While we're at it... if we're planning a police search of some place; make sure to contact the phone companies in advance, and have all the residents' cell phones kill-switched, to make sure they don't get any pictures or video.
Also.... why not work with cell companies to have a "location specific" kill switch?
That way, officers can just carry on their person, a device that disables all camera phones and recording devices in the vicinity, to prevent unauthorized recordings of the event -- or unauthorized recordings of riot officers enforcing the law or tazing innocent people.
all this might mean that the studio would end up in the red for the dnf.. maybe that's why they aren't opening the books.
You would think the studio would have anticipated that possibility, and made sure the agreement signed protected itself from the possibility that there would be allowed to be royalties equalling or exceeding the profit.
I do want to earn $200,000. But to me, Financial engineering is out of the question.
I am a software developer, but if there's a more efficient way to earn $200,000, without having to put up with assholes,
and without having to risk burnout, or health problems by working ridiculously hard, or ridculously long hours,
then that's probably what I should be doing.
Then... once i've earned enough to retire, I could go back to being a developer, and living on the interest from 3 or 4 years of $200k earnings, with developer base pay spent on the fun stuff, right?:)
Also, make sure that you measure your moral worth in dollars. The ideal guy in finance thinks like this
The guy's conversation is fundamentally accurate though.... in most cases, disasters economically benefit someone.
There are losers, like the people who lost their life.
And then there are winners, like the contractors who get paid to clean up the mess.
This is the fundamental nature of all 'investment' and 'trading';
to be successful, you must not have your decisions driven by emotion: only by technical logic-based selection of the most advantageous actions to take at the right times.
And then the commodity speculators, that just happened to be in the right place at the right time,
to benefit from the response of other people buying things irrationally based on emotion.
And when there are emotions and arousal involved, positive emotions tends to win over empathy and mourning or concern for others.
If you just won a few million dollars in the lottery, someone could probably tell you that your friend's favorite pet died, and any empathy or feeling of sorrow may very well be negated by your excitement.
Unless you knew an identifiable victim in the 9-11 disaster; if you just learned your life savings doubled in value, most people in that situation would likely be so euphoric, and aroused, that they couldn't really comprehend the evil that had happened.
So, unless you were in their shoes, and had a different reaction, you're in no position to judge the guy.:)
Anyone who has gotten started in that field, and is any good at it, isn't going to tell you how.
I hear it has something to do with reading a lot of technical books about Economics, Mathematics, Psychology, and Finance, getting a lot of magazines about the economy and politics, learning to work with large datasets: becoming a master at Statistics, Mathematical modelling, and Accounting, with some experimental study of market past behavior, and the actions of famous financers in the past.
Then throwing that all out, and just start hacking....
there are whole companies building straighter fibers (or microwave links) to the exchanges across the US to shave milliseconds off the time of a transaction.
I want to build faster-than light information transfer, so I can execute a transaction in negative milliseconds:)
You can infer this, because the vendor/manufacturer of the software holds the copyright; only the rightsholder can make the claim of infringement.
Still, Agilent charges $45,000 for that product because it's found people that are willing to pay it.
Maybe so, gouge the customer for whatever they find themselves able to pay, and still be able to justify the purchase.... Sounds like a monopolistic practice to me.
If you can't afford the software, or you don't think what it gives you is worth $45,000, then don't buy it. It's not for you.
That makes sense, but it doesn't work for people, who neither have the $45,000, nor can do what they need to do, without the software.
It's not for you. Don't bitch about it. Don't pirate it. Find something else in your price range.
I think whoever would need their product but can't afford it, is entitled to bitch all they want.
Your recommendation is that they not pirate it, but it may be in their best interests to do so; furthermore, it may be mutually beneficial to them and the software vendor, for them to do so; as it hurts the competition of their software vendor, and increases the chance that in the future they will have to make a legitimate purchase.
And there's a big difference between going after pirates who post your stuff on TPB and a guy who made $30,000 (low ballpark) off your work.
Yeah... the guy who made $30,000.... sounds like he defrauded the recipient out of $30k.
They got ripped off due to overpaying for illegitimate software -- which omits important things like support and the opportunity for updates.
