Passport - As a developer with an MSDN license I'm required to have one, even if I don't want it.
Security and Reliability -.NOT's job is to make things easier and more interconnected between Microsoft products. What Microsoft calls "integration", I tend to think of as "interface creep".
With no solid interface two problems arise: 1) A bug in one place can be exploited or manifested from lots of other places. 2) When problems do occur, it's difficult to nail down exactly where they occured. Making it even tougher to fix them.
As an example, when's the last time you met a 5000 line function you liked? How about a million line program with tons of global variables?
Feeding off of others can certainly be bad if you don't follow the rules and site your references. However, working in a vacuum can be just as bad. If you've ever encountered "not invented here" syndrome in a software house, you'll know what I'm talking about. Re-inventing the wheel might be good for learning, but it doesn't help much in industry (especially the software industry).
As for research, I think you'll find a lot more than a Bachelor's degree is required to get into that.
Re:Everything as pay per view
on
Coding Fair Use
·
· Score: 2
Actually... The courts have been getting around "pay per use" for years:
Example 1: Nailing IBM for illegal practices when they would "lease" mainframes but never sell them during their time as monopoly holder.
Example 2: Ruling "licenses" on books and records illegal at the turn of the century when publishers attempted to require consumers to never sell used books below a certain price.
Make no mistake, copyright has been granted and worked well for buying whole copies of a work. However, the courts have never allowed "pay per view" as the only offering of a copyright holder. It has never been shown that this model works fairly or equitably.
Don't forget, copyright is an artificial monopoly granted by the state. So it's up to the state to regulate that monopoly.
I don't see what speeding has to do with copyright. In one case (speeding) people break the law and are caught. In the other (copyright) industry is attempting to make breaking the law difficult or impossible.
To equate speeding with copyright would require making cars that go over the speed limit illegal. Then doing away with traffic cops and radar guns entirely. This might stop freeway speeding, but it wouldn't catch out of control or dangerous drivers at all.
In Computer Science, much of the work revolves around problem-solving techniques, which cannot be learned second-hand
First off, Software Development (as opposed to Computer Science) is all about getting the job done. This usually requires a lot more reading and absorption than problem solving skills, at least in my experience.
Secondly, I find I *do* learn most of my problem solving skills by looking at solutions and by watching how other people actually solve problems as opposed to how they explain solutions. Been doing it since I was about 3 years old, and it's served me pretty well. In fact, I'll wager if you'd never seen an algorithm that was good at doing something, you'd be terrible at creating them. Problem solving is all about synthesis. How to take what you know and apply it to what you don't know. Obviously some practice is required, but the more you know the easier it gets...
100 level CS students unable to finish their assignments alone is generally a better indicator of bad teachers than bad students. If weeding needs to occur at this level monitored tests are still the best method for telling how well students can truly do the work.
As an example of an effective test, try proving pythagria's theorem sometime with pencil, paper and no preparation.
If it was really a Troll... there wouldn't be so many good responses. Just cause you don't agree don't make it a troll.
Configuring gvim to auto-complete on windows as well as say JBuilder is something I haven't been able to pull off. Thanks for bringing the point up Otis!
Of course JBuilder, with some of the smartest features I've seen(like drag and drop visual editors you can use on hand written and modified code), really sucks for manipulating text. You can't even search backwards properly. Yes there's a vi plugin for JBuilder, but it doesn't fill those gaps. Other "smart" editors and environments always seem to suffer similar weaknesses.
In practice, I wind up using two editors just for Java coding. gVim when I know what I'm doing and JBuilder when I really need to get in and read/understand a ton of code before making changes.
First off, I'm not talking about testing antivirus software I'm talking about testing exposure, finding out just how bad "bad" is. Large corporations and computer scientists (and even private enthusiasts) are going to keep large collections of virii that have or haven't existed in the field. They may even go so far as to create private networks and test the virii on those networks. There is no way to stop this "collection" it is merely a fact.
