They haven't stopped releasing because of a lack of competition. In fact, what they are doing is making a strategic move in a competitive market.
I don't think they see it as limiting what you can purchase. You see it that way, because your perspective is that of a consumer, they see it otherwise because their view is that of a competitive company, trying to bring it out at just the *right* moment. What you want them to do is considered the business equivalent to jumping the gun.
Not true. Giving away money in such a fashion and in such small quantities would be zero sum. The spammer would just lose lots of money to people that actually read the spam *and* bother replying to what would no doubt look like a ploy.
Relatively speaking. Also, if you are going to have fun with the English language, it's much more enjoyable to use it's own rules to do it in! Instanteinity becomes instantaneity!
Hmm, feeling fuzzy. Not enough jujubes.
Additionally, the scenario given is typical of the/. responses I see:
This, in turn, enables them to continue using the same irresponsible software engineering practices as they always have, with no impact on their bottom line.
Compiling and testing doesn't find everything. It's easy to accuse an ace coder or a crack team of programmers of sloppiness when you don't know the people. Sure some companies push an overly aggressive time frame, but not all of them do and (from what I can tell) not most of them, either.
People make mistakes, give them a little slack, but not much. Responsible developers will have the fix out by the time you remember to put the full disclosure of the bug in your calendar(exaggerating here: 7-14 days is realistic, depending on severity of the issue).
I'm glad you said that and not me. I was about to write a dissertation on security and disclosure based on the the SEC's stance and requirements. Citations and everything.
That isn't considered Full Disclosure. Posting on a script kiddie forum is not disclosure to a public information disclosure service like Bugtraq. The former is considered malicious disclosure of security threats.
I believe 'objective, external reality' refers to the event that occured, without consideration for the reasons behind its occurence. He could have been referring to the event with full consideration of all reasons for its occurence, but that position is untenable due to inaccessibility of all information (though the latter is how I define truth). Perspective has nothing to do with the fact that it happened (if, indeed, it did happen).
Also, let me fix your statement here:
All things viewed and/or reported by a human being are subjectively viewed and/or reported.
The viewing and reporting of said 'things' does not change them (though you may say that it has an impact on what will happen in the future of those things, but do you really want to play around with the an extended application of the uncertainty principle?)
...and all of us are foolish at some time or another. Your point isn't made through your attempt at semantic wit. Your point is made and should have been contained in your last sentence.
Most/. posters are zealots, from what I can tell, including me. I don't shy from that fact, I am proud that there are things that I feel so strongly about. It means that I have a certain amount of passion, giving my life that much more meaning. To your parent, I submit that being fervent about something does not preclude rationality.
I understand the implications of Social Darwinism (darwinism and social darwinism are two separate subjects). However, what you said is "but IMO if this person gets punished it's just Darwinism in action" which, to me suggests you following Spencer's version of social Darwinism, something from which Darwin himself tried to distance himself (eugenics, specifically).
I quite understand the concept of natural selection, but this person most likely is going to continue to propogate the species, as she has physical characteristics that will no doubt ensure such.
Great analogy. Brilliant. We all know that Jhannet posted this on/. to get sympathy from us. What was done was not a crime, according to fair use.
The bomb threat is. And Darwinism has nothing to do with any of this, as no one is getting killed.
A duel is, by nature, a consentual act. Otherwise it is murder.
I'd like to point out, while I am posting, that most people don't seem to realize that if thieves really had thieving skills, they would be have to be nearly useless in combat situations due to skill balancing. A thief character should never be able to come close to holding their own in a fair fight. And fights will invariable be fair since the environment itself is not so interactive.
Just don't let em catch you! They'll kill you, take their stuff back, and then take your stuff.
While I agree with the intent of this post, both actions have an actual victim. An attempt at murder doesn't necessarily have to be recognized by the intended victim.
For example, poisoning someone's water supply would be an attempt at murder, but if that person rarely drinks the water, you may only make that person sick and they would never know that they are the target of a murder.
Similarly, a copyright infringement is hard for anyone to notice without strict controls. These are controls that hurt/annoy honest users like me more than they deter dishonest users (well, dishonest users of above average intelligence is probably more accurate).
I am strongly against trying to enforce copyright laws on something that is being played on the air somewhere in the world right now (and if it isn't being played right now, it probably isn't making money for the owner anymore anyway). It is a form of expression and, just like any artform, will bring in money if it has any value to the culture in which it was created.
I still use hotmail, mostly because I have had the account for about 8 years and am *still* slowly moving people over to my other accounts. The hotmail junk filters are indeed lame, the mailbox size allowance is more than I've ever needed and auto-sign in is a feature that I will never use. Ever. Am I a guy that has the trendy (among geeks) paranoia? No, I simply don't trust myself to keep people out of my stuff even less than I trust these companies, who don't have the best of records with security. I actually use hushmail, if I am needing the security *shrug*.
