When I hear this argument, it seems like I'm mostly hearing fear talking.
Geez, and I thought I made a clear and rational argument.:-)
Loss of manufacturing jobs means those who used to do manufacturing are left trying to work in fields they weren't trained for. This local "bad" is then generalized and feared as a global "bad". But I don't think the extrapolation is accurate. What's bad for some is not necessarily bad for all. It's cruel sometimes, but I think that's the way it is.
There are simply fewer good paying jobs with good bennies. It doesn't matter where you are, this is not just limited to my locality.
Individuals have to be adaptable to the times. The fact that our economy demands a better and different education than the industrial era demanded is not a bad thing. Industrial type education (where children are basically prepared to be good workers in factories - where attendance and discipline are the most important aspects of a worker) won't do a service economy much good. But if we get over our fear of change, I think things wouldn't seem bad, just different. Maybe even better.
The rate at which the middle class is disappearing, which coincidentally seems to be paralleling these economic changes, tends to argue against things getting better.
I'm all for change, and love technology, but that doesn't mean that all things that come from them are good.
Patents - most especially software patents - have nothing to do with the free market; they are artifical inventions of the state.
As is the market. The phrase "free market" is so misleading it's almost an oxymoron. There are more rules limiting trade than you can shake a stick at, and the rules generally PROTECT american markets, not open them up which would be TRUE freedom.
Monopolies for example. The idea of abolishing monopolies is an invention of the state. Why should monopolies be abolished? If the free market is the "natural order" (competition being good, economic darwinism, etc...) then why must we have arbitrary rules thrust upon us by the state. I say make the market TRULY free, abolish all such rules and let the chips fall where they may!
It can easily argued that any shift in our economy AWAY from manufacturing, to service, or E-commerce is bad.
Back in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's when our economy was booming to due cold-war, military-industrial-complex spending, ANYONE with a high school education could get a really good, high-paying job with plenty of benefits to support a typical family.
Many people in my family are good examples. I have many uncles who worked at local GE plants during those years and lived the "american dream" (or whatever you want to call it). You know, nice wife, nice house, nice car (maybe even TWO cars), other nice things (including health insurance), and a future with decent retirement options.
Now locally, all of those GE plants are closed and jobs are getting scarce. There's only one aerospace type plant locally (Lucas Aerospace) when we used to have 5. Within the past decade I have seen the average age of the burger-joint employee rising steadily.
Clearly these people who used to have good jobs and who now work at BURGER DEATH (TM) are not equipped to take advantage of the opportunities that the net provides either, since most have little or no computer skills.
Remember when the US of A used to make ALL of the good, cool stuff for the world?:-)
So yes, for the most part I agree with the premise of the original article.
I guess I'm not as nerdy as I thought since this is the first I recall seeing the AIBO. Very cool, and I don't even think $2500 is too much to ask, if what I've read about them is true.
And on a slightly related topic, did anyone see the bipedal robot that Honda spent billions developing a few years back? It's amazing. It can navigate around any normal environment (a house or apartment) and can also climb up and down stairs.
It was almost a little eery seeing it doing that in its approximation of human form.
Maybe I should get a Honda robot, and get IT an AIBO?:-)
If no you haven't see the Honda robot, here is a little blurb on it:
I've heard you say many times that unless a particular crypto alg. has undergone lots of public review, it should not be considered safe. Unless possibly it's from the NSA. (Excluding, of course, the NSA stuff that is INTENTIONALLY backdoored.)
The implication there is that the NSA has applied some many resources to the crypto problems,that they are as good as the rest of the cryptographers put together.
My question is: Do you really think that a private process, no matter how many resources applied, can equal the public process?
The NSA does more than simply throw resources at the pronlem when they're developing a new algorithm.
They do allow for some peer review, with civilians with security clearances.
I had a friend who attended Georgeotown, and one of his professors was one of many civilian people allowed to review skipjack.
It seems to me that this is just the natural progression that the combination of computers and music should be taking.
I don't want to sound like an old fogey, but in the early to mid 1970's when Moog was hard at work building the first commercial analog synthesizers, everyone was in a panic, fearing that they would one day replace the musician and that people would prefer the synthesized sound over the actual instrument.
It seems to me that this didn't really happen.
Yes, sometimes people drop sampled horns into a score since a real horn section might be too expensive to have to pay, but given the option, those producers would prefer the real thing if they had the money.
