It may partly depend on what user name you picked. I've got two email accounts with my ISP, neither of which I've ever given to anyone. One has a common surname as the account name. The other has a collection of random gibberish as username. The first one recieves several spam messages per day. The other one has probably recieved one in the last 3 months.
I guess that the spammers quite probably have a standard list of common names that they put in front of @hotmail.com, @aol.com, etc.
As a tip, though, I've just set my spam levels on hotmail to only recieve emails from people that are in my address book. I've not got a single spam on that account (except from MS themselves) since I did that.
Or maybe many of them don't protest because they don't think that they can change anything. In the UK's last election, more people didn't vote at all than voted for the government. This does not strike me as 90% of people thinking things are 'good'
for example, a bean represents a row, not a business object, unless your business object is a row, in which case you are probably over exposed to changes in the database
I'm assuming that you are referring to Entity EJBs, as a 'bean' is basically any java object with a null constructor (and usually setter and getter methods), and can represent anything you want. But even for Entity EJBs, it's only true if you use CMP (container managed persistence). If you implement BMP (bean managed persistence) you can use them to represent any kind of business entity. We are currently implementing an entity bean that represents data that has been pulled off a mainframe (not an RDBMS in sight), with the EJB/container providing the cacheing/security/pooling etc for us.
Except (to streach the anology to its limits), a public web server is like putting a sign on your garden gate saying "Open to the public".
Not really. If it was published, with a hyperlink, or 'obvious' URL, then yes. But as this was in an obscure location on the site with no obvious link to it, then it wasn't really being advertised as available.
The closest 'real-world' situation that I can imagine is someone sat in a public place reading a document with "Top Secret" written on it. Would this document be considered "public property" as the person was reading it in a place where anyone could easily read it over there shoulder?
If you kept it in a hedge in your garden (i.e., on your property as this report was), and someone took it, they would still technically be guilty of theft. I suspect, however, that the police would just laugh at you and tell you that you deserved it for being stupid.
Is this meant to make any sense? What does that have to do with the piece of text that you quoted?
You've seen lots of deaths. Well, bully for you. But what's that got to do with the point that I was making?
Do you think that all dangerous siuations end up with death? Well, I don't. There are often moments during your average drive when you need to concentrate more than usual (busy traffic island, someone slamming on brakes in front of you etc), and a passenger in the car will often also be aware that this situation is occurring. They will quite possibly decide that this is not the best time to continue the conversation and will stop talking for a couple of seconds, helping you to concentrate, whereas a person on the other end of a phone will be far less likely to be aware of this situation, and will therefore probably continue talking, thus distracting you at a crucial point. What is flawed or skewed about that?
Note the use of the word usually. Sometimes passengers are not aware, but on average they are more likely to be aware of what is going off around the car than a person on the other end of the phone.
From what I remember of the research, it showed that passengers are usually reasonably aware of what is going on on the road and will often stop talking to the driver if they detect danger, such as a busy junction, whereas the person on the other end of the phone has no knowledge of what is going on, and therefore cannot react in the same way.
So the answer to your question is no (or at least not to the same extent).
Would it be right to let those people state their opinions, even risking a 4th Reich?
The problem is that banning hate sites etc allows these people a nice convenient possition of "the government is scared of the truth, so they try to ban it", and as non-supporters are not allowed to read the articles either, they are not able to disprove whatever the claims, as they don't know what they are.
Google is doing the sensible thing, in obeying the national laws. However, you don't have to be self-centred or American to believe that it is wrong for a country/government to force censorship of material that it doesn't agree with. It doesn't take much, if any, imagination to see where this leads.
As we speak, the UK government is attempting to take out a gagging order (on the grounds of "National Security") to surpress the reporting of a trial where evidence that claims to prove that the UK government paid Al Qaeda to attempt to assassinate Gaddafi for them in 1986 will be discussed. Of course you can find some of the details on the internet, but if the goverment could enforce the banning of access to web pages, then I suspect I would not be able to read about it anywhere.
But you'd probably complain if a company decided to claim trademark on your face (which I'm assuming is not currently being used for commercial purposes) and keep the proceeds itself.
"Our roadways would function just fine, even if all the cars were gone
Indeed they would work fine, and all of us non-car users would have a much more pleasant journey into work. Roads can function perfectly adequately without cars, as they did for a couple of thousand years, and the internet itself (as a transport layer) can function perfectly well without DNS. Large amounts of the users may not be able to figure out how to use it, but it would still be there linking the computers up.
