but if you account your hours precisely enough, the results WILL speak for themselves
IFF, you can relate future costs back to the original development.
When I do code reviews, I'm often looking at:
Correctness - does it meet the specification correctly. Getting this right saves time during testing (or sometimes during production), so you need to be able to tie your testing costs, and the business cost of having an incorrect implementation, back to the development time, in order to see that the code review saved time/money.
Robustness - will this code handle the exceptional circumstances? Again, the saving is in test/prod not in development per se.
Supportability - when this code is running in prod, will those supporting it be able to know what is going on? We write a lot of batch processing, and someone is on call at night in case it fails. If production goes down, the on-call person needs to get it back up ASAP. Good code with good logging, and clear algorithms aids that a lot. But it's hard to relate the saved downtime to the development process.
Maintainability - will the next sucker be able to make changes? How do you track the future development costs back to the original development costs? Most people can point to a block of code that was written in a death-march. The original project came in under budget, and now we're all paying for the fact that one guy wrote all the code in about 24 hours without sleep.
Reusability - are we going to have to solve this problem again? Does this solution support that? Getting this right will save you money down the track, but will people recognise that project Y was completed 1 week earlier because project X spent 1 day on code review?
You need to account for you time very well, and with a good tie back to the original development to truly realise your saving.
Or, you need to do a complete switch for at least 6 months, and see how much better you get overall.
You could enter into a contract with Ford that said that, but such a contract would have to be part of the purchase. (i.e. Not stipulated after the fact)
Ford can say "If you want to buy this car, you must enter into this contract". If you agree, and sign it, then it's legal.
They can't sell you the car and then say "Oh, by the way, if you ever drive this car...". You have already made the purchase, the car is now yours. Ford no longer has legal rights to it, and cannot impose additional restrictions.
Filmmaker: "We'd also like to film over there"
Mayor: "That's not part of our city boundaries, but if you wait a couple of months, we can get that sorted out"
Yep.
I'm currently sitting on the 28th floor of a building in that area.
From where I look I can see: AMP Tower , Grovsner Place & Australia Square, all of which would be that sort of size.
Ultimately, Mist-On agreed that it could not copyright the idea of a FAQ page. However, Mist-On argued that because the Gilley's FAQ page was so similar to the Mist-On FAQ page that there must be some copyright infringement.
The court swatted away this argument by noting the differences between the two Web pages
In other words:
Court rules that you cannot copyright the idea.
Plaintif accepts decision
Plaintif claims copying of content
Court rules that no such copying occured
The courts decision is very clear: You cannot copyright the idea of a FAQ,and further, that the nature of FAQs is such that similarities are to be expected, and the mere exitence of similarities does not automatically imply copying has occured.
the court held that "these superficial similarities fall short of proving copying"
you're allowing the customer to break the
project and blame you.
There is a terrible attitude that is common amongst developers (including me), that suggests that the purpose of the project is to produce the software.
It's not. (At least, not in the field I work in - in house development for a bank)
The purpose of the project is to support the business need.
If I deliver a project that fully meets the stated requirements, but doesn't actually serve the business need, then it's useless. You can play the blame-game all you like, but it's irrelevant. We're working together to produce a tool to allow the company to improve its business - that's the goal.
I will drop/alter/add any requirement at any stage of the project, if I we agree that it is necessary to deliver proper functionality. My job is to make it clear to everyone what the cost/risks are of making that change - how much the project will slip by, whether the change actually makes sense, whether the system will be stable and supportable - but in the end, I work for them, and if they want it, and understand the risks, then I'll do it.
<conspiracy>
Ah, but then they wouldn't be able to force you to accept a EULA, and they wouldn't be able to claim whatever it is they want to claim in the EULA. </conspiracy>
I don't expect a barcode scanner to function correctly with anything that's not a barcode.
I don't expect it to be able to read Postal Barcodes
But it damn well better not blow up in my hands when I try.
It is reasonable for these drives to reject non standard CDs, but the machine should not be permanently damaged by them.