I suppose you can do most of what you need in virus study and testing without actually having the complete code as written be able to replicate itself, but you can't do everything, and you can't go at full speed. The issue is cloudy. Where do you draw the line between studying virii and creating a binary tool, say, that allows easy creation and distribution of virii over the internet.
Should the private individual and internet collaborator be unable to study virii in this extended manner? Further, if we simply decide virii are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed how do we keep pressure on the industry to mend its ways? Are modern virii (actually more worms than virii) the fault of malicious coders or negligent corporations?
Personally I have my own limits to what I'd post on the web, both because of possible legal exposure and possible risk to others. Encoding those limits into law would be a very bad idea indeed. (For one thing, if my limits were used, distributing or selling most Microsoft products would be illegal)
Stopping virii distribution is much like stopping copyright infringement. If you want to do something about it, go after those actually causing damage or breaking the law. Trying to make wrong actions impossible doesn't work in a free society.
I never bothered to look it up (or pay it much head) and I always assumed it meant no score, +1 bonus. Meaning I'd end up with a score of 3 but no one could rank it up or down after that... silly me. (I'd have named it "no +1 bonus" myself..)
Never mind when it was in vogue to say this (I'm not sure that it ever was); but when was it ever a statement of legal reality? I can't think of a time.
Seldom do legal realities and perceptions about them match. However, when even the ideal becomes so corrupt I can only wonder about the future.
It matters greatly how "significance" is decided. What exactly is insignificant? 50% 75%? 120%? Who exactly did a study to gather statistics on bnetd infringing vs non-infringing uses? Finally where does the burden of proof lie? (guilty till proven innocent or vice versa?)
I wonder how many users with valid copies of Blizzard games go out and get stripped versions to play on bnetd because the copy protection abhors them. I know breaking copy protection is the first thing I do when I buy a new game.
Obviously the guys had a couple marbles to rub together.
However, back to my original point. Have you ever bothered to read and understand Maxwell's equations? Do you even realize that those are the foundation (and the hard part) of much of Einstien's work with the theory of relativity?
Keep in mind Newton wasn't the only guy to come up with the Calculus, in fact some feel his German counterpart did a better job of it. Coming up with the idea of combining the ellipse with planetary orbits was pretty ripe in his day. Do you really think we'd still be using circles (in Kepler style) if Newton was never born?
Bottom line, there's definitely some really bright people in the world. But IMHO, the only thing that makes Newton and Einstein stand out from that crowd is the hype.
In a guest editorial on Newarchitect Sarah Gordon looks at whether criticizing large corporations for their mistakes and shoddy products should be allowed and what steps could be taken to stop it. What's worrisome though is that restrictions on criticism don't take into account who it's against and what truly defines criticism." Note that she's not talking about actually infecting computers, but merely making the criticism available for others to examine (and for some of them, no doubt, to use as a tool for damaging corporate profits).
From the article: It's true that the scientific community encourages research, but only when it's conducted within the ethical boundaries of a given discipline.
So let me get this strait... It's ethical to create software that has tons of security exploits, and spies on unsuspecting users who purchase it, but it's unethical to give people the tools they need to test their systems for vulnerability and gaurantee security for their own piece of mind. It might be OK to give such tools to large corporations, but private individuals just shouldn't need that kind of privacy...
Actually, in a sense he's correct, Star Wars does trivialize the non-heroes, and the heroes are people greatly affecting others. Of course, there's a good reason for both of these:
1) When writing a story it is common to centralize on main characters and trivialize the rest.
2) When writing a story it is common to choose main characters who have a central spot in history or fake history. Or, it is common to choose characters who seem this way and then exagerate to extreme.
I've often seen these precepts come together in history books. For example how much smarter than average do you really think Isaac Newton was? Einstein? How about a couple poorly known guys like Tesla and Maxwell? People need heroes (and Gods?) and have been known to create them if necessary. I've not seen too many people get hurt over it, and I've seen a lot of good kids grow up idolizing someone.
In this case, I think plargiarism and laziness play much more into the making of star wars than any political motivation.
