Quite right. I fight battles of this sort weekly. Top researchers and domain managers believe their systems are built by "programmers" and that the key to their success is to have enough "good" programmers. These researchers/managers are far from stupid, but there's a huge void in their understanding of what it takes to put up real systems. We *need* an epic fail like this to start conversations that enable intelligent people to glimpse and appreciate good development processes and personnel stacks... and the consequences of benign and willful neglect. We'll have more of these fails until all of this starts to sink in.
OK... so how does somewhat get to be a professor?? By being a grad student first... meaning slave-heading-for-Stockholm-syndrome. There is *no way* that Forbes is right on this. I wouldn't want that job... these are very hard working, dedicated people!
Finally! California has figured out a way to improve the driving on California roads. Can an occasional system crash be any worse than what we see every day??... and this way, texting addicts can indulge safely. Sure.:)
Seriously... what are you trying to protect? Who are you trying to protect it from? And how much is it worth for them to crack it?
More likely, you're trying to make sure the important information is available to a competent executor, and if it's not immediately available, it's in a form the executor can get it indirectly. You can assume the availability of friendly experts (including lawyers and application users), even if for a price.
If you're worried about someone digging up your treasure and walking away with it, don't... except for Bill Gates (who has plenty of advisors for this)... you're not special. None of us are.
Here are the steps I follow:
1) Have a competent legal firm draw up estate documents and leave custody of the documents with them... make sure everyone knows which firm you chose.
2) Have a copy of the documents in the hands of the executor and family members. You can seal them, but make sure you have an executor who knows how to open and close accounts, pay bills, understand stock dividends, selling houses and cars, can talk to lawyers, and can get expert help when he/she needs it.
3) Get a program like WillMaker to help you document your assets and wishes (even if you use a lawyer to draw up the real documents).
4) As a matter of hygiene, don't be switching your money between custodians and accounts very often... it's harder for someone new to find it all, even given the few years it will take to clean up your estate.
And do all of the above every few years as circumstances change.
This SCOTUS ruling isn't 12 hours old, and the poster makes wild and unfounded assumptions about Arizona's reaction and implementation. Right now, our greatest enemy is FUD... let's watch our assumptions, folks.
... easy... the prosecution (civil and criminal) that occurs once they find you with their data. Promise: it will transcend the warm feeling of completely wrecking your former employer.
Of course, it depends on where you're pinging...... here's what I have on a residential line in San Diego... to Los Angeles: 12ms... to Yahoo: 57ms... to London: 164ms... to 8.8.8.8: 65ms
If I had 200ms, I would assume something was wrong... bad wiring, interference, or a congested/broken switch enroute. Try tracert to find out where the delay is.
This is wise... the brain cannot serve two masters, and it's clear that people are making the wrong choices far too often.
However, that said, there are many kinds of driving scenarios: crowded parking lots, residential streets, freeway ingress/egress, crowded expressways, and long expressway spans.
They all call for different kinds of attention, and long expressway driving really can tolerate split attention.
So, what are we really talking about, and what's the best way to avoid danger?
How about criminalizing various kinds of distracted driving... like a DUI?
How about making this a state-by-state decision... why do the feds need to be involved?... all states do not have the same driving scenarios or sensibilities.
1) How does one measure the value of one's life and work?? Is it really just about money? Weren't *you* that young guy upsetting the old guys 30 years ago?? Sit down, shut up, and keep to your knitting. 2) If you're worth more, prove it. Otherwise, you aren't.
A completely right-on reply.
There are some very big realities here.
First, he's unlikely to produce the material for the next Turing award. Researchers produce incremental results, not flashes of incredible and subtle brilliance.
Second, anything (even brilliant stuff, whatever that is) written now will seem simplistic, obsolete, and irrelevant in 5 years. I promise... after nearly 40 years of this, I can offer very strong testimony.
Third, there are tons of people working very hard to create novel and wonderful software. Does this guy think he's actually going to outdo them?? And even if he does, the gold is really what's in his head, not what's in the code. (And if this is academia, the gold is really in the papers he produces!)
Pleeeeez... this guy would do well to realize the academic experience for what it is... an awesome opportunity to improve oneself and work with great people. It's also critical to remember that the physical facilities, salaries, and everything about the academic institution are being subsidized by some government or foundation somewhere. It's a team effort!
