT. Now the lifetime is much longer and the prices are much less. Go figure!
Man, if you're to be baked, put me in the oven with you. You articulate exactly the truth and the bottom line. The world doesn't have some sort of "right" to the internet. We came up with it, so we should be able to use our muscle. If other countries want to excercise control over it, they should innovate something themselves.
Ok, so everytime some Windoze blowhard comes on slashdot and accuses us Macheads or 'nix users of exaggerating Windoze's problems, we can now use some very scathing meat for our argument (in addition to all of the other security problems that Winblows has). I personally own a Mac and am laughing my ass off.
I am no fan of Bush and his cronies. In fact, I really hate the man and his regime. On the other hand, everyone thought Saddam had WMD: the UK, France, Germany, the US, and Australia to name a few. Now Bush is an idiot and said we were invading because of WMD. The then-director even told the President, "its a slam dunk!" Of course, WMD weren't really there. Then the idiot lied again saying the war was for "spreading democracy and freedom." Not only were there no WMD, but Bush couldn't care less about "spreading democracy." Then he decided shutting up would be a good idea, and theories about oil and such started spreading. Yet no one has really understood why we went to war: to stop radical Islam. What's the result? Well, Saudi Arabia has started backing up its lipservice to the West, Libya has taken responsibility for several terrorist acts (including Pan-Am 103) and denounced its WMD program, Iran is scared, Syria is ducking and covering, and Lebanon is having a chance at its own government for the first time in a long time. Iraq is also improving, putting its former dictator on trial, and has completed a highly successful election. In Afghanistan, the government is no longer oppressive toward women and is making strides toward rebuilding. In other words, the US strategy has been successful. Our leader is still an idiot.
As for external media: why would I want to listen to media more corrupt than the US. I did a little benchmark test after Hurricane Katrina. I couldn't believe the European media's reports. They were nearly reporting that the homeless were eating babies. There were definitely looters in post-storm New Orleans and such, but the European media exaggerated so much that I cannot respect them at all. Our media is terrible, but I'd take it most any day over European media.
As for the business, the present government is completely under the covers with business. But that is the beauty of democracy. In another three years someone new will be taking office and this person will most likely be less favorable toward business. There is always balance. The way the US system is set up, majority rule, minority right is ensured by default. European systems are much less so. Bottom line: you have to take responsibility for your own problems. In the US I would like to see a change in this USA PATRIOT Act garbage. I'm not blaming Afghanistan for making it necessary or anything of that sort. It just needs to be changed and we made it so we need to fix it.
Sorry for looking out for our own interests. Oh, wait, Denmark and the EU does the same thing. And the threat of "trade war"? Is Europe really so arrogant it thinks it has some "God-given" right to trade with the US? We can trade with or without whomever we wish and cease at any time.
If you read even the description, you'd realize that the "ex parte" order is really "ex parte Doe", used to execute the Writ of Habeas Corpus. "Ex Parte" is generally illegal in the US, and should be. This "ex parte Doe" means that the Doe, in this case the accused, believes that he or she is being held without legal cause. "Ex parte" basically means that one party is using an unfair advantage over another and thus justice is not being served.
I'm no fan of the entertainmaint industry. However, keep something in mind, friend: every state, be it municipal, regional, national, or supranational, has the right to look out for itself. The EU sure does. If you have beef with how the US executes trade, then do something about it. We aren't holding a gun to your head to force something upon you. You elected the leaders who passed your laws. We didn't set up some revolution in Copenhagen or Brussels to execute our will. Your government chose that trade with the US was more important. If you dislike what your government does, then elect new people. And if you dislike the entertainment industry, then don't buy their things. You didn't make any coherent argument against them. In the US, the RIAA oversteps its legal rights, and therefore legal injunctions must be placed on them. But they are a trade union, and they do have some legal rights. Your arguments place them in no violation of yours or anyone else's rights, nor the overstepping of their rights.
Now you make some very very incoherent arguments about the US "breaking down your door". I don't know how it works in Europe, but in the US, the police run all searches and seizures. And issuance of search and seizure warrants are Ex Parte, for good reason. Entertainment industry thugs don't just break and enter, searching for "copyright violations". That is strictly against the US Constitution.
Please, I'm tired of people blaming the US for this or that or the other thing, when the real problem lies in the peoples' own country. We have messed up lots of stuff, but to bitch at us just means that you're too lazy to do something about it.
"You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm tellin you why ...
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sake!"