One final thought, it was strange reading Mr. Brin's article because I've always felt that his books layed things on a little thick in the opposite direction... Good books, but the ideas about the device that gauges initial reactions and the class society stuff in Uplift War were pretty off the wall.
I've already opted out of newsprint, radio and television for my news coverage. If I opt out of the web with it's on-line news feeds and comics I'll have to give up the news entirely. (maybe not such a bad thing...)
If enough people opt out of these things- and put their energy into developing alternatives, those alternatives will thrive
What do you call the OSS movement? Most people whining on slashdot are worried that their free expression (writing email, creating code, making web-sites) will become illegal or controlled by the government and industry in a major way. They are not worried about a lack of alternatives or complaining about the lack of content in commercial services. Instead they are worrying every time they see one of these "alternatives" you are talking about get shut down by lawyers and mythical dollar signs.
As was mentioned in an earlier reply. Taking your ball and going to play somewhere else only works until you start getting followed around by ball thieves.
The thing that scares me is: Everyone replying to your post agrees with you. Including me.
Where are the trolls? Perhaps they don't get it? I get the vague feeling this should worry me...
Me: Wait, was that council for a devoid of evil America or Council for an evil [and] free America? CPM member: To the chair with you, thought criminal!!
For example, in talking about legality of things in society it used to be in vogue to say:
"We must outlaw X if, and only if, ALL its uses are bad uses."
Now it seems to be the style to say:
"We must outlaw Z if, and only if, its PRIMARY uses are bad uses."
Couldn't have said it better (or even nearly as well) myself.
When will people learn that actions have consequences and there is no "silver bullet" for protecting property, intellectual or otherwise.
The first step in stopping illegal copying is actually CATCHING the illegal copiers!! Kids learn pretty quick what they can and can't get away with.
eg: Your honor, I have here a list of 164,325 people who stole my software along with proof for each. I've called them all and notified them they are in violation of my copyright, but I need some kind of injuctive relief. What are my rights here?
(Don't forget to not mention the fact "the software" is an FTP utility, and is now the only one widely available since the delisting of all previously existing FTP utils and their subsequent disappearance from store shelves.)
Who marked my comment up to a 5?!! It was supposed to be -1 rhetorical...
Either way, great article on compilers. I don't believe modern C/C++ compilers rely on themselves in quite the same way Mr. Thompson outlines, or maybe I'm just wishful thinking.
I know I wouldn't implement one that way. I'd use a modern compiler compiler, which normally have much more control over such things. Still the potential could be there. Shoot now I'm all curious and stuff. Time to get some gcc source out and go to town...
Until the massive inconveniences of using digital media are resolved, paper will continue to play a dominant role in exchanging and storing information.
I tend to doubt this will ever happen. Those who provide software for money seem to be hell bent on splitting markets wherever possible to gain a financial edge. Companies like this tend to succeed and earn markets because of the rich ability of software to earn money without "doing anything useful".
Funny thing is, I totally disagree with your reasoning on paper vs digital content. I used to take a lot of notes on post it's and whatever I could find. Then I had to go back and find some of what I'd been working on 3 months later. Ever since, I've been trying to keep as much of my notes in text files as possible, keeping them in an organized directory structure with other things related to them. I still use a binder for notes(one 120 pager per month or so), but I find it becoming more and more a "scratch" area, and less anything I'd want to worry about permanently.
Currently the worst thing about my text notes is that when my manager prints them out, he tends to get screwed up newlines because windows notepad sucks so bad. Course, he can't read my chicken scratch either.
Slashdot Mirror
Is infinitely better than the opposition, which bases their policy on exactly ZERO.
How many students do you really think can handle the eyestrain of an electronic copy for long?
Passport - As a developer with an MSDN license I'm required to have one, even if I don't want it.
.NOT's job is to make things easier and more interconnected between Microsoft products. What Microsoft calls "integration", I tend to think of as "interface creep".
Security and Reliability -
With no solid interface two problems arise:
1) A bug in one place can be exploited or manifested from lots of other places.
2) When problems do occur, it's difficult to nail down exactly where they occured. Making it even tougher to fix them.
