A person has to be provided the right of reply in the same newspaper.
A person has to be provided right of reply on the same internet.
You're right, it does sound fair enough.
Seriously though, why should I have to host a link just because I hold an opinion? This law would exact a real (albeit small) price out of voicing an opinion. That makes it wrong as law.
I'll agree that its probably right as a formal policy but not a law.
Contrary to what they're teaching in grade school, not everyone's opinion counts and my forum is not the place for opinions I don't hold.
If I libel or slander someone I can expect to show up in court.
With this law I would have to incur this small amount of work even when I'm right and they're wrong. Why should I have to turn over my forum or take my viewers out of my forum just because someone claims to be wronged?
I much prefer the system where I get to say anything that isn't illegal (basically anything that isn't untruthful and damaging to someone else).
If I say "Ford makes crappy cars" do they get to reply? If Ford posts on their website "#1 in customer satisfaction" does every single Ford customer that disagrees get to reply with equal prominence that Ford would get on all of the "Ford sucks" sites? I doubt it would work out that way.
Basically, you have no right to make me provide you with a forum for your opinion and law that makes me provide you with that forum (at my expense) is wrong.
Its chilling because it means that I will have to do some (albeit small) amount of work without compensation just because someone doesn't like my opinion.
In the US, Amendment 1 says I can have my opinion. The thirteenth amendment says I don't have to do any work for this other guy without compensation. One of these would have to give here in the US. It would either have to be a waiver of the thirteenth or a qualification of the first.
After reading the article it doesn't look like it. Sounds like their still going for a "one way to do it" language.
They talk mostly about visualizing the program like this and being able "to find all the public instance variables." Ooh, sounds like the cutting edge of yesterday's IDE.
Nothing about having code writing code or manipulating the parse tree at runtime.
They may as well have just announced that Java would now be available in purple.
I don't know where these ideas came from, but they just aren't true. Any former employer can tell the truth about you if asked. There are no laws protecting you against the truth. Most employers may have a policy like you describe but its only to avoid all lawsuits (even the ones they would win.)
I won't deny that BASIC may instill some very bad habits. But I think that the person unable to change their habits with a new language will never be a great programmer. This is hardly the fault of BASIC. (I'm certainly not advocating teaching BASIC as a first language, however)
People decry the lack of quality from today's programmers. Its not like the quality of the best programmers has really gone down. Its that we now have a huge class of programmers that can keep a job even with mediocre talent. The high availability of computers has brought a lot of less motivated people to the realm of computing. Its also made it affordable for a bad programmer to run code (compare to time-sharing days). BASIC did the same for programming. It lets the bad programmer play too.
I imagine that Djikstra's comment was made half in jest over the frustration at seeing the simplest of mistakes repeated and blown out of all proportion. I know I'd be frustrated teaching law to a bunch of people who've learned about it watching Law & Order.
I've thought about this statement and at first considered it arrogant. Then I think who said it and it seems authoritative.
Now I think it confuses cause and effect with correlation. I don't think BASIC cause bad programmers. I think it drew people that never would have gotten into programming into the field. The kinds of people that would never realize good style.
Think of the code from web developers or sysadmins that have been pressed into service. Those other avenues may bring them to programming but they are usually limited by their abilities, not their previous experience.
Trust is a two way street. How can a person trust a company that doubles the demands required for a regular paycheck just because management's plan isn't as profitable as once thought.
You should not work more without some sort of compensation. Any change in your regular work requirements should come with negotiation. Management's line will be something like, "we all just need to dig in", but management usually has a bit more equity in the company. Negotiate for some of that equity. Negotiate a company policy for preferential promotions for those that did dig in. More vacation, flexible work hours, etc...
Or just walk out all at once. They've made unilateral changes to the implied rules. Its your life and you owe loyalty to yourself first.
Think that just because you're salaried means you should work 60 hours per week when called on? Try leaving work after 20 hours one week when you get everything done early and see just how flexible they are. Forty hours is implied most places.