Furthermore, if they were willing to pay 70% of retail, they should have just negotiated with the software vendor.
Pirating software is cheating a whole lot, so if you DO pirate, at least get a 90% discount,
because the mid term market value of pirated software is essentially $0; any "value" is just due to limited demand, and limited number of pirates who can get ahold of a copy.
I believe anyone who buys an illegal copy of a $45,000 product for $30,000 is a moron.
Since they are essentially risking that the value of that 30k "investment" will be $0 very quickly, after getting busted and forced to destroy the copies.
$15,000 doesn't really mean squat in any business that matters, except possibly a small business startup, which couldn't afford the $30k either.
On the other hand... the guy who buys an illegally pirated copy of a $45,000 product for $2000; I can kind of understand that.
Let me give you an example: let's say you want to buy a product. It costs $500 (retail). You want this product so bad that you're willing to pay $800. Then, someone comes along and offers it to you for $100. You buy it for $100. What does this prove? Does it prive that "the buyers (you) weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at" (i.e. $500)? No. It means you picked the cheaper of the two options.
"$100" is not "the cheaper of two options"
It is a lower price, for a version of a product with a huge defect -- namely, that the sale is illegitimate.
The illegitimacy of the sale, means they are actually different products -- the pirated product may be competing at some level,
but it's not "the same" product.
Invariably, the buyer almost certainly had the option of buying legitimately first, and other options only came up with either some extensive searching explicitly towards that end, or towards "asking around for favors".
Of course... the amount they're willing to pay most certainly should drop precipitiously, as the pirated version is not only illegitimate,
but surely includes no valuable skilled support from the vendor, software maintenance service, upgrades, or ability to speak candidly with the vendor and request new features/enhancements.
That is operating on the assumption that the pricing is wrong. Photoshop, Office and Visual Studio are $1000 because many casual users and small businesses will pirate the product or install the office's software on a personal computer (I'm not saying this is right, but I know too many photoshop thieves), but most medium-sized and large businesses and government will purchase the product.
That's an example of a company that is highly profitable.
Adobe and Microsoft's pursuit of 'small' pirates is half-hearted at best.
Their products are profitable, and pursuing 'pirates' doesn't earn them significantly more revenue.
And super-expensive software often occurs in small markets where the seller is very reliant on trade secrets and does not want their product floating around in the wild for competitors to study, typically in very lucrative and super-specialized niche markets.
If the vendor doesn't want their software floating around, they will typically deliver it as a cloud service, or through a hardened appliance, that doesn't provide the end user access to code, and is locked to specific hardware, through the use of some custom on board FPGA or ASICs.
500 copyrighted works to more than 300 buyers in the U.S. and overseas
The retail value of the products was more than $100 million, the government said.
In other words... on average ~$200,000 per product, and ~$333 thousand per buyer
This makes sense, when you are talking about companies like Agilent that sell overpriced products, that retail for probably approximately $500,000
That's why the "pirated $100 million in software" is neither impressive, nor indicating a particularly outrageous pirate.
The outrage, should be the pricing of Enterprise software, not the" inflated retail price " as some sort of metric of the pirate's activity.
Obviously, the buyers weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at. Therefore, those sales by definition were not worth the retail price.
In simple economic terms... the high price places their product out of demand.
By definition, they're worth what the buyer was willing to pay the pirate for the procureent.
If you're selling a $500,000 software product; going after pirates is not a winning business strategy -- it's figuring out, why the heck you can't pitch your product to legal buyers, and make your desired revenue there. Either the pricing is all wrong, or your marketing or product targetting is all wrong.
People have taken over planes since 9/11. It originating from the US or being a US airline is completely irrelevant to the comment I made or the comment I was responding to.
Their comment was understood to mean 9/11 had a social effect on people, that would make plain hijackings with a small knife essentially impossible, as passengers would resist and no longer immediately cooperate with all hijackers.
Why would you think that 9/11 would effect the behavior of people in other countries though, particularly people in countries not at risk for an event like 9/11?
US passengers are highly distinct from airline passengers in some other country, where there is minimal risk of terrorism, but maximal risk to the passengers --- especially, that in, most of those cases, the hijackers had weapons and threats far more significant and tangible than some pocketknife.
