Huh? The database isn't there just to store data. It offers indexing, structured queries, etc. Usually, when people implement that functionality on top of a filesystem, it ends up as a yet another me-too half baked "database". It's like with any sufficiently large software project having half-baked LISP functionality in it:)
You've missed the non-exclusive part, for one. You're not signing away all rights to the code. Just the rights enumerated above. You can do with your code as you please, and they can do with their copy as they please as well, within the limits of non-exclusivity! You're not losing any rights to your own code! You can, for example, publish it under a license of your choice -- if the code is not a Qt-derived work in the meaning of copyright law. So, if it's not a derived work, you can publish it under BSD, or under a closed-source license, or whatever the heck you desire. You're only giving Digia a license, not outright ownership!
I don't think that the database is the problem. The problem is that Akonadi is about as decent, code- and design-wise, as aRts was. Long on promise, short on delivery -- designed and implemented by people who demonstrably don't have enough software engineering experience. College kids may be bright and hard working, but that's no substitute for a certain amount of experience and understanding of the engineering side of things. Just look at this software engineering "recommendation" to give the idea what's wrong with the project. Give me a fucking break, this is supposed to be C++, RAII has been with us pretty much since forever, and those bastards pretend you need to have manual (and thus usually missing) solutions to problems nominally solved by designing for RAII? Seriously?
I simply think they are a bunch of no holds barred corporate bastards, like many other big corporations there. It has got nothing to do specifically with food -- I don't care one iota for whether the food is genetically modified/engineered or not. All I care about is whether it's safe to eat and doesn't have excessive side effects to its production. Fucking up farmer's (or anyone) just because they've got broken legal system behind them is not being a good corporate citizen. That's all there's to it.
It can be forgotten because it's a non-issue. You don't understand any of it, yet you comment like if there was anything to pull strings about. Read a couple of pages above your post and you'll know everything there is to be known about this issue. The article is a letdown, to say the least. It's almost like someone really wanted to write a paper about something, and they couldn't find anything sensible to do, and wrote pretty much a bunch of truisms.
In other words, this was blown out of proportion by people who don't know much about contemporary biology. This promoter business was something that was pounded into my head in high school, for crying out loud, and while I have forgotten most details, wikipedia and other sources are literally a few clicks away. Yeah, editors are useless here, that's nothing new:(
people can do bad things even with good intentions
That's why the law differentiates between murder and homicide:) It's a problem that has long ago been solved, but apparently many IT security hoopla pundits have no clue about even that. I have no problem with seeking civil damages and injunctions against people who break stuff unintentionally when doing any sort of access to a computer system, but I don't think it should be prosecuted ex officio. The legal system can handle it without any additional laws.
(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services [...]
Note: "with purpose to". If your purpose is not to deprive someone of property, then you're not guilty of theft. Passing a stack of $20s back and forth through a wall does not deprive anyone of anything, unless they were trying to grab the money while you were doing your back-and-forth motions. In Ohio at least:) In other states, it's not so clear cut. Illinois is not nice in that respect, for example, although I'm not sure what the case law says.
I'm fascinated by the adversarial attitude the college administration appears to have towards their students.
Lucky you for not being in circumstances that make it obvious: Bureaucrats don't give a shit about anything but covering their own asses. The setting doesn't matter to them -- demonstrably so. Catholic Church, colleges, whatever -- when you have rank bureaucrats dealing with something, they'll be covering their asses before anything else.
Pulling a stack of $20s through a wall is different than stealing. Stealing is when you deprive someone of their property, or generally of something of value. If your intention is not to steal, or to not to do mischief (data corruption, etc) on the system you're testing, then where the heck is the problem for anyone? Bona-fide vulnerability testing, whether in physical or IT world, is a good thing. It's the people who don't realize this that are stupid jerks. They act against their best interests.
The school acts like an antisocial jerk. If the school truly believes that there was no intent to harm and thus there should be no punishment, then if the law states otherwise they should get very vocal about their wish that the law be changed. Otherwise they can stuff their public admission where the light doesn't shine, because it's just as good. If it's a significant enough school, they should have plenty of clout with local politicians and alumni -- they should use it for good deeds. Protecting their student from unjust punishment is precisely what their clout should be used for. Otherwise, they are like an antisocial basement dweller jerk.