Aside: It's still not 100% certain that the Mac is in fact damaged by these CDs. It seems that it may simply require the technician to intervene to remove the CD from the drive. Which is still bad design. But better than actual damage.
Legally enforced government monopolies have zero incentive to compete
That depends on what sort of "legal enforcement" is in place.
e.g. Australia Post has an effective monopoly on mail delivery. (Yes, there are couriers, but there is a large difference between a courier, and a postal service).
IMO, the primary factor that has kept Auspost an efficient and friendly company has been pricing controls.
Everytime Auspost wants to raise the price of a standard postage stamp, they need to petition the government to do so. Their inability to increase the price arbitrarily, has forced them to create
Alternative income streams
More efficient processes
e.g. You can pay your bills, and do your banking at post-offices. Why? Because Auspost capitalised on the fact they they have an office in almost every town. They sell the presense to other providers, so the post-office acts as an agent for your insurance company. This increases income for auspost (better throughput on remote offices), and decreases overheads for the insurance company (less offices required).
e.g. (again) Auspost gives companies savings if they pre-barcode their mail. All properties have a barcode, and you can obtain the list of address-barcode mappings. If you are doing bulk mailings, you can save approx 10% on your mailing costs, by simply printing a barcode on your envelopes, when you put the address there. Saves money for Auspost, saves money for Mailer.
This only works because the government owns the Postal Service, and puts a tight control on it.
In industries where there is either
An inability to support multiple providers
An abnormally high barrier to entry
it is more beneficial to have a government controlled monopoly, than an unregulated monopoly - provided the government maintains proper controls.
In Australia, telcos fall into both categories.
You simply can't have multiple local exchanges, and we have such a low populaton desity, that running a physical telco is absurdly expensive.
Where there is local competition, is sectors of the market, where multiple companies are using the same infrastructure to offer competitive services. (eg long distance).
Telstra should never have been sent out into the market the way it was. The infrastructure should have been retained in a government owned utility, and the services on top of that should have been split off and privatised, to compete in the open market.
Uh, no, that is soooo twisting the truth to fit what you think is right.
Not really, because I don't think this script is "right" - I just think that your argument about EULAs doesn't hold.
My understanding is that you are aruging that there are legal requirements that are not stated in any law, but are to be assumed by the user.
AFAICT, your argument is this:
If software requires a EULA, then you must accept that EULA to use it. Any use by those who have not accepted the EULA is illegal. [1]
If the software does not require a EULA, then it is legal to use it, although the terms of use may still be restricted [2]
In the case that the software does not require a EULA (eg installers) there may still be licencing terms associated with the output of that software - i.e.some uses of the software will still be convered by a EULA.
Users are expected to be able to determine when a piece of software does/doesn't require a EULA, even if that information is not presented to them.
The last point simply cannot be true. You cannot legally expect users to be able to determine which pieces of software require a EULA.
One of three things must be the case:
All software requires a EULA
No software requires a EULA.
There are two classes of software. Those that require a EULA and those that don't. The classification of each piece of software must be made clear to each purchaser. Depending on juristriction, it may be required that such classification be known clearly and explicitly at time of purchase.
Now, I think that your arguing for point 3, but nowhere on any software that I recall, has it made any distinction as to what my rights are to the installer, compared to my rights to the program proper.
If I never see a EULA for the program, then am I allowed to assume there is none?
It appears that I am, since the lack of a EULA on the installer seemingly implies that I am free to use that piece of software.
---
1.I'm entirely unsure how this applies to public libraries, schools/universities, internet cafes, work places and the like. The person using the software has never agreed to the EULA. Is there use of the software illegal? If so, then who is at fault? The person who installed it, or the user? In either case, why then does MS happily sell software to schools for use by the students?
2.You didn't explicitly state that last point, but I assume it is true, since in your scenario, xtracting the software from the installer, without clicking on "I agree" should be illegal.
Wouldn't it be easier to hack the resource in the installer so that instead of I agree to be bound by the above terms
it instead says I do not agree to your stupid EULA - so there!
click Next, and watch it install.
