The solution is to live in a saner town. Honestly, why would someone want to live in that dump of the city when there are nicer and cheaper cities nearby? The fact that San Francisco is essentially full and should put up a "No Vacancy" sign if it were a hotel has not discouraged more people from showing up. The astronomical rents higher than the rest of the area has also not discouraged people from coming there. Yet when I visit I see nothing there that would encourage someone to actually want to live there.
Who cares if there is housing in SF or not. SF is not the only place to live! Quite a lot of the residents go and commute through several residential cities on their way to their jobs.
Problem is that there's no room to build. Solution is that the the Bay Area is much larger than that little town. Problem is that the San Francisco residents are unable to acknowledge the existence of housing anywhere else. So they'd rather pay the $5000/month rent and have a horrendous commute rather than live in the same town where they work (nicer towns than that dump on the hill too).
The vast majority of people living in San Francisco were not born there. This includes the majority of the people who complain there's no room for artists anymore. People want the door shut and locked to others after they enter.
That same jerk would probably say that it's ok if someone gets evicted in San Jose because it's jut a suburb. San Francisco people are amazingly parochial, second only to Manhattanites. They only care about keeping artists in San Francisco because no other locale even exists in their minds; they think that if an artist leaves the city that the artist ceases to exist. I do think that gentrification is not a good thing, but I am also so sick and tired of the elistism coming out of that stupid town.
But not many programmers live there. The few who do all commute south to go to work. The people who work in San Francisco at the faux-tech companies are just building stupid apps by morons for morons, they couldn't do any real programming anyway much less any engineering.
And I have also seen the industry in San Francisco and it is not "tech", only tech wannabes and tech users. Twitter and Uber are NOT technology companies.
I've hard people say "It's nice to be around so many museums and culture". Then I ask them when the last time they went to a museum and then they look a bit embarrassed. You can live in San Jose, 50 miles away, and still go visit the museums in San Francisco on the weekend. People who live in San Francisco but work elsewhere are always whining about how horrible their commutes are, how expensive their rents are, and so forth. (though the one person I know who lives here has a wife who earns the most money in the family so he lives where she wants to live)
They're basically all elitist snobs. Even the poor ones! The poor residents have actually gotten upset in the past when street sweepers show up because they think that clean streets are an impending sign of gentrification. San Francisco is basically a very small town in area that acts like it is the only place in the universe.
There are people who strongly believe that the wine was just grape juice, and the translators were confused by linguistic fuzziness. Thus the miracle of turning water into Welch's!
Except that special masters who are part of the industry are going to be biased towards that industry and it's difficult to find one that really is impartial. For instance, appointing someone who used to be a corporate CTO would result in a bias towards continuing the ongoing patent wars, that software patents are valid, that APIs can be copyrighted, etc. But appoint RMS and you get a bias in the opposite direction.
A special master can be useful in deciding if a patent really was novel or not. However consider that the jury West Texas were not swayed by the testimony of Whitfield Diffie or Ron Rivest regarding an invalid patent on encryption (not special masters though and they had a jury instead of just a judge).
What about if Warner Brothers makes millions of dollars of revenue from copying your work without giving any compensation back? Why should someone want to spend any amount of time trying to be a novelist if someone can just steal it immediately and make copies? You might not even get any sales if a competing publishing house steals the text, adds some illustrations, then sells it at a cheaper price than the original publisher you chose. The purpose of copyright law and patents are to provide incentive to create art and inventions, so that one can actually make a living in such fields.
Then there are the comic book artists working for low to moderate pay who finds that some panels are enlarged and end up in museums of art making lots of money for Roy Lichtenstein with no royalties being paid.
Which tends to be the polar opposite of modern programming style in major corporations. People spend tons of time on the API for very simple minded implementations. Designs may consist of a google search to find a set of libraries that already do the job. The APIs rise to the level of utmost importance because implementation in many companies has devolved to the point of connecting one pre-built interface to another pre-built interface.
