So have all sort of things. Look, I don't want to minimize the crime. I get it, they're really bad people, and they do really bad things.
The same can be said about gun owners, cars, airplanes, lightning... They're all more likely to kill you than a terrorist. Is that worth another Red Scare, or Salem? If you train the people to distrust each other, you lose your society. So, I'm all for being vigilant. If you see someone in their back yard trying to bring in a big bag of gunpowder and some pressure cookers, by all means ask them what's up.
But, please don't justify this as a "terrorists are bad so we should constantly report each other for suspicious activity."
In that case, how often does Adobe release a new edition of the software? It looks like (we'll be generous) 2 years for each iteration. So, if after two years you paid for about the boxed version, Adobe doesn't seem to come out very much ahead. Businesses will buy the latest one regardless, so it doesn't seem much different.
I'm thinking the benefit to them is the guarantee that there are only so many instances of CS available at one time to each customer. Businesses that over-license may save money (because they wouldn't be anymore), but the ones that have "one or two+ rogue installs" won't anymore. I'm taking a guess that's what's up here. Another poster made the point that the business customer gets to write off a "subscription cost of business" instead of an asset that has to depreciate over however long that is.
So, yea, it looks like Adobe wins in that they are guaranteed a license for every installation, and businesses get instant writeoffs (and built-in license compliance). Individuals, who might use the same software for 4+ years because of cost, get the downside. Adobe doesn't care because, individuals are a small part of their market.
And the point that GP, and up are trying to make is... Yup, they're apologizing for getting caught. Unlike most non-apologies, at least some good is coming out of it, and they're at least putting up a good show to show they're sorry.
That's better than the vast majority of non-apologies, and they're at least acknowledging that their image is important enough to them to try to make some amends.
I'm sure you paid all those speeding tickets that you could've been cited for, so I should just leave well enough alone.
If you're going to tie it into your mortgage, you're in luck. Because you can get a 10K Watt system installed into the house, which will probably put energy back into the grid (paying you during peak hours). You'll end up coming out way ahead even with maintenance. Numbers vary based on location and who does the installation, but you'll be in fantastic shape before year 15 in just about every case without incentives.
The best part? Those expensive $150/month bills will be the happiest months because you'll be feeding even more energy into the grid.
And please, don't scoff at energy incentives. We pump enough subsidies into fossil fuels and nobody seems to complain too much. We might as well put these energies into equal competition.
12 Month membership cards can be bought for $45 (maybe less, but that seems like a reasonable price). To play any games with anyone else, you need a gold membership, so you're getting one. So: $299 + $240 = $539 at the two year mark. $499 + $90 = $589 at the two year mark.
From that point on, you're paying $45 a month regardless. So, there is a point to it if you're going to have the membership anyway. If you can get your 12 month membership for under $20, then you can get ahead.
I remember working with a couple of those resellers, and SBC a lot in those years. I hated SBC with a passion.
The resellers treated me much better. Unfortunately, every once in a while one of my clients would lose their internet connection... The reason? At the SBC telco office, the loop would suddenly go missing.
It did eventually stop, and it was about when they became AT&T... So either the reseller fixed up their problem, or complained to the right people. I'll never know if they were telling me the truth, but I was quite quick to believe it.
I never claimed it was some conspiracy. That's not the point of my post. It's just a case where I have to jump through extra hoops, and as far as I can tell there is no real gain on the end of Netflix. And yes, I understand I can watch it on just about anything that isn't a standard Linux.
They locked in with Silverlight to present to PCs and Mac, because of DRM requirements. A side effect of the solution they chose is that it's inconvenient for me, and grandma isn't going to figure it out on her own. That makes it "not good" in my humble opinion, and that's what I'm trying to point out. The only real effect it has is that it gives one less reason to adopt Linux, and that's for a video streaming service.
"If they provided me with good cheap DRM'd service, they'd have my dollars."