To this guy: GET OVER YOURSELF! Humility and diligence provide the greatest rewards in this experience... not copyright law.
Have you guys *met* people that work for DARPA?? It takes amazing dedication and energy. These people hand over a huge chunk of their lives to accomplish this mission, and fight uphill every step of the way. First, let's show some appreciation for them and the job they do. Second, let's ask whether any of us are good enough to do this job. A pretty scary proposition. Hats off to those that do it!
What an interesting comment, Cederic. I certainly understand and appreciate your concerns, and they're completely valid.
Actually, the wireless law comment was pretty well in scope, though I didn't take much trouble to explain why. The thing about security (as your comment brings home well) is that there are no point solutions that solve "the problem". Security is implemented by measures within a fabric... one fabric being the onion model often referenced in discussions like this... that is, barriers within barriers within barriers. In that vein (and with other models), responsibility and barriers are justifyably distributed, and even so, there are no absolute guarantees.
So, my comment on British wisdom really goes to my supposition that they're taking this kind of system view... and also a view over the long term. Eventually, security really does need to be distributed, and those that aren't part of the solution really are part of the problem.
Personally, I'm hoping that VPN technology becomes more mature soon, as I'm anxious to eliminate concerns about information in flight. Regardless, that doesn't solve any of the problems you mentioned... there's a LOT to this subject.
Now, as to ascribing motivations to the decision makers, I'm choosing an optimistic view, realizing that cynical views are possible and may even be justified.:)
No system could be perfect, but let's give the Brits some credit for having thought about the problem from a systemic viewpoint. There's a parallel in the wireless rollout by the Orange ISP: in their router installation instructions, they instruct the user to create a WEP key and then use it. Additionally, it's against British law to use someone else's wireless system. Who knows the result?? I don't, but I can't help but think that clearer apportionment of responsibilities defines more clearly when bad behavior is occurring... and by distributing responsibility throughout "the system", "the system" should be more secure. Obviously, it's very hard to prove any of this, but it's all sensible to me. Go Brits!... in the long run, this is really the way it has to be.
... it sounds like the author probably did intend that it be used.
If it's the lynchpin of your product, you should consider rewriting it just so that you can say you actually own it. And to do that, you'll need to involve the project lead directly. It doesn't sound like that's the case, though.
Additionally, if you know the source URL, consider attaching it to the code as a comment. That way, if someone in your group wants to know more about it (e.g., context, limitations, etc) they know where to find it. This type of knowledge accumulation comes in real handy.
In the meantime, focus on creating value for your company... that's probably more important at this point.
Right. I suspect that if some tech-savvy judge were to hear a case based on this, he'd throw them to the moon. But there are plenty of tech-non-savvy judges out there. One never can predict how the court will rule. As for their premise in putting their page out in HTML, if they were serious about protecting it, they would have published in PDF or Flash. At least then they'd have the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to say that decoding it would constitute a violation. But no. They're purposely throwing down the gauntlet over the HTML issue. How on earth would they expect to calculate damages??
Copyright 2007 by bdemchak. You have the right to read this provided you don't disagree with it.:)
Do they stop Google from crawling their site?? Google interprets the HTML differently than a browser would.
Will they stop Google or archive.org from caching it??... or re-rendering it within a frame??
Do they place other requirements on the browser... such as exactly how the browser interprets the HTML for the sake of rendering??
Considering that there are virtually ubiquitous substitutes for HTML browsers that *do* enforce source protection, can they be deemed to have constructively waived their claims by publishing in an inherently unsecure medium like HTML?? (I'm thinking that they could have published in secured PDF or Flash.)
The mind boggles... one wonders where they're going with this!?
I'm an American grad student in a top US CS department.
It's true, there are lots of non-US grad students here, but there are also lots of US grad students here. In my group of 10, though, I'm the only American-born and native English speaker.
But for all of the grad students in my department, US or not, I'm hoping that we can entice them to stay as long as possible. And I'm hoping they'll be happy and productive in our field. They're often great minds and great people with lots to offer here in the US -- isn't immigration what has propelled our country for decades!?
So, think about it. Considering that we taxpayers are footing the bill for these awesome educations, why wouldn't we go out of our way to see these grad students put down roots here?
