If you write code as a hobby, you should also realize that there are costs associated with the pursuit of just about any hobby.
I play hockey strictly for fun: this means sticks, pucks, protective gear, all purchased out of my own pocket. My teammates don't pick up the tab for my gear, but I bet if my name were Cam Neely, I could get Easton or some other manufacturer of gear to hook me up with all kinds of free stuff.
I play the guitar, strictly for fun (and poorly): this means picks, strings, a capo, an instrument, neckstraps, and any amplification equipment I wish to buy must be purchased out of my own pocket. Guitar Center doesn't sponsor me with a bunch of freebies, but I bet if my name were Slash, I could go in and get a pack of guitar strings for free.
I attend concerts, strictly for fun: this means tickets, drinks, transportation and parking all must be purchased out of my own pocket. The bands I'm going to see don't send me free tickets, but I bet if I worked A&R for a record label, they'd be willing to send me a free ticket.
I'll agree it would be *nice* for Apple to allow you to load apps from a location that isn't hosted by them - but they don't. Android does, however. Though incidentally, if you wanted to "host your own" android app, you'd also have to pay for hosting & server space for yourself anyway, unless you have no intention of ever distributing your code to anyone else. Think a yearly hosting package is going to cost you some money? I bet it will.
Please cite examples where this has happened, that would lead you to expect this same thing to happen again in the case of app stores, or kindly shut the fuck up with the "sky is falling" nonsense.
For small devices, i.e., the iPhone, or an Android phone, I actually find I generally prefer the "app" version, because it generally makes better use of the screen space than the web pages for the services the app connects to.
For something larger (e.g., iPad / Android tablet), the browser and screen size are good enough that I prefer the familiarity of the web interface to the single-purpose app.
HTML5 may get there, and perhaps the web sites aren't really taking the time to develop webapps or proper style sheets for mobile devices, but the small-screen format does lend itself to a customized viewer; larger screen devices, it's less of an issue.
It's possible that that's exactly what will happen - the open source software will be used as a tool for repressive governments to exert more control over their populace. In that case, the open source activists are going to have to consider whether they're okay with the fruits of their labor being pressed into that type of function.
Read the full first sentence: The point is not "Open source activists are all geeks and academics." The point was that the "open source activists" (who *do* tend to be ponytailed geeks and academic types, though I'd disagree with the 'fringe' label) found an unlikely ally: the Russian government.
So why the focus on them? Because as the article goes on to point out, the fact that suddenly Russia (and other states - particularly fairly autocratic ones like Russia, China, and Iran) are coming out as big proponents of open source is interesting. Why is this pairing unlikely? Because the open-source activists who are way-into freedom and openness aren't generally on the same side of the "freedom and openness" issue that a government such as the ones running Iran or Russia would generally be expected to fall on. Contrast this with companies like IBM, RedHat, and Google, who, you know, love to talk endlessly about their commitment to openness and freedom. Google is not an odd pairing with the ponytailed geeks; RedHat is not an odd pairing with the ponytailed geeks; IBM is not an odd pairing with the ponytailed geeks; In fact, the ponytailed geeks already WORK at (and/or own) all three of those companies.
The point of this article is that governments, in an effort to get away from proprietary software, specifically proprietary software that is sold by foreign vendors (Microsoft, Adobe, etc.), are turning to open source, and that this will give open source a boost because suddenly you have entire countries deciding that their government infrastructure should be open-source.
If you had read beyond the summary and the first half-sentence of the article, you would have actually read a quite interesting and thought-provoking article on how IT is starting to be viewed as a critical component of national security by national governments the world over.
TL;DR: Loosen up that ponytail, broseph. The pairing of Vladimir Putin & Richard Stallman *is* an odd one, is noteworthy, and does have interesting implications and possibilities for Open Source's popularity.
Try understanding what the fuck I'm referring to before you chime in with your "insight". Go watch the "Collateral Murder" video as released by wikileaks, and then go watch the full, unedited version of that same event.
Has the government distorted and twisted facts? Absolutely they have - problem is, the person who is claiming to tell us "the truth" is twisting and distorting the facts just as much as the people he's condemning.