Does Osama bin Laden even have an email address? He did have a mobile phone, and they did track him on this for a bit, but then (if I remember correctly) they announced this to the media so he switched it off.
Why do people seem to think that talking into a mobile phone is rude? It can be, if they are talking loudly, but then so are any conversations. I'm much more frequently disturbed on the bus by people talking loudly to the person next to them that by someone talking loudly on a mobile.
However, a standard VHS tape still only records 200 lines. You can get SVHS video recorders that do 400 lines, but that's still well short of the 525 lines of US TVs, and even further short of the 625 that UK TVs support. Most people are used to the picture quality that they get from their VHS videos, so they shouldn't be too disappointed with the Archos.
Because I no longer own the physical copy and won't use it while you do - just as I could sell it to you, under the doctrine of first sale.
I thought that what was at issue was that piracy is getting something for free that the producer wants you to pay for. You've still got your CD, you've not paid for it, and the artist hasn't benefitted in any way.
Wether they would pay someone is irrelevent - since the opens ource developer isn't losing any money, by the original argument using their code is OK
How is it irrelevant? Again, the point of the original arguement was about whether you are gaining something that should be being paid for, and not paying for it.
First off all, I didn't say it wasn't theft - it is, but I view the try before buy or delete as a defendable response to unreasonable EULA,
So you are admitting that it's theft and then trying to rationalising it? Hmmm. I'm sure that's what you accused me of about three posts ago. You feel that you can justify theft in your case, and I think I can justify it in mine. It's still legally theft, and neither instance is depriving anyone of anything.
The point was that the act of copying the software was not depriving the music or movie creators of revenue, because he was not going to buy it anyway. If you are prepared to buy it, and still copy it, then it would be depriving them of revenue.
And, to answer your question - if I discard a CD and you pick it it up and listen to it, that's fine - but walking into a store and taking a copy isn't - which is what your newspaper example is equivalent.
Which was exactly my point. In your example, you've aquired a CD for nothing, the artist hasn't benefitted by you doing it, but yet you don't consider this to be stealing. Why not?
So is it OK to use open source code in closed source projects, because no one loses any money as a result?
If the open source software was not available, would they have not put that functionality in the software? If they would have paid a developer to do it, or bought a third party library, then they are damaging the person/company that they would have paid. If the feature would not have been put in without the open source code, and the author is not aware that it is being used that way, then, no, I don't have a problem with it. No one has lost out.
Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with someone pirating a copy of software, checking to see if it meets their needs, and then either buying it or deleting it.
This then totally invalidates your arguement about the cost to the companies for pursuing pirates. Does it somehow cost the companies to chase down people who use it but would never buy it, but not cost them to pursue people who are 'trying it out'?
If you can't afford it, go without or find a free alternative, instead of rationalizing theft by saying it didn't hurt anyone (a disputable point, IMHO.)
You're right. We wouldn't want to be rational would we? What are laws there for? To protect people from getting hurt, one way or another. If no one is getting hurt then why should it be illegal? Surely, in order for a crime to have been committed, there must have been a victim.
By that view, it's ok to sneek into no sold out movies, concerts, etc because I wouldn't have paid the cover to get in.
If you had absolutely no intention of paying for it, then yes it would. Why not? Who's losing what? If you go into a bar and find a discarded newspaper there, do you feel it's theft to read the paper despite the fact that you haven't paid for it? Do you see how this would be different from walking into a newsagent, picking up the newspaper and walking out without paying? In both cases, you've ended up with a free newspaper.
A company still has to sort out who is the casual copier and probably not worth chasing down vs teh serious pirate - which costs money. If only big time pirates existed, it would probably cost less to shut them down. So, just as with spam, their is a marginal cost to the copyright holder.
The company has absolutely no knowledge of me doing it, so why would they be chasing me down? I copied some CDs last night (of ones that I already owned, so that I could have a copy at work). I suspect the artists haven't noticed yet, nor will they ever. I got 3 pieces of junk mail last night, which took time to download on my phone - time I could have spent reading the real messages I'd been sent.
If pirated code results in wider use of commericial products (the key to the "piracy ultimately helps the copyright holder" arguement), then by extension it hurts open source by displacing them from the marketplace. SO yes, part of my argument is that it hurts os projects - the data version of collateral damage.