Many people believe these are lyrics from the popular Christmas song, "Santa Claus is coming to town." Unfortunately, this is the new theme song from the NSA, the US's electronic intelligence firm. Bottom line: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The government acts in its best interest, which is usually to become more powerful AND keep its job. The beauty of the democratic system is that the people are granted this same right. I will happily be paranoid about privacy over giving up my rights for "security" any day of the millenium. The most agrivating proposition is that many "conservatives" (conservative had meant favoring less government intervention) are, of course, in favor of this invasion of privacy granted by such laws as the patriot act, and the power assumed by Georgie the Boy King and his agency, the NSA. They in fact are either so indoctrinated by this "crusade" for freedom or by the payoffs of power that they are in fact calling privacy paranoids "privocrats," a label intended for derision. If this is how they want to bash us, I'd favor being a privocrat everyday over some other greedy political party.
Hey, I have no problem with that. I don't have to pay the tax. In fact, I'd favor a tax based on the price of the software. OSS would become the hottest thing in computing since Napster. I wouldn't mind at all if M$ and the other greedy cretans had to lower their prices for that overpriced dump fodder.
Java is easy to use, but the creators had a bit of diarrhea of the fingers: it takes like 10 lines to write something that would take about 3 in C/C++. Also, some of the "built-ins" are just freakin' arbitrary. Java, though, isn't as arbitrary as C++. So Java is like the little brother of C++ who still doesn't implement OOP quite well enough, while talking far too much. It had support of its mother to make it known (Sun Microsystems), and it utilizes centralized documentation/codification (a blessing and hinderance). Ruby is truly object-oriented and is in the spirit of Smalltalk, with features not simply academic in nature. After learning Java, I really had a bitter taste for OOP. When I learned Ruby, it was like walking from Kansas to Oz.
Science Officer:: Sir, apparently the explosion eminated from Earth's moon in the Terran solar system. Capt. SULU:::especially gay voice:: Omygod! Is that what we felt!? I thought I was maybe dreaming about what we did last ni-- Comm. Officer: We're recieving a communique from the Klingons SULU: Those guys are so hot. Put him through, hehe! Klingon: This is a message from the Klingon High Command. We monitored an explosion coming form your Terran solar system. Do you require assistance? SULU: Hehe. Yes, there was an "incident" near Earth. Please obey the treaty and stay out of the neutral zone, unless you want to be especially naughty...hehehe...I'd never tell;-)." Klingon: Well, we're coming anyway. We want to assassinate Captain Kirk becasue he's such a bad actor while pretending to be on a peace envoy. Then somehow McCoy and Spock will end up on an asteroid and Kirk's ghost will come back to have sex with some woman on the penal colony. SULU: Hehe. I want to go to a penile colony! Klingon: I can arrange that. Weapons Officer: Klingon Battleship decloaking off of port bow! ::SULU is beamed off of the bridge.:: Klingon: to SULU The rumor about Klingon prisons is "don't drop the bathing eels!" hahahaha SULU: This is going to be fun!
=/\=End Transmission=/\= Comm Officer: We've recieved a transmission from Earth. Apparently Sulu had a massive moon orgy, including Spock, Kirk, and his Klingon Partner. Spock's ears apparently got in the way and began the genesis effect, pissing off the Klingons, killing and rebirthing spock, and making Kirk shout "KHAAAAAAAAN!" I'm really beginning to have my doubts about this universe, Captain. Sci. Officer, de facto Capt.: aside Why did our ancestors get rid of "Don't ask, don't tell?"
So here goes
For a show called, "10 types of people"
Start spreading the news.
I'm leaving today!
I want to be a part of it,
New York, New York!
I want to wake up
In a city that doesn't sleep!
I'm a consumer with rights
I want my fair price!
And no price fix-iiing!
No DRM crap
For me in New York
I really love that Eliot
Spitzer, Spitzer!
Oh Mr. Spitzer,
Please remove that Sony Rootkit!
And give my music to ME
Without some greedy
Hollywood scheeeeeme!
In Manhattan and Queens
And Bronx if I dare
My iPod has cheap music
Bought in New York
We told that Warner
To stop screwing the litttttle guy!
"You have to set a fair price!
No fixing or die,"
Said Spitzer, Amen!
Eliot Spitzer
We love you so much
New York is fair and balanced
Because of yooooou!
We want to thank you
For protecting consumer rights
We really love you a lot
In-a straight kinda way
We're really not gay!
Actually I agree with you somewhat. Today's GUIs are adequate, but they could be much more data-centric. An LCARS type system, in which data is stored and searched efficiently as information, and not simply as 0s and 1s. Of course, some significant programming problems would present themselves, but they could be solved. One reason I like Mac and Linux so much is that they do handle the data itself better than Winblows. I envision a "DUI", as it were (not driving under influence), based on data. I envision a computer system somewhere between Minority Report and Star Trek. Both of these systems are based on dynamic interfaces, changing to suit the needs of the data and present it efficiently. I envision a system which is "applicationless". It would more or less be like a Unix box, having some simple yet powerful commands which are linked together in various instances to perform complex tasks.
