If you must do that, then develop that stuff on your own time, and then you can use it wherever you want (or at least your employer will be more likely to allow you to).
Better yet, convince your employer to let you release your code as open source. Then when you go to another job, you have just as much right to use it as anyone else....
I'm not driving a car such as this (dodge dart - 383 cid small block) in order to ruin the environment, but I would never consider driving a metro with a paltry 60 horsepower.
"I don't want to ruin the environment, but if it comes down to choosing between the environment and impressing chicks, I gotta go with the chicks. Y'know, prime directive and all that."
of course that last barrel is going to cost a
few trillion dollars... but we won't run out
Hmm. Are you saying the buyer of that last barrel will put it in a museum somewhere and never use it? And even if he does, isn't it the same thing as far as the rest of the world is concerned?
Unfortunately this does mean that a standard programming API for the video hardware on this bus would be needed to avoid making monitors not universally useful due to device driver issues.
No need for a standard... I'm sure every manufacturer will thoughtfully include a floppy with both Win95 andWin98 drivers on it.
They did not mention removable storage.. I would be inerested to see where that is going.
IMHO, it is going away. When all the devices you use can talk to each other over the network (where network = Bluetooth LAN, Internet, whatever), SneakerNet becomes unnecessary.
These programs are not tools of free speech and informaiton interchange, they are ways of ripping people off. Do not even pretend that they are anything else, becuase if you do you are not only lying to the/. community, you are lying to yourself.
It depends on how you define "ripped off". One could argue that it's wrong to restrict what people do with *their* computer equipment on *their* time, just because *you* can't think of any other way to extract money from them.
Copyright isn't a God-given right, inscribed in stone forever. It's an pragmatic legal convention that was useful when it was created, but may now be approaching the end of its usefulness.
I get so sick of this assumption that just because you code under certain OSes to make a living, you must be some sort of bad person.
Well, to play Devil's advocate (or Stallman's advocate, or something), the reasoning is that by writing software for That Big Monopolizing OS, you are helping to increase TBMOS's strangle-hold on the industry, and pushing back the day when people have more choice about the OS they run.
"These Internet terminals are provided by the management for the enjoyment of our customers. Because are against censorship, no filtering or blocking software has been installed on our machines. However, many people feel very uncomfortable when certain content (e.g. pornography) is present in their environment, so we request that you restrict your web browsing to sites that are not inappropriate or offensive to your fellow customers. Thank you for helping us continue to provide a useful and pleasant experience!" -- The Management
See if asking nicely is enough to keep things in line. If that doesn't work, then worry about access controls...
Bad example. I believe that the Nazi privates who actually shoved the victims into the gas chamber and pulled the switch were officially absolved of responsibity
Interesting. But was absolving the privates the ethical thing to do? Under what circumstances are you allowed to knowingly pull a switch that will murder hundreds of civilians, and not be held accountable?
Well, it seems to me that Microsoft is doing what's actually a relatively shrewd business
model shift. Instead of charging for 'code' or 'software', they're charging for it as a 'service'.
Pretty slick, all right. I bet it will be every bit as popular as that DivX system was.;^)
seriously, the public is stupid, bill gates is smart, and he realizes how easy it is to prey on the weaknesses of others.
Or, more likely: the public was ignorant to the dangers of vendor lock-in, and now they are completely dependent on Windows apps. So Microsoft can treat them any way it wants, and there isn't anything they can do about it except say "that you sir, may I have another?"
Eventually, I suppose, the pain of Bill's tyranny will be seen to exceed the pain of switching to an alternative OS. I eagerly await that day, so give 'em hell, Bill!:^)
This is somewhat similar to saying "well, the people at company X get poorly paid, so I'll just do everything I can to bankrupt company X (which signs the paychecks for the poorly paid employees) to help them out. Sorry, doesn't make sense to me.
Would it make more sense if you knew that Company X does not allow its employees to quit? Of course, you can argue that they signed the contracts of their own free will, but perhaps that's because they had no other choice (it was either sign the contract or work at McDonald's). In this case, taking out Company X might be worth the pain it causes in the short term.
The real debate ought to be whether Napster like products are good or bad for the music industry.
No, that's not particularly relevant, either. What needs to be decided is whether what Napster does is legal or not. (At least, AFAIK there is nothing in the law that says "anything is okay as long as it's good for the music industry", nor is there a law that says "anything that is bad for the music industry is illegal") -Jeremy
And because it can be put on a t-shirt makes it seem legal? It is illegal for me to give out government secrets, but if I print them on a t-shirt it's okay, because then it's a free speech issue?
No, of course not. The point is that in the case of DeCSS, the speech was obviously legal all along. Placing it on a T-shirt just makes that fact more obvious to people who aren't familiar with how software works.
Thus when you buy a song and copy it, your finger print will remain on the song, and if it appears on Napster, you will be fingered as the person who allowed the copyrighting...
Boy, that'll have consumer appeal.... "buy our CD and risk getting sued!"
I mean, what the heck is all this talk about "fair use"? People seem to thing they are born with all these rights which include, among other things, the right to do whatever they want with someone else's IP simply because, to them, they think it's an obvious right.
But it's just as easy to make the same argument the other way, isn't it? Let's see...
"What the heck is all this talk about 'copyright'? People seem to think that just because they wrote a song, they should have the right to control what other people do in their own homes, on their own computers. Hell, the bits I'm listening to aren't even the same ones the author created... they're my own bits, arranged in the same pattern. I paid good money for this P3 and this DSL connection, and I'll use it any way I damn well please."