There are all sorts of exceptions to what I said above. As a programmer I expect a few wild hour nights/weekends when we are integrating or deploying to production. When I sign on to be a programmer, I can expect a few of those at milestones. I also expect that my output will be based on 40 hour weeks and not 60 hour weeks.
I hear you about the cd to play a game. I've stopped playing several because its more convenient to play the same game and keep it in the drive. The other thing that bothers me is that with any EA game I have to watch their splash intros every time. This really drives me nuts when the game crashes and I have to restart. I bought the damn game, let me play it, don't force me to watch your self-promos.
I don't buy EA now, problem solved.
The same thing with commercials and FBI messages at the beginning of DVD's. Who the (@#&$ are they to take over control of my player and say which buttons I can or can't press.
I stopped buying dvd's.
Now I play the piano. I'm saving up for some land and within 10 years I'll have a considerable amount and maybe a couple horses. What's that big yellow thing outside? Was that always there? When did it get an FBI warning limiting my use to daytime-clear-weather only?
Ok, I didn't state it too clearly earlier. I certainly think the guilt lies with the criminal.
But, the RIAA say that everyone is stealing. They still sell this music to those same people that are pirating it. They then blame the service providers (Napster was a bad choice, use some other P2P one or just a search engine).
I'm saying that if everyone else is going to be at fault for these things getting copied around, then the RIAA needs to be consistent in their due diligence and stop selling to all the people that are pirating. Since they say that its pretty much everyone...well, then they should stop providing those people with the content to steal from them.
Its hard to come up with a physical analogy since its not truly stealing, rather its stealing potential sales. If a known burglar came into my shop and asked for a crowbar I would have to turn him down. If the RIAA knows that 80% of people steal content, they shouldn't provide those people with content that they can make copies of for other people.
This argument would only make sense if you first assume that the RIAA is correct that everyone that facilitates is equally liable.
As far as DRM. Bring it on. Go ahead and put it on everything and everywhere. I'm perfectly willing to live without things I don't think are worth paying for. I've already got DRM on several software programs and don't mind it at all. I pay for the works I use and I don't try or buy the things I can't preview. A lot of Linux zealots want the government to crush MicroSoft. I'd prefer they be turned loose to run rampant. They are the best thing that's happened to open source.
If its the fault of the people that fail due diligence, then its the fault of the cable and broadcast companies for putting out stuff that can be redistributed.
Why are other companies responsible for securing properties that are released in an insecure fashion? Sure Napster had predominantly pirated works on there but why should they be responsible for the people that use their system? Perhaps the RIAA and MPAA should screen their customers before they sell to them and stop selling to thieves.
The first pirate has to get his goods from somewhere and its one of their customers that's doing it.
Then you can work on: loose vs lose there vs their rediculous wierd its it's then when it should be than all right vs alright a lot vs alot
I don't mind simple typing errors and I don't mind non-English speakers mangling the language. Its just that I'm amazed how people that grew up with the language can consistently use the wrong word. In particular the consistent use of "then" instead of "than". How could you be in a technical field and miss out on "less than", "more than", etc...
Also, loose when it should be lose amazes me. Nobody seems to misspell "lost" or "loser". Where the hell does that extra 'o' come from all of a sudden? Also "loose" doesn't sound like "lose". Try pronouncing "goose" or "moose".
Weird is a wierd spelling. No big deal about this one as there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason why its spelled the way it is.
Just out of curiousity, do they still teach spelling in school? Up through what grades? (serious question, its been a while)
People buy nice pens because there is an image associated with them.
Chess sets and pianos also seem to be purchased in quantities far beyond their use. It seems like every family that has made it has a piano even if nobody plays. It looks good in a room. Pens look good on a desk.
I do know a few people that have taken up penmanship but I think their numbers in the pen markets are dwarfed by the people purchasing the image.
Myself, I just got a piano and I'm trying damn hard not to be one of those people that just buys one and has their kid take lessons to justify it. I'll leave the penmanship to someone else.
Those making $26 do pay a lot in taxes. Just not FICA. They are still paying social security, medicare and medicaid. Those are all still taxes that work just like the income tax, except that you can never get that money back.