Don't you get this; the article is targeted at Bush, but it also raises concerns about "legal" wiretapping. I respect Bush because he's a human being, but I don't like the man, and I disagree with his attitude. I hate his uncompromising rhetoric and I hate his conservative fundamentalist pseudo-Christian agenda (a real "Christian" wouldn't support a man who calls himself a "Christian" and calls for assassinations of sovreign foreign political leaders). But to avoid becoming a political post (which is in some ways too late), let us focus on the issue: does government have the right to "eavesdrop" on its citizens. I personally do not believe so. We cannot just eavesdrop on classified meetings. No one has the right to extend his rights at the expense of others'. Today many people have this misguided view that "liberty" is the freedom to do what one wants. Liberty is, in fact, the freedom to be in control of your own life. The government can't grant liberty; liberty is a natural right that all human beings are endowed with. The government can only legislate further to protect the rights of citizens. I would personally favor a terrorist attack any day of the week over some of the garbage corruption in the government. I believe that government derives its power from concent of the governed, thus giving citizens more power to act in their own interests. In fact, Bush is President, not His Excellency. President comes from "preside". He does not lead the people, the people lead him. He is the executive, ensuring that the government is run correctly. His oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not to use it to his advantage. America stands for personal liberty; that is the point of this article. The NYT may have had anti-Bush intents ("may" is a but of an understatement), but simply stating that the president can get away with murder because he or she is the president is outrageous.
As to the user who implied that Iraqi invasion was the correct course of action because the Iraqis are "better" for it. I will not disagree that democracy is much favorable to despotism, but don't you hear yourself speaking? Shun the pride, but hold the positive accomplishments close. When a sports team is too proud, it looses the championship. When a nation is too proud, it overextends its rights. Look up the US annexation of the Philipines. Americans were majority in favor of it, and history shows that the Philipines were indeed annexed. But, look through the speeches and source documents of the time; one will discover that reasons such as "the will of God" were involved. The minority claimed that a country whose foundation is freedom from Imperial rule does not have the right to become empire. We are "staying the course" in Iraq, but what the hell does that mean? How about we build a few bases, train the security forces, and pull out the large numbers of Iraqi troops. That's what the US wanted to do since the beginning, but Bush is too much of a pansy to go out and say it. It just happens that Saudi Arabia, a neighbor of Iraq, was paying lipservice to the US while turning a blind eye toward the terrorists. The US wanted to blackmail Saudi Arabia, as well as other more volitile countries (Iran, Syria, Libya). The strategy has worked. Libya admitted to the Pan-Am 103 bombings, Iran is scared as hell about the US, and Syria is going ape about what it's going to do. Saudi not only cleaned itself trim, but the fact that a couple years ago there was a spike and then crash of insurgent activity indicates that it really had been paying lip service. So now Saudi has the message, the surrounding countries are acting more in line with the US, and the violent radical muslims are losing friends. I'd say that US interest is a cause for the US to go to war. After all, every country acts for its own and only its own best interests. It may give the appearance of acting in others' interests, but it has no permanent "friends" nor "enemies".
This stuff has been going on for a while. Remember a few years ago when that Chinese military jet (the pilot was ironically named "Wong Wei") collided with the US spy plane? They've been trying to hack the US Government at least since then. Of course, the US is doing it to them as well. That's what the NSA is for. I guess this demonstrates the bad training that China's military has. Apparently they don't hack correctly to successfully hide themselves. The US has probably carried out plenty of cyber-attacks, but "no one" knows about this. Those who would know can't say, and those who have been attacked likely don't know who attacked them or can't say anything because the US blackmailed them.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree with you and the article on this. If Linus didn't do it, someone would have. Some of his personality (notably the infamous flame war) would not be exactly the same, and anyone else who designed a GNU kernel would not necessarily have the notariety. Of course the converse could also be true, and speculation is notorius for making asses of speculators. I'd be interested to see exactly what you mean "libertarian / non-libertarian lines" though I completely agree about entrepreneurs / non-entrepreneurs. The reason I ask is that I am indeed libertarian and I like the article. I don't necessarily see it as "pro or con" though. Thanks for the interesting debate. :-)
Ok, so some of us OSS/FSF junkies are enlightened. :-)
Agree, but disagree. He says that OSS communities like to paint themselves as combatting the "evil commercial software" vendors. And I find that is correct. How many people, if you asked on /., would respond that they favor open source because it is a more ethical idea? I should think that this number is quite high. The article states that "religious communities" with people such as Linus Torvalds would never have gotten off the ground so rapidly if there hadn't been an internet. In other words, the classical model of development, to have experts gather and design software and then centrally distribute the software has worked and continues to work. Without an internet, this would be the only method of distribution viable. Walker's thesis is correct about the floppy disks; such a material-intensive approach is just ludocris and wasteful. Torvalds would be required to spend huge amounts to get the Linux kernel off the ground, and this is highly unlikely for a college student. In essence, we are OSS/FSF junkies because we see the advantages of it over commercial software, rather than as an avenue to "purify" software development.