As an example, when's the last time you met a 5000 line function you liked? How about a million line program with tons of global variables?
Feeding off of others can certainly be bad if you don't follow the rules and site your references. However, working in a vacuum can be just as bad. If you've ever encountered "not invented here" syndrome in a software house, you'll know what I'm talking about. Re-inventing the wheel might be good for learning, but it doesn't help much in industry (especially the software industry).
As for research, I think you'll find a lot more than a Bachelor's degree is required to get into that.
Actually... The courts have been getting around "pay per use" for years:
Example 1: Nailing IBM for illegal practices when they would "lease" mainframes but never sell them during their time as monopoly holder.
Example 2: Ruling "licenses" on books and records illegal at the turn of the century when publishers attempted to require consumers to never sell used books below a certain price.
Make no mistake, copyright has been granted and worked well for buying whole copies of a work. However, the courts have never allowed "pay per view" as the only offering of a copyright holder. It has never been shown that this model works fairly or equitably.
Don't forget, copyright is an artificial monopoly granted by the state. So it's up to the state to regulate that monopoly.
I did the math.
I don't see what speeding has to do with copyright. In one case (speeding) people break the law and are caught. In the other (copyright) industry is attempting to make breaking the law difficult or impossible.
To equate speeding with copyright would require making cars that go over the speed limit illegal. Then doing away with traffic cops and radar guns entirely. This might stop freeway speeding, but it wouldn't catch out of control or dangerous drivers at all.
In Computer Science, much of the work revolves around problem-solving techniques, which cannot be learned second-hand
First off, Software Development (as opposed to Computer Science) is all about getting the job done. This usually requires a lot more reading and absorption than problem solving skills, at least in my experience.
Secondly, I find I *do* learn most of my problem solving skills by looking at solutions and by watching how other people actually solve problems as opposed to how they explain solutions. Been doing it since I was about 3 years old, and it's served me pretty well. In fact, I'll wager if you'd never seen an algorithm that was good at doing something, you'd be terrible at creating them. Problem solving is all about synthesis. How to take what you know and apply it to what you don't know. Obviously some practice is required, but the more you know the easier it gets...
100 level CS students unable to finish their assignments alone is generally a better indicator of bad teachers than bad students. If weeding needs to occur at this level monitored tests are still the best method for telling how well students can truly do the work.
As an example of an effective test, try proving pythagria's theorem sometime with pencil, paper and no preparation.
If it was really a Troll... there wouldn't be so many good responses. Just cause you don't agree don't make it a troll.
Configuring gvim to auto-complete on windows as well as say JBuilder is something I haven't been able to pull off. Thanks for bringing the point up Otis!
Of course JBuilder, with some of the smartest features I've seen(like drag and drop visual editors you can use on hand written and modified code), really sucks for manipulating text. You can't even search backwards properly. Yes there's a vi plugin for JBuilder, but it doesn't fill those gaps. Other "smart" editors and environments always seem to suffer similar weaknesses.
In practice, I wind up using two editors just for Java coding. gVim when I know what I'm doing and JBuilder when I really need to get in and read/understand a ton of code before making changes.
True, some command prompts support this, but life without it really sucks.
(Okay, maybe two words.)
Npghnyyl, urer'f bar fvgr jvgu n wninfpevcg irefvba:
b jP bqr.nfc?gkgPbqrVq=246&yatJVq=2
uggc://jjj.cynarg-fbhepr-pbqr.pbz/io/fpevcgf/Fu
Vg'f gura nf fvzcyr nf cnfgvat vagb n jro-cntr. Gb zr n jro cntr fhccbegvat phg naq cnfgr frrzf zhpu rnfvre guna hfvat n pbzznaq yvar crey fpevcg be fbzr fhpu...
are there still any risks for the internet and software communities assossiated with taking up the .NET framework?
Yep. Security and reliability. Passport isn't so great either.
First off, I'm not talking about testing antivirus software I'm talking about testing exposure, finding out just how bad "bad" is. Large corporations and computer scientists (and even private enthusiasts) are going to keep large collections of virii that have or haven't existed in the field. They may even go so far as to create private networks and test the virii on those networks. There is no way to stop this "collection" it is merely a fact.