That said, why does a 15% tax rate for someone poor mean a rich person has to have a 36% tax rate to be "fair". The word "fair" gets used a lot but nobody seems to want to define it. Personally, it doesn't make sense to me why making more money necessitates taxing at a higher *rate*. You'll be taxed more just because you made more. This is of course the logic behind a flat tax (I'm not proposing such here, that's another debate).
Democrats scream "unfair" that a rich guy may have his tax dropped by 2%. But they won't go out on a limb and say, "28% is a fair rate." They are only interested in the inflammatory cries of "unfair" so they can get votes from the bulk of the people.
Republicans appeal to the common man's aspirations. Democrats appeal to the common man's jealousy.
Well, I don't feel that's really true about Republicans but I do feel that Democrats are only interested in buying votes through government programs.
This NDA is useful for those people that may be interested in whether these claims are true, but aren't interested in developing kernels. Consider a client wavernig on whether or not to buy SCO or Linux support. They sign the NDA, SCO shows them they are the proper owners of the ultra-secret code, then they buy gobs of stuff from SCO.
I don't believe that's the case here at all but that's not the fault of this NDA. It would be valuable and usable to someome.
Oh please, name your proprietary well-documented projects. Oh, then name all the well-designed ones in the same problem space that failed because all that got done was design.
Everyone buys into this designing software theory, but unless you have the budget of NASA, the best results I've seen have been from hiring good people to write good code first. This results in a solid product that works well and is consequently easy to document.
Current software engineering seems to guard aganist coders being absolute morons. I prefer to hire quality and leave it to them to guard against not getting any real work done. All programmers know this is true, 10% get it and the rest don't. Its real easy to recognize the difference too.
Slashdot Mirror
A person has to be provided the right of reply in the same newspaper.
A person has to be provided right of reply on the same internet.
You're right, it does sound fair enough.
Seriously though, why should I have to host a link just because I hold an opinion? This law would exact a real (albeit small) price out of voicing an opinion. That makes it wrong as law.
I'll agree that its probably right as a formal policy but not a law.
Contrary to what they're teaching in grade school, not everyone's opinion counts and my forum is not the place for opinions I don't hold.
If you had real short arms like a T-Rex, it would be very difficult.
If I libel or slander someone I can expect to show up in court.
With this law I would have to incur this small amount of work even when I'm right and they're wrong. Why should I have to turn over my forum or take my viewers out of my forum just because someone claims to be wronged?
I much prefer the system where I get to say anything that isn't illegal (basically anything that isn't untruthful and damaging to someone else).
If I say "Ford makes crappy cars" do they get to reply? If Ford posts on their website "#1 in customer satisfaction" does every single Ford customer that disagrees get to reply with equal prominence that Ford would get on all of the "Ford sucks" sites? I doubt it would work out that way.
Basically, you have no right to make me provide you with a forum for your opinion and law that makes me provide you with that forum (at my expense) is wrong.
Its chilling because it means that I will have to do some (albeit small) amount of work without compensation just because someone doesn't like my opinion.
In the US, Amendment 1 says I can have my opinion. The thirteenth amendment says I don't have to do any work for this other guy without compensation. One of these would have to give here in the US. It would either have to be a waiver of the thirteenth or a qualification of the first.
After reading the article it doesn't look like it. Sounds like their still going for a "one way to do it" language.
They talk mostly about visualizing the program like this and being able "to find all the public instance variables." Ooh, sounds like the cutting edge of yesterday's IDE.
Nothing about having code writing code or manipulating the parse tree at runtime.
They may as well have just announced that Java would now be available in purple.
Could someone set this up on bittorrent?
Ok, who else is imagining the fully-functional death star?
Don't dream it, be it.
I don't know where these ideas came from, but they just aren't true. Any former employer can tell the truth about you if asked. There are no laws protecting you against the truth. Most employers may have a policy like you describe but its only to avoid all lawsuits (even the ones they would win.)
