While a google co-location may put a "smaller website owner" at some sort of absolute disadvantage, it also could make the smaller website load faster, simply because not as many google requests need to go over the link...
but if I had done what he did (negotiated diligently yet fruitlessly with MS for five days), I would probably reserve judgment for whether or not I was "pleased with myself" until I saw how Microsoft acted when they received my next bug report...
Of course, I might also be "pleased with myself" if my employer had a policy of huge bonuses for published zero day exploits. I dunno whether this happens or not, just sayin' I'd be very pleased to get such a bonus, and would work quite hard to try to get another one.
To get the full flavor of the GPL, he has to release "Totally incompatible license v2.0" as well, which, naturally, is incompatible with v1.0.
Of course, he convinced some of his license users to release under "Totally incompatible license v1.0 or greater" which means that he can now stick a clause in 2.0 explaining how he owns their souls.
Hey, I gave someone a Linux ISO once, does that mean I have to host (or otherwise make directly available from me) the source code for them if they ask me?
Yes, according to both a close reading of the license, and the FSF's FAQ.
In fact, according to a close reading of the license, you were probably in technical violation of the license as soon as you handed out the copy without a written offer of source.
The only people I saw who graduated from the CS program I observed who I'd be willing to hire were the ones who spent a significant amount of time on practice as well as theory.
That's an excellent observation, but what you're really saying is that you want people interested enough in programming to actually program -- self-motivated people. You'd hire one of these even if he didn't have a computer available when he was growing up. But now that computers are a dime a dozen, you'd probably prefer, since he's going to be programming on his own time anyway, that his teacher actually gave him a real dose of theory. The fact that others in the class fall asleep is of no real consequence -- you weren't going to hire them, anyway.
Calculators are no more than a tool to do certain kinds of math, wereas[sic] computers are the reason for programming.
That's an incredibly myopic view that will doom you to forever being a code monkey, if you even get that far.
You can do perfectly useful math without a calculator, but programming without a computer doesn't even make much sense.
The first "computers" were human beings. People actually wrote algorithms that were executed by hundreds of other people.
Even now, the ability to logically organize large groups of people in ways that can produce useful results is highly sought after. This requires additional skills beyond "programming," but the sort of critical thinking background that an introduction to programming class ought to provide can be extremely useful well outside the domain of what you consider to be "programming." And someone who is disciplined enough to get through that class and truly understand will not have the impatience that requires him to be entertained by an electronic device while he is learning a few more fundamentals.
I taught myself programming (and how to wire together an 8080) a good two years before I was able to use a real computer.
to which you replied:
Have you tried programming without a computer?
My post wasn't that long, so there's no real excuse about "missing" that part. A complete lack of reading comprehension on your part pretty much invalidates the rest of your post, but I'll bite anyway.
Also, since I actually teach first year university students programming I can say with some authority that presenting them with theory alone is destined to fail. You can actually see their eyes glaze over as you dive into the second hour of a lecture about what classes are, what a method is etc.
Look, I get that the computer is, in many ways, a better teacher than you. It doesn't judge, gives immediate feedback, and is there whenever the student wants to interact with it. All I'm saying is that, for self-motivated students, books may be better teachers than you, too, and the primary difference between a book and the computer for the purposes of this sort of learning is whether there is immediate feedback. But, a lack of immediate feedback can often be a good thing, allowing for deeper reflection.
However, you mix that up with demonstrations of a HelloWorld program, a simple GUI that does something pretty or whatever, and they stay interested.
That may be, and perhaps you are, fairly or unfairly, judged on how many people can retain enough to pass the final. But guess what? Unless you are in the most boring 10% of people on the planet, I don't particularly want to hire the ones who only managed to stay awake in your class when they were playing with a computer. I'm really not interested in people who need that much extrinsic motivation.
That's a horrible analogy. Teaching programming without a computer is more like teaching math without using a calculator, which IMHO is an excellent idea, at least until some level of proficiency is achieved.