What I will agree with you about is the fact that "open source communities" do exist. What I will also say, however, is that many of the projects on sourceforge are ghost-projects. Many of them are excellent ideas, but lack of interest and group dissolution tore them apart. The idealistic "good versus evil" is not strong enough to hold the projects together, so only a certain percentage of the projects ever acheieve even beta status. Walker says that without the internet, OSS communities would have never sprung up, as some OSS pundits would like you to believe. Many of us would preach about our ideals and our hatred of the software giants, especially the Redmond Giant, and act as if we were some outshoot of local game-enthusiast meetings. Not true. I would never have gotten involved in OSS had there not been an internet. I would have no reason to. It would have been totally preposterous, a waste of time, and a waste of money. With the internet I was able to learn programming and learn about OSS. I personally believe that OSS is a better approach to design than commercial software, and I think Walker is saying this. We can't keep treating OSS as just some holy crusade against the commercial industry.
The only point of contention that we do really follow religiously is the idea of intellectual property. Many OSS/FSF supporters indeed support intellectual property, but only as a method of naming authors. I support IP insofar as credit is given where credit is due. Money and excessive restrictions (such as DRM) are completely invalid (in my view). This is the only valid "cause" that I think OSS really has. Otherwise we would get along quite well with M$ and the other big guys. Walker in his article points out that IBM and other big names have latched on to OSS as a means for symbiosis. This is the strength of his argument. It is really a good article.
The simple fact is that only a small percentage of the population has the requisite knowledge of mathematics, and only a small percentage of them have the passion and drive to pursue math even further. I am one of those mathephiles, and I'm proud of it. The problem with the article is that non-mathletes don't necessarily understand mathletes. It raises privacy problems and such as problems in the mathematical world, but the real fact is, math really does nothing to avert privacy. Maty can be used to devise algorithms which may or may not undermine privacy. The real fact is, however, that overzealous entrepreneurs will attempt to bastardize the good applications of math for their own ill gain. I don't really see a problem with the mathematical progress we make. I personally think that if businesses use math, and consumers are too stupid to realize they are being pimped, for lack of a better term, by industry, then they deserve what they get. I will still be an alert person and protect my privacy by being careful. There is no substitute for common-sense.
The other problem I have is that we need to lure women and "ethnic minorities" into mathematics. Sure, it would be wonderful if there were more female mathematicians. But we can't simply set up a quota system for mathematicians. This is more of a society problem than education or anything. Big entertainment has put out this message that being intelligent is "uncool," especially when one is good at math. In fact, society scorns illiterates, but people brag about inneptities in mathematics. Look at the news media. They are preaching about this avian flu, but their already fragile case for hysteria is flattened by their fouled up statistics (no pun intended). They say the mortality rate is something like 75%. With a logistic growth model, that would knock off huge amounts of the population in its second stage, which has definitely not happened yet. But if you look at the sources of their statistics, they only accounted for people who have been confirmed with avian flu, and specifically those who died or were critically ill. The actual numbers of people who have been infected is probably much higher, and in past years many people have probably been affected by it and then overcame it, thinking it was a "normal" flu. With these people taken into account, the true mortality rate is probably much less. The lack of math knowledge in the media is terrible, because these people just utter words that they think they understand. "Mortality rate" is the ratio of deaths (with respect to something) per 1000 people. If you looked up infant mortality rate, it would be quoted as "n deaths per 1000 live births". When society en masse becomes more attentive to mathematics, then we will start to see women enter the field.
'Ethnic minorities' was the phrase that stumped me. Why do we beat around the bush and use this PC "ethnic minority" crap? I work in a physics lab with physicists, enginneers, and mathematicians. Its like the friggin' UN in there. A guy from Thailand, one from India, a Pacific Islander, a guy from China, a black guy, then two white guys (another guy and I) all work in an office. There is no clear majority! The only real fact is that we're all men. What pisses me off is that we can't say "we wish more blacks would enter the mathematics field," we have to say "we hope 'ethnic minorities' enter mathematics." Ethnic minorities are distributed all throughout mathematics in the US. Asians, Indians, and Arabs are all present in mathematical fields. Maybe when ignorance by the media is overcome, and the real truth is confronted, then we'll see mathematics interest really spike across the board.