The deal is that this is IT, not physical world, and you cannot reuse the same mode of thinking. In IT, vulnerability testing is a good thing, not a bad thing. It leads to fixes, hopefully. Relevant laws, to be moral (IMHO), should be written so that bad intentions are required to make access to a computer system a crime. Unauthorized access in itself shouldn't be criminal if it's done in a bona-fide attempt to find vulnerabilities and inform the owners/developers of the system of those. It shouldn't be criminal in a bona-fide attempt at interoperability either -- again, IMHO.
I don't think that most animals care much about eating their own species when they get really hungry. That does make humans rather poor hunters, doesn't it?:)
Wait the fucking minute. This got published in spite of there being no known, detailed history of all of the deceased? WTF?! This should be on a science's thedailwtf, if there is such a thing.
Well, we're not that good yet to analyze single DNA molecules directly. What you do is amplify, or, make copies of sorts. Often those are not copies of the whole thing, but just a small part, a marker that you're interested in. That's why it is rather easy, technically, to pollute a crime scene in such a way as to set up anyone you wish. Your polluting fragments, in the millions or billions, overpower whatever is left of the perp's DNA.
I once had a gun stuck in my face for refusing a shot of whiskey
Yeah, what a mark of civilization for people to get violent at you for refusing alcohol. Violence may be part of the way of life, but to call it culture is retarded. It's not culture, it's their customs being stuck 100 years behind the times -- and I don't mean behind western culture, but behind what's known about how people tick. Forcing someone to do something as a matter of custom is popular tyranny, not culture.
Slashdot Mirror
And how is that bad?
Huh? The database isn't there just to store data. It offers indexing, structured queries, etc. Usually, when people implement that functionality on top of a filesystem, it ends up as a yet another me-too half baked "database". It's like with any sufficiently large software project having half-baked LISP functionality in it :)
You've missed the non-exclusive part, for one. You're not signing away all rights to the code. Just the rights enumerated above. You can do with your code as you please, and they can do with their copy as they please as well, within the limits of non-exclusivity! You're not losing any rights to your own code! You can, for example, publish it under a license of your choice -- if the code is not a Qt-derived work in the meaning of copyright law. So, if it's not a derived work, you can publish it under BSD, or under a closed-source license, or whatever the heck you desire. You're only giving Digia a license, not outright ownership!
I don't think that the database is the problem. The problem is that Akonadi is about as decent, code- and design-wise, as aRts was. Long on promise, short on delivery -- designed and implemented by people who demonstrably don't have enough software engineering experience. College kids may be bright and hard working, but that's no substitute for a certain amount of experience and understanding of the engineering side of things. Just look at this software engineering "recommendation" to give the idea what's wrong with the project. Give me a fucking break, this is supposed to be C++, RAII has been with us pretty much since forever, and those bastards pretend you need to have manual (and thus usually missing) solutions to problems nominally solved by designing for RAII? Seriously?
I simply think they are a bunch of no holds barred corporate bastards, like many other big corporations there. It has got nothing to do specifically with food -- I don't care one iota for whether the food is genetically modified/engineered or not. All I care about is whether it's safe to eat and doesn't have excessive side effects to its production. Fucking up farmer's (or anyone) just because they've got broken legal system behind them is not being a good corporate citizen. That's all there's to it.
In addition to that, I dislike them on moral grounds :)
It can be forgotten because it's a non-issue. You don't understand any of it, yet you comment like if there was anything to pull strings about. Read a couple of pages above your post and you'll know everything there is to be known about this issue. The article is a letdown, to say the least. It's almost like someone really wanted to write a paper about something, and they couldn't find anything sensible to do, and wrote pretty much a bunch of truisms.
In other words, this was blown out of proportion by people who don't know much about contemporary biology. This promoter business was something that was pounded into my head in high school, for crying out loud, and while I have forgotten most details, wikipedia and other sources are literally a few clicks away. Yeah, editors are useless here, that's nothing new :(
Whooooooooooooosh!