The APIs differ sufficiently that a non-trivial app legacy built for JRE 6 cannot be run on JRE 7.
They may be compatible in theory, but not in practice; not by a long shot.
Support contract? Updates for the JDK are freeware, and the there's always OpenJDK.
The older JRE is "EOL" entirely; no new security updates or other fixes are released to the public,
BUT if you have a support contract for your older Java software, you still do get the fixes and updates.
We never intended for a support contract to be required to keep JDK 7 up to date.
But you, Oracle, WILL intend in the future. Just like you intend today for a support contract to be required to keep JDK 6 AND JRE6 up to date.
Even though most Java software is probably built against JRE6, and incompatible with JRE7.
JDK7 is still just a way of pressuring a lot of people to pay for a support contract, because they need their critical security fixes for JRE6, to keep running their applications.
The future of Java is already uncertain... sure, new programs are being developed for JDK7 and newer,
but there will be legacy software for decades to come.
You can't just deprecate a bloody programming language and all the software written in it, in the same way, you can obsolete an operating system.
Companies make bad decisions all the time. The real question is: would they back off and reinstate the previous state of things? In this case, whether it was intentional or a mistake is less relevant; public backlash prompted them to reconsider (or realize the mistake) and the outcome is eventually positive.
That's great..... So, when will HP reinstate OpenVMS?:)
Here's the problems with what you're saying: everything. First, you're asking one group to cover a service they really, really don't use for another group
Incorrect. They are covering a service for another group but for the purpose of getting that other group out from behind the wheel of a vehicle. In other words: they are increasing their own safety, and increasing the safety of all drivers and all people being driven by orders of magnitude, when ensuring that all drivers meet higher standards.
I am suggesting that driving be made a much more difficult privilege to get, so possibly the average person in society would be unable to get the privilege, in order to reduce the accident rate to a miniscule amount.
And in exchange, for becoming privileged those that are capable of getting the privilege, have to pay for in effect, everyone else to get a driver, to totally compensate for the inconvenience and privilege they are being denied, which benefits the drivers by getting these other people out from behind the wheel of a vehicle.
You do realize that impeachment must occur as a result of a violation of a specific law on the books, not some general "he has over stepped his bounds".
How about falsely swearing to an Oath?
Swearing to protect the constitution, and then intentionally taking actions which can be seen to be violations or infringements of it clear as day.
Such as infringements on the prohibition against restricting free speech, and infringements on the 4th amendment.
So, this man decided to take the law into his own hands and disclose an important Top Secret intelligence program on the basis of vigilante justice. So much for the rule of law.
I don't think you can speak to the rule of law, when by definition... the programs were created in a manner that bypasses the rule of law.
Obviously well armed civilians would lose to the military and police. But the civilian guns do offer a huge protection in my opinion, they force the military to actually kill the civilian.
Any battle in which the military is killing innocent American people, is a battle they are losing, because the public doesn't support this, and those responsible are probably going to be going to jail.
But at some point, someone needs to drill it in Linus's head that Linux isn't "his" anymore. Not solely anyway.
He's still leading the project. If you want to be a maintainer or contributor, you either follow his rules, or you fork the project and start your own.
You understand what "release candidate" is right? A release candidate is not a time for adding new enhancements. It should be for streamlining and tightening the code for release.
That "streamlinin and tightening the code" is the problem; he wants only bugfixes for critical issues, not code cleanup and no minor bugfixes.
Slashdot Mirror
While we're at it... if we're planning a police search of some place; make sure to contact the phone companies in advance, and have all the residents' cell phones kill-switched, to make sure they don't get any pictures or video.
Also.... why not work with cell companies to have a "location specific" kill switch?
That way, officers can just carry on their person, a device that disables all camera phones and recording devices in the vicinity, to prevent unauthorized recordings of the event -- or unauthorized recordings of riot officers enforcing the law or tazing innocent people.
I was honestly surprised reading this headline. Had to go look the game up, I thought it was still never released.
Don't worry. You can go back to sleeep... DNF was never released.