And I guess that's where this is really irritating. Because, as of yet, there hasn't been a "good" nor "cheap," let alone "good and cheap" DRM service. Really, DRM has been about making sure you have to fit a very specific set of conditions to view content that you probably paid for. Usually those conditions involve "viewing from Device P, running Operating System Q, with Browser R," even though it has nothing to do with the content you're viewing.
So, we look at Netflix as the opening case. To watch a movie in Netflix on my laptop that is running Linux, I have to jump through a large number of hoops... Or, I can fire up my Xbox 360, or my PS3, or another machine running Windows. Why is that? Certainly it's not about stopping piracy... Because I can still jump through those hoops and get there.
DVD regions... Why did they exist? It was certainly not to prevent piracy, because you could easily copy the bejeezus out of them. Rather, it's to prevent you from buying a copy cheaply in one region, and bringing it home... Because their content is overpriced here. BlueRay? Same deal right? Again, not about piracy.
Really, DRM has always been about soaking legal users as much as possible, or it's been about shady corporate deals to force users onto particular platforms to make them have to pay their partners. That is all it accomplishes, and that's perfectly fine with them.
He even made a bet saying that black holes didn't exist. It was a hedge because it would've blown up a bunch of his own research if he had won. I rather enjoy that he doesn't take himself too seriously when it comes to these bets.
So, for the sake of argument, let's assume those computers are "secure enough." Let's also assume that these new fangled fuses, or whatever, are installed, and we have a dead-simple meter for measuring how much electricity is actually being used.
I'm wondering what the impact would be if someone did indeed try to compromise the station. Is it unreasonable to think the station (or pump) would be affected, hopefully by being shut off? Let's compare that to a gas station and a match.... Much bigger impact. I think this article is cute in that, yes we do need to be aware of challenges of having a new fueling infrastructure. I'm of the opinion that hacking the whole grid through one of these chargers would require way more stupidity on the part of infrastructure designers than reasonably expected. Wait, I think I just answered the question above...
I don't know what the proper term is relating to what I think are "patent departments." I'd like to see if there's a breakdown in the acceptance rates across various lines of expertise. The reason is because I have a belief that much of this is indeed because of patent trolling. If that were the case, I'd expect that a number of departments would still show about the same acceptance rate.
Since the Comp Sci patent applications typically invent and redefine their terms in the patent application (after all, they're creating new "ideas"), they've found more effective ways to get their "inventions" defined in a way that appears more patentable. Also, it looks like some work at Stanford showed that rejecting patents really just increased their workload for a variety of reasons. Path of least resistance will eventually win you know...
It may cut down on their travel expenses... but likely only to levels seen before congress adopted a "business in the middle of the week" schedule.
They already have a hard time communicating and working together. If anything, they should be forced to live in close quarters and deal with each other until they can learn to get along like adults.
I think a middle ground is the more prudent course of action. I actually wonder if this suggestion was put out there as a starting point to begin negotiations. I'd certainly love to see us do away with software (since that's copyright IMHO), and business practice patents. But, I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of justifiable reasons to keep patents for new inventions. I'm also sure we can reasonably debate how long these patents should be good for, and also address the processes of attaining one.
I don't think the *only* reason companies are buying up other patents are for protection. I think we all know some cases where they're being bought up for the purpose of going on the offensive. There are also many patents out there that are even serving their original intent too, I'm sure.
Because Chertoff was the principal lobbyist for Rapiscan was a former DHS head. They were able to just get the contract in without any sort of vetting. It's one of the more shameful episodes in shady government contracts, except those involved seem immune to shame.
If the GP AC had made more than just a passing joke (tying in recent gun and sexual assault cases at the same time, it takes some skill and luck to pull something like that off), then AC would not have been marked a troll. Throw in the response that JSTOR *withdrew* its allegations, but the prosecutors pursued the case anyway, and we have a situation where there are serious questions about the prosecutors.
Specifically: Why did they pursue a case when the plaintiffs want out?
a) Was it because they thought what he allegedly did was so terrible that it must be prosecuted?
b) Were they thinking this was a meal ticket to fame?