As to why there are so many here, I promise that it's because the admission committees focus on recruiting the best of the best. They have to... research and ratings depend on this! Now, as to why the best one isn't always an American... consider that non-US school systems can be excellent, too... why should the US school system have a monopoly on greatness?? IT DOESN'T... and sometimes woefully not. WAKE UP!
In the end, we Americans get what we deserve... excellent transplants (hopefully)... excellent American-born PhDs (if we prepare well)... or no jobs (if we're lazy and uncompetitive). Believe me, good computer scientists and programmers can always find jobs... it's the uncompetitive ones that can't.
And by the way, the economic argument is mostly wrong. Were the decision about money, there would be very few PhDs. WAKE UP... it's what we like to do, what makes us happy, and what fills our lives. AND the money is probably better.
Think about it.
The legal system is often not about right/wrong or justice. It's about business tactics and business advantage.
And that's what Gateway's EULA is about, too. And Gateway doesn't have lawyers write them or defend them out of any sense of justice. It's all about business advantage.
So, the weird question is how Gateway expects to win any business advantage. They've already lost a lot of good will on this issue alone. They used to be the underdog goodguy. And now, for any of us who cultivated any sense of denial that they've turned to the dark side, the denial is gone.
Whether or not the plaintiff prevails, Gateway loses big. The EULA was the right cross, and the lawyer's intemperate remarks were the knockout punch.
This is self-inflicted, Gateway.
Bye bye. Sadly.
Bizarre solution: enroll into grad school. Picture this: you like IT. Tons of things have happened since you took your last class, and you're an expert in some of those things, and are out to lunch on many more. Grad school lets you "top off" in challenging and mind blowing ways. And you get to experience a younger, very gifted crowd. Result: You get to choose a new direction, experiment with new things, and do something completely different without giving up what you love.
Is that the sweetest deal on the planet, or what?? (I'm doing this right now.)
Slashdot Mirror
Quite right. I fight battles of this sort weekly. Top researchers and domain managers believe their systems are built by "programmers" and that the key to their success is to have enough "good" programmers. These researchers/managers are far from stupid, but there's a huge void in their understanding of what it takes to put up real systems. We *need* an epic fail like this to start conversations that enable intelligent people to glimpse and appreciate good development processes and personnel stacks ... and the consequences of benign and willful neglect. We'll have more of these fails until all of this starts to sink in.
ObamaCare: Architected from Behind.
If it's a random contact (which it probably is ... and unjustifiable, at that), they won't try twice. If it's serious, you'll hear from them again.
OK ... so how does somewhat get to be a professor?? By being a grad student first ... meaning slave-heading-for-Stockholm-syndrome. There is *no way* that Forbes is right on this. I wouldn't want that job ... these are very hard working, dedicated people!
Finally! California has figured out a way to improve the driving on California roads. Can an occasional system crash be any worse than what we see every day?? ... and this way, texting addicts can indulge safely. Sure. :)
Seriously ... what are you trying to protect? Who are you trying to protect it from? And how much is it worth for them to crack it?
... except for Bill Gates (who has plenty of advisors for this) ... you're not special. None of us are.
... make sure everyone knows which firm you chose. ... it's harder for someone new to find it all, even given the few years it will take to clean up your estate.
More likely, you're trying to make sure the important information is available to a competent executor, and if it's not immediately available, it's in a form the executor can get it indirectly. You can assume the availability of friendly experts (including lawyers and application users), even if for a price.
If you're worried about someone digging up your treasure and walking away with it, don't
Here are the steps I follow:
1) Have a competent legal firm draw up estate documents and leave custody of the documents with them
2) Have a copy of the documents in the hands of the executor and family members. You can seal them, but make sure you have an executor who knows how to open and close accounts, pay bills, understand stock dividends, selling houses and cars, can talk to lawyers, and can get expert help when he/she needs it.
3) Get a program like WillMaker to help you document your assets and wishes (even if you use a lawyer to draw up the real documents).
4) As a matter of hygiene, don't be switching your money between custodians and accounts very often
And do all of the above every few years as circumstances change.
Stability and predictability are your friends.
Capital must be free ... it will always seek out the highest ROI ... capital and capitalists are not slaves.
This SCOTUS ruling isn't 12 hours old, and the poster makes wild and unfounded assumptions about Arizona's reaction and implementation. Right now, our greatest enemy is FUD ... let's watch our assumptions, folks.
... easy ... the prosecution (civil and criminal) that occurs once they find you with their data. Promise: it will transcend the warm feeling of completely wrecking your former employer.