I won't deny that BASIC may instill some very bad habits. But I think that the person unable to change their habits with a new language will never be a great programmer. This is hardly the fault of BASIC. (I'm certainly not advocating teaching BASIC as a first language, however)
People decry the lack of quality from today's programmers. Its not like the quality of the best programmers has really gone down. Its that we now have a huge class of programmers that can keep a job even with mediocre talent. The high availability of computers has brought a lot of less motivated people to the realm of computing. Its also made it affordable for a bad programmer to run code (compare to time-sharing days). BASIC did the same for programming. It lets the bad programmer play too.
I imagine that Djikstra's comment was made half in jest over the frustration at seeing the simplest of mistakes repeated and blown out of all proportion. I know I'd be frustrated teaching law to a bunch of people who've learned about it watching Law & Order.
I've thought about this statement and at first considered it arrogant. Then I think who said it and it seems authoritative.
Now I think it confuses cause and effect with correlation. I don't think BASIC cause bad programmers. I think it drew people that never would have gotten into programming into the field. The kinds of people that would never realize good style.
Think of the code from web developers or sysadmins that have been pressed into service. Those other avenues may bring them to programming but they are usually limited by their abilities, not their previous experience.
Trust is a two way street. How can a person trust a company that doubles the demands required for a regular paycheck just because management's plan isn't as profitable as once thought.
You should not work more without some sort of compensation. Any change in your regular work requirements should come with negotiation. Management's line will be something like, "we all just need to dig in", but management usually has a bit more equity in the company. Negotiate for some of that equity. Negotiate a company policy for preferential promotions for those that did dig in. More vacation, flexible work hours, etc...
Or just walk out all at once. They've made unilateral changes to the implied rules. Its your life and you owe loyalty to yourself first.
Think that just because you're salaried means you should work 60 hours per week when called on? Try leaving work after 20 hours one week when you get everything done early and see just how flexible they are. Forty hours is implied most places.
There are all sorts of exceptions to what I said above. As a programmer I expect a few wild hour nights/weekends when we are integrating or deploying to production. When I sign on to be a programmer, I can expect a few of those at milestones. I also expect that my output will be based on 40 hour weeks and not 60 hour weeks.
I hear you about the cd to play a game. I've stopped playing several because its more convenient to play the same game and keep it in the drive. The other thing that bothers me is that with any EA game I have to watch their splash intros every time. This really drives me nuts when the game crashes and I have to restart. I bought the damn game, let me play it, don't force me to watch your self-promos.
I don't buy EA now, problem solved.
The same thing with commercials and FBI messages at the beginning of DVD's. Who the (@#&$ are they to take over control of my player and say which buttons I can or can't press.
I stopped buying dvd's.
Now I play the piano. I'm saving up for some land and within 10 years I'll have a considerable amount and maybe a couple horses. What's that big yellow thing outside? Was that always there? When did it get an FBI warning limiting my use to daytime-clear-weather only?
Ok, I didn't state it too clearly earlier. I certainly think the guilt lies with the criminal.
But, the RIAA say that everyone is stealing. They still sell this music to those same people that are pirating it.
They then blame the service providers (Napster was a bad choice, use some other P2P one or just a search engine).
I'm saying that if everyone else is going to be at fault for these things getting copied around, then the RIAA needs to be consistent in their due diligence and stop selling to all the people that are pirating. Since they say that its pretty much everyone...well, then they should stop providing those people with the content to steal from them.
Its hard to come up with a physical analogy since its not truly stealing, rather its stealing potential sales. If a known burglar came into my shop and asked for a crowbar I would have to turn him down. If the RIAA knows that 80% of people steal content, they shouldn't provide those people with content that they can make copies of for other people.
This argument would only make sense if you first assume that the RIAA is correct that everyone that facilitates is equally liable.
As far as DRM. Bring it on. Go ahead and put it on everything and everywhere. I'm perfectly willing to live without things I don't think are worth paying for. I've already got DRM on several software programs and don't mind it at all. I pay for the works I use and I don't try or buy the things I can't preview. A lot of Linux zealots want the government to crush MicroSoft. I'd prefer they be turned loose to run rampant. They are the best thing that's happened to open source.