The piece of shit that got released with the title "Duke Nukem Forever"; was not what Duke Nukem Forever was supposed to be.
In other words, they just slapped the title on a piece of bird poop, so more of it would hopefully sell.
all this might mean that the studio would end up in the red for the dnf.. maybe that's why they aren't opening the books.
You would think the studio would have anticipated that possibility, and made sure the agreement signed protected itself from the possibility that there would be allowed to be royalties equalling or exceeding the profit.
Financial engineering.
I do want to earn $200,000. But to me, Financial engineering is out of the question.
I am a software developer, but if there's a more efficient way to earn $200,000, without having to put up with assholes, and without having to risk burnout, or health problems by working ridiculously hard, or ridculously long hours, then that's probably what I should be doing.
Then... once i've earned enough to retire, I could go back to being a developer, and living on the interest from 3 or 4 years of $200k earnings, with developer base pay spent on the fun stuff, right? :)
Also, make sure that you measure your moral worth in dollars. The ideal guy in finance thinks like this
The guy's conversation is fundamentally accurate though.... in most cases, disasters economically benefit someone.
There are losers, like the people who lost their life.
And then there are winners, like the contractors who get paid to clean up the mess.
This is the fundamental nature of all 'investment' and 'trading'; to be successful, you must not have your decisions driven by emotion: only by technical logic-based selection of the most advantageous actions to take at the right times.
And then the commodity speculators, that just happened to be in the right place at the right time, to benefit from the response of other people buying things irrationally based on emotion.
And when there are emotions and arousal involved, positive emotions tends to win over empathy and mourning or concern for others.
If you just won a few million dollars in the lottery, someone could probably tell you that your friend's favorite pet died, and any empathy or feeling of sorrow may very well be negated by your excitement.
Unless you knew an identifiable victim in the 9-11 disaster; if you just learned your life savings doubled in value, most people in that situation would likely be so euphoric, and aroused, that they couldn't really comprehend the evil that had happened.
So, unless you were in their shoes, and had a different reaction, you're in no position to judge the guy. :)
Only a few people make 2.5x the average...
Also news:
I think you have confused mean with deviation.
There are plenty of "averages" that there are large numbers of people deviating from.
There are few well-shaped bell curves. Lots of below-average people.
Anyone who has gotten started in that field, and is any good at it, isn't going to tell you how.
I hear it has something to do with reading a lot of technical books about Economics, Mathematics, Psychology, and Finance, getting a lot of magazines about the economy and politics, learning to work with large datasets: becoming a master at Statistics, Mathematical modelling, and Accounting, with some experimental study of market past behavior, and the actions of famous financers in the past.
Then throwing that all out, and just start hacking....
there are whole companies building straighter fibers (or microwave links) to the exchanges across the US to shave milliseconds off the time of a transaction.
I want to build faster-than light information transfer, so I can execute a transaction in negative milliseconds :)
Who said it was the vendor going after him?
You can infer this, because the vendor/manufacturer of the software holds the copyright; only the rightsholder can make the claim of infringement.
Still, Agilent charges $45,000 for that product because it's found people that are willing to pay it.
Maybe so, gouge the customer for whatever they find themselves able to pay, and still be able to justify the purchase.... Sounds like a monopolistic practice to me.
If you can't afford the software, or you don't think what it gives you is worth $45,000, then don't buy it. It's not for you.
That makes sense, but it doesn't work for people, who neither have the $45,000, nor can do what they need to do, without the software.
It's not for you. Don't bitch about it. Don't pirate it. Find something else in your price range.
I think whoever would need their product but can't afford it, is entitled to bitch all they want.
Your recommendation is that they not pirate it, but it may be in their best interests to do so; furthermore, it may be mutually beneficial to them and the software vendor, for them to do so; as it hurts the competition of their software vendor, and increases the chance that in the future they will have to make a legitimate purchase.
And there's a big difference between going after pirates who post your stuff on TPB and a guy who made $30,000 (low ballpark) off your work.
Yeah... the guy who made $30,000.... sounds like he defrauded the recipient out of $30k. They got ripped off due to overpaying for illegitimate software -- which omits important things like support and the opportunity for updates.