Is there anything else they would like to regulate and take away?? Can they list them all now so we can give an appropriate blanket reply??
Of course, it depends on where you're pinging ... ... here's what I have on a residential line in San Diego ... to Los Angeles: 12ms ... to Yahoo: 57ms ... to London: 164ms ... to 8.8.8.8: 65ms
If I had 200ms, I would assume something was wrong ... bad wiring, interference, or a congested/broken switch enroute. Try tracert to find out where the delay is.
This is wise ... the brain cannot serve two masters, and it's clear that people are making the wrong choices far too often.
However, that said, there are many kinds of driving scenarios: crowded parking lots, residential streets, freeway ingress/egress, crowded expressways, and long expressway spans.
They all call for different kinds of attention, and long expressway driving really can tolerate split attention.
So, what are we really talking about, and what's the best way to avoid danger?
How about criminalizing various kinds of distracted driving ... like a DUI?
How about making this a state-by-state decision ... why do the feds need to be involved? ... all states do not have the same driving scenarios or sensibilities.
1) How does one measure the value of one's life and work?? Is it really just about money? Weren't *you* that young guy upsetting the old guys 30 years ago?? Sit down, shut up, and keep to your knitting. 2) If you're worth more, prove it. Otherwise, you aren't.
A completely right-on reply. There are some very big realities here. First, he's unlikely to produce the material for the next Turing award. Researchers produce incremental results, not flashes of incredible and subtle brilliance. Second, anything (even brilliant stuff, whatever that is) written now will seem simplistic, obsolete, and irrelevant in 5 years. I promise ... after nearly 40 years of this, I can offer very strong testimony.
Third, there are tons of people working very hard to create novel and wonderful software. Does this guy think he's actually going to outdo them?? And even if he does, the gold is really what's in his head, not what's in the code. (And if this is academia, the gold is really in the papers he produces!)
Pleeeeez ... this guy would do well to realize the academic experience for what it is ... an awesome opportunity to improve oneself and work with great people. It's also critical to remember that the physical facilities, salaries, and everything about the academic institution are being subsidized by some government or foundation somewhere. It's a team effort!
To this guy: GET OVER YOURSELF! Humility and diligence provide the greatest rewards in this experience ... not copyright law.
Have you guys *met* people that work for DARPA?? It takes amazing dedication and energy. These people hand over a huge chunk of their lives to accomplish this mission, and fight uphill every step of the way. First, let's show some appreciation for them and the job they do. Second, let's ask whether any of us are good enough to do this job. A pretty scary proposition. Hats off to those that do it!
What an interesting comment, Cederic. I certainly understand and appreciate your concerns, and they're completely valid. Actually, the wireless law comment was pretty well in scope, though I didn't take much trouble to explain why. The thing about security (as your comment brings home well) is that there are no point solutions that solve "the problem". Security is implemented by measures within a fabric ... one fabric being the onion model often referenced in discussions like this ... that is, barriers within barriers within barriers. In that vein (and with other models), responsibility and barriers are justifyably distributed, and even so, there are no absolute guarantees.
So, my comment on British wisdom really goes to my supposition that they're taking this kind of system view ... and also a view over the long term. Eventually, security really does need to be distributed, and those that aren't part of the solution really are part of the problem.
Personally, I'm hoping that VPN technology becomes more mature soon, as I'm anxious to eliminate concerns about information in flight. Regardless, that doesn't solve any of the problems you mentioned ... there's a LOT to this subject.
Now, as to ascribing motivations to the decision makers, I'm choosing an optimistic view, realizing that cynical views are possible and may even be justified. :)
No system could be perfect, but let's give the Brits some credit for having thought about the problem from a systemic viewpoint. There's a parallel in the wireless rollout by the Orange ISP: in their router installation instructions, they instruct the user to create a WEP key and then use it. Additionally, it's against British law to use someone else's wireless system. Who knows the result?? I don't, but I can't help but think that clearer apportionment of responsibilities defines more clearly when bad behavior is occurring ... and by distributing responsibility throughout "the system", "the system" should be more secure. Obviously, it's very hard to prove any of this, but it's all sensible to me. Go Brits! ... in the long run, this is really the way it has to be.
... it sounds like the author probably did intend that it be used.
... that's probably more important at this point.