If its the fault of the people that fail due diligence, then its the fault of the cable and broadcast companies for putting out stuff that can be redistributed.
Why are other companies responsible for securing properties that are released in an insecure fashion? Sure Napster had predominantly pirated works on there but why should they be responsible for the people that use their system? Perhaps the RIAA and MPAA should screen their customers before they sell to them and stop selling to thieves.
The first pirate has to get his goods from somewhere and its one of their customers that's doing it.
ys
Then you can work on:
loose vs lose
there vs their
rediculous
wierd
its it's
then when it should be than
all right vs alright
a lot vs alot
I don't mind simple typing errors and I don't mind non-English speakers mangling the language. Its just that I'm amazed how people that grew up with the language can consistently use the wrong word. In particular the consistent use of "then" instead of "than". How could you be in a technical field and miss out on "less than", "more than", etc...
Also, loose when it should be lose amazes me. Nobody seems to misspell "lost" or "loser". Where the hell does that extra 'o' come from all of a sudden? Also "loose" doesn't sound like "lose". Try pronouncing "goose" or "moose".
Weird is a wierd spelling. No big deal about this one as there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason why its spelled the way it is.
Just out of curiousity, do they still teach spelling in school? Up through what grades? (serious question, its been a while)
People buy nice pens because there is an image associated with them.
Chess sets and pianos also seem to be purchased in quantities far beyond their use. It seems like every family that has made it has a piano even if nobody plays. It looks good in a room. Pens look good on a desk.
I do know a few people that have taken up penmanship but I think their numbers in the pen markets are dwarfed by the people purchasing the image.
Myself, I just got a piano and I'm trying damn hard not to be one of those people that just buys one and has their kid take lessons to justify it. I'll leave the penmanship to someone else.
Those making $26 do pay a lot in taxes. Just not FICA. They are still paying social security, medicare and medicaid. Those are all still taxes that work just like the income tax, except that you can never get that money back.
That said, why does a 15% tax rate for someone poor mean a rich person has to have a 36% tax rate to be "fair". The word "fair" gets used a lot but nobody seems to want to define it. Personally, it doesn't make sense to me why making more money necessitates taxing at a higher *rate*. You'll be taxed more just because you made more. This is of course the logic behind a flat tax (I'm not proposing such here, that's another debate).
Democrats scream "unfair" that a rich guy may have his tax dropped by 2%. But they won't go out on a limb and say, "28% is a fair rate." They are only interested in the inflammatory cries of "unfair" so they can get votes from the bulk of the people.
Republicans appeal to the common man's aspirations.
Democrats appeal to the common man's jealousy.
Well, I don't feel that's really true about Republicans but I do feel that Democrats are only interested in buying votes through government programs.
I have it on good authority that he later changed his name to John Galt.
This NDA is useful for those people that may be interested in whether these claims are true, but aren't interested in developing kernels. Consider a client wavernig on whether or not to buy SCO or Linux support. They sign the NDA, SCO shows them they are the proper owners of the ultra-secret code, then they buy gobs of stuff from SCO.
I don't believe that's the case here at all but that's not the fault of this NDA. It would be valuable and usable to someome.
When I was going through H2H training in the Marines, I asked my dad what training he had when he was in.
"If they get up close, shoot them."
In other words, 100% (+/- 3%) of statistics require margins of error to be meaningful.
Or if he fills up (4 times) with a Geo and siphons it to his SUV. The Geo never being driven but using up tons of gas anyway.
Oh please, name your proprietary well-documented projects. Oh, then name all the well-designed ones in the same problem space that failed because all that got done was design.
Everyone buys into this designing software theory, but unless you have the budget of NASA, the best results I've seen have been from hiring good people to write good code first. This results in a solid product that works well and is consequently easy to document.
Current software engineering seems to guard aganist coders being absolute morons. I prefer to hire quality and leave it to them to guard against not getting any real work done. All programmers know this is true, 10% get it and the rest don't. Its real easy to recognize the difference too.