I suppose you can do most of what you need in virus study and testing without actually having the complete code as written be able to replicate itself, but you can't do everything, and you can't go at full speed. The issue is cloudy. Where do you draw the line between studying virii and creating a binary tool, say, that allows easy creation and distribution of virii over the internet.
Should the private individual and internet collaborator be unable to study virii in this extended manner? Further, if we simply decide virii are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed how do we keep pressure on the industry to mend its ways? Are modern virii (actually more worms than virii) the fault of malicious coders or negligent corporations?
Personally I have my own limits to what I'd post on the web, both because of possible legal exposure and possible risk to others. Encoding those limits into law would be a very bad idea indeed. (For one thing, if my limits were used, distributing or selling most Microsoft products would be illegal)
Stopping virii distribution is much like stopping copyright infringement. If you want to do something about it, go after those actually causing damage or breaking the law. Trying to make wrong actions impossible doesn't work in a free society.
So it just takes away my +1 bonus?
I never bothered to look it up (or pay it much head) and I always assumed it meant no score, +1 bonus. Meaning I'd end up with a score of 3 but no one could rank it up or down after that... silly me. (I'd have named it "no +1 bonus" myself..)
Never mind when it was in vogue to say this (I'm not sure that it ever was); but when was it ever a statement of legal reality? I can't think of a time.
Seldom do legal realities and perceptions about them match. However, when even the ideal becomes so corrupt I can only wonder about the future.
It matters greatly how "significance" is decided. What exactly is insignificant? 50% 75%? 120%? Who exactly did a study to gather statistics on bnetd infringing vs non-infringing uses? Finally where does the burden of proof lie? (guilty till proven innocent or vice versa?)
I wonder how many users with valid copies of Blizzard games go out and get stripped versions to play on bnetd because the copy protection abhors them. I know breaking copy protection is the first thing I do when I buy a new game.
Obviously the guys had a couple marbles to rub together.
However, back to my original point. Have you ever bothered to read and understand Maxwell's equations? Do you even realize that those are the foundation (and the hard part) of much of Einstien's work with the theory of relativity?
Keep in mind Newton wasn't the only guy to come up with the Calculus, in fact some feel his German counterpart did a better job of it. Coming up with the idea of combining the ellipse with planetary orbits was pretty ripe in his day. Do you really think we'd still be using circles (in Kepler style) if Newton was never born?
Bottom line, there's definitely some really bright people in the world. But IMHO, the only thing that makes Newton and Einstein stand out from that crowd is the hype.
In a guest editorial on Newarchitect Sarah Gordon looks at whether criticizing large corporations for their mistakes and shoddy products should be allowed and what steps could be taken to stop it. What's worrisome though is that restrictions on criticism don't take into account who it's against and what truly defines criticism." Note that she's not talking about actually infecting computers, but merely making the criticism available for others to examine (and for some of them, no doubt, to use as a tool for damaging corporate profits).
From the article:
It's true that the scientific community encourages research, but only when it's conducted within the ethical boundaries of a given discipline.
So let me get this strait... It's ethical to create software that has tons of security exploits, and spies on unsuspecting users who purchase it, but it's unethical to give people the tools they need to test their systems for vulnerability and gaurantee security for their own piece of mind. It might be OK to give such tools to large corporations, but private individuals just shouldn't need that kind of privacy...
Actually, in a sense he's correct, Star Wars does trivialize the non-heroes, and the heroes are people greatly affecting others. Of course, there's a good reason for both of these:
1) When writing a story it is common to centralize on main characters and trivialize the rest.
2) When writing a story it is common to choose main characters who have a central spot in history or fake history. Or, it is common to choose characters who seem this way and then exagerate to extreme.
I've often seen these precepts come together in history books. For example how much smarter than average do you really think Isaac Newton was? Einstein? How about a couple poorly known guys like Tesla and Maxwell? People need heroes (and Gods?) and have been known to create them if necessary. I've not seen too many people get hurt over it, and I've seen a lot of good kids grow up idolizing someone.