I don't know, and I'd sure as hell like to find out. If it was a), then I'd like to know what's happening with our laws and to our justice departments so make a copyright case like this so "life and death." This is especially damning in the light of the US attorneys not pursuing HSBC for aiding terrorism and organized crime. If it was b), then these people are pretty sick, and I would hold them partly responsible for Aaron Swartz's death, at least morally if not legally.
There is an expectation when you have physical media. If you pay full retail for something, and you can hold the installation (or game media), you should be able to sell it. There may or may not be any laws that reinforce that expectation, I have no idea... But this is why activation schemes, media encryption, and all other sorts of DRM are heavily frowned upon.
It's not a matter of typing it to you, it's a matter of tying it to you and then giving you no way to protect that. You still need the disc to play the game, even if you copy the thing to the local storage. If something happens to that disc, you're SOL. With that risk, why shouldn't you be able to resell the game? You lose the ability to play it, but you gain value in no longer having to protect it.
Steam gives you no physical media, they merely attach the game to your account and you can install it anywhere you are, and play. They adopted a model where there is no expectation of resell, but the good side is that it doesn't take up any desk or cabinet space either. You also don't have to keep fragile media scratch free. The fact that they discount often doesn't hurt either.
I completely agree with this. Hyperbole aside, if the coding practices in your organization allow for this, you should discuss them (and not the practices of others) with your management. If the coding practices discourage (or even forbid) this behavior, and your coworker continues to violate them... That's not your problem.
Iff his code does affect what you are working on in a negative way AND it violates coding practices that your organization is enforcing, you could bring it up to immediate superiors.
Slashdot Mirror
So have all sort of things. Look, I don't want to minimize the crime. I get it, they're really bad people, and they do really bad things.
The same can be said about gun owners, cars, airplanes, lightning... They're all more likely to kill you than a terrorist. Is that worth another Red Scare, or Salem? If you train the people to distrust each other, you lose your society. So, I'm all for being vigilant. If you see someone in their back yard trying to bring in a big bag of gunpowder and some pressure cookers, by all means ask them what's up.
But, please don't justify this as a "terrorists are bad so we should constantly report each other for suspicious activity."
In that case, how often does Adobe release a new edition of the software? It looks like (we'll be generous) 2 years for each iteration. So, if after two years you paid for about the boxed version, Adobe doesn't seem to come out very much ahead. Businesses will buy the latest one regardless, so it doesn't seem much different.
I'm thinking the benefit to them is the guarantee that there are only so many instances of CS available at one time to each customer. Businesses that over-license may save money (because they wouldn't be anymore), but the ones that have "one or two+ rogue installs" won't anymore. I'm taking a guess that's what's up here. Another poster made the point that the business customer gets to write off a "subscription cost of business" instead of an asset that has to depreciate over however long that is.
So, yea, it looks like Adobe wins in that they are guaranteed a license for every installation, and businesses get instant writeoffs (and built-in license compliance). Individuals, who might use the same software for 4+ years because of cost, get the downside. Adobe doesn't care because, individuals are a small part of their market.
And the point that GP, and up are trying to make is... Yup, they're apologizing for getting caught. Unlike most non-apologies, at least some good is coming out of it, and they're at least putting up a good show to show they're sorry.
That's better than the vast majority of non-apologies, and they're at least acknowledging that their image is important enough to them to try to make some amends.
I'm sure you paid all those speeding tickets that you could've been cited for, so I should just leave well enough alone.
Too bad NetCraft says it's dying :D
If you're going to tie it into your mortgage, you're in luck. Because you can get a 10K Watt system installed into the house, which will probably put energy back into the grid (paying you during peak hours). You'll end up coming out way ahead even with maintenance. Numbers vary based on location and who does the installation, but you'll be in fantastic shape before year 15 in just about every case without incentives.
The best part? Those expensive $150/month bills will be the happiest months because you'll be feeding even more energy into the grid.
And please, don't scoff at energy incentives. We pump enough subsidies into fossil fuels and nobody seems to complain too much. We might as well put these energies into equal competition.
12 Month membership cards can be bought for $45 (maybe less, but that seems like a reasonable price).
To play any games with anyone else, you need a gold membership, so you're getting one.