The wheel hub is not copyrighted, but the textual description of how to create a wheel hub with the right dimensions. Copyright law I think is being misused in this case. There really is not a good set of laws or legal principles regarding the disputes here, one side basically wants to protect their market, the other side wants to sell their product as better and interoperable. The fact that the rules for interoperability must be copied in order to do this in software is what allows copyright laws to be invoked. So in the automotive world the same disputes may arise but they can't prevent third parties from having compatible wheels, and if they try to disallow it they can be slapped by the courts for inhibiting competition unfairly, but in the software world they can fall back to copyright law to allow them to maintain their market share.
The problem is that the original creator of the API does not want it to be used for interoperability in this case. They want the API for their own use or for customers to integrate with their own libraries, they don't want some third party to use the API to replace their libraries with competing versions.
Whether their stance is correct or not, I think that copyright law is being used only because the APIs are written down rather than copyright law being inherently applicable in such disputes.
Agreed. C strings are a *great* API, even if the modern generation of web heads don't like them. C++ strings are a step back from clean and simple interfaces, and giant leaps backwards for mankind once they turned them into templates instead of classes, not to mention bloatware.
You can fix the bad APIs, or bypass them, amend them, work around them, etc. One big problem is that the people most likely to make the API and turn it into an unchangeable set of holy scriptures are often the people least able to do actual implementation. They'll insist on ridiculous things like all accesses to variables must be through getters/setters, or all libraries and objects must be acquired through cumbersome methods involving UUIDs rather than passing a simple pointer. These people tend to be slaves to the Design Patterns, slaves to the process, and unable to do any implementation anyway.
No, the A students should do the real work. Do not leave to C students to screw up the implemention. The people most slavish to following an API tend to be the C student types anyway, since once they have their holy scriptures then the burden of having to think is removed.
I agree though that you don't want some hack creating the API because it has long term consequences. It's easier to start a new project from scratch than it is to change an API. But an API should also be very fluid during design and first implementation stages because it is utterly impossible to know what the final product and requirements are before you start coding (despite all protests to the contrary from the C students). You buy some parts out of a fixed budget then find that the parts don't work as advertised and you *must* change how things work to accomodate. Only a C student would think that you can predict the future and that it's ok to carve the API into stone.
If your team are the only ones using the API then it is not the most valuable part. Change it if it makes the product work better, or makes the implementation possible in the first place, or completely replace it if it's not working out. The only time an API is more important is if you're working across teams or companies and there's no ability to coordinate changes easily; but even then it should always be allowed to abandon the API and create API version 2, or amend the API if both parties agree.
Technically, juries are there only to decide on the facts. For instance, the jury can't find someone guilty of murder if the charges were for breaking and entering, the jury is there to decide that matter before them (guilty or not guilty of the stated charges). The judge is allowed to decide if evidence is admissible or not, and other issues of whether something is lawful or not. This is for *criminal* trials as per the sixth amendment to the constitution. The juries in nullification don't actually overturn a law but they do make the law moot if enough juries refuse to convict on a particular law.
Unfortunately there's not a lot of legal framework regarding civil trials in the constitution, and this particular case is a civil matter. Jury nullification in civil trials are very rare because the framework is different. For instance there's no constitutional requirement for a jury trial in civil cases.
In any event, intellectual property law is so byzantine that the average jury is baffled by it all. Whereas any set of professional judges well versed in intellectual property laws are biased.
Never mind that, the security update doesn't mention the Windows 10 stuff at all when you read it, though it does list the number of the first update along with an obfuscated one line description. The security update is very clearly trying to sneak in that advertisement update. So it is indeed a Trojan horse.
Remember that just because some people can spot the trap door on the bottom of the horse doesn't mean it's not a Trojan horse.
A reasonable company would offer you a choice. An unreasonable company removes choices. Most people who are good at business realize that you need to keep the customers happy if you want their money, but Microsoft seems to not learn this lesson.
