You are not paying attention. We are not talking about selling. We are talking about reputation.
You do not even address my example. I will clarify it for you.
Person "A" creates a program and makes the source available to the public. "A" is hoping to use the program and future programs to earn money by providing support and upgrades, as points to add to his resume', as a possible jumping off point for a his own business. Person "B" takes source code and modifies it so it is spyware and provides a backdoor and begins to distribute said software as person "A". A few months down the road, the changes are discovered. All fingers point back to person "A". The program's popularity goes to zero. No one will use any software created by "A" and "A" can not use the software on his resume' for obvious reasons.
Person "A" has now lost income from support and upgrades, suffered damage to his reputation, and been prevented from using his works to benefit himself.
Later, evidence surfaces that "B" was the person that put out the compromised version of the program.
Does "A" have a case against "B"?
I say yes. "A" has suffered a loss of reputation and possibly a loss of income. Not to mention emotional distress, etc.
Company president Ashwin Navin told ZDNet yesterday: "We're sensitive to people calling their software BitTorrent to achieve a certain level of popularity in order to distribute spyware and adware."
Or did you miss that article a few items back.
How about if someone adds spyware to Linux, source code and all, and the distributes it as Shmoelinux?
Better yet: You make a program and release it as open source. As it is just as it becomes popular, BlackhatBob takes the source and adds spyware and a backdoor, and releases it into the wild, claiming to be you. Who does the blame fall on? What happens to your reputation, your program, and your future programs?
Not so. You have an idea of the information in the book. You have excerpts of the information in the book. But, you do not have the information in the book. Rather you only have a small subset of the information in the book consisting of the information that is relevent to you that you have retained. Also, the information you have retained will degrade with time without use and refresh.
Proof: Write down the entire contents of a book you read one year ago, verbatum. Go read a book then write down all the information in the book, verbatum. I am will to bet good money you can do neither, without a copy of the book to referrence.
When you share a book with a friend, only one of you can have the book at a time, therefore you do not have the book and your friend does.
When you share some thing over P2P, you both have a copy of that same thing. You both have the thing. A new and separate copy of the thing has been created. And, the law give the creator/author, or who ever commissioned the thing the right to say how and when copies are created.
Sharing over P2P is the equivelent of photocoping an entire book, for free, and giving that copy to a friend.
Many people claim that it is not the same thing because a book is a physical object. However, what is embuing the physical object with value is the information contained within. Would you pay US$60.00 for a blank 500 pg book, as you would for a reference book?
Re:My faith seems to have forgot what persecution
on
NASA Science Under Attack
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
While you may be right about those few loud voices, it is a big mistake to ignore them.
While you are ignoring those few loud voices, other are listening and believing. Those loud voices are gathering adherents and getting louder and stronger. One day, you may wake up to find that those voices are no longer the few but the many and they have taken over.
Ignore those voices and one may wake up one day in the United Christian States of America, where religous freedom is extended to all who believe in Christ, abortion and evolution are outlawed, and homosexuality is a crime.
Given that theories have to be testable and repeatable, is the Big Bang really a scientific theory?
Ok, what we have here is a classic failure to understand the scientific process.
In general usage, what is called a theory is actually an hypothesis. In science, a theory has a very specific meaning. Using the dictionary.com definition science uses definition one. General usage encompasses definitions 2 through 6 , with emphasis on 4, 5, and 6.
In order for an hypothesis to be scientific, it must be testable.
One tests an hypothesis using experiments that are repeatable. If they are not repeatable there is a problem with either the experiment, the hypothesis, or the data.
Once an hypothesis has been confirmed by repeatable experiments, it is considered a theory as used in scientific terminology.
And, for the record, the Big Bang Theory, is a scientific hypothesis with a lot of evidence for it, but it is not completely conclusive. It is very likely, but not exactly a given. Research continues but most data points to it being correct. The hard part is that we can't actually go back before the Big Bang and see what happened. We are spending a lot of time looking at what happened afterwards to figure out exactly what happened. Like putting crashed airplane back together to determine what happened or a bomb back together to see how it was made and what it was made of.
I personally *loved* the way I was modded troll for pointing out that global warming is based on less than 200 years of data, out of about4 billion years of Earth's exsistance.