If his goal was really transparency, he'd stop editorializing, and let the facts speak for themselves.
1) Nobody's even threatened to extradite him to the US; A few people who get paid to talk a lot of shit have made noises about how "he should be." That is all.
2) We'd probably have an easier time extraditing him from Britain than we would from Sweden;
3) In order to extradite him, he would need to be indicted by a grand jury first.
Given that none of that has happened, and given that nobody with any power to DO anything about it has made any mention of extradition to the US except Mr. Assange, I think it's pretty likely that his "fears" of "execution" or "Guantanamo Bay" are pretty much a smokescreen to avoid being extradited to Sweden, and are a blatant attempt to sway the people deciding his fate through a fairly ham-fisted attempt at emotional manipulation.
"How can you send this man to face charges, when he MAY BE KILLED BY THE AMERICANS if you do?!"
He isn't *just* interested in "putting the facts out there." In at least one case, he demonstrably 'massaged' facts to paint a picture that was highly inaccurate and deceiving.
I know, I know, "everybody who has seen the Collateral Murder video knows that it shows a bunch of cold-blooded murders by a bunch of trigger happy kids who've been hoodwinked by Teh DUBYA." This is the invariable response from the true faithful.
However, if you have a shred of respect for the "truth" that you claim to want to know about, you have to admit that Assange spins facts to support his causes just as badly as the US Government does.
Wikileaks' mission is "transparency," and I agree that it's important, and a good aim. I do NOT, however, believe that that is Assange's primary mission - I believe he's piggybacking his own agenda on Wikileaks' mission, and has a healthy interest in attacking organizations he happens to disagree with, and doesn't mind if he has to distort or misrepresent the facts in order to do so.
Wait, I'm sorry - what does our government plan to do that is wrong, and illegal?
So far as I know, no government official with any power or authority to do a fucking thing to him has indicated any plan to do anything to Mr. Assange. So please share this inside information you apparently have. Or are you just blindly parroting everything Mr. Assange's lawyers say?
"Charges of espionage" =/= "conviction for espionage."
If he were charged (which he hasn't been), it's likely he would be charged under the Espionage Act. It's also likely that the charges wouldn't stick, and he wouldn't be convicted under that Act, because of the reasons you cite. It hasn't been "proven" that there is no charge of espionage until a court of law throws out the accusation as unfounded.
Read the full title and subtitle of the linked article to understand what's happening:
"ASSANGE COULD FACE EXECUTION OR GUANTANAMO BAY" (in large, bold font) "If the US gets hold of him, defence argues" (in small, light-gray font)
COULD they construct a case for execution under charges of Espionage, specifically the Espionage Act of 1917? Perhaps. But a whole long chain of stuff needs to happen for that to be likely, and I don't think it's very likely. This is attorneys trying to keep their client from being extradited to Sweden, and throwing every reason they can think of before the court.
Stupid FUD is stupid. Verizon isn't going to "drop" Android phones any more than AT&T is going to drop the iPhone from their lineup now that it's not an exclusive AT&T phone.
The only way they'll drop Android phones is if *everybody on Verizon* decides that all they want is an iPhone and they stop buying Android phones.
I think we all know that's not even remotely likely.
Perhaps you should do that, and then ask yourself if your hospital just happens to have better IT practices than some of the places talked about in the article.
Or do you honestly believe that "collapsing" networks together means that they're somehow keeping things on separate physical networks, when it in fact reports that they're NOT doing that?
Were wireless networks actually killing anyone...?
If you read TFA, yes, actually, they were:
According to Shuren, the FDA last year received reports that six patients died and 44 people were injured as a result of health IT-related malfunctions. The FDA also received 260 reports of malfunctions that had the potential to harm patients.
Reporting of these numbers is strictly voluntary, so you do the math - if institutions volunteered these numbers, how many other patients and patient devices are being affected by some intern streaming House re-runs over the network? And do you really think it's inappropriate to mandate that certain controls must be in place on a general network that is relied upon by medical devices which require the network to operate, and which are sending sensitive medical data over the network?
