Morals and ethics come into play when a company breaks good-faith promises or advertising/trade descriptions, or specifically does anti-competitive things by leveraging other monopoly positions.
Morals and ethics are a fair bit broader than that. One ethicist argued that it is a basic freedom to run computer programs as you wish. As a consequence, it would be unethical to place conditions on how people use your software, including making it inconvenient for them to run on competitor's hardware.
You may not agree with Stallman's ethics, but you have to acknowledge that he represents a legitimate and influential school of thought and that therefore, Apple's behaviour is ethically and morally questionable.
I argue: observe that nobody really cares to make the case that it is immoral or unethical for individuals to create hackintoshes despite the fact that not permitted under Apple's license.* This suggests that the community perceives that it is unreasonable for Apple to sell software under such a license. A deliberate, unreasonable, license is surely also immoral.
*Apple's lawyers and a few other vested interests might make the case... who cares... law should reflect morals and ethics, not the other way around.
It is a happy coincidence that many of the best researchers also enjoy teaching. It is useful discipline, forcing them to place their own work in context. It is also the best place to find grad students.
In Australia at least, good researchers who don't like teaching can land research-only positions.
Well, you've based your point on a fairly bold false dichotomy, of having to choose between "insane and cultist" on one hand, and "graduate" on the other.
Shutters on the sockets are a very recent development in the US, and a probably just being copied from the UK for no other reason than shutter envy. There's no real demand for them, because Americans are somehow able to resist the temptation that apparently so often overcomes their British counterparts to stick things in the socket other than a plug.
Kids. Just because you survived it doesn't make it less than extremely dangerous. Most car accidents don't kill either. There are more ways to die from electricity than to get spontaneously combusted... if you'd had the wrong heart condition, or just been unlucky. You don't need anything like the voltage or current available from a domestic outlet to die.
I had a really nasty shock off 24 V once... you just can't respect electricity enough.
If Apple's PDF viewer does not allow to ignore DRM restrictions, maybe you should just use a different one that allows to do so?
Obviously. Until Adobe starts suing people, it's a theoretical threat. But it is reasonably likely that at some stage in the next 15 years or thereabouts, Adobe goes all SCO-like... self-destructive perhaps, but painful for all concerned.
For me as an individual, it makes sense to take my chances and "get it done" using software that might be in a technical breach of patent law. But it is irresponsible for the EU to expose themselves in the same way.
So my point is that a file format should only be considered acceptably open if the parties that establish it make an unconditional promise never to enforce patents concerning it. You obviously can't know about independent patent trolls, but that is a different problem and I think reasonably likely to be fixed through legislation.
PDF is pretty open, but that's not open enough for my liking. The standard mandates that any implementation honour the dopier "protections" in PDF documents ("Conforming readers shall respect the intent of the document creator by restricting user access to an encrypted PDF file according to the permissions contained in the file.") Honour them means you're bound to write a stupid implementation of DRM; fail to honour them and you get sued.
For example, I have a PDF file on my computer for which I do not have permission to save a copy (or print, etc.). That's right, I don't have permission to save the file. Fortunately I have a ready work-around for "saving" the file (i.e. copy it within the Finder), but seeing the Finder itself is (or, embeds) a capable PDF reader, I wonder if Apple isn't in violation of the standard by allowing their OS (which can interpret PDFs) to copy such files.
A file format is a structure for exchanging information between programs; a standard should be limited to describing that structure. The problem is that Adobe &c have extended the notion of "file format" to cover their intentions for behaviour of programs making use of that format.
Now I really wouldn't care if there was simply some kind of branding/trademark that allowed Adobe and mates to honour DRM within PDF readers and writers. If I want to make my own PDF reader/writer that doesn't fully honour the standard, then I have the option and can't use the trademark... but the fact that patents could be used to enforce the intent of the standard author means that the standard is not open enough. The GP's requirement needs to be that the standard not be patent encumbered in any way whatsoever.
It's that part of the case I'm most interested in, as "Apple-labeled" is a strange choice of wording,
Especially seeing as they give away those Apple stickers willy nilly with almost every purchase. I understand it to be an invitation to Apple-label anything I wish... including PCs of all kinds. I wonder if a learned judge would agree that that satisfied the EULA requirements...
Indeed. There are plenty of poor drivers who obey the laws and are generally cautious. I'm one of them. I drive reasonably safely, though, because I know my limitations --- I don't have accidents, and I've had one near miss in years. And that makes me a better driver than my highly competent friends who have accidents because...
it doesn't matter what excuse they give: they have accidents and I don't, so whatever the reason, my premiums are lower and my family is safer.