Yes, trolls aways back up their opinions with facts and such. Facts like the Earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now.
Nice ad hominim attack. upper lower middle class background, with socially liberal parents. You didn't get a scholarship to college and were harrased by a jock on a full atheletic (basketball or football) scholarship. One of the benefits of being a mediocre student was that you spent a majority time studying or attending classes, since you couldn't pass without studying your proffessor's opinions and parroting them back. I suspect that you barely managed to get into a professional position after you "graduated", your anti-capitalist, anti-conservative views more or less permanently sidelined your career, but you managed to parley your connections into a reasonably comfortable political or academic job. But you blame the everyone else for your failings in business. This same chip-on-the-shoulder has gotten you into a few minor scrapes with the law, primarily violent protests and rallies. But you have (like your parents) always voted Democrat. No doubt you feel somewhat confused (and angry) when the news media and "those conservative politicians" keep talking about the rule of law, and upholding the US Constitution and Bill of Rights while you are attacking "their President". And your admiration for Jadakiss increased ten-fold when you heard his video on MTV "...why did Bush knock down the towers?..."
See how easy it is?
Please feel free to come back and engage in a thoughtful discourse on these subjects when you actually provide a argument that is based on facts instead of personal attacs in a manner your college education has failed to do.
You asked why. Because some professors will not toss you out of class but will lower your grade, possibly to failing.
I know a person who just recently got a much lower grade in a class for being in support of the Iraq war. This was contrary to the professors views.
This professor would accept papers late and give students a letter grade off. But, not my friend. If he was late with a paper, he received a zero. On exams, the professor gave partial credit for partial answer, except for my friend who either got it all right or all wrong.
Fortunately, my friend had the ablity to pass the class with a high grade in spite of the best efforts of the professor.
Nice rant. Tell me, is there some reason you don't propose any solution to the orginal problem?
I like the way you say that the professors are better than the people pay for evidence of misconduct. Yes, people who abuse their positions to further their political causes are much better than the people who try to stop them. I am sure you are against pay police informants, foreign spies, and the like.
Comparing this to McCarthyism, is the pot calling the kettle black. McCarthyism involved a goup of people abusing their positions and authority to further their politcal causes. Wait... lets see... Professors abusing their position... Senators abusing their powers... I see a connection, just not the one you throwing out to add emotion to the debate.
I would agree with you, but my personal experience has shown me different. I also know a guy who recent received a lower grade for expressing his "conservative" views in class. This was not just on one assignment. He was consistent treated differently and graded lower than others in the class.
In this job, my boss is a woman, and one of my 5 co-workers is India. At least half of the workers in my building are non-white, and some non-american. I am contracted through a company and everyone I have delt with is Indian.
In my last job, about a quarter of my co-workers were black.
I am not saying they are not there. I am saying that the increase in utility of the hardware has vastly outstripped the increase in utility of the programs, but the programs are taking just as long to load and run.
IMHO, the improvements in the programs do not match the cost in terms of effeciency, as demonstrated by the disparity between the hardware capablity and software usability.
Actually, I have. And, you are right about some of them needing mods to slow them down. I also understand what you are saying about the increases. My point is that it seems that the increases in applications are more non-functional, more appearence based.
I also regretfully believe you may be right about upgrading for features vs speed. I just believe that it is not necessary to trade one for the other.
As for what people want, take your own example: FireFox vs MSIE vs Opera. Actually let us add to the mix Mozilla.
Opera is probably fastes but is add/purchase based. It is stable and fairly compact and pretty secure. Firefox is fast, very stable, free, pretty feature rich, compact and pretty secure. Mozilla is slow, fat, feature rich, very stable and pretty secure. MSIE is slow, fat, feature rich, fairly stable, not secure, tied in with the OS.
In order of popularity (I would guess): MSIE, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera.
This comparison would seem to show that people prefer ease of obtaining, cost, speed, features, then stability. Now, I admit this is mostly speculation, but it seems to me we may have hit the point of diminishing returns when it comes to adding/changing features. People are willing to take something with fewer features for more security and speed. And, I think people are beginning to see that they are not using the features that prompted to upgrade.
See, that is the thrust of my argument. I really don't think the software side has improved at anywhere near the rate of hardware. I feel that most of the "improvements" we see are really just feature creep and flash. Very little substance.