Well, ya see, we have to think about the new name that a Sun-Apple merger would create. In their effort to end litigation with the Apple records (the record company for the Beatles), Apple and Sun have agreed to infringe on a less potent copyright: enter Snapple Computer.
Britain could not stop the Germans in either World War. In fact, if the British and the French of the time had accepted Wilson's plan for peace as the Treaty of Versailles, World War II would likely never have happened. Also, the Allies were for a time losing the first World War. The American entrance in retaliation to the German provocation as well as the Zimmerman telegram (admittedly provided by the British secret service) tipped the scales of the war in favor of Allied forces, especially with a revolution and pull-out of Russia. In WWII, Germany nearly obliterated the UK, though America could have definitely learned from the British knowledge base. I don't recall, however, seeing that the British stopped the Germans from invading France in 18 days. The British seemed to buy that argument about the Ardennes forest. Ironically, Blitzkrieg was originally thought of by a French guy (and they were too proud to enact it). I also didn't see the French or the British laying down the law on the Germans after they signed the Treaty of Versailles (the US became very isolationist afterward and did not even ratify the treaty). History has all but proven that Hitler's rise stemmed from punishment of the Germans following World War I. Without the US in either World War, Britain would have put up a strong fight, but there is as good a chance the Central/Axis powers would have been victorious. As for the American Revolution, you are indeed correct. This is no small contribution, but when we returned the favor in World War I and II and then in Vietnam (after which we were deserted by the French) the French government outspokenly criticizes the US so they can sell weapons and equipment to a ruthless dictator? Also keep in mind that early in the US's history, the French provocated war on the US in several instances, such as the XYZ affair. The French simply do not have superb military gift. The British and the Americans combined make up the force to win wars, but Britain needed external man-power and equipment in World War II, especially after the air-raids by the Nazis. Britain contributing "substantially more" is outrageous; only after US involvent in both World Wars, did the Allied powers come out ahead.
Yeah, I'm American and I notice a "French-bashing" population here. However, it more had to do with the fact (or percieved fact) that France was very eager to sell weapons and equipment to Sadaam. Also, many Americans have stated the arrogance they faced in Paris. It is a fairly popular opinion, or at least an opinion of the loudest voices, that the French treat the US with hostility and arrogance, such as France's rigid resistance toward English. I can't exactly blame France for trying to protect its national unity, but English is indeed the language of business, thanks to the French archrival, Britain, and thus the French response, creating new "official" words for American products with English names, absolutely disgusts us. Language for the sake of national unity is one valid goal, but language for the sake of pride is just ridiculous. The US's frustration with France really stems from the fact that the US absolutely saved France's posterior in both World War I and World War II. It is said, "if not for English-speakers, French-speakers would be speaking German." That said, the US also sees room to poke fun at France for its failures in military, being only marginally successful when being led by Joan of Arc and Napoleon Bonaparte. The other American criticism of France is its outspoken criticism of the US going to war, as if the UN Security Council had to absolutely approve the war. In fact, each country is still allowed to act in its own interests; the US asked the UN, and upon denial, struck anyway. Back home, many of us, including myself, believe that WMD should never have been used as a reason for war. The US's interests were indeed the fight against radical islam, but psuedocauses were leaked out of the White House on many occasions, leading Americans and the world to believe that Bush acted for the sake of oil (which is absurd; we could simply invade Venezuela for oil) or other causes . The US really wished to blackmail Saudi Arabia and threaten Libya, Syria, and other nations sponsoring radical islamic terrorism. Everyone honestly thought that Sadaam did indeed have WMD, including the French and the Germans. You mentioned Sweden's opposition, but keep in mind that Sweden is a historically Neutral country since the Viking ages and that they were no outspoken critic, as France and Germany were. Of course, you raise a valid point about Chirac. In Germany, a new ruling coalition is much more in favor of US policy, and Chirac's slide of popularity is indicating a much more US-friendly government in France at the next election. I mentioned that I am not a Bush fan, and I am almost certain that after this term, his party will not get a reelection. Hope I provided some insight into how America feels. I don't really justify the hateful anti-French messages, but I do occasionally poke fun. :-X
For what product isn't this the case? I have a VAIO which was the first to have the TV tuner, the 3.06 GHz processor, the hyperthreading. It's a great machine, but there are definitely bugs that had to be worked out with the hardware. My powerbook, in contrast, is just killer. The thing hasn't crashed ONCE since I've used it. My windows box crashes probably twice a week; security isn't the issue: I run all of the spyware/virus/adware search and destroy software. Its just that Microsoft writes more "prototype" code than others. That's why their stuff sucks. Every new product has some sort of bug or kink that is worked out. Look at those plasma TVs. When they first came out a 45" or 50" TV would go routinely for 8 to 10 grand a piece. The real kicker? The technology ran so hot that the life was about a third of a standard CRT. Now the lifetime is much longer and the prices are much less. Go figure!