I taught myself programming (and how to wire together an 8080) a good two years before I was able to use a real computer, from those things made out of dead trees. I can still find problems in assembly, C, Verilog, whatever, by reading the code much faster than many of my co-workers can by running simulators and debuggers.
A rigorous understanding of logic requires no hardware.
I don't know. I suppose it's partly the fact that the half of the conversation I hear sounds relatively loud and demanding, like something is wanted from me. If I heard both sides, I think I could tune it out as an argument I'm not a party to.
The brain unconsciously tries to make sense of conversation going on around it. Half-conversations are problematic; foreign languages are problematic.
I used to set in a cube next to a guy who was always talking on the phone in Chinese. It always gave me a headache, because of the double whammy of hearing half a conversation in a language that I don't understand.
For those that don't know, "acting like a know-it-all" is just something that less knowledgeable people like to say about us more knowledgeable people, as if they are taking some moral high ground by being less knowledgeable.
Hmm, if people say you act like a know-it-all and you really do think you know it all,
maybe you're really one of these people.
I think a lot of the abuse could be cleared up by forcing the patent to declare the problem to be solved (which most patents do to some extent anyway), and then having the patent office publish the problem to be solved without the solution. If somebody else submits substantially the same solution to the patent office within a reasonable timeframe (a month or 6 weeks or so), well then the patent's proposed solution isn't really non-obvious, now, is it?
Once the system gets rolling and gets a lot of participation (think an independent patentpedia.org project), I think there would be a snowball effect. So many patent applications would be quickly invalidated (after the applicant pays hefty fees and lawyer bills of course) without much effort on the part of the patent office, that fewer patent applications would be submitted. When fewer patent applications are submitted, then those people at patentpedia trying to help rid the world of bad patents will have more time to address each application, which will result in still fewer bad patents. Whenever equilibrium is reached, the percentage of bad patents being issued will most likely be a small fraction of today's percentage.
In effect, in addition to throwing out patents for non-obviousness, this would also extend the period allowed for "prior art" to some time after the patent application was filed, because, realistically, a competing proposed solution could rely on any prior art then in existence. Some will cry foul on this, but if the goal is truly to grant limited monopoly rights in exchange for educating the public, shouldn't that monopoly only be granted if, in fact, some previously undisclosed new invention is disclosed as part of the bargain?
A "patent troll" is pejorative language for "non practicing entity" -- a company which doesn't actually build anything. As world's third-largest LCD panel maker, AUO couldn't possibly qualify as an NPE.
The only reason copyright comes into play is because Omega copyrighted this logo for the _specific_ reason of trying to use copyright as a legal market segmentation tool.
If ever there was a rationale for "misuse of copyright", this is it.
No it doesn't. Now I've got your drive and can spend my leisure hacking away until that information is mine.
Sure, but if you're that-way inclined, you'd probably spend your efforts on easier targets.
Physical destruction or nothing, folks.
a) That assumes all information is equally (and REALLY) valuable.
b) If information is REALLY valuable, don't you want it encrypted even when it's on the way to the physical destruction site? Or are you suggesting that everybody should have the wherewithal to grind up, melt, etc. hard disks on site without incurring the wrath of the EPA?
It's not up to the state to regulate interstate commerce, even if it does directly impact the residents.
While big companies certainly might be able to call up their federal congress-critters and get them to override Massachusetts state law, until the feds pass a conflicting law, the state certainly can take steps to regulate actions that affect its citizens. This happens all the time, and is often ruled constitutional as long as the law does not discriminate (e.g. in favor of businesses inside the state).
I see you've met him. Wait, did I introduce you to him, or did you introduce him to me? I'm trying to figure out whether to feel ashamed or supercilious.
And the nice thing is that when you report it in the filing, the other company will be shamed because other people will figure out who it is, yet you are not really adding to your own risk, because in the SEC filing you use some words like have been used in this article:
"We have discovered a security vulnerability in a third party web application platform we use. If this is successfully exploited, (list of bad things that could happen). We have informed the vendor, and they have so far been unresponsive in fixing it. We are working diligently to deploy a firewall in front of the applications, but there is no guarantee that this vulnerability will not be exploited before we have that fully deployed, or the vendor gives us a fix."