As I said before, you do have a point here, but then as I've mentioned in a different post, you could then argue that as this person will probably spend their money on something in the long run, then by buying the commercial software they would be hurting the people that they would otherwise have spent the money on. And anyway, this might make open source projects raise their standards in order to compete with commercial software entirely on features rather than price (I know many already do, and in that case I'd already use that rather than a pirated commercial tool).
I thought it was Amiga DOS as well, but according to the official site it's definitely AmigaOS. I think AmigaDOS might just have been the CLI bit, but I could be wrong.
Well, I'm glad that you've managed to solve all of the world's great moral and ethical issues in your mind.Better tell all of the world's religious leaders and thinkers that they don't need to worry any more 'cause someone's got all the answers.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess that the spammers quite probably have a standard list of common names that they put in front of @hotmail.com, @aol.com, etc.
As a tip, though, I've just set my spam levels on hotmail to only recieve emails from people that are in my address book. I've not got a single spam on that account (except from MS themselves) since I did that.
Or maybe many of them don't protest because they don't think that they can change anything. In the UK's last election, more people didn't vote at all than voted for the government. This does not strike me as 90% of people thinking things are 'good'
I'm assuming that you are referring to Entity EJBs, as a 'bean' is basically any java object with a null constructor (and usually setter and getter methods), and can represent anything you want. But even for Entity EJBs, it's only true if you use CMP (container managed persistence). If you implement BMP (bean managed persistence) you can use them to represent any kind of business entity. We are currently implementing an entity bean that represents data that has been pulled off a mainframe (not an RDBMS in sight), with the EJB/container providing the cacheing/security/pooling etc for us.
Not really. If it was published, with a hyperlink, or 'obvious' URL, then yes. But as this was in an obscure location on the site with no obvious link to it, then it wasn't really being advertised as available.
The closest 'real-world' situation that I can imagine is someone sat in a public place reading a document with "Top Secret" written on it. Would this document be considered "public property" as the person was reading it in a place where anyone could easily read it over there shoulder?
If you kept it in a hedge in your garden (i.e., on your property as this report was), and someone took it, they would still technically be guilty of theft. I suspect, however, that the police would just laugh at you and tell you that you deserved it for being stupid.
That proves nothing other than that you are obviously unsafe to drive.
You've seen lots of deaths. Well, bully for you. But what's that got to do with the point that I was making?
Do you think that all dangerous siuations end up with death? Well, I don't. There are often moments during your average drive when you need to concentrate more than usual (busy traffic island, someone slamming on brakes in front of you etc), and a passenger in the car will often also be aware that this situation is occurring. They will quite possibly decide that this is not the best time to continue the conversation and will stop talking for a couple of seconds, helping you to concentrate, whereas a person on the other end of a phone will be far less likely to be aware of this situation, and will therefore probably continue talking, thus distracting you at a crucial point. What is flawed or skewed about that?
Note the use of the word usually. Sometimes passengers are not aware, but on average they are more likely to be aware of what is going off around the car than a person on the other end of the phone.
So the answer to your question is no (or at least not to the same extent).
The problem is that banning hate sites etc allows these people a nice convenient possition of "the government is scared of the truth, so they try to ban it", and as non-supporters are not allowed to read the articles either, they are not able to disprove whatever the claims, as they don't know what they are.
As we speak, the UK government is attempting to take out a gagging order (on the grounds of "National Security") to surpress the reporting of a trial where evidence that claims to prove that the UK government paid Al Qaeda to attempt to assassinate Gaddafi for them in 1986 will be discussed. Of course you can find some of the details on the internet, but if the goverment could enforce the banning of access to web pages, then I suspect I would not be able to read about it anywhere.
But you'd probably complain if a company decided to claim trademark on your face (which I'm assuming is not currently being used for commercial purposes) and keep the proceeds itself.
Indeed they would work fine, and all of us non-car users would have a much more pleasant journey into work. Roads can function perfectly adequately without cars, as they did for a couple of thousand years, and the internet itself (as a transport layer) can function perfectly well without DNS. Large amounts of the users may not be able to figure out how to use it, but it would still be there linking the computers up.
Does Osama bin Laden even have an email address? He did have a mobile phone, and they did track him on this for a bit, but then (if I remember correctly) they announced this to the media so he switched it off.
"type in (cast) must be scalar; ANSI 3.3.4; page 39, lines 10-11 (I know you don't care, I'm just trying to annoy you)
and the ever helpful
huh?