Why is everyone pretending that the legal system has no idea how to establish guilty mind? It's a reasonably solved problem.
people can do bad things even with good intentions
That's why the law differentiates between murder and homicide :) It's a problem that has long ago been solved, but apparently many IT security hoopla pundits have no clue about even that. I have no problem with seeking civil damages and injunctions against people who break stuff unintentionally when doing any sort of access to a computer system, but I don't think it should be prosecuted ex officio. The legal system can handle it without any additional laws.
You must be somewhere with broken law, then :(
From ORC 2913.02 Theft.
(A) No person, with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services [...]
Note: "with purpose to". If your purpose is not to deprive someone of property, then you're not guilty of theft. Passing a stack of $20s back and forth through a wall does not deprive anyone of anything, unless they were trying to grab the money while you were doing your back-and-forth motions. In Ohio at least :) In other states, it's not so clear cut. Illinois is not nice in that respect, for example, although I'm not sure what the case law says.
It's OK to be a prick to name calling AC pricks. Sometimes they need to be taught a lesson.
I'm fascinated by the adversarial attitude the college administration appears to have towards their students.
Lucky you for not being in circumstances that make it obvious: Bureaucrats don't give a shit about anything but covering their own asses. The setting doesn't matter to them -- demonstrably so. Catholic Church, colleges, whatever -- when you have rank bureaucrats dealing with something, they'll be covering their asses before anything else.
Pulling a stack of $20s through a wall is different than stealing. Stealing is when you deprive someone of their property, or generally of something of value. If your intention is not to steal, or to not to do mischief (data corruption, etc) on the system you're testing, then where the heck is the problem for anyone? Bona-fide vulnerability testing, whether in physical or IT world, is a good thing. It's the people who don't realize this that are stupid jerks. They act against their best interests.
The school acts like an antisocial jerk. If the school truly believes that there was no intent to harm and thus there should be no punishment, then if the law states otherwise they should get very vocal about their wish that the law be changed. Otherwise they can stuff their public admission where the light doesn't shine, because it's just as good. If it's a significant enough school, they should have plenty of clout with local politicians and alumni -- they should use it for good deeds. Protecting their student from unjust punishment is precisely what their clout should be used for. Otherwise, they are like an antisocial basement dweller jerk.
The deal is that this is IT, not physical world, and you cannot reuse the same mode of thinking. In IT, vulnerability testing is a good thing, not a bad thing. It leads to fixes, hopefully. Relevant laws, to be moral (IMHO), should be written so that bad intentions are required to make access to a computer system a crime. Unauthorized access in itself shouldn't be criminal if it's done in a bona-fide attempt to find vulnerabilities and inform the owners/developers of the system of those. It shouldn't be criminal in a bona-fide attempt at interoperability either -- again, IMHO.
I don't think that most animals care much about eating their own species when they get really hungry. That does make humans rather poor hunters, doesn't it? :)
An every once in a while, I'm reminded that spending time on slashdot isn't all a waste :)
IOW: Fat bitches have fat, hence voluminous, breasts. What a discovery!
Never mind all the hundreds of millions of malnourished humans all over the world. Best hunters, my ass.
Wait the fucking minute. This got published in spite of there being no known, detailed history of all of the deceased? WTF?! This should be on a science's thedailwtf, if there is such a thing.
Well, we're not that good yet to analyze single DNA molecules directly. What you do is amplify, or, make copies of sorts. Often those are not copies of the whole thing, but just a small part, a marker that you're interested in. That's why it is rather easy, technically, to pollute a crime scene in such a way as to set up anyone you wish. Your polluting fragments, in the millions or billions, overpower whatever is left of the perp's DNA.
Meant "my neighbor's 14 y.o. daughter". Yeah, point taken, my bad, mmkay? :)
I once had a gun stuck in my face for refusing a shot of whiskey
Yeah, what a mark of civilization for people to get violent at you for refusing alcohol. Violence may be part of the way of life, but to call it culture is retarded. It's not culture, it's their customs being stuck 100 years behind the times -- and I don't mean behind western culture, but behind what's known about how people tick. Forcing someone to do something as a matter of custom is popular tyranny, not culture.