This may be true but in the end code is 99% text files. Feel free to edit them wherever you want and just make sure you keep the project files up to date so that everything compiles in the GUI when the boss or other devs come around. Stipulating a compilation environment and widespread use of a tool doesn't prevent someone from doing productive work in the tool of choice and then fit it into the environment chosen by the management.
I had somewhat the oppisite problem where I was employed where the compilation environment was all command line/build file based and I had no idea how it worked (I could use unix makefile but these were all together different) but I knew how visual studio worked. I put up pressure until I realized it was much easier for me to figure out how to use visual studio as my editor and compile with the central tools. That was my only point really and if a developer can't flex like that they are in trouble in the long term.
He means its worthless because it is unable to record digital cable or digital satellite signals. Many people in the country are not within a reasonable distance from an OTA HD broadcast and so can't benefit from these cards.
It would be nice (but won't happen) if DirecTV, DishNetwork, or/and Comcast would release a PC decoder/recorder card to consume thier services.
If you can prove that there is a cost to you that you cannot avoid when they send the spam (getting junk mail isn't any appreciable cost to you in comparison to the cost to send the mail) then they do not have the right to send it. The big example that I like is the law that existed (still exists I think but I know it was being fought against by fax spammers) to prevent fax spam. Because receiving a fax cost the person recieving that had no reasonable away to avoid it, it was legislated that the fax spam was not to be sent and it was not a free speech issue.
In general his reason was flawed. "Feeling I don't have control of the outcome when using MS tools" is only because of a lack of education not because of a flaw in the tool. If he learned a bit more he could gain back the control.
To give him the benefit of the doubt I will change his reasoning to be the more general "I don't like developing with microsoft tools" which is also a flawed reason to quit. Most of the people I work with do thier actual editing of code in their tool of choice, for many it is source insight, and then only use the MS tool for compilation, often using the command line interface to MS's compilers. Again it comes down to educating yourself on how to fit in.
I guess in the end if you really don't want to fit in then it is right to leave but I think that a person that would leave because thier company wants to compile with a certain tool is being far too inflexible for thier own good. There are far too many ways to work around the issue.
No, not complexity, that is if you measure the number of possible outcomes given a particular configuration of the board as compexity. For any given configuration of the board there are far more possible outcomes for go so it is MUCH harder to min/max because of the size of the search space.
Certainly seems like a breach of the non-competition clause. Not really a breach of NDA since the idea has been disclosed (we knew about it right?).
Anyways I think that MS will squash this, and furthermore the team of lawyers that killed smart tags from MS should have the same arguments about autolinks from Google. If changing someones content during delivery is bad shouldn't it be bad regardless of what company does it?
I personally think that the world should be allowed to have smart tags and autolinks and the like, but we will see how this goes.
Because of the nature of the software market (average cost is more than marginal costs at all production quantities) the best state overall for the market is a natural monopoloy. Competition is wasted resources that would be a greater good for the society as a whole spent in a different market. The only slightly good thing about competition is when it pushes the products to be better in each version but even then its not as beneficial as if that effort was spent in a completely different market. So I suppose from a purely economic view and making an assumption it would seem that MS wiping out all competition is the most healthy outcome from a perfectly economic view of the world.
I wonder if office update is broken as well? I think that MS should be required to give patches to non-os tools so long as the tools themselves are genuine and legal. OS patches they might be able to restrict since if you don't have a legal copy of the patched OS then the OS patch doesn't technically apply. All other tools (as has been said a few times here) need to be supported if they are legal regardless of where they are running.
On another note, if they are worried about higher support costs for those running MS apps in non-MS OS's then I think at the time of the support call they can say, "Oh, you are running office under wine, sorry we are not staffed to support that configuration, please try running office in windows". Its still sketchy but much much less so than blocking application patches because you don't have the OS they expected.
I certainly wasn't defending them, all in all it pissed me off, but what could I do. I need phone to work so I had to go with what I knew would work which unfortunately in my area is verizon. No other choices (cell wasn't really an option for my usage).
So turn off the "Agents" that do the realtime protection. It will get rid of a number of cool things that the software does but it will get rid of those issues. Then it will be a scan only piece of software.
You can also turn each agent off individually so that agents that block normally allowable things never run and agents that block always disallowed things run. Then you can tell people if they see a pop-up from the software to just say "don't allow".