Furthermore, if they were willing to pay 70% of retail, they should have just negotiated with the software vendor.
Pirating software is cheating a whole lot, so if you DO pirate, at least get a 90% discount, because the mid term market value of pirated software is essentially $0; any "value" is just due to limited demand, and limited number of pirates who can get ahold of a copy.
I believe anyone who buys an illegal copy of a $45,000 product for $30,000 is a moron. Since they are essentially risking that the value of that 30k "investment" will be $0 very quickly, after getting busted and forced to destroy the copies. $15,000 doesn't really mean squat in any business that matters, except possibly a small business startup, which couldn't afford the $30k either.
On the other hand... the guy who buys an illegally pirated copy of a $45,000 product for $2000; I can kind of understand that.
Let me give you an example: let's say you want to buy a product. It costs $500 (retail). You want this product so bad that you're willing to pay $800. Then, someone comes along and offers it to you for $100. You buy it for $100. What does this prove? Does it prive that "the buyers (you) weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at" (i.e. $500)? No. It means you picked the cheaper of the two options.
"$100" is not "the cheaper of two options"
It is a lower price, for a version of a product with a huge defect -- namely, that the sale is illegitimate.
The illegitimacy of the sale, means they are actually different products -- the pirated product may be competing at some level, but it's not "the same" product.
Invariably, the buyer almost certainly had the option of buying legitimately first, and other options only came up with either some extensive searching explicitly towards that end, or towards "asking around for favors".
Of course... the amount they're willing to pay most certainly should drop precipitiously, as the pirated version is not only illegitimate, but surely includes no valuable skilled support from the vendor, software maintenance service, upgrades, or ability to speak candidly with the vendor and request new features/enhancements.
That is operating on the assumption that the pricing is wrong. Photoshop, Office and Visual Studio are $1000 because many casual users and small businesses will pirate the product or install the office's software on a personal computer (I'm not saying this is right, but I know too many photoshop thieves), but most medium-sized and large businesses and government will purchase the product.
That's an example of a company that is highly profitable. Adobe and Microsoft's pursuit of 'small' pirates is half-hearted at best. Their products are profitable, and pursuing 'pirates' doesn't earn them significantly more revenue.
And super-expensive software often occurs in small markets where the seller is very reliant on trade secrets and does not want their product floating around in the wild for competitors to study, typically in very lucrative and super-specialized niche markets.
If the vendor doesn't want their software floating around, they will typically deliver it as a cloud service, or through a hardened appliance, that doesn't provide the end user access to code, and is locked to specific hardware, through the use of some custom on board FPGA or ASICs.
500 copyrighted works to more than 300 buyers in the U.S. and overseas
The retail value of the products was more than $100 million, the government said.
In other words... on average ~$200,000 per product, and ~$333 thousand per buyer
This makes sense, when you are talking about companies like Agilent that sell overpriced products, that retail for probably approximately $500,000
That's why the "pirated $100 million in software" is neither impressive, nor indicating a particularly outrageous pirate.
The outrage, should be the pricing of Enterprise software, not the" inflated retail price " as some sort of metric of the pirate's activity.
Obviously, the buyers weren't willing to pay the price the maker wanted to sell the software at. Therefore, those sales by definition were not worth the retail price.
In simple economic terms... the high price places their product out of demand.
By definition, they're worth what the buyer was willing to pay the pirate for the procureent.
If you're selling a $500,000 software product; going after pirates is not a winning business strategy -- it's figuring out, why the heck you can't pitch your product to legal buyers, and make your desired revenue there. Either the pricing is all wrong, or your marketing or product targetting is all wrong.
People have taken over planes since 9/11. It originating from the US or being a US airline is completely irrelevant to the comment I made or the comment I was responding to.
Their comment was understood to mean 9/11 had a social effect on people, that would make plain hijackings with a small knife essentially impossible, as passengers would resist and no longer immediately cooperate with all hijackers.
Why would you think that 9/11 would effect the behavior of people in other countries though, particularly people in countries not at risk for an event like 9/11?
US passengers are highly distinct from airline passengers in some other country, where there is minimal risk of terrorism, but maximal risk to the passengers --- especially, that in, most of those cases, the hijackers had weapons and threats far more significant and tangible than some pocketknife.