You maybe be right, but I have been using computers since 1984, professionally since 1990. IMHO, the functionality and capabilities have not kept up with processing power. I think that there is too much that is not needed in programs and OSes today.
But, these are just my opinions. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Slashdot Mirror
One just has to love the irony of protesting against being called violent using violence.
You do not even address my example. I will clarify it for you.
Does "A" have a case against "B"?
I say yes. "A" has suffered a loss of reputation and possibly a loss of income. Not to mention emotional distress, etc.
Rememer, on can sue for slander and libel.
Or did you miss that article a few items back.
How about if someone adds spyware to Linux, source code and all, and the distributes it as Shmoelinux?
Better yet: You make a program and release it as open source. As it is just as it becomes popular, BlackhatBob takes the source and adds spyware and a backdoor, and releases it into the wild, claiming to be you. Who does the blame fall on? What happens to your reputation, your program, and your future programs?
Not so. You have an idea of the information in the book. You have excerpts of the information in the book. But, you do not have the information in the book. Rather you only have a small subset of the information in the book consisting of the information that is relevent to you that you have retained. Also, the information you have retained will degrade with time without use and refresh.
Proof: Write down the entire contents of a book you read one year ago, verbatum. Go read a book then write down all the information in the book, verbatum. I am will to bet good money you can do neither, without a copy of the book to referrence.
When you share a book with a friend, only one of you can have the book at a time, therefore you do not have the book and your friend does.
When you share some thing over P2P, you both have a copy of that same thing. You both have the thing. A new and separate copy of the thing has been created. And, the law give the creator/author, or who ever commissioned the thing the right to say how and when copies are created.
Sharing over P2P is the equivelent of photocoping an entire book, for free, and giving that copy to a friend.
Many people claim that it is not the same thing because a book is a physical object. However, what is embuing the physical object with value is the information contained within. Would you pay US$60.00 for a blank 500 pg book, as you would for a reference book?
While you may be right about those few loud voices, it is a big mistake to ignore them.
While you are ignoring those few loud voices, other are listening and believing. Those loud voices are gathering adherents and getting louder and stronger. One day, you may wake up to find that those voices are no longer the few but the many and they have taken over.
Ignore those voices and one may wake up one day in the United Christian States of America, where religous freedom is extended to all who believe in Christ, abortion and evolution are outlawed, and homosexuality is a crime.
Ok, what we have here is a classic failure to understand the scientific process.
Once an hypothesis has been confirmed by repeatable experiments, it is considered a theory as used in scientific terminology.
And, for the record, the Big Bang Theory, is a scientific hypothesis with a lot of evidence for it, but it is not completely conclusive. It is very likely, but not exactly a given. Research continues but most data points to it being correct. The hard part is that we can't actually go back before the Big Bang and see what happened. We are spending a lot of time looking at what happened afterwards to figure out exactly what happened. Like putting crashed airplane back together to determine what happened or a bomb back together to see how it was made and what it was made of.
I wonder if this case could be referrenced as proof that the RIAA "evidence" is false.
After all, how correct could it be if they are suing a woman who has not, and does not own a computer?
Seems like it would be built in doubt for all cases past, present, and future.
No, she should sue for harrassment, lost work time, defamation of character, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
I personally *loved* the way I was modded troll for pointing out that global warming is based on less than 200 years of data, out of about4 billion years of Earth's exsistance.
Yes, trolls aways back up their opinions with facts and such. Facts like the Earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now.
It seems to me we are basing what is normal on a sample of
Does anyone really think one can determine what is normal in the life of a person, or anything, with little data?
Nice ad hominim attack.
upper lower middle class background, with socially liberal parents. You didn't get a scholarship to college and were harrased by a jock on a full atheletic (basketball or football) scholarship. One of the benefits of being a mediocre student was that you spent a majority time studying or attending classes, since you couldn't pass without studying your proffessor's opinions and parroting them back. I suspect that you barely managed to get into a professional position after you "graduated", your anti-capitalist, anti-conservative views more or less permanently sidelined your career, but you managed to parley your connections into a reasonably comfortable political or academic job. But you blame the everyone else for your failings in business. This same chip-on-the-shoulder has gotten you into a few minor scrapes with the law, primarily violent protests and rallies. But you have (like your parents) always voted Democrat. No doubt you feel somewhat confused (and angry) when the news media and "those conservative politicians" keep talking about the rule of law, and upholding the US Constitution and Bill of Rights while you are attacking "their President". And your admiration for Jadakiss increased ten-fold when you heard his video on MTV "...why did Bush knock down the towers?..."