Man, if you're to be baked, put me in the oven with you. You articulate exactly the truth and the bottom line. The world doesn't have some sort of "right" to the internet. We came up with it, so we should be able to use our muscle. If other countries want to excercise control over it, they should innovate something themselves.
Ok, so everytime some Windoze blowhard comes on slashdot and accuses us Macheads or 'nix users of exaggerating Windoze's problems, we can now use some very scathing meat for our argument (in addition to all of the other security problems that Winblows has). I personally own a Mac and am laughing my ass off.
"Abuses its world position."
I am no fan of Bush and his cronies. In fact, I really hate the man and his regime. On the other hand, everyone thought Saddam had WMD: the UK, France, Germany, the US, and Australia to name a few. Now Bush is an idiot and said we were invading because of WMD. The then-director even told the President, "its a slam dunk!" Of course, WMD weren't really there. Then the idiot lied again saying the war was for "spreading democracy and freedom." Not only were there no WMD, but Bush couldn't care less about "spreading democracy." Then he decided shutting up would be a good idea, and theories about oil and such started spreading. Yet no one has really understood why we went to war: to stop radical Islam. What's the result? Well, Saudi Arabia has started backing up its lipservice to the West, Libya has taken responsibility for several terrorist acts (including Pan-Am 103) and denounced its WMD program, Iran is scared, Syria is ducking and covering, and Lebanon is having a chance at its own government for the first time in a long time. Iraq is also improving, putting its former dictator on trial, and has completed a highly successful election. In Afghanistan, the government is no longer oppressive toward women and is making strides toward rebuilding. In other words, the US strategy has been successful. Our leader is still an idiot.
As for external media: why would I want to listen to media more corrupt than the US. I did a little benchmark test after Hurricane Katrina. I couldn't believe the European media's reports. They were nearly reporting that the homeless were eating babies. There were definitely looters in post-storm New Orleans and such, but the European media exaggerated so much that I cannot respect them at all. Our media is terrible, but I'd take it most any day over European media.
As for the business, the present government is completely under the covers with business. But that is the beauty of democracy. In another three years someone new will be taking office and this person will most likely be less favorable toward business. There is always balance. The way the US system is set up, majority rule, minority right is ensured by default. European systems are much less so. Bottom line: you have to take responsibility for your own problems. In the US I would like to see a change in this USA PATRIOT Act garbage. I'm not blaming Afghanistan for making it necessary or anything of that sort. It just needs to be changed and we made it so we need to fix it.
Perl. 'nuff said.
Sorry for looking out for our own interests. Oh, wait, Denmark and the EU does the same thing. And the threat of "trade war"? Is Europe really so arrogant it thinks it has some "God-given" right to trade with the US? We can trade with or without whomever we wish and cease at any time.
If you read even the description, you'd realize that the "ex parte" order is really "ex parte Doe", used to execute the Writ of Habeas Corpus. "Ex Parte" is generally illegal in the US, and should be. This "ex parte Doe" means that the Doe, in this case the accused, believes that he or she is being held without legal cause. "Ex parte" basically means that one party is using an unfair advantage over another and thus justice is not being served.
I'm no fan of the entertainmaint industry. However, keep something in mind, friend: every state, be it municipal, regional, national, or supranational, has the right to look out for itself. The EU sure does. If you have beef with how the US executes trade, then do something about it. We aren't holding a gun to your head to force something upon you. You elected the leaders who passed your laws. We didn't set up some revolution in Copenhagen or Brussels to execute our will. Your government chose that trade with the US was more important. If you dislike what your government does, then elect new people. And if you dislike the entertainment industry, then don't buy their things. You didn't make any coherent argument against them. In the US, the RIAA oversteps its legal rights, and therefore legal injunctions must be placed on them. But they are a trade union, and they do have some legal rights. Your arguments place them in no violation of yours or anyone else's rights, nor the overstepping of their rights.
Now you make some very very incoherent arguments about the US "breaking down your door". I don't know how it works in Europe, but in the US, the police run all searches and seizures. And issuance of search and seizure warrants are Ex Parte, for good reason. Entertainment industry thugs don't just break and enter, searching for "copyright violations". That is strictly against the US Constitution.
Please, I'm tired of people blaming the US for this or that or the other thing, when the real problem lies in the peoples' own country. We have messed up lots of stuff, but to bitch at us just means that you're too lazy to do something about it.