I work for a financial services company; it's standard practice for us to firewall off our sensitive database systems and authentication systems, and restrict access to a very tightly controlled set of uses. If your retirement account or brokerage account was held here, would you want us to take down all the firewalls, network filtering, and access controls on the networks? I'm betting the answer is no. If you want that much protection on your financial information (which might embarrass you, but certainly won't kill you), why wouldn't you want controls at least as strict on networks & systems that could - quite literally - kill you if they malfunction for some reason?
Or, as with just about any government regulation, the policy would be enacted and give hospitals X number of months or years to comply with the standards set forth in that policy, or face a loss of Medicare/Medicaid funding.
Here's what will not happen: 12:01 a.m., January 1, 2012: Regulation goes into effect. 12:02 am, January 1, 2012: All non-compliant hospitals cease to receive funding from Medicare and Medicaid, and the feds move in to shut down these illegal dens of medical "care" for their noncompliance.
They'll probably have several years to bring themselves into compliance, with a requirement that they document their risk mitigation policies until they are compliant, and if at the end of that time they can't show compliance, then they will risk losing their Medic[are|aid] funding.
Right, because god knows swapping out an engine in a Ford doesn't require any specialized knowledge or equipment, amirite? I'd suggest that installing "whatever you want to install" on your iOS device is far easier for someone who doesn't know a lot about computers than modifying your vehicle "to run on diesel fuel or run better over rocky terrain" would be for someone who doesn't know a lot about cars.
And guess what, Ford designs the the Focus from the ground up without necessary ground clearance, air intakes, and special undercarriage protection that you would need on an off-road vehicle. Sounds like they're *actively* preventing you from using your vehicle in any manner you wish to me.
Here's the thing: products are designed for a set of requirements. If you want or need a Jeep, buy a fucking Jeep, don't buy a Ford Focus and then bitch that it's not a Jeep. If you want or need a Linux phone, buy a fucking Linux phone. Don't buy an iPhone and then bitch that it's not a Linux phone.
If you buy something that's unsuitable for your requirements, whose fault is that? You're not being misled, you know exactly what it does before you even open the package. Or are you going to admit here and now that you're "just one of the poor sheeple who buys whatever His Holy Jobsness commands them to buy"?
You can't use diesel fuel if Ford hasn't allowed it. You can't just drop a Toyota engine into your Taurus. You can't win an off-road race over rocky terrain in a Focus.
Yep. Your car analogy just keeps on working. Please develop it further, I'm interested to see where you can take it.
Google derives the vast majority of its income from search.
Advertising. The word is advertising. Search is a means to an end: Consumer: "I wish I could find information about..." Google: We'll help you find what you want, and while you're at it, we'll just display a few ads for you to take a look at - we're smart enough to even make them relevant to the term or phrase you're searching for!" Consumer: "Wow, thanks Google!"
Just as GMail is a means to an end: Google: "Pst. Hey. Want free email?" Consumer: "Boy, do I!" Google: "Okay, here you go. While you're reading your email, we'll just display a few ads for you to take a look at - we're smart enough to even make them relevant to the email you're reading!" Consumer: "Wow, thanks Google!"
Just as Android is a means to an end: Google: "Pst. Hey. Want a cheap phone that works like an iPhone, and integrates with all of your existing Google services?" Consumer: "Boy, do I!" Google: "Okay, here you go. While you're using it, we'll just display a few ads for you to take a look at - we're smart enough to even make them relevant to the location you're standing!" Consumer: Wow, thanks Google!"
Google makes 95+% of their money off of advertising. Every product they produce is an attempt to find new ways to get an ad to capture your attention for a few moments, so they can make money from selling that ad space. I don't think it's a bad thing, and I don't fault them for it. In fact, I find Google's brand of advertising to be one of the least offensive, and most helpful. But search, gmail, maps, translation, googletv, android, and any other product Google makes is absolutely aimed at finding new ways and new venues to display ads. It's what they do, and they're awfully good at it.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that's dirty!!
Bodega (http://www.appbodega.com) called, and wanted a word with you, but it appears as if you've just FUD'ed them out of existence. :(
If you write code as a hobby, you should also realize that there are costs associated with the pursuit of just about any hobby.