Java 6 bytecode runs perfectly fine on JRE7
The APIs differ sufficiently that a non-trivial app legacy built for JRE 6 cannot be run on JRE 7.
They may be compatible in theory, but not in practice; not by a long shot.
Support contract? Updates for the JDK are freeware, and the there's always OpenJDK.
The older JRE is "EOL" entirely; no new security updates or other fixes are released to the public, BUT if you have a support contract for your older Java software, you still do get the fixes and updates.
We never intended for a support contract to be required to keep JDK 7 up to date.
But you, Oracle, WILL intend in the future. Just like you intend today for a support contract to be required to keep JDK 6 AND JRE6 up to date.
Even though most Java software is probably built against JRE6, and incompatible with JRE7.
JDK7 is still just a way of pressuring a lot of people to pay for a support contract, because they need their critical security fixes for JRE6, to keep running their applications.
The future of Java is already uncertain... sure, new programs are being developed for JDK7 and newer, but there will be legacy software for decades to come.
You can't just deprecate a bloody programming language and all the software written in it, in the same way, you can obsolete an operating system.
Companies make bad decisions all the time. The real question is: would they back off and reinstate the previous state of things? In this case, whether it was intentional or a mistake is less relevant; public backlash prompted them to reconsider (or realize the mistake) and the outcome is eventually positive.
That's great..... So, when will HP reinstate OpenVMS? :)
Here's the problems with what you're saying: everything. First, you're asking one group to cover a service they really, really don't use for another group
Incorrect. They are covering a service for another group but for the purpose of getting that other group out from behind the wheel of a vehicle. In other words: they are increasing their own safety, and increasing the safety of all drivers and all people being driven by orders of magnitude, when ensuring that all drivers meet higher standards.
I am suggesting that driving be made a much more difficult privilege to get, so possibly the average person in society would be unable to get the privilege, in order to reduce the accident rate to a miniscule amount.
And in exchange, for becoming privileged those that are capable of getting the privilege, have to pay for in effect, everyone else to get a driver, to totally compensate for the inconvenience and privilege they are being denied, which benefits the drivers by getting these other people out from behind the wheel of a vehicle.
You do realize that impeachment must occur as a result of a violation of a specific law on the books, not some general "he has over stepped his bounds".
How about falsely swearing to an Oath?
Swearing to protect the constitution, and then intentionally taking actions which can be seen to be violations or infringements of it clear as day.
Such as infringements on the prohibition against restricting free speech, and infringements on the 4th amendment.
So, this man decided to take the law into his own hands and disclose an important Top Secret intelligence program on the basis of vigilante justice. So much for the rule of law.
I don't think you can speak to the rule of law, when by definition... the programs were created in a manner that bypasses the rule of law.
He says, "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent."
In China? Sure.... as long as your political dissent isn't in opposition to the Chinese government and their rules and standards.
You can have dissent from the opinions of other non-China govenrments
Obviously well armed civilians would lose to the military and police. But the civilian guns do offer a huge protection in my opinion, they force the military to actually kill the civilian.
Any battle in which the military is killing innocent American people, is a battle they are losing, because the public doesn't support this, and those responsible are probably going to be going to jail.
I which case tear gas, water cannons and eventually Apaches and Riot control tanks would smash the patriots to smithereens...
In other words, a US Tiananmen Square massacre?
Try well-armed patriots that are also well-armored with gas masks and full body armor... defenses against chemical and psychological weapons.
But at some point, someone needs to drill it in Linus's head that Linux isn't "his" anymore. Not solely anyway.
He's still leading the project. If you want to be a maintainer or contributor, you either follow his rules, or you fork the project and start your own.
for 50 years, the federal government has taxed nuclear fuel to build a permanent waste depository. where is it?
It's in Obamacare somewhere.
You understand what "release candidate" is right? A release candidate is not a time for adding new enhancements. It should be for streamlining and tightening the code for release.
That "streamlinin and tightening the code" is the problem; he wants only bugfixes for critical issues, not code cleanup and no minor bugfixes.