Exactly...Sony ROOTKIT anyone? And the NSA has the smarts to get it right!
"You better watch out
...
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm tellin you why
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sake!"
Many people believe these are lyrics from the popular Christmas song, "Santa Claus is coming to town." Unfortunately, this is the new theme song from the NSA, the US's electronic intelligence firm. Bottom line: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The government acts in its best interest, which is usually to become more powerful AND keep its job. The beauty of the democratic system is that the people are granted this same right. I will happily be paranoid about privacy over giving up my rights for "security" any day of the millenium. The most agrivating proposition is that many "conservatives" (conservative had meant favoring less government intervention) are, of course, in favor of this invasion of privacy granted by such laws as the patriot act, and the power assumed by Georgie the Boy King and his agency, the NSA. They in fact are either so indoctrinated by this "crusade" for freedom or by the payoffs of power that they are in fact calling privacy paranoids "privocrats," a label intended for derision. If this is how they want to bash us, I'd favor being a privocrat everyday over some other greedy political party.
Hey, I have no problem with that. I don't have to pay the tax. In fact, I'd favor a tax based on the price of the software. OSS would become the hottest thing in computing since Napster. I wouldn't mind at all if M$ and the other greedy cretans had to lower their prices for that overpriced dump fodder.
Java is easy to use, but the creators had a bit of diarrhea of the fingers: it takes like 10 lines to write something that would take about 3 in C/C++. Also, some of the "built-ins" are just freakin' arbitrary. Java, though, isn't as arbitrary as C++. So Java is like the little brother of C++ who still doesn't implement OOP quite well enough, while talking far too much. It had support of its mother to make it known (Sun Microsystems), and it utilizes centralized documentation/codification (a blessing and hinderance). Ruby is truly object-oriented and is in the spirit of Smalltalk, with features not simply academic in nature. After learning Java, I really had a bitter taste for OOP. When I learned Ruby, it was like walking from Kansas to Oz.
Science Officer:: Sir, apparently the explosion eminated from Earth's moon in the Terran solar system. ::especially gay voice:: Omygod! Is that what we felt!? I thought I was maybe dreaming about what we did last ni-- ;-)."
::SULU is beamed off of the bridge.::
Capt. SULU:
Comm. Officer: We're recieving a communique from the Klingons
SULU: Those guys are so hot. Put him through, hehe!
Klingon: This is a message from the Klingon High Command. We monitored an explosion coming form your Terran solar system. Do you require assistance?
SULU: Hehe. Yes, there was an "incident" near Earth. Please obey the treaty and stay out of the neutral zone, unless you want to be especially naughty...hehehe...I'd never tell
Klingon: Well, we're coming anyway. We want to assassinate Captain Kirk becasue he's such a bad actor while pretending to be on a peace envoy. Then somehow McCoy and Spock will end up on an asteroid and Kirk's ghost will come back to have sex with some woman on the penal colony.
SULU: Hehe. I want to go to a penile colony!
Klingon: I can arrange that.
Weapons Officer: Klingon Battleship decloaking off of port bow!
Klingon: to SULU The rumor about Klingon prisons is "don't drop the bathing eels!" hahahaha
SULU: This is going to be fun!
=/\=End Transmission=/\=
Comm Officer: We've recieved a transmission from Earth. Apparently Sulu had a massive moon orgy, including Spock, Kirk, and his Klingon Partner. Spock's ears apparently got in the way and began the genesis effect, pissing off the Klingons, killing and rebirthing spock, and making Kirk shout "KHAAAAAAAAN!" I'm really beginning to have my doubts about this universe, Captain.
Sci. Officer, de facto Capt.: aside Why did our ancestors get rid of "Don't ask, don't tell?"
In other news, Arthur Anderson, Inc. has been heard shouting, "Yes! Yes! We have a new contract!!!"
So here goes
For a show called, "10 types of people"
Start spreading the news.
I'm leaving today!
I want to be a part of it,
New York, New York!
I want to wake up
In a city that doesn't sleep!
I'm a consumer with rights
I want my fair price!
And no price fix-iiing!
No DRM crap
For me in New York
I really love that Eliot
Spitzer, Spitzer!
Oh Mr. Spitzer,
Please remove that Sony Rootkit!
And give my music to ME
Without some greedy
Hollywood scheeeeeme!
In Manhattan and Queens
And Bronx if I dare
My iPod has cheap music
Bought in New York
We told that Warner
To stop screwing the litttttle guy!
"You have to set a fair price!
No fixing or die,"
Said Spitzer, Amen!
Eliot Spitzer
We love you so much
New York is fair and balanced
Because of yooooou!