I play hockey strictly for fun: this means sticks, pucks, protective gear, all purchased out of my own pocket. My teammates don't pick up the tab for my gear, but I bet if my name were Cam Neely, I could get Easton or some other manufacturer of gear to hook me up with all kinds of free stuff.
I play the guitar, strictly for fun (and poorly): this means picks, strings, a capo, an instrument, neckstraps, and any amplification equipment I wish to buy must be purchased out of my own pocket. Guitar Center doesn't sponsor me with a bunch of freebies, but I bet if my name were Slash, I could go in and get a pack of guitar strings for free.
I attend concerts, strictly for fun: this means tickets, drinks, transportation and parking all must be purchased out of my own pocket. The bands I'm going to see don't send me free tickets, but I bet if I worked A&R for a record label, they'd be willing to send me a free ticket.
I'll agree it would be *nice* for Apple to allow you to load apps from a location that isn't hosted by them - but they don't. Android does, however. Though incidentally, if you wanted to "host your own" android app, you'd also have to pay for hosting & server space for yourself anyway, unless you have no intention of ever distributing your code to anyone else. Think a yearly hosting package is going to cost you some money? I bet it will.
Wow, that slope sure is slippery, isn't it!?
Please cite examples where this has happened, that would lead you to expect this same thing to happen again in the case of app stores, or kindly shut the fuck up with the "sky is falling" nonsense.
Here's what I've seen:
For small devices, i.e., the iPhone, or an Android phone, I actually find I generally prefer the "app" version, because it generally makes better use of the screen space than the web pages for the services the app connects to.
For something larger (e.g., iPad / Android tablet), the browser and screen size are good enough that I prefer the familiarity of the web interface to the single-purpose app.
HTML5 may get there, and perhaps the web sites aren't really taking the time to develop webapps or proper style sheets for mobile devices, but the small-screen format does lend itself to a customized viewer; larger screen devices, it's less of an issue.
It's possible that that's exactly what will happen - the open source software will be used as a tool for repressive governments to exert more control over their populace. In that case, the open source activists are going to have to consider whether they're okay with the fruits of their labor being pressed into that type of function.
Go back to listening to your new Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus singles, junior.
The adults are trying to have a conversation.
Read the full first sentence: The point is not "Open source activists are all geeks and academics." The point was that the "open source activists" (who *do* tend to be ponytailed geeks and academic types, though I'd disagree with the 'fringe' label) found an unlikely ally: the Russian government.
So why the focus on them? Because as the article goes on to point out, the fact that suddenly Russia (and other states - particularly fairly autocratic ones like Russia, China, and Iran) are coming out as big proponents of open source is interesting. Why is this pairing unlikely? Because the open-source activists who are way-into freedom and openness aren't generally on the same side of the "freedom and openness" issue that a government such as the ones running Iran or Russia would generally be expected to fall on. Contrast this with companies like IBM, RedHat, and Google, who, you know, love to talk endlessly about their commitment to openness and freedom. Google is not an odd pairing with the ponytailed geeks; RedHat is not an odd pairing with the ponytailed geeks; IBM is not an odd pairing with the ponytailed geeks; In fact, the ponytailed geeks already WORK at (and/or own) all three of those companies.
The point of this article is that governments, in an effort to get away from proprietary software, specifically proprietary software that is sold by foreign vendors (Microsoft, Adobe, etc.), are turning to open source, and that this will give open source a boost because suddenly you have entire countries deciding that their government infrastructure should be open-source.
If you had read beyond the summary and the first half-sentence of the article, you would have actually read a quite interesting and thought-provoking article on how IT is starting to be viewed as a critical component of national security by national governments the world over.
TL;DR: Loosen up that ponytail, broseph. The pairing of Vladimir Putin & Richard Stallman *is* an odd one, is noteworthy, and does have interesting implications and possibilities for Open Source's popularity.
Try understanding what the fuck I'm referring to before you chime in with your "insight". Go watch the "Collateral Murder" video as released by wikileaks, and then go watch the full, unedited version of that same event.
Has the government distorted and twisted facts? Absolutely they have - problem is, the person who is claiming to tell us "the truth" is twisting and distorting the facts just as much as the people he's condemning.
If his goal was really transparency, he'd stop editorializing, and let the facts speak for themselves.