Slashdot Mirror
The solution is to live in a saner town. Honestly, why would someone want to live in that dump of the city when there are nicer and cheaper cities nearby? The fact that San Francisco is essentially full and should put up a "No Vacancy" sign if it were a hotel has not discouraged more people from showing up. The astronomical rents higher than the rest of the area has also not discouraged people from coming there. Yet when I visit I see nothing there that would encourage someone to actually want to live there.
Who cares if there is housing in SF or not. SF is not the only place to live! Quite a lot of the residents go and commute through several residential cities on their way to their jobs.
Problem is that there's no room to build. Solution is that the the Bay Area is much larger than that little town. Problem is that the San Francisco residents are unable to acknowledge the existence of housing anywhere else. So they'd rather pay the $5000/month rent and have a horrendous commute rather than live in the same town where they work (nicer towns than that dump on the hill too).
The vast majority of people living in San Francisco were not born there. This includes the majority of the people who complain there's no room for artists anymore. People want the door shut and locked to others after they enter.
That same jerk would probably say that it's ok if someone gets evicted in San Jose because it's jut a suburb. San Francisco people are amazingly parochial, second only to Manhattanites. They only care about keeping artists in San Francisco because no other locale even exists in their minds; they think that if an artist leaves the city that the artist ceases to exist. I do think that gentrification is not a good thing, but I am also so sick and tired of the elistism coming out of that stupid town.
Can't, doctor said that if I keep playing the Slashdot drinking game I'll have no liver left.
They have medical creams that should clear that culture up for you and stop the burning sensation.
But not many programmers live there. The few who do all commute south to go to work. The people who work in San Francisco at the faux-tech companies are just building stupid apps by morons for morons, they couldn't do any real programming anyway much less any engineering.
And I have also seen the industry in San Francisco and it is not "tech", only tech wannabes and tech users. Twitter and Uber are NOT technology companies.
I've hard people say "It's nice to be around so many museums and culture". Then I ask them when the last time they went to a museum and then they look a bit embarrassed. You can live in San Jose, 50 miles away, and still go visit the museums in San Francisco on the weekend. People who live in San Francisco but work elsewhere are always whining about how horrible their commutes are, how expensive their rents are, and so forth. (though the one person I know who lives here has a wife who earns the most money in the family so he lives where she wants to live)
They're basically all elitist snobs. Even the poor ones! The poor residents have actually gotten upset in the past when street sweepers show up because they think that clean streets are an impending sign of gentrification. San Francisco is basically a very small town in area that acts like it is the only place in the universe.
There are people who strongly believe that the wine was just grape juice, and the translators were confused by linguistic fuzziness. Thus the miracle of turning water into Welch's!
What did people do in emergencies before cell phones?
My business rules I want some software to operate upon:
1) gather underwear
2) ???
3) Profit!
Except that special masters who are part of the industry are going to be biased towards that industry and it's difficult to find one that really is impartial. For instance, appointing someone who used to be a corporate CTO would result in a bias towards continuing the ongoing patent wars, that software patents are valid, that APIs can be copyrighted, etc. But appoint RMS and you get a bias in the opposite direction.
A special master can be useful in deciding if a patent really was novel or not. However consider that the jury West Texas were not swayed by the testimony of Whitfield Diffie or Ron Rivest regarding an invalid patent on encryption (not special masters though and they had a jury instead of just a judge).
What about if Warner Brothers makes millions of dollars of revenue from copying your work without giving any compensation back? Why should someone want to spend any amount of time trying to be a novelist if someone can just steal it immediately and make copies? You might not even get any sales if a competing publishing house steals the text, adds some illustrations, then sells it at a cheaper price than the original publisher you chose. The purpose of copyright law and patents are to provide incentive to create art and inventions, so that one can actually make a living in such fields.
Then there are the comic book artists working for low to moderate pay who finds that some panels are enlarged and end up in museums of art making lots of money for Roy Lichtenstein with no royalties being paid.
There's another problem with copyrights in that they're being extended to things that probably shouldn't be copyrighted. Like APIs.
Which tends to be the polar opposite of modern programming style in major corporations. People spend tons of time on the API for very simple minded implementations. Designs may consist of a google search to find a set of libraries that already do the job. The APIs rise to the level of utmost importance because implementation in many companies has devolved to the point of connecting one pre-built interface to another pre-built interface.