We want to thank you
For protecting consumer rights
We really love you a lot
In-a straight kinda way
We're really not gay!
"Chair: What do you suggest we do about the problem?
Officer: Throw mony at it..."
Actually I agree with you somewhat. Today's GUIs are adequate, but they could be much more data-centric. An LCARS type system, in which data is stored and searched efficiently as information, and not simply as 0s and 1s. Of course, some significant programming problems would present themselves, but they could be solved. One reason I like Mac and Linux so much is that they do handle the data itself better than Winblows. I envision a "DUI", as it were (not driving under influence), based on data. I envision a computer system somewhere between Minority Report and Star Trek. Both of these systems are based on dynamic interfaces, changing to suit the needs of the data and present it efficiently. I envision a system which is "applicationless". It would more or less be like a Unix box, having some simple yet powerful commands which are linked together in various instances to perform complex tasks.
Heh. Or that "Chikyu means 'The Earth in Japanese'". Yours of course makes sesnse as a metaphor and mine is totally nonsensical, but c'est la vie.
Don't you get this; the article is targeted at Bush, but it also raises concerns about "legal" wiretapping. I respect Bush because he's a human being, but I don't like the man, and I disagree with his attitude. I hate his uncompromising rhetoric and I hate his conservative fundamentalist pseudo-Christian agenda (a real "Christian" wouldn't support a man who calls himself a "Christian" and calls for assassinations of sovreign foreign political leaders). But to avoid becoming a political post (which is in some ways too late), let us focus on the issue: does government have the right to "eavesdrop" on its citizens. I personally do not believe so. We cannot just eavesdrop on classified meetings. No one has the right to extend his rights at the expense of others'. Today many people have this misguided view that "liberty" is the freedom to do what one wants. Liberty is, in fact, the freedom to be in control of your own life. The government can't grant liberty; liberty is a natural right that all human beings are endowed with. The government can only legislate further to protect the rights of citizens. I would personally favor a terrorist attack any day of the week over some of the garbage corruption in the government. I believe that government derives its power from concent of the governed, thus giving citizens more power to act in their own interests. In fact, Bush is President, not His Excellency. President comes from "preside". He does not lead the people, the people lead him. He is the executive, ensuring that the government is run correctly. His oath is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, not to use it to his advantage. America stands for personal liberty; that is the point of this article. The NYT may have had anti-Bush intents ("may" is a but of an understatement), but simply stating that the president can get away with murder because he or she is the president is outrageous.
As to the user who implied that Iraqi invasion was the correct course of action because the Iraqis are "better" for it. I will not disagree that democracy is much favorable to despotism, but don't you hear yourself speaking? Shun the pride, but hold the positive accomplishments close. When a sports team is too proud, it looses the championship. When a nation is too proud, it overextends its rights. Look up the US annexation of the Philipines. Americans were majority in favor of it, and history shows that the Philipines were indeed annexed. But, look through the speeches and source documents of the time; one will discover that reasons such as "the will of God" were involved. The minority claimed that a country whose foundation is freedom from Imperial rule does not have the right to become empire. We are "staying the course" in Iraq, but what the hell does that mean? How about we build a few bases, train the security forces, and pull out the large numbers of Iraqi troops. That's what the US wanted to do since the beginning, but Bush is too much of a pansy to go out and say it. It just happens that Saudi Arabia, a neighbor of Iraq, was paying lipservice to the US while turning a blind eye toward the terrorists. The US wanted to blackmail Saudi Arabia, as well as other more volitile countries (Iran, Syria, Libya). The strategy has worked. Libya admitted to the Pan-Am 103 bombings, Iran is scared as hell about the US, and Syria is going ape about what it's going to do. Saudi not only cleaned itself trim, but the fact that a couple years ago there was a spike and then crash of insurgent activity indicates that it really had been paying lip service. So now Saudi has the message, the surrounding countries are acting more in line with the US, and the violent radical muslims are losing friends. I'd say that US interest is a cause for the US to go to war. After all, every country acts for its own and only its own best interests. It may give the appearance of acting in others' interests, but it has no permanent "friends" nor "enemies".
This stuff has been going on for a while. Remember a few years ago when that Chinese military jet (the pilot was ironically named "Wong Wei") collided with the US spy plane? They've been trying to hack the US Government at least since then. Of course, the US is doing it to them as well. That's what the NSA is for. I guess this demonstrates the bad training that China's military has. Apparently they don't hack correctly to successfully hide themselves. The US has probably carried out plenty of cyber-attacks, but "no one" knows about this. Those who would know can't say, and those who have been attacked likely don't know who attacked them or can't say anything because the US blackmailed them.