So:
$299 + $240 = $539 at the two year mark.
$499 + $90 = $589 at the two year mark.
From that point on, you're paying $45 a month regardless. So, there is a point to it if you're going to have the membership anyway. If you can get your 12 month membership for under $20, then you can get ahead.
...And sadly the download probably does too.
Assuming it actually delivers that speed, of course.
I remember working with a couple of those resellers, and SBC a lot in those years. I hated SBC with a passion.
The resellers treated me much better. Unfortunately, every once in a while one of my clients would lose their internet connection... The reason? At the SBC telco office, the loop would suddenly go missing.
It did eventually stop, and it was about when they became AT&T... So either the reseller fixed up their problem, or complained to the right people. I'll never know if they were telling me the truth, but I was quite quick to believe it.
I never claimed it was some conspiracy. That's not the point of my post. It's just a case where I have to jump through extra hoops, and as far as I can tell there is no real gain on the end of Netflix. And yes, I understand I can watch it on just about anything that isn't a standard Linux.
They locked in with Silverlight to present to PCs and Mac, because of DRM requirements. A side effect of the solution they chose is that it's inconvenient for me, and grandma isn't going to figure it out on her own. That makes it "not good" in my humble opinion, and that's what I'm trying to point out. The only real effect it has is that it gives one less reason to adopt Linux, and that's for a video streaming service.
No conspiracy, just silly.
"If they provided me with good cheap DRM'd service, they'd have my dollars."
And I guess that's where this is really irritating. Because, as of yet, there hasn't been a "good" nor "cheap," let alone "good and cheap" DRM service. Really, DRM has been about making sure you have to fit a very specific set of conditions to view content that you probably paid for. Usually those conditions involve "viewing from Device P, running Operating System Q, with Browser R," even though it has nothing to do with the content you're viewing.
So, we look at Netflix as the opening case. To watch a movie in Netflix on my laptop that is running Linux, I have to jump through a large number of hoops... Or, I can fire up my Xbox 360, or my PS3, or another machine running Windows. Why is that? Certainly it's not about stopping piracy... Because I can still jump through those hoops and get there.
DVD regions... Why did they exist? It was certainly not to prevent piracy, because you could easily copy the bejeezus out of them. Rather, it's to prevent you from buying a copy cheaply in one region, and bringing it home... Because their content is overpriced here. BlueRay? Same deal right? Again, not about piracy.
Really, DRM has always been about soaking legal users as much as possible, or it's been about shady corporate deals to force users onto particular platforms to make them have to pay their partners. That is all it accomplishes, and that's perfectly fine with them.
Fortunately, Mr. Rogers was able to make this a complete scumbag deal by putting him and his wife in a position to profit by it becoming law:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/16253022748/oh-look-rep-mike-rogers-wife-stands-to-benefit-greatly-cispa-passing.shtml
That wouldn't surprise me.
He even made a bet saying that black holes didn't exist. It was a hedge because it would've blown up a bunch of his own research if he had won. I rather enjoy that he doesn't take himself too seriously when it comes to these bets.
So, for the sake of argument, let's assume those computers are "secure enough." Let's also assume that these new fangled fuses, or whatever, are installed, and we have a dead-simple meter for measuring how much electricity is actually being used.
I'm wondering what the impact would be if someone did indeed try to compromise the station. Is it unreasonable to think the station (or pump) would be affected, hopefully by being shut off? Let's compare that to a gas station and a match.... Much bigger impact. I think this article is cute in that, yes we do need to be aware of challenges of having a new fueling infrastructure. I'm of the opinion that hacking the whole grid through one of these chargers would require way more stupidity on the part of infrastructure designers than reasonably expected. Wait, I think I just answered the question above...
I don't know what the proper term is relating to what I think are "patent departments." I'd like to see if there's a breakdown in the acceptance rates across various lines of expertise. The reason is because I have a belief that much of this is indeed because of patent trolling. If that were the case, I'd expect that a number of departments would still show about the same acceptance rate.