You're confusing "competent" with "good". A competent driver has excellent control of his or her vehicle. A good driver is competent, and also has respect for authority, does not set a bad example for inferior or young drivers, compensates for other drivers' lack of control, has patience, and doesn't need to count drinks.
I really don't care how well you handle your car: if you're so arrogant that you think that's the most relevant factor, you're not fit to drive on public roads.
Precisely --- Australian academic here. The pay is good for anyone not trying to get rich, it's quite comfortable. Some of the conditions are great: good people, interesting material.
But the amount of work is absurd, and the risks you list are not worth the benefits.
No. Exclusive has some sense of "to the exclusion of others" even though that exclusion might not exist forever. In the case of interviews, "exclusive" means that the interview was carried out with only our interviewer---as opposed to a press conference or similar, where the competition is not excluded. "Exclusive" hotels and cars purport to cater only to the good and great, excluding others. Exclusive features in cars or phones? rot---unless they are, by contract, not provided to competitors.
In the case of partnerships, if it doesn't mean "to the exclusion of others" then the word is being used deceptively. Put it this way: I have an exclusive partnership with my wife, and will be sorely disappointed if it means anything other than "to the exclusion of others."
Just one thing to keep in mind: the display, no matter what, won't be any larger than the subtended angle of the display apparatus as viewed by the eye. In other words, if you have a display covering 90 degrees of your field of view, then the apparatus generating that display will have to cover 90 degrees of your field of view.
In principle at least, that is not true. Your eye is interested in where light appears to diverge from. There does not have to be a source at that place, as long as the light reaching your eye does so as though it were coming from such a source. It's possible to have a ring-shaped source that makes light appear to be diverging from a more remote point source. (The key point is that your retina is not able to tell where light is coming from, but only where it focussed.)
So one could produce a dough-nut shaped object that allows light through the centre. Unlikely to be feasible, but certainly possible.
This is exactly the way the patent system is supposed to work. It's supposed to encourage innovation and protect investment. What CSIRO is doing is improving the world. Can you imagine the world today if they hadn't done the research and developed the WIFI technology that everyone takes for granted?
Yeah, I can imagine it --- somebody else would have done the research and the world would be basically just the same. If this is an example of how patents are a good thing, I'm not convinced.
There would have been just as much pressure / motivation for wifi without patents: the first laptop to have wifi would have been an enormous hit, and all the competitors would have had to follow.
(FWIW, I'm an Australian scientist and taxpayer. I have plenty of respect for the CSIRO, and I'm happy to see them land 200 million. But I'd much rather fund them through taxes than have a massive patent system.)
Sorry dude, that's a bit too fanboi. I love my macs (use windows and office as little as possible). It is an indisputable fact that MS has recently started to make some products that are adequate for many purposes and great for some.
Oh, and Apple makes some very crappy products too... I'm also an iPhone owner, and I'm quite disappointed by it.
Not even. Essentially what they are doing is kickstarting a quality viral campaign. Snigger all you want at the ad, that's what they want you do do. They produce ads that are so embarrassing that the message is really clear: "oh, did you see the lame ad, these guys should stick to doing what they do best, which is programming. Win 7 is actually quite good you know."
The implied contrast is: "Apple is all about good marketing."
Let's face it: we geeks all do the same thing. When you show up with your dirty beard, beer gut, suspenders, blackened coffee mug, you are telling the world "everyone values my competence so much that I don't need to sell myself via superficial means."
What other industry consists of so many people that argue that the products they develop (or services they provide, if you prefer) should be free? Do doctors or lawyers or engineers ever argue that their service should be free? Construction workers? Accountants? Anyone?
Fine question, here's the answer: there are industries which should provide their service freely to the user, and there are industries which should provide their product freely to the user.
Doctors often passionately argue that their service should be free to the user. The rest of the developed world provides superior health care at half the price the US does: if the US adopted the same model, it would save ~ $1 trillion per year. (Literally, and don't argue. The experiment has been done, look at the evidence.) Lawyers? Maybe not all of them, but judges are lawyers, and they certainly believe that the service they provide must be free. I'm a scientist, and I routinely provide my services for free to government and commercial sectors. And so I should: I'm paid by a public interest sector (academia) to do so. I don't mind if academia works under a mixed model, but some academic services must be free to the user. Especially primary and secondary education. Speaking of products I think you'll find there are plenty of construction workers who believe the roads they develop should be provided free to the user.