Slashdot Mirror
The strange thing is that the grandparent normally posts very informative and insightful posts. I'm guessing he/she hasn't gotten to the coffee yet.
They haven't stopped releasing because of a lack of competition. In fact, what they are doing is making a strategic move in a competitive market. I don't think they see it as limiting what you can purchase. You see it that way, because your perspective is that of a consumer, they see it otherwise because their view is that of a competitive company, trying to bring it out at just the *right* moment. What you want them to do is considered the business equivalent to jumping the gun.
Once competition is considered anti-competitive, let me know, as I have a definition of aggressive that I would like to change, as well.
Not true. Giving away money in such a fashion and in such small quantities would be zero sum. The spammer would just lose lots of money to people that actually read the spam *and* bother replying to what would no doubt look like a ploy.
Relatively speaking. Also, if you are going to have fun with the English language, it's much more enjoyable to use it's own rules to do it in! Instanteinity becomes instantaneity! Hmm, feeling fuzzy. Not enough jujubes.
Someone mod the parent up!
I'm glad you said that and not me. I was about to write a dissertation on security and disclosure based on the the SEC's stance and requirements. Citations and everything.
That isn't considered Full Disclosure. Posting on a script kiddie forum is not disclosure to a public information disclosure service like Bugtraq. The former is considered malicious disclosure of security threats.
I believe 'objective, external reality' refers to the event that occured, without consideration for the reasons behind its occurence. He could have been referring to the event with full consideration of all reasons for its occurence, but that position is untenable due to inaccessibility of all information (though the latter is how I define truth). Perspective has nothing to do with the fact that it happened (if, indeed, it did happen). Also, let me fix your statement here: All things viewed and/or reported by a human being are subjectively viewed and/or reported. The viewing and reporting of said 'things' does not change them (though you may say that it has an impact on what will happen in the future of those things, but do you really want to play around with the an extended application of the uncertainty principle?)
...and all of us are foolish at some time or another. Your point isn't made through your attempt at semantic wit. Your point is made and should have been contained in your last sentence. Most /. posters are zealots, from what I can tell, including me. I don't shy from that fact, I am proud that there are things that I feel so strongly about. It means that I have a certain amount of passion, giving my life that much more meaning. To your parent, I submit that being fervent about something does not preclude rationality.
I understand the implications of Social Darwinism (darwinism and social darwinism are two separate subjects). However, what you said is "but IMO if this person gets punished it's just Darwinism in action" which, to me suggests you following Spencer's version of social Darwinism, something from which Darwin himself tried to distance himself (eugenics, specifically).
I quite understand the concept of natural selection, but this person most likely is going to continue to propogate the species, as she has physical characteristics that will no doubt ensure such.
Great analogy. Brilliant. We all know that Jhannet posted this on /. to get sympathy from us. What was done was not a crime, according to fair use.
The bomb threat is. And Darwinism has nothing to do with any of this, as no one is getting killed.
A duel is, by nature, a consentual act. Otherwise it is murder. I'd like to point out, while I am posting, that most people don't seem to realize that if thieves really had thieving skills, they would be have to be nearly useless in combat situations due to skill balancing. A thief character should never be able to come close to holding their own in a fair fight. And fights will invariable be fair since the environment itself is not so interactive. Just don't let em catch you! They'll kill you, take their stuff back, and then take your stuff.
While I agree with the intent of this post, both actions have an actual victim. An attempt at murder doesn't necessarily have to be recognized by the intended victim. For example, poisoning someone's water supply would be an attempt at murder, but if that person rarely drinks the water, you may only make that person sick and they would never know that they are the target of a murder. Similarly, a copyright infringement is hard for anyone to notice without strict controls. These are controls that hurt/annoy honest users like me more than they deter dishonest users (well, dishonest users of above average intelligence is probably more accurate). I am strongly against trying to enforce copyright laws on something that is being played on the air somewhere in the world right now (and if it isn't being played right now, it probably isn't making money for the owner anymore anyway). It is a form of expression and, just like any artform, will bring in money if it has any value to the culture in which it was created.
I still use hotmail, mostly because I have had the account for about 8 years and am *still* slowly moving people over to my other accounts. The hotmail junk filters are indeed lame, the mailbox size allowance is more than I've ever needed and auto-sign in is a feature that I will never use. Ever. Am I a guy that has the trendy (among geeks) paranoia? No, I simply don't trust myself to keep people out of my stuff even less than I trust these companies, who don't have the best of records with security. I actually use hushmail, if I am needing the security *shrug*.