Not that I necessarily agree with the above, of course... my point is that "rights" are largely a matter of opinion and convention. Rights concerning 'property' that doesn't really physically exist, doubly so.
4% plus 25 cents is way too expensive. It makes microdonations infeasible
FWIW, FairTunes is working on a way to aggregate donations (i.e. a shopping cart model) so that e.g. you could mark $.25 for donation every day, but not actually pay until the total was $10 or more.
Besides, the musicians have not said that they are willing to be paid this way.
So these musicians will be throwing away the checks they receive? Not bloody likely, I think...
ie, food + fuel. Very useful thing to be able to slingshot (either metaphorically or literally) into space, neh?
The deceleration would instantly turn all food into soup, which would then be cooked by the fuel as it exploded. All future space flight would have to navigate carefully around the huge cloud of orbitting bisque.
Slashdot Mirror
Better yet, convince your employer to let you release your code as open source. Then when you go to another job, you have just as much right to use it as anyone else....
"I don't want to ruin the environment, but if it comes down to choosing between the environment and impressing chicks, I gotta go with the chicks. Y'know, prime directive and all that."
Hmm. Are you saying the buyer of that last barrel will put it in a museum somewhere and never use it? And even if he does, isn't it the same thing as far as the rest of the world is concerned?
No need for a standard... I'm sure every manufacturer will thoughtfully include a floppy with both Win95 andWin98 drivers on it.
--Jeremy the embittered BeOS user
That's maybe 75% true. There are several requirements on the OS, though:
IMHO, it is going away. When all the devices you use can talk to each other over the network (where network = Bluetooth LAN, Internet, whatever), SneakerNet becomes unnecessary.
It depends on how you define "ripped off". One could argue that it's wrong to restrict what people do with *their* computer equipment on *their* time, just because *you* can't think of any other way to extract money from them.
Copyright isn't a God-given right, inscribed in stone forever. It's an pragmatic legal convention that was useful when it was created, but may now be approaching the end of its usefulness.
Frankly, I'm surprised nobody has started an open-source Linux clone of the BeOS app_server/Interface Kit classes...
Well, to play Devil's advocate (or Stallman's advocate, or something), the reasoning is that by writing software for That Big Monopolizing OS, you are helping to increase TBMOS's strangle-hold on the industry, and pushing back the day when people have more choice about the OS they run.
Didn't they ever watch Fantasia?
Doesn't the DMCA qualify as such a law? At least if "accessing" involves "reverse engineering"...
"These Internet terminals are provided by the management for the enjoyment of our customers. Because are against censorship, no filtering or blocking software has been installed on our machines. However, many people feel very uncomfortable when certain content (e.g. pornography) is present in their environment, so we request that you restrict your web browsing to sites that are not inappropriate or offensive to your fellow customers. Thank you for helping us continue to provide a useful and pleasant experience!" -- The Management
See if asking nicely is enough to keep things in line. If that doesn't work, then worry about access controls...
Interesting. But was absolving the privates the ethical thing to do? Under what circumstances are you allowed to knowingly pull a switch that will murder hundreds of civilians, and not be held accountable?
I'll be grumpy all day if they don't port to BeOS!
Throw the computer-illiterates a copy of BeOS and Gobe Productive.
"Heh, this works like Windows, only faster and it doesn't crash!"
Pretty slick, all right. I bet it will be every bit as popular as that DivX system was. ;^)
Or, more likely: the public was ignorant to the dangers of vendor lock-in, and now they are completely dependent on Windows apps. So Microsoft can treat them any way it wants, and there isn't anything they can do about it except say "that you sir, may I have another?"
Eventually, I suppose, the pain of Bill's tyranny will be seen to exceed the pain of switching to an alternative OS. I eagerly await that day, so give 'em hell, Bill! :^)
article here
Would it make more sense if you knew that Company X does not allow its employees to quit? Of course, you can argue that they signed the contracts of their own free will, but perhaps that's because they had no other choice (it was either sign the contract or work at McDonald's). In this case, taking out Company X might be worth the pain it causes in the short term.
No, that's not particularly relevant, either. What needs to be decided is whether what Napster does is legal or not. (At least, AFAIK there is nothing in the law that says "anything is okay as long as it's good for the music industry", nor is there a law that says "anything that is bad for the music industry is illegal") -Jeremy
No, of course not. The point is that in the case of DeCSS, the speech was obviously legal all along. Placing it on a T-shirt just makes that fact more obvious to people who aren't familiar with how software works.
Boy, that'll have consumer appeal.... "buy our CD and risk getting sued!"
But it's just as easy to make the same argument the other way, isn't it? Let's see...
"What the heck is all this talk about 'copyright'? People seem to think that just because they wrote a song, they should have the right to control what other people do in their own homes, on their own computers. Hell, the bits I'm listening to aren't even the same ones the author created... they're my own bits, arranged in the same pattern. I paid good money for this P3 and this DSL connection, and I'll use it any way I damn well please."
Not that I necessarily agree with the above, of course... my point is that "rights" are largely a matter of opinion and convention. Rights concerning 'property' that doesn't really physically exist, doubly so.
FWIW, FairTunes is working on a way to aggregate donations (i.e. a shopping cart model) so that e.g. you could mark $.25 for donation every day, but not actually pay until the total was $10 or more.
Besides, the musicians have not said that they are willing to be paid this way.
So these musicians will be throwing away the checks they receive? Not bloody likely, I think...
The deceleration would instantly turn all food into soup, which would then be cooked by the fuel as it exploded. All future space flight would have to navigate carefully around the huge cloud of orbitting bisque.