Your argument implies that you do not have the right to run software until you enter into an agreement with the copyright-holder. [*]
That would imply that I can never run the installer, because there is no "installer-agreement" that I can enter into.
Ad, if a CD has "autorun" features, and you have them enabled on your OS, then what happens? You didn't even choose to run the program, you entered it into the drive to examine the content of the media your purchased.
If I have the right to run the installer, and I never accept any agreement which reduces my rights, then the implication is that I have the right to run the software that is installed by the installer.
Obviously people have some set of rights to software on media they have purchased. The existence of the installer proves that.
And...
YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE
There we go.
"Purchase".
It is a sale of some form - what you purchased is not specified, but there was a purchase involved.
my experience with bad programmers is that their main malfunction is often that they don't realize they're bad. They think they're super smart, and will argue ferociously for their demented complicated schemes.
My experience [*] is that the problem with bad programmers is generally they don't think beyond the immediate.
They produce output from the system, without ever thinking about who is going to read it, and whether that person is going to understand it
They fail to consider exception scenarios
They fail to think about the real business need, and blindly implement whatever they understood the requirement to mean, even if that doesn't make sense
It would vastly improve the quality of the code crossing my desk if these people had someone sensible sitting with them.
It's generally too late at the review stage to really drill the point into them that they didn't use their brains.
However, if I can sit them down early, talk through it with them, and force them to think, then eventually (slowly) they learn.
* My situation is that I do a lot of code reviews for (generally) small maintenance changes to a banking system. YMMV.
Don't make me bust a cap in your ass, yo! Jedi's the most insulting installment, because Vader's beautiful, black visage is sullied when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crusty old white man! They're trying to tell us that deep inside, we all want to be white!
I agree.
When I first saw TPM, I assumed that Lucas had watched "Chasing Amy" too many times, and had started to believe it.
Always some white boy gotta invoke "the holy trilogy!" Bust this--those movies are about how the white man keeps the brother man down--even in a galaxy far, far away. Check this shit: You got Cracker farmboy Luke Skywaker; Nazi poster boy--blonde hair, blue eyes. And then you've got Darth Vadar: the blackest brother in the galaxy. Nubian God.
the most elegant intructions given were "Pry the cover off, bash the insides to pieces with a rock, and/or fill it up with dirt/glue/etc".
Greate, not slashdot will now be receiving a letter of demand. You can't have that sort of information publically available.
However, if that's the level of sophistication that radikal is publishing, don't you think that people will work it out anyway?
Is blocking this webpage actually going to stop people who are determined to do this?
I guess it stops kiddies who would do it as a prank now that they know how, but stopping prostestors? If you're willing to chain yourself to a fence somewhere, then you're probably going to be willing to bash at a signal box, whether a web-page told you to or not.
Slashdot Mirror
IFF, you can relate future costs back to the original development.
When I do code reviews, I'm often looking at:
You need to account for you time very well, and with a good tie back to the original development to truly realise your saving.
Or, you need to do a complete switch for at least 6 months, and see how much better you get overall.
You could enter into a contract with Ford that said that, but such a contract would have to be part of the purchase. (i.e. Not stipulated after the fact)
Ford can say "If you want to buy this car, you must enter into this contract". If you agree, and sign it, then it's legal.
They can't sell you the car and then say "Oh, by the way, if you ever drive this car...". You have already made the purchase, the car is now yours. Ford no longer has legal rights to it, and cannot impose additional restrictions.
There is no such thing.
The law is a long way from perfect.
Filmmaker: "We'd also like to film over there" Mayor: "That's not part of our city boundaries, but if you wait a couple of months, we can get that sorted out"
Yep. I'm currently sitting on the 28th floor of a building in that area. From where I look I can see: AMP Tower , Grovsner Place & Australia Square, all of which would be that sort of size.
From the Mario description: Bask in cheery graphics
I was sure that said "cheesy graphics"
The court swatted away this argument by noting the differences between the two Web pages
In other words:
- Court rules that you cannot copyright the idea.