This is exactly the chain of command/control you want to use. You tell your counterparts at the other company that your company's policy requires you to report it to the lawyer, the lawyer tells his counterpart that SEC rules require him to disclose the vulnerability, and then he does it in the next report. End of story.
Then the ball is in the other company's court to either fix the vulnerability or prove to your satisfaction that it isn't a problem.
This is not a programming problem any more.
Much as we all hate lawyers, this is one case where they are useful. VERY useful. You put him on notice, it's not your problem any more. He puts the vendors lawyer on ACTUAL notice (which has a specific legal meaning). He might even need to tell the other lawyer that he's going to have to report this issue in the next required SEC filing. IMO, if you already have the thing deployed, which it seems may be the case from your post, your FIRST stop should have been the attorney.
Slashdot Mirror
While a google co-location may put a "smaller website owner" at some sort of absolute disadvantage, it also could make the smaller website load faster, simply because not as many google requests need to go over the link...
Why do people always say that when what they really mean is "You don't get what you don't pay for." ???
Good luck with that...
Of course, I might also be "pleased with myself" if my employer had a policy of huge bonuses for published zero day exploits. I dunno whether this happens or not, just sayin' I'd be very pleased to get such a bonus, and would work quite hard to try to get another one.
Google is supposed to learn morals from Microsoft and its toadies?
OSI didn't ask for any of this.
Someone who wanted to start developing stuff on top of the library (who happens to be esr) asked for this.
Then some things were said, like "well we're not ready yet" but in a hurried and somewhat non-diplomatic manner.
Then the whole thing blew up just enough for the lid to leave the teapot by about a quarter of an inch before it settled back down.
There is no there there.
Of course, he convinced some of his license users to release under "Totally incompatible license v1.0 or greater" which means that he can now stick a clause in 2.0 explaining how he owns their souls.
Yes, according to both a close reading of the license, and the FSF's FAQ. In fact, according to a close reading of the license, you were probably in technical violation of the license as soon as you handed out the copy without a written offer of source.
That's an excellent observation, but what you're really saying is that you want people interested enough in programming to actually program -- self-motivated people. You'd hire one of these even if he didn't have a computer available when he was growing up. But now that computers are a dime a dozen, you'd probably prefer, since he's going to be programming on his own time anyway, that his teacher actually gave him a real dose of theory. The fact that others in the class fall asleep is of no real consequence -- you weren't going to hire them, anyway.
That's an incredibly myopic view that will doom you to forever being a code monkey, if you even get that far.
The first "computers" were human beings. People actually wrote algorithms that were executed by hundreds of other people.
Even now, the ability to logically organize large groups of people in ways that can produce useful results is highly sought after. This requires additional skills beyond "programming," but the sort of critical thinking background that an introduction to programming class ought to provide can be extremely useful well outside the domain of what you consider to be "programming." And someone who is disciplined enough to get through that class and truly understand will not have the impatience that requires him to be entertained by an electronic device while he is learning a few more fundamentals.
to which you replied:
My post wasn't that long, so there's no real excuse about "missing" that part. A complete lack of reading comprehension on your part pretty much invalidates the rest of your post, but I'll bite anyway.
Look, I get that the computer is, in many ways, a better teacher than you. It doesn't judge, gives immediate feedback, and is there whenever the student wants to interact with it. All I'm saying is that, for self-motivated students, books may be better teachers than you, too, and the primary difference between a book and the computer for the purposes of this sort of learning is whether there is immediate feedback. But, a lack of immediate feedback can often be a good thing, allowing for deeper reflection.
That may be, and perhaps you are, fairly or unfairly, judged on how many people can retain enough to pass the final. But guess what? Unless you are in the most boring 10% of people on the planet, I don't particularly want to hire the ones who only managed to stay awake in your class when they were playing with a computer. I'm really not interested in people who need that much extrinsic motivation.
I taught myself programming (and how to wire together an 8080) a good two years before I was able to use a real computer, from those things made out of dead trees. I can still find problems in assembly, C, Verilog, whatever, by reading the code much faster than many of my co-workers can by running simulators and debuggers.