In this case, I think plargiarism and laziness play much more into the making of star wars than any political motivation.
One final thought, it was strange reading Mr. Brin's article because I've always felt that his books layed things on a little thick in the opposite direction... Good books, but the ideas about the device that gauges initial reactions and the class society stuff in Uplift War were pretty off the wall.
I've already opted out of newsprint, radio and television for my news coverage. If I opt out of the web with it's on-line news feeds and comics I'll have to give up the news entirely. (maybe not such a bad thing...)
If enough people opt out of these things- and put their energy into developing alternatives, those alternatives will thrive
What do you call the OSS movement? Most people whining on slashdot are worried that their free expression (writing email, creating code, making web-sites) will become illegal or controlled by the government and industry in a major way. They are not worried about a lack of alternatives or complaining about the lack of content in commercial services. Instead they are worrying every time they see one of these "alternatives" you are talking about get shut down by lawyers and mythical dollar signs.
As was mentioned in an earlier reply. Taking your ball and going to play somewhere else only works until you start getting followed around by ball thieves.
The thing that scares me is: Everyone replying to your post agrees with you. Including me.
Where are the trolls? Perhaps they don't get it? I get the vague feeling this should worry me...
Me: Wait, was that council for a devoid of evil America or Council for an evil [and] free America?
CPM member: To the chair with you, thought criminal!!
change so much.
For example, in talking about legality of things in society it used to be in vogue to say:
"We must outlaw X if, and only if, ALL its uses are bad uses."
Now it seems to be the style to say:
"We must outlaw Z if, and only if, its PRIMARY uses are bad uses."
Small change, big implications...
(What does "No Score +1 Bonus" mean anyway?)
Couldn't have said it better (or even nearly as well) myself.
When will people learn that actions have consequences and there is no "silver bullet" for protecting property, intellectual or otherwise.
The first step in stopping illegal copying is actually CATCHING the illegal copiers!! Kids learn pretty quick what they can and can't get away with.
eg:
Your honor, I have here a list of 164,325 people who stole my software along with proof for each. I've called them all and notified them they are in violation of my copyright, but I need some kind of injuctive relief. What are my rights here?
(Don't forget to not mention the fact "the software" is an FTP utility, and is now the only one widely available since the delisting of all previously existing FTP utils and their subsequent disappearance from store shelves.)
Who marked my comment up to a 5?!! It was supposed to be -1 rhetorical...
Either way, great article on compilers. I don't believe modern C/C++ compilers rely on themselves in quite the same way Mr. Thompson outlines, or maybe I'm just wishful thinking.
I know I wouldn't implement one that way. I'd use a modern compiler compiler, which normally have much more control over such things. Still the potential could be there. Shoot now I'm all curious and stuff. Time to get some gcc source out and go to town...
I tend to doubt this will ever happen. Those who provide software for money seem to be hell bent on splitting markets wherever possible to gain a financial edge. Companies like this tend to succeed and earn markets because of the rich ability of software to earn money without "doing anything useful".
Funny thing is, I totally disagree with your reasoning on paper vs digital content. I used to take a lot of notes on post it's and whatever I could find. Then I had to go back and find some of what I'd been working on 3 months later. Ever since, I've been trying to keep as much of my notes in text files as possible, keeping them in an organized directory structure with other things related to them. I still use a binder for notes(one 120 pager per month or so), but I find it becoming more and more a "scratch" area, and less anything I'd want to worry about permanently.
Currently the worst thing about my text notes is that when my manager prints them out, he tends to get screwed up newlines because windows notepad sucks so bad. Course, he can't read my chicken scratch either.
Hmm... So when was the last time you broke the speed limit? Jaywalked?
No punishment? No crime.
When you don't compile everything from source yourself. Down with binaries!
Oh wait, does compiling and reading code actually take work?
That Dwight Dively guy.
Dively added. "There are those in the software industry who basically feel that they shouldn't pay taxes at all -- and hence this amendment."
Nuff said.