Other times synthesis allows for more control over what you're doing creatively, but I think there's room for both this sort of thing and live (real) music.
On a related note, I was reading in Mix magazine about a new ProTools plug-in that can emulate vocal stylings. In other words, you take your singer's bland vocal track, run it into your workststation, and this plug-in can impart SINATRA-ESQUE stylings onto the track, or any other number of styles with which the plug-in ships.
I haven't had the opportunity to hear it yet, but can't wait. I don't have the issue handy and forget the manufacturer's name, but if anyone is interested I'll try and find it.
Have you ever heard a really in-depth interview with Ackroyd? He is a conspiracy guy. He is into the entire x-files type of thing full-bore.
Or... is that just what he wants us all to think?
That may be. I really wouldn't know. But my point was not about Ackroyd specifically, or at all. But about labelling people as "conspiracy theorists" as a method of reducing them so that no one will take them seriously. This is a tactic many people use. Notable radio talk show hosts for example.
"Example: When Redford sets off the alarms in the big building we get an outside shot of security cars/vans racing everywhere in the parking lot. Minutes later during the escape we get another wide angle shot of the parking lot: totally empty. They couldn't find the burglar so they all went home?"
Among many others... Believe it or not it was the movie SNEAKERS that sparked my interest in crypto. And one thing that always irritated me about that film was that apparently in their world, blank spaces always get encrypted to blank spaces.
That's not to say that I didn't enjoy the film, because I did.
But my number-1 pet peeve is that people often attempt to reduce people with alternative viewpoints as simple conspiracy theorists, like Dan Akroyd's character. People often accuse others in discussions as conspiracy theorists just to dismiss them immediately to have to avoid actually discussing the subject with them. And while it is true that Akroyd's character was a little ODD, hollywood isn't doing anyone any favors by further enforcing this stereotype.
"Can a movie do a good job of making programming (and/or cracking) seem dramatic without being stupid?"
An even bigger question is can hollywood or the media in general deal with any technology issues without getting all sorts of details wrong? So far I'd say the answer is a resounding NO. I'm constantly amazed when the tech reporters know far less about the topic they're reporting than me or my peer group.
For example, a local paper recently talking about MAGLEV trains, the article went on to explain that it was pressurized air that was supporting the train. Apparently this reporter didn't even bother to investigate if MAGLEV actually stood for anything.
I meant the ACLU's headquarters. I was referencing a satirical bit in The Onion a while back where the ACLU was petitioning the Nazis' rights to burn down the ACLU's headquarters as an expression of free speech.
Yes, I read that, very amusing indeed.
Incidentally, I only managed to hand out two resumes, and they were to Scott and Sam.:)
Too bad. But I bet they were impressed nonetheless.
I just find it laughable that/. people tend to be quick to assume things about company motives. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, but they usually end up looking like the ACLU defending the Nazis' rights to burn down their headquarters (which is the kind of thing they'd do).
Corporations do tend to practice business differently depending upon their size. The larger the coporation the easier it tends to be to predict their behavior. Loki is probably small enough to NOT be able to predict their behavior, and for them to maintain good motives.
(incidentally, in your example about the nazis and the ACLU you use the word "their". Does that refer to the ACLU's HQ or the nazi's HQ?)
If I weren't currently unemployed and needing a fun diversion for a week (not to mention a convenient means of possibly getting my foot in the door at a job somewhere - hence why I printed out 20 resumes to bring to ALS with me:) I wouldn't have entered, and would probably feel the same way.
Oh, well shoot! I'd have gone too in that case if I were you!:-)
It's very hard to believe Scott Draeker when he says that he's all for opensource unless you've actually talked to him in person about his feelings towards opensource.
I'm not questioning his motives. I am only suggesting that if a company can afford to pay programmers, they should.
They're out to show that opensource programming can still make for a viable business model, and they intend on being a very successful company which uses and contributes to opensource projects.
And I hope they're successful.
Call me gullible, but I honestly do believe that, especially after the time I spent with the various Loki people. I have yet to see any reason to mistrust them.
I believe you and trust your instincts.
And BTW, Loki isn't a multi-million dollar corporation.
I have no idea what their gross income is, what is it? But I suspect it's enough to have paid these 30 people well.
They don't even have two dozen employees right now.