The wheel hub is not copyrighted, but the textual description of how to create a wheel hub with the right dimensions. Copyright law I think is being misused in this case. There really is not a good set of laws or legal principles regarding the disputes here, one side basically wants to protect their market, the other side wants to sell their product as better and interoperable. The fact that the rules for interoperability must be copied in order to do this in software is what allows copyright laws to be invoked. So in the automotive world the same disputes may arise but they can't prevent third parties from having compatible wheels, and if they try to disallow it they can be slapped by the courts for inhibiting competition unfairly, but in the software world they can fall back to copyright law to allow them to maintain their market share.
The problem is that the original creator of the API does not want it to be used for interoperability in this case. They want the API for their own use or for customers to integrate with their own libraries, they don't want some third party to use the API to replace their libraries with competing versions.
Whether their stance is correct or not, I think that copyright law is being used only because the APIs are written down rather than copyright law being inherently applicable in such disputes.
Agreed. C strings are a *great* API, even if the modern generation of web heads don't like them. C++ strings are a step back from clean and simple interfaces, and giant leaps backwards for mankind once they turned them into templates instead of classes, not to mention bloatware.
You can fix the bad APIs, or bypass them, amend them, work around them, etc. One big problem is that the people most likely to make the API and turn it into an unchangeable set of holy scriptures are often the people least able to do actual implementation. They'll insist on ridiculous things like all accesses to variables must be through getters/setters, or all libraries and objects must be acquired through cumbersome methods involving UUIDs rather than passing a simple pointer. These people tend to be slaves to the Design Patterns, slaves to the process, and unable to do any implementation anyway.
No, the A students should do the real work. Do not leave to C students to screw up the implemention. The people most slavish to following an API tend to be the C student types anyway, since once they have their holy scriptures then the burden of having to think is removed.
I agree though that you don't want some hack creating the API because it has long term consequences. It's easier to start a new project from scratch than it is to change an API. But an API should also be very fluid during design and first implementation stages because it is utterly impossible to know what the final product and requirements are before you start coding (despite all protests to the contrary from the C students). You buy some parts out of a fixed budget then find that the parts don't work as advertised and you *must* change how things work to accomodate. Only a C student would think that you can predict the future and that it's ok to carve the API into stone.
If your team are the only ones using the API then it is not the most valuable part. Change it if it makes the product work better, or makes the implementation possible in the first place, or completely replace it if it's not working out. The only time an API is more important is if you're working across teams or companies and there's no ability to coordinate changes easily; but even then it should always be allowed to abandon the API and create API version 2, or amend the API if both parties agree.
Technically, juries are there only to decide on the facts. For instance, the jury can't find someone guilty of murder if the charges were for breaking and entering, the jury is there to decide that matter before them (guilty or not guilty of the stated charges). The judge is allowed to decide if evidence is admissible or not, and other issues of whether something is lawful or not. This is for *criminal* trials as per the sixth amendment to the constitution. The juries in nullification don't actually overturn a law but they do make the law moot if enough juries refuse to convict on a particular law.
Unfortunately there's not a lot of legal framework regarding civil trials in the constitution, and this particular case is a civil matter. Jury nullification in civil trials are very rare because the framework is different. For instance there's no constitutional requirement for a jury trial in civil cases.
In any event, intellectual property law is so byzantine that the average jury is baffled by it all. Whereas any set of professional judges well versed in intellectual property laws are biased.
Never mind that, the security update doesn't mention the Windows 10 stuff at all when you read it, though it does list the number of the first update along with an obfuscated one line description. The security update is very clearly trying to sneak in that advertisement update. So it is indeed a Trojan horse.
Remember that just because some people can spot the trap door on the bottom of the horse doesn't mean it's not a Trojan horse.
A reasonable company would offer you a choice. An unreasonable company removes choices. Most people who are good at business realize that you need to keep the customers happy if you want their money, but Microsoft seems to not learn this lesson.