I think it should be well explained that the CD key is not transferrable in any way once it has been used on the box when you buy it or at least in the manual once you open the box. Then it would be clear to everyone that while you can sell the media and thats not an issue that you need to find a new valid cd key to be able to use it. It just seems like Blizzard didn't realize this when they went to press and maybe they just need to publically announce it somewhere so that its clear once and for all. Then to be kind to the original poster they could give him a new copy because he brought the shortsight to thier attention in a reasonable way.
Unfortunately corporations don't think this way and it won't happen. They will continue to deny that there is any shortsightedness and deal with the few unhappy people in the same way they dealt with the original poster. They are well within thier legal rights to operate like this, but it does suck. Eventually the government is going to need to legislate the rights you have to resell software which will eventually clear up the wierdness of disputes like this.
Ultimately I think it would be impossible to prove that there was a breach of contract here because the only right expressed in the EULA was transfer of media rights, not login rights.
I remember Vonage's tech support telling me that high latency would be one cause of the symptoms I was having (choppy calls, sounds like what happens when your sound card locks up and keeps playing the same 1/2 second clip from its registers over and over). I think it has to do with the timeout thresholds in the system or something, I didn't look that far into it. I'm just thinking that Vonage might really know what they are talking about based on my experience with them.
Seems like what he said was if you don't provide a patent situation that I want to deal with then I'm moving my company away. I think this is fine.
In the end, if the patent laws do what the country thinks they will, then another company will thrive in the new environment and more than replace the 800 lost jobs.
From what I've seen all they need to do is increase the latency or delivery the packets out of order and it will totally destroy the quality of the phone call. I found that with vonage over verizon DSL I got very choppy calls about 3/4 of the time. I did a traceroute to the vonage IP and it was a LOT of hops. I did a traceroute to other servers in what I thought would be a similar geographic location and got far fewer hops. This isn't proof of any messing with packets by Verizon but it sure did make me suspicious because the latency to vonage servers was much higher than the latency to other websites. It could also be that my investigation was flawed, but long story short I had to send vonage back thier hardware and cancel service because it was totally unworkable for me.
I'm sure its a case of pushing the change through the change and testing that there are no regressions. Just because a lib is claimed to be fully compatible doesn't mean it is.
And if your browser of choice had a flaw that was popular enough that someone decided to exploit it and they will steal any data that is readable by your user (credit card numbers ect would probably be readable by your user, I doubt most people would su to read data) and send it off where they want.
Furthermore, you can turn off outside ports in windows if you so desire, there is even a nice gui to help you, its called the services manager.
Moreover, once you charge money you may be bound legally to warrenty your work. There are a bunch of legal bits that jump in when you charge money for a professional service like this.
My solution to the problem was to just say no. I had to repeat it a few times, but it has worked. My friends and family realize that I am just as busy as they are and if I say no they don't take offense to it. If I have time or am feeling generous I help them out but if not then no is the answer. I expect the same in return when I ask for a favor.
What I am saying, if you read it, is that you can tell the.Net framework that your application does not accept unsafe modules. If that is the case the C/C++ module that does unsafe actions (which are obvious to the frameworks security checks which are extensive and expensive) it will not be loaded. There is no danger of accidentially running unsafe code in an application that doesn't accept unsafe code. If you are worried about security it would be in your interest to not give your application this permission, especially if you are dynamically loading libraries through relfection.
Thats why new editions of windows XP come with sp2 built in.
Furthermore if you enable windows firewall and make sure that windows is fully rebooted before you plug in the net cable you can keep out the nastiest attackers for long enough to get sp2 downloaded with no infections.
Or you could use a hardware firewall to achieve the same thing.
I intalled xp on my machine a few weeks ago and by using the firewall wisely I was able to get zero infestation. SP2 has even kept my wife from accidentially getting spyware from sites she goes to.
The big problem is that people don't know how to install the software correctly in the first place in a way that keeps them safe. The same issues would exist for linux if general people were installing it and trying to get it configured and it was popular enough to be attacked.
Nope, at least not if it can't verify its safety and request permissions correctly. There is a chain of trust that needs to be developed before the.NET framework will allow the assembly to load. One thing that you should do if you don't want unsafe code to execute is remove that permission from your program (can be done with an attribute in your source code) and then these unsafe modules just won't load.