This does not necessarily relate to their potential or actual gross income.
Scott Draeker's intentions are definitely, at this point, good, and I believe that Loki Entertainment will surprise the naysayers, who will, of course, still believe it's some big conspiracy.
As I said, I am not questioning his motives, nor am I a naysayer, just slightly cyincal. I find it healthy to question everything. But on a side note (and please forgive me) but I find it very rude when people throw the word "conspiracy" out in an intellectual discussion. It has always been used tactically in the past by people who are attempting to immediately dismiss their opponent (for lack of a better word) out of hand as some sort of UFO, alien-abduction, "Oswald didn't act alone," nutcase. While I am certain that is not what you're doing, I do find it a distraction.
If Loki had wanted to actually get people to improve the game for a week and pay them a salary for that week, they'd have just hired a bunch of contractors instead, but that wouldn't have been any fun, now, would it?
Well this then begs that obvious question, "Why did they sponsor such an event?" I am a little suspicious of the idea that THEY did it to have fun. And from what I read (and I did read the original article) their code was a mess. All in all it appears to me that they benefitted greatly, and the hackers got some t-shirts, food, 1/30th of a hotel room, and some fun. What would an outsider reading this thread for the first time gather from the facts at hand?
Also, remember that the hacks won't necessarily end up in the commercial product. Most likely they won't. The hacks will just be available as separate unsupported downloads.
I'm curious if this is just a suspicion of yours, or something they told you. It sounded to me like you fellas wrote some cool code. To me it would seem foolish not include such code in the final product.
And I don't feel cheated in the least, and I had a very good time. I'm sure everyone else who participated will agree. So thus, you may be content.
Excellent. There's nothing quite like the feeling of a job well done. I support open source and am ultimately glad that such an event took place. In my case (and in defense of my 2 posts regarding this topic) warning flags tend to go off when I feel that corporations are taking advantage of talented people. Especially talented people within circles that I tend to frequent. It's only a defense mechanism. Forgive me if I've offended anyone.:-)
"and since games are only for play, it's not quite the same as pushing along "the corporate machine". Now, if a bunch of hackers were invited to Redmond to get all the wrinkles out of Windows 2000 and were offered a neat new computer to the one who did the best work (and lots of notable individuals actually accepted!) then you'd have much more cause for that bad taste in your mouth."
I haven't thought about this for more than a moment, but I don't necessarily buy that argument.
Loki IS a corporation and they are in the business of making money, just like any corporation, regardless of size. I might even argue that helping the Redmond folks iron wrinkles out of the Windows 2000 code would be a good thing. At least that would be helping IT professionals at companies all around the world have more secure networks and more reliability in the OS that they run on most of their machines (even though at the same time that might hurt linux).
All you're doing by helping Loki improve their code is improving a GAME, and in my opinions games offer little value other than as diversions. (although they have offered interesting challenges to programmers and have accelerated [no pun] additions like MMX and 3DNow extensions in CPU's coming to markets).
That does not mean however that I would actually be in favor of helping the Redmond folks fix bugs in W2K for free. Because I would not.
Any multi-million (or billion) dollar corporation can afford to pay programmers what they're worth, and should. (They should also pay their fair share of taxes, but that's another matter entirely).
Am I in favor of Loki getting lots of (virtually) free help on their code? Probably not. They stand to make a lot of money with this game, and can certainly afford to pay more for the help they received than buying a few lunches and one hotel room for 30 people. These things are trivial.
But at the same time these hackers live in a relatively free society and are free to do with their programming skills what they want. As long as they don't feel cheated and had a good time I am content.
Just don't expect to get any free consulting out of me unless you genuinaly can't afford it!:-)
I am completely in favor of donating (my) services and help to people less fortunate than me, and would encourage anyone to do so.
>Crypto in the hands of the mafia, or kiddie porn >peddlers, does society no good. Crypto in the >hands of honest citizens who value their privacy >does society no harm. It's a shame that the NSA, >the treasury department, and our government have >taken the first as a reason to hinder the second. It is naive to think that the NSA actually cares about pornographers and the mafia. They keep crypto weak to spy on the citizenry of this country. But saying they're keeping it weak to fight pornography keeps the public on their side.
Slashdot Mirror
Geez, and I thought I made a clear and rational argument. :-)
There are simply fewer good paying jobs with good bennies. It doesn't matter where you are, this is not just limited to my locality.
