if you don't export these technologies to other countries, they will either get it from your competitors or develop it themselves
Why are you ignoring the obvious goal of the law, which is that they wouldn't get it at all? We have lots of technology which, by refusing to export it, we have successfully prevented other countries from getting.
But, for simple things like mathematical calculations, I probably agree with you that they will in fact get it. Still, you blithely ignored the hoped-for possibility, which could certainly happen.
How did the FCC make your television stop working? did it come to your house and smash it with a hammer?
Oh, you mean that your perfectly functional television is incompatible with the current state of transmission technology. That's totally different, and really just indicates that you were unwilling to do the once-in-a-century thirty-minute chore of driving to a store and getting your free-after-rebate converter box. Boo hoo. Meanwhile, the rest of us are enjoying significant improvements in both entertainment and emergency communications. From where I'm sitting, it was worth it.
Yes. It got thrown out the window as it became less important to to easing of technical constraints.
We no longer write applications in 3k of space, and we no longer make 3k webpages. Get used to it, it ain't gonna change.
If you don't want to use larger programs or larger webpages, then you will be constrained in your options, and left behind by the state of the art. That's a perfectly fine personal decision, but I and people who think like me completely reject your suggestion that there is something wrong with the situation.
I don't know why you got flamebait for that comment. Your first one was non-constructive, but the second one had valid suggestions. I think you got modded unfairly.
But, I want to point out, typically product reviews at companies such as yours and mine are done internally. I don't work at Google but I imagine they do have such a process; it would be hard to believe they don't. Their webpage is their product; it's not an API. We download the product anew each time we go to the site, and customers aren't normally included in testing. (Sometimes, yes; usually, no.)
But I do agree that they should implement something like simple.google.com or something: a URL where the search would be plain, no-features, and unchanging for long periods of time. I don't know why they don't do that.
Okay, you may be right, but the article states that
HP is asking for an injunction that would block Hurd from taking a job "with a competitor in which he will utilize or disclose HP's trade secrets and information."
So, the bonus money doesn't seem to be the crux here. Anyway, that's an interesting legal theory, I'll be interested how it turns out.
I find that legal reasoning interesting but have never heard it before. Are you a California lawyer? or do you know California employment law particularly well? or can you provide a source for that tidbit? I just find it a little tough to believe and would like to hear more.
Good try at moving the goalpost, or redefining the question, but I'm compelled to call you on it.
In matters of security, the most important tool anyone can have is common sense.
This is what you said, it is the statement in question, and it is wrong. Common sense is, obviously, a great thing to have and to exhibit in pretty much all situations; but it is not at all the most important tool in matters of internet security, as user GoChickenFat pointed out. Common sense can only get you so far, and after that, more important tools take over to help protect people who are both informed or uninformed.
Even if that weren't true, I always roll my eyes when I hear people say that education is the answer to whatever the problem is. That's a cute way of saying we should not solve the problem, because education will always fail, because education will inevitably only reach part of the population, leaving the problem amongst the rest of the population. For sufficiently important problems, if we decide we actually want to solve the problem (some problems are less bad than the solution, and we should just live with them), then a package of solutions which includes approaches other than education (and more important than education) will be appropriate. And that is the case with internet security.
I don't want to argue about it and I'm sure you're a smart guy who doesn't want to argue. Education is awesome and I support it, as do you. I'm sure that you merely used a term of phrase which did not perfectly capture your meaning, which could be that education is important, or that silly users get what they deserve, or something like that. Unless you are a security ideologue, then I have nothing against you and wish you well.
yes you could do that first thing, or that second thing, or any of a large number of other things which are all better than the first two options. good luck.
Great point. I think copyright law allows damages "up to" a maximum, is that right? Can you comment on how damages are determined "up to" the maximum? I imagine those are things that 'need to be listed' in the court record.
Yes, thank you for recognizing the truth, which is that the protests successfully ended the war in Vietnam, and successfully ended child labor in the United States. As you have now come to say, protests in both cases were successful in their goal, as are many protests (and many other protests are not). Have a good day. It's always nice to find common ground.
I don't understand what you mean. rotide seems to have used the word properly. What's your beef? Make sure to look it up in a dictionary before you respond.
Yeah! Like those stupid protests against child labor a century ago. What a waste of time. Or like those stupid protests against the Vietnam war, which didn't change anything.
Hmmm, well I can see your point, but programmers being far far more expensive than computers, I understand why we would throw more hardware at a problem rather than more programmers. I say that as a (lazy) programmer. Another thing is that all those rapid-dev tools have brought us a world with far, far fewer bugs, especially crash bugs like segfaults. Remember the 90s when software crashed all the time? That sucked! As a programmer, I know it's easy to screw up pointer arithmetic, and I really love sandboxed languages like Java and Python and C#.
So, I guess I have to disagree. But we need not argue about it. You probably don't really care, and I don't either.
Holy crap. Whatever software you're talking about sounds like software you should know better than to run. Will you tell me what it is, so I can avoid it too?
To be clear, you agree with my point that lawsuits are often brought for damages which far exceed actual damages? Which somehow user xigxag thinks is not true?
Slashdot Mirror
So then, the law succeeded at its goal of assuring a job for an American who wanted the job instead of foreign-born labor?
You and I both might think that's silly or counterproductive, but you have to admit, the law achieved its goal.
if you don't export these technologies to other countries, they will either get it from your competitors or develop it themselves
Why are you ignoring the obvious goal of the law, which is that they wouldn't get it at all? We have lots of technology which, by refusing to export it, we have successfully prevented other countries from getting.
But, for simple things like mathematical calculations, I probably agree with you that they will in fact get it. Still, you blithely ignored the hoped-for possibility, which could certainly happen.