Since the Comp Sci patent applications typically invent and redefine their terms in the patent application (after all, they're creating new "ideas"), they've found more effective ways to get their "inventions" defined in a way that appears more patentable. Also, it looks like some work at Stanford showed that rejecting patents really just increased their workload for a variety of reasons. Path of least resistance will eventually win you know...
http://siepr.stanford.edu/?q=/system/files/shared/pubs/11-014.pdf
I think this post is an excellent example of Poe's Law.
I cannot tell if you're serious or being extremely funny.
It may cut down on their travel expenses... but likely only to levels seen before congress adopted a "business in the middle of the week" schedule.
They already have a hard time communicating and working together. If anything, they should be forced to live in close quarters and deal with each other until they can learn to get along like adults.
I think a middle ground is the more prudent course of action. I actually wonder if this suggestion was put out there as a starting point to begin negotiations. I'd certainly love to see us do away with software (since that's copyright IMHO), and business practice patents. But, I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of justifiable reasons to keep patents for new inventions. I'm also sure we can reasonably debate how long these patents should be good for, and also address the processes of attaining one.
I don't think the *only* reason companies are buying up other patents are for protection. I think we all know some cases where they're being bought up for the purpose of going on the offensive. There are also many patents out there that are even serving their original intent too, I'm sure.
Huffington Post? Try Washington Post, oh and he disclosed it on CNN.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123102821.html
Because Chertoff was the principal lobbyist for Rapiscan was a former DHS head. They were able to just get the contract in without any sort of vetting. It's one of the more shameful episodes in shady government contracts, except those involved seem immune to shame.
If the GP AC had made more than just a passing joke (tying in recent gun and sexual assault cases at the same time, it takes some skill and luck to pull something like that off), then AC would not have been marked a troll. Throw in the response that JSTOR *withdrew* its allegations, but the prosecutors pursued the case anyway, and we have a situation where there are serious questions about the prosecutors.
Specifically:
Why did they pursue a case when the plaintiffs want out?
a) Was it because they thought what he allegedly did was so terrible that it must be prosecuted?
b) Were they thinking this was a meal ticket to fame?
I don't know, and I'd sure as hell like to find out. If it was a), then I'd like to know what's happening with our laws and to our justice departments so make a copyright case like this so "life and death." This is especially damning in the light of the US attorneys not pursuing HSBC for aiding terrorism and organized crime. If it was b), then these people are pretty sick, and I would hold them partly responsible for Aaron Swartz's death, at least morally if not legally.
Also worth noting... Not all of us have unlimited bandwidth to work with.
I disagree, we all complained (and still complain) about that too. "I still need a disc, and a key, and I can only install it once?"
How many times do you see that protection cracked, and subsequently cheered around here? Hint: Often.
Even in that case, you no longer need the disc after it's installed. You will always be able to play the game through Steam.
There is an expectation when you have physical media. If you pay full retail for something, and you can hold the installation (or game media), you should be able to sell it. There may or may not be any laws that reinforce that expectation, I have no idea... But this is why activation schemes, media encryption, and all other sorts of DRM are heavily frowned upon.
It's not a matter of typing it to you, it's a matter of tying it to you and then giving you no way to protect that. You still need the disc to play the game, even if you copy the thing to the local storage. If something happens to that disc, you're SOL. With that risk, why shouldn't you be able to resell the game? You lose the ability to play it, but you gain value in no longer having to protect it.
Steam gives you no physical media, they merely attach the game to your account and you can install it anywhere you are, and play. They adopted a model where there is no expectation of resell, but the good side is that it doesn't take up any desk or cabinet space either. You also don't have to keep fragile media scratch free. The fact that they discount often doesn't hurt either.
I completely agree with this. Hyperbole aside, if the coding practices in your organization allow for this, you should discuss them (and not the practices of others) with your management. If the coding practices discourage (or even forbid) this behavior, and your coworker continues to violate them... That's not your problem.
Iff his code does affect what you are working on in a negative way AND it violates coding practices that your organization is enforcing, you could bring it up to immediate superiors.