1) Nobody's even threatened to extradite him to the US; A few people who get paid to talk a lot of shit have made noises about how "he should be." That is all.
2) We'd probably have an easier time extraditing him from Britain than we would from Sweden;
3) In order to extradite him, he would need to be indicted by a grand jury first.
Given that none of that has happened, and given that nobody with any power to DO anything about it has made any mention of extradition to the US except Mr. Assange, I think it's pretty likely that his "fears" of "execution" or "Guantanamo Bay" are pretty much a smokescreen to avoid being extradited to Sweden, and are a blatant attempt to sway the people deciding his fate through a fairly ham-fisted attempt at emotional manipulation.
"How can you send this man to face charges, when he MAY BE KILLED BY THE AMERICANS if you do?!"
Two words: Collateral Murder.
He isn't *just* interested in "putting the facts out there." In at least one case, he demonstrably 'massaged' facts to paint a picture that was highly inaccurate and deceiving.
I know, I know, "everybody who has seen the Collateral Murder video knows that it shows a bunch of cold-blooded murders by a bunch of trigger happy kids who've been hoodwinked by Teh DUBYA." This is the invariable response from the true faithful.
However, if you have a shred of respect for the "truth" that you claim to want to know about, you have to admit that Assange spins facts to support his causes just as badly as the US Government does.
Wikileaks' mission is "transparency," and I agree that it's important, and a good aim. I do NOT, however, believe that that is Assange's primary mission - I believe he's piggybacking his own agenda on Wikileaks' mission, and has a healthy interest in attacking organizations he happens to disagree with, and doesn't mind if he has to distort or misrepresent the facts in order to do so.
Wait, I'm sorry - what does our government plan to do that is wrong, and illegal?
So far as I know, no government official with any power or authority to do a fucking thing to him has indicated any plan to do anything to Mr. Assange. So please share this inside information you apparently have. Or are you just blindly parroting everything Mr. Assange's lawyers say?
*sigh*
"Charges of espionage" =/= "conviction for espionage."
If he were charged (which he hasn't been), it's likely he would be charged under the Espionage Act. It's also likely that the charges wouldn't stick, and he wouldn't be convicted under that Act, because of the reasons you cite. It hasn't been "proven" that there is no charge of espionage until a court of law throws out the accusation as unfounded.
Read the full title and subtitle of the linked article to understand what's happening:
"ASSANGE COULD FACE EXECUTION OR GUANTANAMO BAY" (in large, bold font)
"If the US gets hold of him, defence argues" (in small, light-gray font)
COULD they construct a case for execution under charges of Espionage, specifically the Espionage Act of 1917? Perhaps. But a whole long chain of stuff needs to happen for that to be likely, and I don't think it's very likely. This is attorneys trying to keep their client from being extradited to Sweden, and throwing every reason they can think of before the court.
Really? You can just call them up and chat? I should try that sometime when I'm feeling lonely.
"Thanks for calling T-Mobile, this is Mark, how can I help you?"
"Hey Mark, what's going on? Did you catch the Bruins game last night? Pretty great play in the 3rd, huh?"
Stupid FUD is stupid. Verizon isn't going to "drop" Android phones any more than AT&T is going to drop the iPhone from their lineup now that it's not an exclusive AT&T phone.
The only way they'll drop Android phones is if *everybody on Verizon* decides that all they want is an iPhone and they stop buying Android phones.
I think we all know that's not even remotely likely.
I don't work in a hospital, but I did RTFA.
Perhaps you should do that, and then ask yourself if your hospital just happens to have better IT practices than some of the places talked about in the article.
Or do you honestly believe that "collapsing" networks together means that they're somehow keeping things on separate physical networks, when it in fact reports that they're NOT doing that?
So business plan is:
1) write the software
2) sell it for "ridiculous amount of money minus one dollar"
3) profit?!
If you read TFA, yes, actually, they were:
Reporting of these numbers is strictly voluntary, so you do the math - if institutions volunteered these numbers, how many other patients and patient devices are being affected by some intern streaming House re-runs over the network? And do you really think it's inappropriate to mandate that certain controls must be in place on a general network that is relied upon by medical devices which require the network to operate, and which are sending sensitive medical data over the network?