A rigorous understanding of logic requires no hardware.
I don't know. I suppose it's partly the fact that the half of the conversation I hear sounds relatively loud and demanding, like something is wanted from me. If I heard both sides, I think I could tune it out as an argument I'm not a party to.
I used to set in a cube next to a guy who was always talking on the phone in Chinese. It always gave me a headache, because of the double whammy of hearing half a conversation in a language that I don't understand.
Hmm, if people say you act like a know-it-all and you really do think you know it all, maybe you're really one of these people.
Once the system gets rolling and gets a lot of participation (think an independent patentpedia.org project), I think there would be a snowball effect. So many patent applications would be quickly invalidated (after the applicant pays hefty fees and lawyer bills of course) without much effort on the part of the patent office, that fewer patent applications would be submitted. When fewer patent applications are submitted, then those people at patentpedia trying to help rid the world of bad patents will have more time to address each application, which will result in still fewer bad patents. Whenever equilibrium is reached, the percentage of bad patents being issued will most likely be a small fraction of today's percentage.
In effect, in addition to throwing out patents for non-obviousness, this would also extend the period allowed for "prior art" to some time after the patent application was filed, because, realistically, a competing proposed solution could rely on any prior art then in existence. Some will cry foul on this, but if the goal is truly to grant limited monopoly rights in exchange for educating the public, shouldn't that monopoly only be granted if, in fact, some previously undisclosed new invention is disclosed as part of the bargain?
Too many oxymorons here -- I don't know where to start!
A "patent troll" is pejorative language for "non practicing entity" -- a company which doesn't actually build anything. As world's third-largest LCD panel maker, AUO couldn't possibly qualify as an NPE.
If ever there was a rationale for "misuse of copyright", this is it.
Sure, but if you're that-way inclined, you'd probably spend your efforts on easier targets.
a) That assumes all information is equally (and REALLY) valuable.
b) If information is REALLY valuable, don't you want it encrypted even when it's on the way to the physical destruction site? Or are you suggesting that everybody should have the wherewithal to grind up, melt, etc. hard disks on site without incurring the wrath of the EPA?
While big companies certainly might be able to call up their federal congress-critters and get them to override Massachusetts state law, until the feds pass a conflicting law, the state certainly can take steps to regulate actions that affect its citizens. This happens all the time, and is often ruled constitutional as long as the law does not discriminate (e.g. in favor of businesses inside the state).
No, it also protects the rest of us against idiots who sell old hard drives on ebay.
I see you've met him. Wait, did I introduce you to him, or did you introduce him to me? I'm trying to figure out whether to feel ashamed or supercilious.
Exactly.
And this is the right way to go about it.
And the nice thing is that when you report it in the filing, the other company will be shamed because other people will figure out who it is, yet you are not really adding to your own risk, because in the SEC filing you use some words like have been used in this article:
"We have discovered a security vulnerability in a third party web application platform we use. If this is successfully exploited, (list of bad things that could happen). We have informed the vendor, and they have so far been unresponsive in fixing it. We are working diligently to deploy a firewall in front of the applications, but there is no guarantee that this vulnerability will not be exploited before we have that fully deployed, or the vendor gives us a fix."
This is exactly the chain of command/control you want to use. You tell your counterparts at the other company that your company's policy requires you to report it to the lawyer, the lawyer tells his counterpart that SEC rules require him to disclose the vulnerability, and then he does it in the next report. End of story.
Then the ball is in the other company's court to either fix the vulnerability or prove to your satisfaction that it isn't a problem.
This is not a programming problem any more. Much as we all hate lawyers, this is one case where they are useful. VERY useful. You put him on notice, it's not your problem any more. He puts the vendors lawyer on ACTUAL notice (which has a specific legal meaning). He might even need to tell the other lawyer that he's going to have to report this issue in the next required SEC filing. IMO, if you already have the thing deployed, which it seems may be the case from your post, your FIRST stop should have been the attorney.