Not saying this can't be defeated but there are tools in the languages to protect yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Think what you want, its the fedral junk fax law:
http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/junkfaxlaw.htm
There is also (at least in some states if not fedrally) a cell phone solicitation law based on the same ideas.
I had somewhat the oppisite problem where I was employed where the compilation environment was all command line/build file based and I had no idea how it worked (I could use unix makefile but these were all together different) but I knew how visual studio worked. I put up pressure until I realized it was much easier for me to figure out how to use visual studio as my editor and compile with the central tools. That was my only point really and if a developer can't flex like that they are in trouble in the long term.
He means its worthless because it is unable to record digital cable or digital satellite signals. Many people in the country are not within a reasonable distance from an OTA HD broadcast and so can't benefit from these cards.
It would be nice (but won't happen) if DirecTV, DishNetwork, or/and Comcast would release a PC decoder/recorder card to consume thier services.
If you can prove that there is a cost to you that you cannot avoid when they send the spam (getting junk mail isn't any appreciable cost to you in comparison to the cost to send the mail) then they do not have the right to send it. The big example that I like is the law that existed (still exists I think but I know it was being fought against by fax spammers) to prevent fax spam. Because receiving a fax cost the person recieving that had no reasonable away to avoid it, it was legislated that the fax spam was not to be sent and it was not a free speech issue.
In general his reason was flawed. "Feeling I don't have control of the outcome when using MS tools" is only because of a lack of education not because of a flaw in the tool. If he learned a bit more he could gain back the control.
To give him the benefit of the doubt I will change his reasoning to be the more general "I don't like developing with microsoft tools" which is also a flawed reason to quit. Most of the people I work with do thier actual editing of code in their tool of choice, for many it is source insight, and then only use the MS tool for compilation, often using the command line interface to MS's compilers. Again it comes down to educating yourself on how to fit in.
I guess in the end if you really don't want to fit in then it is right to leave but I think that a person that would leave because thier company wants to compile with a certain tool is being far too inflexible for thier own good. There are far too many ways to work around the issue.
Yes, but not exactly 1 minute 3 seconds of silence. Thats art.
Actually the only thing I've ever downloaded via bittorrent is linux distros. Thats not to say that I'm the average case though.
Anything that is Ad supported is not free. It may however be a price you are more willing to pay.
No, not complexity, that is if you measure the number of possible outcomes given a particular configuration of the board as compexity. For any given configuration of the board there are far more possible outcomes for go so it is MUCH harder to min/max because of the size of the search space.
Certainly seems like a breach of the non-competition clause. Not really a breach of NDA since the idea has been disclosed (we knew about it right?).
Anyways I think that MS will squash this, and furthermore the team of lawyers that killed smart tags from MS should have the same arguments about autolinks from Google. If changing someones content during delivery is bad shouldn't it be bad regardless of what company does it?
I personally think that the world should be allowed to have smart tags and autolinks and the like, but we will see how this goes.
Because of the nature of the software market (average cost is more than marginal costs at all production quantities) the best state overall for the market is a natural monopoloy. Competition is wasted resources that would be a greater good for the society as a whole spent in a different market. The only slightly good thing about competition is when it pushes the products to be better in each version but even then its not as beneficial as if that effort was spent in a completely different market. So I suppose from a purely economic view and making an assumption it would seem that MS wiping out all competition is the most healthy outcome from a perfectly economic view of the world.
On another note, if they are worried about higher support costs for those running MS apps in non-MS OS's then I think at the time of the support call they can say, "Oh, you are running office under wine, sorry we are not staffed to support that configuration, please try running office in windows". Its still sketchy but much much less so than blocking application patches because you don't have the OS they expected.
I certainly wasn't defending them, all in all it pissed me off, but what could I do. I need phone to work so I had to go with what I knew would work which unfortunately in my area is verizon. No other choices (cell wasn't really an option for my usage).
So turn off the "Agents" that do the realtime protection. It will get rid of a number of cool things that the software does but it will get rid of those issues. Then it will be a scan only piece of software.
You can also turn each agent off individually so that agents that block normally allowable things never run and agents that block always disallowed things run. Then you can tell people if they see a pop-up from the software to just say "don't allow".