Why do people seem to think that talking into a mobile phone is rude? It can be, if they are talking loudly, but then so are any conversations. I'm much more frequently disturbed on the bus by people talking loudly to the person next to them that by someone talking loudly on a mobile.
However, a standard VHS tape still only records 200 lines. You can get SVHS video recorders that do 400 lines, but that's still well short of the 525 lines of US TVs, and even further short of the 625 that UK TVs support. Most people are used to the picture quality that they get from their VHS videos, so they shouldn't be too disappointed with the Archos.
I thought that what was at issue was that piracy is getting something for free that the producer wants you to pay for. You've still got your CD, you've not paid for it, and the artist hasn't benefitted in any way.
Wether they would pay someone is irrelevent - since the opens ource developer isn't losing any money, by the original argument using their code is OK
How is it irrelevant? Again, the point of the original arguement was about whether you are gaining something that should be being paid for, and not paying for it.
First off all, I didn't say it wasn't theft - it is, but I view the try before buy or delete as a defendable response to unreasonable EULA,
So you are admitting that it's theft and then trying to rationalising it? Hmmm. I'm sure that's what you accused me of about three posts ago. You feel that you can justify theft in your case, and I think I can justify it in mine. It's still legally theft, and neither instance is depriving anyone of anything.
By this arguement, going for a walk is depriving peole of revenue in exactly the same way.
The point was that the act of copying the software was not depriving the music or movie creators of revenue, because he was not going to buy it anyway. If you are prepared to buy it, and still copy it, then it would be depriving them of revenue.
Which was exactly my point. In your example, you've aquired a CD for nothing, the artist hasn't benefitted by you doing it, but yet you don't consider this to be stealing. Why not?
So is it OK to use open source code in closed source projects, because no one loses any money as a result?
If the open source software was not available, would they have not put that functionality in the software? If they would have paid a developer to do it, or bought a third party library, then they are damaging the person/company that they would have paid. If the feature would not have been put in without the open source code, and the author is not aware that it is being used that way, then, no, I don't have a problem with it. No one has lost out.
Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with someone pirating a copy of software, checking to see if it meets their needs, and then either buying it or deleting it.
This then totally invalidates your arguement about the cost to the companies for pursuing pirates. Does it somehow cost the companies to chase down people who use it but would never buy it, but not cost them to pursue people who are 'trying it out'?
If you can't afford it, go without or find a free alternative, instead of rationalizing theft by saying it didn't hurt anyone (a disputable point, IMHO.)
You're right. We wouldn't want to be rational would we? What are laws there for? To protect people from getting hurt, one way or another. If no one is getting hurt then why should it be illegal? Surely, in order for a crime to have been committed, there must have been a victim.
If you had absolutely no intention of paying for it, then yes it would. Why not? Who's losing what? If you go into a bar and find a discarded newspaper there, do you feel it's theft to read the paper despite the fact that you haven't paid for it? Do you see how this would be different from walking into a newsagent, picking up the newspaper and walking out without paying? In both cases, you've ended up with a free newspaper.
A company still has to sort out who is the casual copier and probably not worth chasing down vs teh serious pirate - which costs money. If only big time pirates existed, it would probably cost less to shut them down. So, just as with spam, their is a marginal cost to the copyright holder.
The company has absolutely no knowledge of me doing it, so why would they be chasing me down? I copied some CDs last night (of ones that I already owned, so that I could have a copy at work). I suspect the artists haven't noticed yet, nor will they ever. I got 3 pieces of junk mail last night, which took time to download on my phone - time I could have spent reading the real messages I'd been sent.
If pirated code results in wider use of commericial products (the key to the "piracy ultimately helps the copyright holder" arguement), then by extension it hurts open source by displacing them from the marketplace. SO yes, part of my argument is that it hurts os projects - the data version of collateral damage.
As I said before, you do have a point here, but then as I've mentioned in a different post, you could then argue that as this person will probably spend their money on something in the long run, then by buying the commercial software they would be hurting the people that they would otherwise have spent the money on. And anyway, this might make open source projects raise their standards in order to compete with commercial software entirely on features rather than price (I know many already do, and in that case I'd already use that rather than a pirated commercial tool).
Anyway, a whole list of amusing AmgiaOS messages, including (From Workbench 1.2) "We made Amiga, They fucked it up",
Well, I'm glad that you've managed to solve all of the world's great moral and ethical issues in your mind.Better tell all of the world's religious leaders and thinkers that they don't need to worry any more 'cause someone's got all the answers.