Etc. There are lots of industries where products and services should be provided for free. It's not that people don't want to be paid for their time, but that the economy will be more efficient if the user is not required to pay. More importantly than "more efficient economy" is that the world will be a better place.
The open source idea suggest that you (as a developer) will always be paid in accordance with the quality of your work, rather than a monopoly you may hold. That means, unless you own the company, more pie for you.
I don't think either Warren or Paris should be shot for spending the USA into a $12 trillion debt.
Seriously, there was an interesting conversation going on about how taxes should be raised. That is, given that taxes are a certainty, who should pay them? What are the advantages and disadvantages of consumption taxes? Income taxes? Etc.
Misquoting a fragment so that you can toot your horn and imply that "taxes should be lower because we should be spending less" is seriously off topic --- even if it's true, or aligns with the moderator's opinions.
The only thing worse than a false negative (you die but don't manage to kill your enemy)
You contradict yourself --- you were right when you pointed out that it's really ok to surrender, to lose a war, even to die. There are far worse things than death, and IMHO wiping out the world is one of them. It's better to die and let your opponent live than to take out the whole world.
One thing that does bother me is dumping waste heat in someone elses backyard for free promotes the inefficient use of energy.
Ok, but for a given amount of heat generated, you may as well get rid of it in the most efficient way possible. "Free" i.e. cheap generally means less energy is expended in the dumping of the heat, and that's a good thing for everyone.
Probably those telcos aren't exactly saints, but here the blame is put in the wrong target.
It is necessary to distribute responsibility widely, and prosecute those who fail to uphold it. By doing so, we create a society where many members are morally responsible for their own actions and the actions of society. By failing to do so, we'd create a society where everyone was just doing their job, believing it was someone else's fault if they were 'forced' to do the wrong thing.
Those who fail to prevent wrong when it is in their power and part of their responsibility are as bad as those who seek to do it. Prosecute them --- don't destroy them --- and you make society a better place.
In other words, we really do have laws for a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
The child would get a reprimand because it is unethical and immoral.
Morals and ethics come into play when a company breaks good-faith promises or advertising/trade descriptions, or specifically does anti-competitive things by leveraging other monopoly positions.
Morals and ethics are a fair bit broader than that. One ethicist argued that it is a basic freedom to run computer programs as you wish. As a consequence, it would be unethical to place conditions on how people use your software, including making it inconvenient for them to run on competitor's hardware.
You may not agree with Stallman's ethics, but you have to acknowledge that he represents a legitimate and influential school of thought and that therefore, Apple's behaviour is ethically and morally questionable.
I argue: observe that nobody really cares to make the case that it is immoral or unethical for individuals to create hackintoshes despite the fact that not permitted under Apple's license.* This suggests that the community perceives that it is unreasonable for Apple to sell software under such a license. A deliberate, unreasonable, license is surely also immoral.
*Apple's lawyers and a few other vested interests might make the case... who cares... law should reflect morals and ethics, not the other way around.
It is a happy coincidence that many of the best researchers also enjoy teaching. It is useful discipline, forcing them to place their own work in context. It is also the best place to find grad students.
In Australia at least, good researchers who don't like teaching can land research-only positions.
Well, you've based your point on a fairly bold false dichotomy, of having to choose between "insane and cultist" on one hand, and "graduate" on the other.
The best lecture series I ever had at university was delivered from a bunch of ancient overhead transparencies. The lecturer was dry, too.
He just had an awesome way of organising information... it's all about the message, the medium hardly matters.
Shutters on the sockets are a very recent development in the US, and a probably just being copied from the UK for no other reason than shutter envy. There's no real demand for them, because Americans are somehow able to resist the temptation that apparently so often overcomes their British counterparts to stick things in the socket other than a plug.
British holes are kind of a bigger target.
Kids. Just because you survived it doesn't make it less than extremely dangerous. Most car accidents don't kill either. There are more ways to die from electricity than to get spontaneously combusted... if you'd had the wrong heart condition, or just been unlucky. You don't need anything like the voltage or current available from a domestic outlet to die. I had a really nasty shock off 24 V once... you just can't respect electricity enough.
If Apple's PDF viewer does not allow to ignore DRM restrictions, maybe you should just use a different one that allows to do so?
Obviously. Until Adobe starts suing people, it's a theoretical threat. But it is reasonably likely that at some stage in the next 15 years or thereabouts, Adobe goes all SCO-like... self-destructive perhaps, but painful for all concerned.