I think it should be well explained that the CD key is not transferrable in any way once it has been used on the box when you buy it or at least in the manual once you open the box. Then it would be clear to everyone that while you can sell the media and thats not an issue that you need to find a new valid cd key to be able to use it. It just seems like Blizzard didn't realize this when they went to press and maybe they just need to publically announce it somewhere so that its clear once and for all. Then to be kind to the original poster they could give him a new copy because he brought the shortsight to thier attention in a reasonable way.
Unfortunately corporations don't think this way and it won't happen. They will continue to deny that there is any shortsightedness and deal with the few unhappy people in the same way they dealt with the original poster. They are well within thier legal rights to operate like this, but it does suck. Eventually the government is going to need to legislate the rights you have to resell software which will eventually clear up the wierdness of disputes like this.
Ultimately I think it would be impossible to prove that there was a breach of contract here because the only right expressed in the EULA was transfer of media rights, not login rights.
I remember Vonage's tech support telling me that high latency would be one cause of the symptoms I was having (choppy calls, sounds like what happens when your sound card locks up and keeps playing the same 1/2 second clip from its registers over and over). I think it has to do with the timeout thresholds in the system or something, I didn't look that far into it. I'm just thinking that Vonage might really know what they are talking about based on my experience with them.
Seems like what he said was if you don't provide a patent situation that I want to deal with then I'm moving my company away. I think this is fine.
In the end, if the patent laws do what the country thinks they will, then another company will thrive in the new environment and more than replace the 800 lost jobs.
From what I've seen all they need to do is increase the latency or delivery the packets out of order and it will totally destroy the quality of the phone call. I found that with vonage over verizon DSL I got very choppy calls about 3/4 of the time. I did a traceroute to the vonage IP and it was a LOT of hops. I did a traceroute to other servers in what I thought would be a similar geographic location and got far fewer hops. This isn't proof of any messing with packets by Verizon but it sure did make me suspicious because the latency to vonage servers was much higher than the latency to other websites. It could also be that my investigation was flawed, but long story short I had to send vonage back thier hardware and cancel service because it was totally unworkable for me.
I'm sure its a case of pushing the change through the change and testing that there are no regressions. Just because a lib is claimed to be fully compatible doesn't mean it is.
Each app had its own patch. There were 10 of them that downloaded to my machine recently.
And if your browser of choice had a flaw that was popular enough that someone decided to exploit it and they will steal any data that is readable by your user (credit card numbers ect would probably be readable by your user, I doubt most people would su to read data) and send it off where they want.
Furthermore, you can turn off outside ports in windows if you so desire, there is even a nice gui to help you, its called the services manager.
Moreover, once you charge money you may be bound legally to warrenty your work. There are a bunch of legal bits that jump in when you charge money for a professional service like this.
My solution to the problem was to just say no. I had to repeat it a few times, but it has worked. My friends and family realize that I am just as busy as they are and if I say no they don't take offense to it. If I have time or am feeling generous I help them out but if not then no is the answer. I expect the same in return when I ask for a favor.
What I am saying, if you read it, is that you can tell the .Net framework that your application does not accept unsafe modules. If that is the case the C/C++ module that does unsafe actions (which are obvious to the frameworks security checks which are extensive and expensive) it will not be loaded. There is no danger of accidentially running unsafe code in an application that doesn't accept unsafe code. If you are worried about security it would be in your interest to not give your application this permission, especially if you are dynamically loading libraries through relfection.
= /library/en-us/dnnetsec/html/seccodeguide.asp
It would pay for you to read:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
Thats why new editions of windows XP come with sp2 built in.
Furthermore if you enable windows firewall and make sure that windows is fully rebooted before you plug in the net cable you can keep out the nastiest attackers for long enough to get sp2 downloaded with no infections.
Or you could use a hardware firewall to achieve the same thing.
I intalled xp on my machine a few weeks ago and by using the firewall wisely I was able to get zero infestation. SP2 has even kept my wife from accidentially getting spyware from sites she goes to.
The big problem is that people don't know how to install the software correctly in the first place in a way that keeps them safe. The same issues would exist for linux if general people were installing it and trying to get it configured and it was popular enough to be attacked.
Nope, at least not if it can't verify its safety and request permissions correctly. There is a chain of trust that needs to be developed before the .NET framework will allow the assembly to load. One thing that you should do if you don't want unsafe code to execute is remove that permission from your program (can be done with an attribute in your source code) and then these unsafe modules just won't load.
Not saying this can't be defeated but there are tools in the languages to protect yourself.