The rate at which the middle class is disappearing, which coincidentally seems to be paralleling these economic changes, tends to argue against things getting better.
I'm all for change, and love technology, but that doesn't mean that all things that come from them are good.
As is the market. The phrase "free market" is so misleading it's almost an oxymoron. There are more rules limiting trade than you can shake a stick at, and the rules generally PROTECT american markets, not open them up which would be TRUE freedom.
Monopolies for example. The idea of abolishing monopolies is an invention of the state. Why should monopolies be abolished? If the free market is the "natural order" (competition being good, economic darwinism, etc...) then why must we have arbitrary rules thrust upon us by the state. I say make the market TRULY free, abolish all such rules and let the chips fall where they may!
Back in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's when our economy was booming to due cold-war, military-industrial-complex spending, ANYONE with a high school education could get a really good, high-paying job with plenty of benefits to support a typical family.
Many people in my family are good examples. I have many uncles who worked at local GE plants during those years and lived the "american dream" (or whatever you want to call it). You know, nice wife, nice house, nice car (maybe even TWO cars), other nice things (including health insurance), and a future with decent retirement options.
Now locally, all of those GE plants are closed and jobs are getting scarce. There's only one aerospace type plant locally (Lucas Aerospace) when we used to have 5. Within the past decade I have seen the average age of the burger-joint employee rising steadily.
Clearly these people who used to have good jobs and who now work at BURGER DEATH (TM) are not equipped to take advantage of the opportunities that the net provides either, since most have little or no computer skills.
Remember when the US of A used to make ALL of the good, cool stuff for the world? :-)
So yes, for the most part I agree with the premise of the original article.
And on a slightly related topic, did anyone see the bipedal robot that Honda spent billions developing a few years back? It's amazing. It can navigate around any normal environment (a house or apartment) and can also climb up and down stairs.
It was almost a little eery seeing it doing that in its approximation of human form.
Maybe I should get a Honda robot, and get IT an AIBO? :-)
If no you haven't see the Honda robot, here is a little blurb on it:
http://www.poli.studenti.to.it/~s76133/robotica/hh ri.htm
And what's with this Sony naming convention? AIBO? VAIO? What does it all mean?
The NSA does more than simply throw resources at the pronlem when they're developing a new algorithm.
They do allow for some peer review, with civilians with security clearances.
I had a friend who attended Georgeotown, and one of his professors was one of many civilian people allowed to review skipjack.
I don't want to sound like an old fogey, but in the early to mid 1970's when Moog was hard at work building the first commercial analog synthesizers, everyone was in a panic, fearing that they would one day replace the musician and that people would prefer the synthesized sound over the actual instrument.
It seems to me that this didn't really happen.
Yes, sometimes people drop sampled horns into a score since a real horn section might be too expensive to have to pay, but given the option, those producers would prefer the real thing if they had the money.
Other times synthesis allows for more control over what you're doing creatively, but I think there's room for both this sort of thing and live (real) music.
On a related note, I was reading in Mix magazine about a new ProTools plug-in that can emulate vocal stylings. In other words, you take your singer's bland vocal track, run it into your workststation, and this plug-in can impart SINATRA-ESQUE stylings onto the track, or any other number of styles with which the plug-in ships.
I haven't had the opportunity to hear it yet, but can't wait. I don't have the issue handy and forget the manufacturer's name, but if anyone is interested I'll try and find it.
Among many others... Believe it or not it was the movie SNEAKERS that sparked my interest in crypto. And one thing that always irritated me about that film was that apparently in their world, blank spaces always get encrypted to blank spaces.
That's not to say that I didn't enjoy the film, because I did.
But my number-1 pet peeve is that people often attempt to reduce people with alternative viewpoints as simple conspiracy theorists, like Dan Akroyd's character. People often accuse others in discussions as conspiracy theorists just to dismiss them immediately to have to avoid actually discussing the subject with them. And while it is true that Akroyd's character was a little ODD, hollywood isn't doing anyone any favors by further enforcing this stereotype.
An even bigger question is can hollywood or the media in general deal with any technology issues without getting all sorts of details wrong? So far I'd say the answer is a resounding NO. I'm constantly amazed when the tech reporters know far less about the topic they're reporting than me or my peer group.