I work for a financial services company; it's standard practice for us to firewall off our sensitive database systems and authentication systems, and restrict access to a very tightly controlled set of uses. If your retirement account or brokerage account was held here, would you want us to take down all the firewalls, network filtering, and access controls on the networks? I'm betting the answer is no. If you want that much protection on your financial information (which might embarrass you, but certainly won't kill you), why wouldn't you want controls at least as strict on networks & systems that could - quite literally - kill you if they malfunction for some reason?
Why would that be wrong? I wish I had the speaking voice that guy has, I'd be able to hold peoples' attention much more easily in meetings.
Or, as with just about any government regulation, the policy would be enacted and give hospitals X number of months or years to comply with the standards set forth in that policy, or face a loss of Medicare/Medicaid funding.
Here's what will not happen:
12:01 a.m., January 1, 2012: Regulation goes into effect.
12:02 am, January 1, 2012: All non-compliant hospitals cease to receive funding from Medicare and Medicaid, and the feds move in to shut down these illegal dens of medical "care" for their noncompliance.
They'll probably have several years to bring themselves into compliance, with a requirement that they document their risk mitigation policies until they are compliant, and if at the end of that time they can't show compliance, then they will risk losing their Medic[are|aid] funding.
Oh my. I really hope you have karma to burn.
Right, because god knows swapping out an engine in a Ford doesn't require any specialized knowledge or equipment, amirite? I'd suggest that installing "whatever you want to install" on your iOS device is far easier for someone who doesn't know a lot about computers than modifying your vehicle "to run on diesel fuel or run better over rocky terrain" would be for someone who doesn't know a lot about cars.
And guess what, Ford designs the the Focus from the ground up without necessary ground clearance, air intakes, and special undercarriage protection that you would need on an off-road vehicle. Sounds like they're *actively* preventing you from using your vehicle in any manner you wish to me.
Here's the thing: products are designed for a set of requirements. If you want or need a Jeep, buy a fucking Jeep, don't buy a Ford Focus and then bitch that it's not a Jeep. If you want or need a Linux phone, buy a fucking Linux phone. Don't buy an iPhone and then bitch that it's not a Linux phone.
If you buy something that's unsuitable for your requirements, whose fault is that? You're not being misled, you know exactly what it does before you even open the package. Or are you going to admit here and now that you're "just one of the poor sheeple who buys whatever His Holy Jobsness commands them to buy"?
You can't use diesel fuel if Ford hasn't allowed it. You can't just drop a Toyota engine into your Taurus. You can't win an off-road race over rocky terrain in a Focus.
Yep. Your car analogy just keeps on working. Please develop it further, I'm interested to see where you can take it.
Advertising. The word is advertising. Search is a means to an end:
Consumer: "I wish I could find information about..."
Google: We'll help you find what you want, and while you're at it, we'll just display a few ads for you to take a look at - we're smart enough to even make them relevant to the term or phrase you're searching for!"
Consumer: "Wow, thanks Google!"
Just as GMail is a means to an end:
Google: "Pst. Hey. Want free email?"
Consumer: "Boy, do I!"
Google: "Okay, here you go. While you're reading your email, we'll just display a few ads for you to take a look at - we're smart enough to even make them relevant to the email you're reading!"
Consumer: "Wow, thanks Google!"
Just as Android is a means to an end:
Google: "Pst. Hey. Want a cheap phone that works like an iPhone, and integrates with all of your existing Google services?"
Consumer: "Boy, do I!"
Google: "Okay, here you go. While you're using it, we'll just display a few ads for you to take a look at - we're smart enough to even make them relevant to the location you're standing!"
Consumer: Wow, thanks Google!"
Google makes 95+% of their money off of advertising. Every product they produce is an attempt to find new ways to get an ad to capture your attention for a few moments, so they can make money from selling that ad space. I don't think it's a bad thing, and I don't fault them for it. In fact, I find Google's brand of advertising to be one of the least offensive, and most helpful. But search, gmail, maps, translation, googletv, android, and any other product Google makes is absolutely aimed at finding new ways and new venues to display ads. It's what they do, and they're awfully good at it.