See how easy it is?
Please feel free to come back and engage in a thoughtful discourse on these subjects when you actually provide a argument that is based on facts instead of personal attacs in a manner your college education has failed to do.
You asked why. Because some professors will not toss you out of class but will lower your grade, possibly to failing.
I know a person who just recently got a much lower grade in a class for being in support of the Iraq war. This was contrary to the professors views.
This professor would accept papers late and give students a letter grade off. But, not my friend. If he was late with a paper, he received a zero. On exams, the professor gave partial credit for partial answer, except for my friend who either got it all right or all wrong.
Fortunately, my friend had the ablity to pass the class with a high grade in spite of the best efforts of the professor.
Nice rant. Tell me, is there some reason you don't propose any solution to the orginal problem?
I like the way you say that the professors are better than the people pay for evidence of misconduct. Yes, people who abuse their positions to further their political causes are much better than the people who try to stop them. I am sure you are against pay police informants, foreign spies, and the like.
Comparing this to McCarthyism, is the pot calling the kettle black. McCarthyism involved a goup of people abusing their positions and authority to further their politcal causes. Wait... lets see... Professors abusing their position... Senators abusing their powers... I see a connection, just not the one you throwing out to add emotion to the debate.
I would agree with you, but my personal experience has shown me different. I also know a guy who recent received a lower grade for expressing his "conservative" views in class. This was not just on one assignment. He was consistent treated differently and graded lower than others in the class.
Here is an article for you to read
In this job, my boss is a woman, and one of my 5 co-workers is India. At least half of the workers in my building are non-white, and some non-american. I am contracted through a company and everyone I have delt with is Indian.
In my last job, about a quarter of my co-workers were black.
No, once you realize there is no spoon, then you will see that it is not the Open Source Community that bends--it is only yourself
I do believe this is why we have peer review.
Chain Reaction has them using water and not acetone, but same difference.
You get 8 hours? Damn, you are the lucky one.
You forgot they are also the ones sharing their musical tastes when the put songs on all those wonderful P2P sites and software.
I am not saying they are not there. I am saying that the increase in utility of the hardware has vastly outstripped the increase in utility of the programs, but the programs are taking just as long to load and run.
IMHO, the improvements in the programs do not match the cost in terms of effeciency, as demonstrated by the disparity between the hardware capablity and software usability.
Actually, I have. And, you are right about some of them needing mods to slow them down. I also understand what you are saying about the increases. My point is that it seems that the increases in applications are more non-functional, more appearence based.
I also regretfully believe you may be right about upgrading for features vs speed.
I just believe that it is not necessary to trade one for the other.
As for what people want, take your own example: FireFox vs MSIE vs Opera. Actually let us add to the mix Mozilla.
Opera is probably fastes but is add/purchase based. It is stable and fairly compact and pretty secure.
Firefox is fast, very stable, free, pretty feature rich, compact and pretty secure.
Mozilla is slow, fat, feature rich, very stable and pretty secure.
MSIE is slow, fat, feature rich, fairly stable, not secure, tied in with the OS.
In order of popularity (I would guess): MSIE, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera.
This comparison would seem to show that people prefer ease of obtaining, cost, speed, features, then stability. Now, I admit this is mostly speculation, but it seems to me we may have hit the point of diminishing returns when it comes to adding/changing features. People are willing to take something with fewer features for more security and speed. And, I think people are beginning to see that they are not using the features that prompted to upgrade.
But, I could be wrong.
See, that is the thrust of my argument. I really don't think the software side has improved at anywhere near the rate of hardware. I feel that most of the "improvements" we see are really just feature creep and flash. Very little substance.
You maybe be right, but I have been using computers since 1984, professionally since 1990. IMHO, the functionality and capabilities have not kept up with processing power. I think that there is too much that is not needed in programs and OSes today.
But, these are just my opinions. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.