- Plaintif accepts decision
- Plaintif claims copying of content
- Court rules that no such copying occured
The courts decision is very clear: You cannot copyright the idea of a FAQ,and further, that the nature of FAQs is such that similarities are to be expected, and the mere exitence of similarities does not automatically imply copying has occured.the court held that "these superficial similarities fall short of proving copying"
There is a terrible attitude that is common amongst developers (including me), that suggests that the purpose of the project is to produce the software.
It's not. (At least, not in the field I work in - in house development for a bank)
The purpose of the project is to support the business need.
If I deliver a project that fully meets the stated requirements, but doesn't actually serve the business need, then it's useless. You can play the blame-game all you like, but it's irrelevant. We're working together to produce a tool to allow the company to improve its business - that's the goal.
I will drop/alter/add any requirement at any stage of the project, if I we agree that it is necessary to deliver proper functionality. My job is to make it clear to everyone what the cost/risks are of making that change - how much the project will slip by, whether the change actually makes sense, whether the system will be stable and supportable - but in the end, I work for them, and if they want it, and understand the risks, then I'll do it.
So why put it in there?
<conspiracy>
Ah, but then they wouldn't be able to force you to accept a EULA, and they wouldn't be able to claim whatever it is they want to claim in the EULA.
</conspiracy>
If Apple wants people to refer to the OS as "10", then surely they're doing themselves as disservice by naming their server "ex".
It's more like a barcode scanner.
I don't expect a barcode scanner to function correctly with anything that's not a barcode.
I don't expect it to be able to read Postal Barcodes
But it damn well better not blow up in my hands when I try.
It is reasonable for these drives to reject non standard CDs, but the machine should not be permanently damaged by them.
Aside: It's still not 100% certain that the Mac is in fact damaged by these CDs. It seems that it may simply require the technician to intervene to remove the CD from the drive. Which is still bad design. But better than actual damage.
Amazon sells this silver music disk and labels it as
Audio CD (March 26, 2002)
No, sorry it's not. That's false advertising.
Go into a music store and ask if they have a copy of Celine Dion's latest album on "CD".
Then you can have a nice argument with them.
However, your point does stand. Nothing I put in the CD drive should break the firmware.
Except maybe yogurt.
That depends on what sort of "legal enforcement" is in place.
e.g. Australia Post has an effective monopoly on mail delivery. (Yes, there are couriers, but there is a large difference between a courier, and a postal service).
IMO, the primary factor that has kept Auspost an efficient and friendly company has been pricing controls.
Everytime Auspost wants to raise the price of a standard postage stamp, they need to petition the government to do so. Their inability to increase the price arbitrarily, has forced them to create
- Alternative income streams
- More efficient processes
e.g. You can pay your bills, and do your banking at post-offices. Why? Because Auspost capitalised on the fact they they have an office in almost every town. They sell the presense to other providers, so the post-office acts as an agent for your insurance company. This increases income for auspost (better throughput on remote offices), and decreases overheads for the insurance company (less offices required).e.g. (again) Auspost gives companies savings if they pre-barcode their mail. All properties have a barcode, and you can obtain the list of address-barcode mappings. If you are doing bulk mailings, you can save approx 10% on your mailing costs, by simply printing a barcode on your envelopes, when you put the address there. Saves money for Auspost, saves money for Mailer.
This only works because the government owns the Postal Service, and puts a tight control on it.
In industries where there is either
- An inability to support multiple providers
- An abnormally high barrier to entry
it is more beneficial to have a government controlled monopoly, than an unregulated monopoly - provided the government maintains proper controls.In Australia, telcos fall into both categories.
You simply can't have multiple local exchanges, and we have such a low populaton desity, that running a physical telco is absurdly expensive.
Where there is local competition, is sectors of the market, where multiple companies are using the same infrastructure to offer competitive services. (eg long distance).
Telstra should never have been sent out into the market the way it was. The infrastructure should have been retained in a government owned utility, and the services on top of that should have been split off and privatised, to compete in the open market.
Well none of the products you liked to are free...
