4 posts • joined 21 Jan 2012
saw this coming
I saw the end coming when oracle took over MySQL. Before oracle took over MySQL was to release version 6 which was going to being it up to where postgres currently is. In other words a competitor to oracle DB. Since they took over MySQL has been stuck in version 5 with small changes here and there. I feel MySQL is more like a demo from oracle or a foot in the door to try and get companies to buy oracle DB server. In our organisation we are switching over to postgres now I haven't tried nosql yet need to give that a try.
good article but a bit too much generalization
This article got me thinking a lot, not because it is right but cause I know it is wrong :P.
Well i would like to tackle the points raised in this article.
This article talks about 2 things
2. rights or control.
In the article you are confusing the concept of ownership and you are immediately jumping the gun that ownership brings rights, i.e. control. Well the first thing that you have to understand, the copylefts are fighting is not ownership part, but the control part. you might ask can we own something but not have any rights over it? Well lets look at the physics or science research. When someone publishes a paper in a journal. The owner of that idea or discovery is duely credited but he/she has absolutely has no control over how the science community uses their idea. That is ownership with out rights.
If we are to assume that with ownership you get certain rights, eg the right to totally control how your information is used, then that comes under enforcement or control.
Why i argue that copyright and privacy are 2 different things is because copyright only works with enforcement, and when enforcement comes in to play, someones privacy has to be compromised. There can never be enforcement without a compromise in privacy.
Now if we are to have strong privacy laws then that means we need transparency from governments or organisations like google and facebook. This effectively means govt, google, facebook have no claim to privacy.
If copyright were to be 100% enforced then the general public has to sacrifice their privacy for the betterment of content creators.
When we say we already do this for local law enforcement, why not for copyright?
Well this is where i draw the line. Local law enforcement do invade our privacy to a certain degree generally for public safety.
Copyright enforcement is to let corporation,law enforcement invade our lives for the sake of lining someones pockets.
To sum it up, privacy is the protection of the public or general population's information because of security concerns(concerns of harm).
Copyright enforcement is the invasion of general population's privacy for profits.
remember enforcement is not possible without a breach of privacy, only we need to decide do we do it for the purpose of public safety or profits.
Which side would you take?
whats happening in africa is tribalism gone horribly wrong. People like kony are a lot like politicians they will represent a paricular interest group in this case a particular tribe. You have to understand children are kidnapped not cause they are children but because they are children of the opposing tribe. In these kind of situations its usually multiple warlords all representing their own tribes that fight for control. If kony dies the tribe that he supports will be butchered and enslaved as revenge. We saw this happen a while back in libya and recently in kenya. This is mordern day shaka zulu only in the old days they used spears and bow arrow now a days its machetis and ak47. The best way to solve this confict is stop the god damn arms trade, there is a reason these wars continue cause someone is peofitting from it.
well lets change that bean analogy a bit
Lets upgrade your bean story to the internet age. Now you have decided not to cater to the local market. Lets say a local pirate comes along sees the warehouse full of beans. Npw he has a device that can scan a particular something and duplicate infinite times. Now the pirate ses some hungry people on the road and duplicates the boxes of beans and hands it to all the poor people so that they can have a full stomach. You have not lost any of your boxes, but your beans are in a market that you dont want to cater to in the first place. Now whos fault is it that you did not see the potential in the local market? Or the pirate who saw the demand and fullfilled it, without earning a penny and ofc he feed some poor people while doing it too.