I can't tell you how many times I've done a Google search for how to do something related to computers, technology and/or programming and found only a series of forum posts in which various other people in the same situation as me have already asked the question I Googled and were told, "Google is your friend."
Now it is certainly true that alot of people have asked dumb questions onilne without searching adequately. But it shouldn't be too hard to understand the logical problems with just telling someone, "Google it" when your very comment of saying, "Google it" is often all they'll find if they do. When Google looks for the answer to people's questions, if "Google it" is the most often returned answer for a query, then "Google it" will seem to be the answer. But it's not the answer, it's a means of finding the answer!
Why don't I just Google it? I am!!
There should be a "How to Answer Questions The Smart Way" to match the one about asking questions.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
More extreme rhetoric from both sides befouls the air
Daniel Castro on anti-piracy Internet DNS censorship says, "If you accept the fact that piracy is a problem, government needs to do something. You have to start from that premise. So if you accept that premise, the question is what's the most effective way of reducing infringement?"
That's a very dangerous and controversial premise. Castro is claiming that just because there is a problem, therefore the government should take whatever steps are necessary to solve that problem. Shouldn't the government leave at least some problems alone?
Are there no limits to what steps should be taken? Might not some steps be appropriate and some inappropriate, instead of all possible steps being appropriate, which would make the government's power over the citizens effectively unlimited?
Forcing people who want to pirate stuff to type in IP addresses may not be that bad of an idea in itself, but this premise is the bad idea and pretty much catches this guy with his philosophy-of-government pants down. Surely the government isn't here to solve all our problems of every kind.
It is a bit scary that the government might start censoring DNS results, because of the whole "slippery slope" thing. If it's an acceptable way to deal with this problem, what about when unpopular political, religious or philosophical ideas become the next "problem"? Are we going to censor them too?
On the other extreme end of the spectrum this week we have the Free Software Foundation coming out to warn people about the "Javascript Trap" which they claim "traps" people into running proprietary code on their computers. But it does not, in fact, do so. Richard Stallman may not like it, but it's not a trap and insisting that all JavaScript be free software is an example of the extreme radicalism which is one of the reasons why so few people listen to the FSF. They really need to get their priorities straightened out.
The proprietary code in question may not be "free software" in Richard Stallman's extremist sense of the words, but it is "open source" because there's nothing stopping you in principle from reading any and all JavaScript code that runs in your browser before you agree to run it. It is true that you can't legally copy large code segments from copyrighted JavaScripts verbatim into your own programs, but there's nothing wrong with that because it doesn't make you or your computer or the software that lives on your computer any less free. You could re-implement the same algorithms in your own code without breaking any law at all. (Because as far as I know, nothing in the JavaScripts in question is patented, only copyrighted)
Having what the Free Software Foundation demands - a truly Stallmanesque "free software" client interface for Google services and other popular webapps, would be nice I suppose but you can already look at the JavaScript - it's "open source" and since you aren't going to be modifying how somebody else's web site works, it just isn't necessary.
Instead of politely suggesting or requesting that Google provide a free software JavaScript interface, or starting a friendly petition, they put out propaganda about "the JavaScript Trap" suggesting that people who write or use proprietary JavaScript code are somehow dishonest or manipulative when in fact they just aren't. Even if the FSF is right, (which they aren't) why not use a little tact!? Is it too much to ask to ask nicely?
That's a very dangerous and controversial premise. Castro is claiming that just because there is a problem, therefore the government should take whatever steps are necessary to solve that problem. Shouldn't the government leave at least some problems alone?
Are there no limits to what steps should be taken? Might not some steps be appropriate and some inappropriate, instead of all possible steps being appropriate, which would make the government's power over the citizens effectively unlimited?
Forcing people who want to pirate stuff to type in IP addresses may not be that bad of an idea in itself, but this premise is the bad idea and pretty much catches this guy with his philosophy-of-government pants down. Surely the government isn't here to solve all our problems of every kind.
It is a bit scary that the government might start censoring DNS results, because of the whole "slippery slope" thing. If it's an acceptable way to deal with this problem, what about when unpopular political, religious or philosophical ideas become the next "problem"? Are we going to censor them too?
On the other extreme end of the spectrum this week we have the Free Software Foundation coming out to warn people about the "Javascript Trap" which they claim "traps" people into running proprietary code on their computers. But it does not, in fact, do so. Richard Stallman may not like it, but it's not a trap and insisting that all JavaScript be free software is an example of the extreme radicalism which is one of the reasons why so few people listen to the FSF. They really need to get their priorities straightened out.
The proprietary code in question may not be "free software" in Richard Stallman's extremist sense of the words, but it is "open source" because there's nothing stopping you in principle from reading any and all JavaScript code that runs in your browser before you agree to run it. It is true that you can't legally copy large code segments from copyrighted JavaScripts verbatim into your own programs, but there's nothing wrong with that because it doesn't make you or your computer or the software that lives on your computer any less free. You could re-implement the same algorithms in your own code without breaking any law at all. (Because as far as I know, nothing in the JavaScripts in question is patented, only copyrighted)
Having what the Free Software Foundation demands - a truly Stallmanesque "free software" client interface for Google services and other popular webapps, would be nice I suppose but you can already look at the JavaScript - it's "open source" and since you aren't going to be modifying how somebody else's web site works, it just isn't necessary.
Instead of politely suggesting or requesting that Google provide a free software JavaScript interface, or starting a friendly petition, they put out propaganda about "the JavaScript Trap" suggesting that people who write or use proprietary JavaScript code are somehow dishonest or manipulative when in fact they just aren't. Even if the FSF is right, (which they aren't) why not use a little tact!? Is it too much to ask to ask nicely?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)