For example, a local paper recently talking about MAGLEV trains, the article went on to explain that it was pressurized air that was supporting the train. Apparently this reporter didn't even bother to investigate if MAGLEV actually stood for anything.
Yes, I read that, very amusing indeed.
Too bad. But I bet they were impressed nonetheless.
Good show! :-)
Corporations do tend to practice business differently depending upon their size. The larger the coporation the easier it tends to be to predict their behavior. Loki is probably small enough to NOT be able to predict their behavior, and for them to maintain good motives.
(incidentally, in your example about the nazis and the ACLU you use the word "their". Does that refer to the ACLU's HQ or the nazi's HQ?)
Oh, well shoot! I'd have gone too in that case if I were you! :-)
That changes things considerably!
Heck, I'd have brought 50 resume's! :-)
I'm not questioning his motives. I am only suggesting that if a company can afford to pay programmers, they should.
And I hope they're successful.
I believe you and trust your instincts.
I have no idea what their gross income is, what is it? But I suspect it's enough to have paid these 30 people well.
This does not necessarily relate to their potential or actual gross income.
As I said, I am not questioning his motives, nor am I a naysayer, just slightly cyincal. I find it healthy to question everything. But on a side note (and please forgive me) but I find it very rude when people throw the word "conspiracy" out in an intellectual discussion. It has always been used tactically in the past by people who are attempting to immediately dismiss their opponent (for lack of a better word) out of hand as some sort of UFO, alien-abduction, "Oswald didn't act alone," nutcase. While I am certain that is not what you're doing, I do find it a distraction.
Well this then begs that obvious question, "Why did they sponsor such an event?" I am a little suspicious of the idea that THEY did it to have fun. And from what I read (and I did read the original article) their code was a mess. All in all it appears to me that they benefitted greatly, and the hackers got some t-shirts, food, 1/30th of a hotel room, and some fun. What would an outsider reading this thread for the first time gather from the facts at hand?
I'm curious if this is just a suspicion of yours, or something they told you. It sounded to me like you fellas wrote some cool code. To me it would seem foolish not include such code in the final product.
Excellent. There's nothing quite like the feeling of a job well done. I support open source and am ultimately glad that such an event took place. In my case (and in defense of my 2 posts regarding this topic) warning flags tend to go off when I feel that corporations are taking advantage of talented people. Especially talented people within circles that I tend to frequent. It's only a defense mechanism. Forgive me if I've offended anyone. :-)
Cheers!
I haven't thought about this for more than a moment, but I don't necessarily buy that argument.
Loki IS a corporation and they are in the business of making money, just like any corporation, regardless of size. I might even argue that helping the Redmond folks iron wrinkles out of the Windows 2000 code would be a good thing. At least that would be helping IT professionals at companies all around the world have more secure networks and more reliability in the OS that they run on most of their machines (even though at the same time that might hurt linux).
All you're doing by helping Loki improve their code is improving a GAME, and in my opinions games offer little value other than as diversions. (although they have offered interesting challenges to programmers and have accelerated [no pun] additions like MMX and 3DNow extensions in CPU's coming to markets).
That does not mean however that I would actually be in favor of helping the Redmond folks fix bugs in W2K for free. Because I would not.
Any multi-million (or billion) dollar corporation can afford to pay programmers what they're worth, and should. (They should also pay their fair share of taxes, but that's another matter entirely).
Am I in favor of Loki getting lots of (virtually) free help on their code? Probably not. They stand to make a lot of money with this game, and can certainly afford to pay more for the help they received than buying a few lunches and one hotel room for 30 people. These things are trivial.
But at the same time these hackers live in a relatively free society and are free to do with their programming skills what they want. As long as they don't feel cheated and had a good time I am content.
Just don't expect to get any free consulting out of me unless you genuinaly can't afford it! :-)
I am completely in favor of donating (my) services and help to people less fortunate than me, and would encourage anyone to do so.
>Crypto in the hands of the mafia, or kiddie porn >peddlers, does society no good. Crypto in the >hands of honest citizens who value their privacy >does society no harm. It's a shame that the NSA, >the treasury department, and our government have >taken the first as a reason to hinder the second. It is naive to think that the NSA actually cares about pornographers and the mafia. They keep crypto weak to spy on the citizenry of this country. But saying they're keeping it weak to fight pornography keeps the public on their side.