Not really, because I don't think this script is "right" - I just think that your argument about EULAs doesn't hold.
My understanding is that you are aruging that there are legal requirements that are not stated in any law, but are to be assumed by the user.
AFAICT, your argument is this:
- If software requires a EULA, then you must accept that EULA to use it. Any use by those who have not accepted the EULA is illegal. [1]
- If the software does not require a EULA, then it is legal to use it, although the terms of use may still be restricted [2]
- In the case that the software does not require a EULA (eg installers) there may still be licencing terms associated with the output of that software - i.e.some uses of the software will still be convered by a EULA.
- Users are expected to be able to determine when a piece of software does/doesn't require a EULA, even if that information is not presented to them.
The last point simply cannot be true. You cannot legally expect users to be able to determine which pieces of software require a EULA.One of three things must be the case:
- All software requires a EULA
- No software requires a EULA.
- There are two classes of software. Those that require a EULA and those that don't. The classification of each piece of software must be made clear to each purchaser. Depending on juristriction, it may be required that such classification be known clearly and explicitly at time of purchase.
Now, I think that your arguing for point 3, but nowhere on any software that I recall, has it made any distinction as to what my rights are to the installer, compared to my rights to the program proper.If I never see a EULA for the program, then am I allowed to assume there is none?
It appears that I am, since the lack of a EULA on the installer seemingly implies that I am free to use that piece of software.
---
1. I'm entirely unsure how this applies to public libraries, schools/universities, internet cafes, work places and the like. The person using the software has never agreed to the EULA. Is there use of the software illegal? If so, then who is at fault? The person who installed it, or the user? In either case, why then does MS happily sell software to schools for use by the students?
2. You didn't explicitly state that last point, but I assume it is true, since in your scenario, xtracting the software from the installer, without clicking on "I agree" should be illegal.
Wouldn't it be easier to hack the resource in the installer so that instead of
I agree to be bound by the above terms
it instead says
I do not agree to your stupid EULA - so there!
click Next, and watch it install.
Do I own my copy of that?
Your argument implies that you do not have the right to run software until you enter into an agreement with the copyright-holder. [*]
That would imply that I can never run the installer, because there is no "installer-agreement" that I can enter into.
Ad, if a CD has "autorun" features, and you have them enabled on your OS, then what happens? You didn't even choose to run the program, you entered it into the drive to examine the content of the media your purchased.
If I have the right to run the installer, and I never accept any agreement which reduces my rights, then the implication is that I have the right to run the software that is installed by the installer.
Obviously people have some set of rights to software on media they have purchased. The existence of the installer proves that.
And...
There we go."Purchase".
It is a sale of some form - what you purchased is not specified, but there was a purchase involved.
My experience [*] is that the problem with bad programmers is generally they don't think beyond the immediate.
It would vastly improve the quality of the code crossing my desk if these people had someone sensible sitting with them.
It's generally too late at the review stage to really drill the point into them that they didn't use their brains.
However, if I can sit them down early, talk through it with them, and force them to think, then eventually (slowly) they learn.
* My situation is that I do a lot of code reviews for (generally) small maintenance changes to a banking system. YMMV.
Don't make me bust a cap in your ass, yo! Jedi's the most insulting installment, because Vader's beautiful, black visage is sullied when he pulls off his mask to reveal a feeble, crusty old white man! They're trying to tell us that deep inside, we all want to be white!
Greate, not slashdot will now be receiving a letter of demand. You can't have that sort of information publically available.
However, if that's the level of sophistication that radikal is publishing, don't you think that people will work it out anyway?
Is blocking this webpage actually going to stop people who are determined to do this?
I guess it stops kiddies who would do it as a prank now that they know how, but stopping prostestors? If you're willing to chain yourself to a fence somewhere, then you're probably going to be willing to bash at a signal box, whether a web-page told you to or not.
But unfortunately:
Now I wonder why that is?
Uhuh.
I've just gone through all the resumes on my desk, and any of them that list "jt007@bruce-lee.com", are going in the bin.