For me as an individual, it makes sense to take my chances and "get it done" using software that might be in a technical breach of patent law. But it is irresponsible for the EU to expose themselves in the same way.
So my point is that a file format should only be considered acceptably open if the parties that establish it make an unconditional promise never to enforce patents concerning it. You obviously can't know about independent patent trolls, but that is a different problem and I think reasonably likely to be fixed through legislation.
PDF is pretty open, but that's not open enough for my liking. The standard mandates that any implementation honour the dopier "protections" in PDF documents ("Conforming readers shall respect the intent of the document creator by restricting user access to an encrypted PDF file according to the permissions contained in the file.") Honour them means you're bound to write a stupid implementation of DRM; fail to honour them and you get sued.
For example, I have a PDF file on my computer for which I do not have permission to save a copy (or print, etc.). That's right, I don't have permission to save the file. Fortunately I have a ready work-around for "saving" the file (i.e. copy it within the Finder), but seeing the Finder itself is (or, embeds) a capable PDF reader, I wonder if Apple isn't in violation of the standard by allowing their OS (which can interpret PDFs) to copy such files.
A file format is a structure for exchanging information between programs; a standard should be limited to describing that structure. The problem is that Adobe &c have extended the notion of "file format" to cover their intentions for behaviour of programs making use of that format.
Now I really wouldn't care if there was simply some kind of branding/trademark that allowed Adobe and mates to honour DRM within PDF readers and writers. If I want to make my own PDF reader/writer that doesn't fully honour the standard, then I have the option and can't use the trademark... but the fact that patents could be used to enforce the intent of the standard author means that the standard is not open enough. The GP's requirement needs to be that the standard not be patent encumbered in any way whatsoever.
It's that part of the case I'm most interested in, as "Apple-labeled" is a strange choice of wording,
Especially seeing as they give away those Apple stickers willy nilly with almost every purchase. I understand it to be an invitation to Apple-label anything I wish... including PCs of all kinds. I wonder if a learned judge would agree that that satisfied the EULA requirements...
Indeed. There are plenty of poor drivers who obey the laws and are generally cautious. I'm one of them. I drive reasonably safely, though, because I know my limitations --- I don't have accidents, and I've had one near miss in years. And that makes me a better driver than my highly competent friends who have accidents because ...
it doesn't matter what excuse they give: they have accidents and I don't, so whatever the reason, my premiums are lower and my family is safer.
You're confusing "competent" with "good". A competent driver has excellent control of his or her vehicle. A good driver is competent, and also has respect for authority, does not set a bad example for inferior or young drivers, compensates for other drivers' lack of control, has patience, and doesn't need to count drinks.
I really don't care how well you handle your car: if you're so arrogant that you think that's the most relevant factor, you're not fit to drive on public roads.
Precisely --- Australian academic here. The pay is good for anyone not trying to get rich, it's quite comfortable. Some of the conditions are great: good people, interesting material.
But the amount of work is absurd, and the risks you list are not worth the benefits.
Isn't that what exclusive usually means?
No. Exclusive has some sense of "to the exclusion of others" even though that exclusion might not exist forever. In the case of interviews, "exclusive" means that the interview was carried out with only our interviewer---as opposed to a press conference or similar, where the competition is not excluded. "Exclusive" hotels and cars purport to cater only to the good and great, excluding others. Exclusive features in cars or phones? rot---unless they are, by contract, not provided to competitors.
In the case of partnerships, if it doesn't mean "to the exclusion of others" then the word is being used deceptively. Put it this way: I have an exclusive partnership with my wife, and will be sorely disappointed if it means anything other than "to the exclusion of others."
Just one thing to keep in mind: the display, no matter what, won't be any larger than the subtended angle of the display apparatus as viewed by the eye. In other words, if you have a display covering 90 degrees of your field of view, then the apparatus generating that display will have to cover 90 degrees of your field of view.
In principle at least, that is not true. Your eye is interested in where light appears to diverge from. There does not have to be a source at that place, as long as the light reaching your eye does so as though it were coming from such a source. It's possible to have a ring-shaped source that makes light appear to be diverging from a more remote point source. (The key point is that your retina is not able to tell where light is coming from, but only where it focussed.)
So one could produce a dough-nut shaped object that allows light through the centre. Unlikely to be feasible, but certainly possible.
This is exactly the way the patent system is supposed to work. It's supposed to encourage innovation and protect investment. What CSIRO is doing is improving the world. Can you imagine the world today if they hadn't done the research and developed the WIFI technology that everyone takes for granted?
