Re: Local interview

From: Jeff Almeida <spud_at_spudzeppelin_dot_com>
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 14:58:24 CST

Also Sprach Eron Lloyd:
>On Friday 26 March 2004 3:26 pm, David Mertz wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 2004, at 3:14 PM, Eron Lloyd wrote:

>The thing with policy language is that it needs to be as specific as possible
>to prevent misinterpretation. As it is written, it would totally disqualify
>the entire GNU tool chain, Linux, Python, and every other component used in
>our system. I'm looking for language the proprietary vendors could point to
>and use against us.

I also see some longer-term problems with language like this: Suppose at
some point in the not-too-distant future (but certainly beyond our current
scope) the standard for interfaces with the multihandicapped is a haptic
device that talks SOAP over GPRS; by definition the instructions as to
what is being written to it would be transmitted over the internet!

To rephrase what was said before, Congress is generally clueless when
trying to regulate technology. Not that they do much better elsewhere
(like HR)...

I'm convinced the background-checking thing works to our DISADVANTAGE.
Companies like Diebold already background-check their programmers: it's
part of the cost of doing business, especially if your business is selling
automated teller machines. OTOH, we have no "cost of doing business" to
begin with to build the cost structure into, and because we are an
international consortium, there are a number of participants whose
background checks would be either prohibitively expensive or impossible.
Anybody want to speculate, for example, on the cost of background-checking
Anand? :)


Jeff D. "Spud (Zeppelin)" Almeida
Corinth, TX
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Wed Mar 31 23:17:10 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 23:17:12 CST