If it's the lynchpin of your product, you should consider rewriting it just so that you can say you actually own it. And to do that, you'll need to involve the project lead directly. It doesn't sound like that's the case, though.
Additionally, if you know the source URL, consider attaching it to the code as a comment. That way, if someone in your group wants to know more about it (e.g., context, limitations, etc) they know where to find it. This type of knowledge accumulation comes in real handy.
In the meantime, focus on creating value for your company
Right. I suspect that if some tech-savvy judge were to hear a case based on this, he'd throw them to the moon. But there are plenty of tech-non-savvy judges out there. One never can predict how the court will rule. As for their premise in putting their page out in HTML, if they were serious about protecting it, they would have published in PDF or Flash. At least then they'd have the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to say that decoding it would constitute a violation. But no. They're purposely throwing down the gauntlet over the HTML issue. How on earth would they expect to calculate damages??
:)
Copyright 2007 by bdemchak. You have the right to read this provided you don't disagree with it.
I wonder how well they thought this through ...
... or re-rendering it within a frame??
... such as exactly how the browser interprets the HTML for the sake of rendering??
... one wonders where they're going with this!?
Do they stop Google from crawling their site?? Google interprets the HTML differently than a browser would.
Will they stop Google or archive.org from caching it??
Do they place other requirements on the browser
Considering that there are virtually ubiquitous substitutes for HTML browsers that *do* enforce source protection, can they be deemed to have constructively waived their claims by publishing in an inherently unsecure medium like HTML?? (I'm thinking that they could have published in secured PDF or Flash.)
The mind boggles
I'm an American grad student in a top US CS department.
... research and ratings depend on this! Now, as to why the best one isn't always an American ... consider that non-US school systems can be excellent, too ... why should the US school system have a monopoly on greatness?? IT DOESN'T ... and sometimes woefully not. WAKE UP!
... excellent transplants (hopefully) ... excellent American-born PhDs (if we prepare well) ... or no jobs (if we're lazy and uncompetitive). Believe me, good computer scientists and programmers can always find jobs ... it's the uncompetitive ones that can't.
... it's what we like to do, what makes us happy, and what fills our lives. AND the money is probably better.
... get some values!
It's true, there are lots of non-US grad students here, but there are also lots of US grad students here. In my group of 10, though, I'm the only American-born and native English speaker.
But for all of the grad students in my department, US or not, I'm hoping that we can entice them to stay as long as possible. And I'm hoping they'll be happy and productive in our field. They're often great minds and great people with lots to offer here in the US -- isn't immigration what has propelled our country for decades!?
So, think about it. Considering that we taxpayers are footing the bill for these awesome educations, why wouldn't we go out of our way to see these grad students put down roots here?
As to why there are so many here, I promise that it's because the admission committees focus on recruiting the best of the best. They have to
In the end, we Americans get what we deserve
And by the way, the economic argument is mostly wrong. Were the decision about money, there would be very few PhDs. WAKE UP
Jeez, guys
This belongs on this web site??? Can't we just stick to bits and bytes?
Think about it. The legal system is often not about right/wrong or justice. It's about business tactics and business advantage. And that's what Gateway's EULA is about, too. And Gateway doesn't have lawyers write them or defend them out of any sense of justice. It's all about business advantage. So, the weird question is how Gateway expects to win any business advantage. They've already lost a lot of good will on this issue alone. They used to be the underdog goodguy. And now, for any of us who cultivated any sense of denial that they've turned to the dark side, the denial is gone. Whether or not the plaintiff prevails, Gateway loses big. The EULA was the right cross, and the lawyer's intemperate remarks were the knockout punch. This is self-inflicted, Gateway. Bye bye. Sadly.
Uhhh ... you've never been to a PDC (Professional Developers Conference)???
... it's too negative. If you want to find the faithful throngs, go right to the developers.
You've never heard a gillion programmers chanting "cool"?
"Cult" isn't quite the right word
Bizarre solution: enroll into grad school. Picture this: you like IT. Tons of things have happened since you took your last class, and you're an expert in some of those things, and are out to lunch on many more. Grad school lets you "top off" in challenging and mind blowing ways. And you get to experience a younger, very gifted crowd. Result: You get to choose a new direction, experiment with new things, and do something completely different without giving up what you love. Is that the sweetest deal on the planet, or what?? (I'm doing this right now.)