Yeah, I can imagine it --- somebody else would have done the research and the world would be basically just the same. If this is an example of how patents are a good thing, I'm not convinced.
There would have been just as much pressure / motivation for wifi without patents: the first laptop to have wifi would have been an enormous hit, and all the competitors would have had to follow.
(FWIW, I'm an Australian scientist and taxpayer. I have plenty of respect for the CSIRO, and I'm happy to see them land 200 million. But I'd much rather fund them through taxes than have a massive patent system.)
I could careless to code on my free time aswell
Yeah, I'd hire you...
Correct. The formula you want to remember from high school is v^2 = 2 a s.
Sorry dude, that's a bit too fanboi. I love my macs (use windows and office as little as possible). It is an indisputable fact that MS has recently started to make some products that are adequate for many purposes and great for some.
Oh, and Apple makes some very crappy products too... I'm also an iPhone owner, and I'm quite disappointed by it.
Not even. Essentially what they are doing is kickstarting a quality viral campaign. Snigger all you want at the ad, that's what they want you do do. They produce ads that are so embarrassing that the message is really clear: "oh, did you see the lame ad, these guys should stick to doing what they do best, which is programming. Win 7 is actually quite good you know."
The implied contrast is: "Apple is all about good marketing."
Let's face it: we geeks all do the same thing. When you show up with your dirty beard, beer gut, suspenders, blackened coffee mug, you are telling the world "everyone values my competence so much that I don't need to sell myself via superficial means."
Same with Zunes and squirting and all that.
What other industry consists of so many people that argue that the products they develop (or services they provide, if you prefer) should be free? Do doctors or lawyers or engineers ever argue that their service should be free? Construction workers? Accountants? Anyone?
Fine question, here's the answer: there are industries which should provide their service freely to the user, and there are industries which should provide their product freely to the user.
Doctors often passionately argue that their service should be free to the user. The rest of the developed world provides superior health care at half the price the US does: if the US adopted the same model, it would save ~ $1 trillion per year. (Literally, and don't argue. The experiment has been done, look at the evidence.) Lawyers? Maybe not all of them, but judges are lawyers, and they certainly believe that the service they provide must be free. I'm a scientist, and I routinely provide my services for free to government and commercial sectors. And so I should: I'm paid by a public interest sector (academia) to do so. I don't mind if academia works under a mixed model, but some academic services must be free to the user. Especially primary and secondary education. Speaking of products I think you'll find there are plenty of construction workers who believe the roads they develop should be provided free to the user.
Etc. There are lots of industries where products and services should be provided for free. It's not that people don't want to be paid for their time, but that the economy will be more efficient if the user is not required to pay. More importantly than "more efficient economy" is that the world will be a better place.
The open source idea suggest that you (as a developer) will always be paid in accordance with the quality of your work, rather than a monopoly you may hold. That means, unless you own the company, more pie for you.
I don't think either Warren or Paris should be shot for spending the USA into a $12 trillion debt.
Seriously, there was an interesting conversation going on about how taxes should be raised. That is, given that taxes are a certainty, who should pay them? What are the advantages and disadvantages of consumption taxes? Income taxes? Etc.
Misquoting a fragment so that you can toot your horn and imply that "taxes should be lower because we should be spending less" is seriously off topic --- even if it's true, or aligns with the moderator's opinions.
End rant.
The only thing worse than a false negative (you die but don't manage to kill your enemy)
You contradict yourself --- you were right when you pointed out that it's really ok to surrender, to lose a war, even to die. There are far worse things than death, and IMHO wiping out the world is one of them. It's better to die and let your opponent live than to take out the whole world.
One thing that does bother me is dumping waste heat in someone elses backyard for free promotes the inefficient use of energy.
Ok, but for a given amount of heat generated, you may as well get rid of it in the most efficient way possible. "Free" i.e. cheap generally means less energy is expended in the dumping of the heat, and that's a good thing for everyone.
Probably those telcos aren't exactly saints, but here the blame is put in the wrong target.
It is necessary to distribute responsibility widely, and prosecute those who fail to uphold it. By doing so, we create a society where many members are morally responsible for their own actions and the actions of society. By failing to do so, we'd create a society where everyone was just doing their job, believing it was someone else's fault if they were 'forced' to do the wrong thing.
Those who fail to prevent wrong when it is in their power and part of their responsibility are as bad as those who seek to do it. Prosecute them --- don't destroy them --- and you make society a better place.
In other words, we really do have laws for a reason.