Who cares? You can't make a guess at answering that question? Okay I'll give you the answer: everyone but you.
Awesome! How many bytes of RAM did you have on your abacus?
(joke only! mad respect!)
I hope you find out that your God isn't quite so accepting of hateful actions like that.
Unfortunately, they will never find that out.
Either bring your religion to 21st century and join the rest of us or shut the hell up.
Sadly, this is true. Maybe in the 22nd century we can finally have an age when it is not possible to bring religions up-to-date.
For now, though, I'd be happy enough for them to bring themselves into the 19th century.
Rackspace has just violated our founding ideals.
Rackspace quartered soldiers in private homes in time of peace, without the consent of the owner?
How did the FCC make your television stop working? did it come to your house and smash it with a hammer?
Oh, you mean that your perfectly functional television is incompatible with the current state of transmission technology. That's totally different, and really just indicates that you were unwilling to do the once-in-a-century thirty-minute chore of driving to a store and getting your free-after-rebate converter box. Boo hoo. Meanwhile, the rest of us are enjoying significant improvements in both entertainment and emergency communications. From where I'm sitting, it was worth it.
Yes. It got thrown out the window as it became less important to to easing of technical constraints.
We no longer write applications in 3k of space, and we no longer make 3k webpages. Get used to it, it ain't gonna change.
If you don't want to use larger programs or larger webpages, then you will be constrained in your options, and left behind by the state of the art. That's a perfectly fine personal decision, but I and people who think like me completely reject your suggestion that there is something wrong with the situation.
I don't know why you got flamebait for that comment. Your first one was non-constructive, but the second one had valid suggestions. I think you got modded unfairly.
But, I want to point out, typically product reviews at companies such as yours and mine are done internally. I don't work at Google but I imagine they do have such a process; it would be hard to believe they don't. Their webpage is their product; it's not an API. We download the product anew each time we go to the site, and customers aren't normally included in testing. (Sometimes, yes; usually, no.)
But I do agree that they should implement something like simple.google.com or something: a URL where the search would be plain, no-features, and unchanging for long periods of time. I don't know why they don't do that.
What do you propose?
Results, or suggestions? I don't see results when I do it.
Okay, you may be right, but the article states that
HP is asking for an injunction that would block Hurd from taking a job "with a competitor in which he will utilize or disclose HP's trade secrets and information."
So, the bonus money doesn't seem to be the crux here. Anyway, that's an interesting legal theory, I'll be interested how it turns out.
I find that legal reasoning interesting but have never heard it before. Are you a California lawyer? or do you know California employment law particularly well? or can you provide a source for that tidbit? I just find it a little tough to believe and would like to hear more.
Good try at moving the goalpost, or redefining the question, but I'm compelled to call you on it.
In matters of security, the most important tool anyone can have is common sense.
This is what you said, it is the statement in question, and it is wrong. Common sense is, obviously, a great thing to have and to exhibit in pretty much all situations; but it is not at all the most important tool in matters of internet security, as user GoChickenFat pointed out. Common sense can only get you so far, and after that, more important tools take over to help protect people who are both informed or uninformed.
Even if that weren't true, I always roll my eyes when I hear people say that education is the answer to whatever the problem is. That's a cute way of saying we should not solve the problem, because education will always fail, because education will inevitably only reach part of the population, leaving the problem amongst the rest of the population. For sufficiently important problems, if we decide we actually want to solve the problem (some problems are less bad than the solution, and we should just live with them), then a package of solutions which includes approaches other than education (and more important than education) will be appropriate. And that is the case with internet security.
I don't want to argue about it and I'm sure you're a smart guy who doesn't want to argue. Education is awesome and I support it, as do you. I'm sure that you merely used a term of phrase which did not perfectly capture your meaning, which could be that education is important, or that silly users get what they deserve, or something like that. Unless you are a security ideologue, then I have nothing against you and wish you well.
yes you could do that first thing, or that second thing, or any of a large number of other things which are all better than the first two options. good luck.
So, you were proposing a partial solution of half measures and best guesses? Wow, you sure laid the smackdown on all those unknowledgeable l00zers.
Great point. I think copyright law allows damages "up to" a maximum, is that right? Can you comment on how damages are determined "up to" the maximum? I imagine those are things that 'need to be listed' in the court record.
I'd be interested to see how many people are daft enough to think that those situations are equivalent.
Yes, thank you for recognizing the truth, which is that the protests successfully ended the war in Vietnam, and successfully ended child labor in the United States. As you have now come to say, protests in both cases were successful in their goal, as are many protests (and many other protests are not). Have a good day. It's always nice to find common ground.
I don't understand what you mean. rotide seems to have used the word properly. What's your beef? Make sure to look it up in a dictionary before you respond.
Yeah! Like those stupid protests against child labor a century ago. What a waste of time. Or like those stupid protests against the Vietnam war, which didn't change anything.
Hmmm, well I can see your point, but programmers being far far more expensive than computers, I understand why we would throw more hardware at a problem rather than more programmers. I say that as a (lazy) programmer. Another thing is that all those rapid-dev tools have brought us a world with far, far fewer bugs, especially crash bugs like segfaults. Remember the 90s when software crashed all the time? That sucked! As a programmer, I know it's easy to screw up pointer arithmetic, and I really love sandboxed languages like Java and Python and C#.
So, I guess I have to disagree. But we need not argue about it. You probably don't really care, and I don't either.
Holy crap. Whatever software you're talking about sounds like software you should know better than to run. Will you tell me what it is, so I can avoid it too?
Thanks for the clarification.
To be clear, you agree with my point that lawsuits are often brought for damages which far exceed actual damages? Which somehow user xigxag thinks is not true?