I live in Florida, in one of the most dangerous city in which to ride a bicycle. My route to work has almost no bike lanes or side walks. It routinely hits 85F+ degrees, often with 80+% humidity, before 0800. We don't have a gym or showers at work. Most of my co-workers and I don't have the option of refusing most meetings. Combine that with 90F+ degree/85+% humidity with blazing sun in the afternoons. Thanks to Day Light Savings, the sun doesn't set until after 2000.
The gym is often the best, or only , option resulting in long waits for equipment.
Because the original intent of the Internet was that links were gold, that searchability was key, that this ability to find anything and use resources from wherever was magic.
Um, no. The original intent of the Internet was to allow computers to communicate. The above quote doesn't even describe the World Wide Web. What it does describe is GOPHER. Why should anyone take seriously the comments of someone who obviously has no clue about the subject of which he speaks?
Your logic is flawed because they don't "feel they're getting reamed over" before they purchase the item in question. If they did know they were going to be "getting reamed over" before purchasing, then why bother even taking the software? No, your post is simply an attempt to justify piracy after the fact.
It is not about closed source. It is about all those "basement kids" wanting to write updates to someone else's code. Instead, they reinvent an open source application that is often a reinvention of a closed source product.
Oh, and for the record, constant updates is a sign of crappy, unprofessional code.
Software being a cheap app turns software into a fungible commodity. That is why the price, and thus margin, of software keeps going down. The problem is that most software will be cheap, throw-away products earning little for the developer. The only way to make decent money will be via lock-in, in-app purchase, or huge volume. Guess which of those options are easiest to implement.
Software as a commodity will result in lots of low quality choices that pop into existence, live for a short while, then stagnate and become cruft in the "ecosystem". Sure, there will be the rare app that takes off and becomes the next "Angry Birds" but even those will stagnate and die once market penetration gets high enough.
If that popularlity doesn't net Adobe any revenue, then the bulk of that popularity isn't doing much for Adobe. Adobe would still be making the same money. It is the freeloading copyright violators who would "suffer" by not being able to get something for nothing.
Just think, if he had put the initial release of the game through the wringer (yes, that is the proper word), he would not have needed to release a patch in the first place.
If structural engineering was done at the level of software engineering, parts of buildings would collapse and there would be a "patch" to the blue prints to fix the problem, which might cause doors not to open, stairways to disappear or lead nowhere, or cause other parts of the building to break.
Point of order: No where does it say Fish was charged to certify the first patch. It would be reasonable to require a re-certification if his first patch broke other functionality. It is a sign of poor coding.
If he had put out good code to begin with, none of this would be an issue. If his patch hadn't screwed up the customers' save files, none of this would be an issue.
I don't blame MS for saying he needs to re-certify his code because his code seems to be pretty crappy.
You, for some reason, seem to think that if Apple is a plaintiff in a case the normal rules do not apply and we instantly declare the defendant a liar
Really? The defendant already admitted to the act, or did you forget that part.
By your reasoning, a car thief can simply claim "they said I could take it" and be set free...no a car thief can't do that
but then you say I am the who thinks someone in this case deserves special treatment? REALLY? Let's take a look at it.
In both cases, a person has been caught doing something. In both cases, the person caught has claimed to have permission from the victim. In both cases, the victim has denied giving permission. Yet, in one case you say we should believe the accused, and in the other we should not believe the accused.
You are according special status to the accused simply because the victim is Apple.
Except there is no evidence an employee gave permission and no employee has been named.
Face it, McDonald isn't sainted and has every reason to lie about an employee giving him permission, has provided no evidence an employee gave him permission, and has not, and probably cannot, name or identify the employee who allegedly gave him permission.
What you are repeatedly missing, probably deliberately, is that it is known McDonald did something. He has claimed he had permission. Apple has denied that claim. It falls on McDonald to prove his claim that he had permission. Without evidence to the contrary, it is one word against the other and the only known quantity is that McDonald did, in fact, do something to computer systems that the owner of which says he had no permission.
By your reasoning, a car thief can simply claim "they said I could take it" and be set free even if the victim denies giving permission.
We have evidence. We have his use of Apple products. We have Apple's claim he didn't ask for permission. Now, it is on him to provide evidence he did get evidence. You and the AC say we should accept his word without evidence. I say there is no reason to believe him.
Please, explain why anyone should believe his claim that he received permission from a computer retailer to put software on computers in the company's stores, computers which could end up sold to customers, that took secret pictures of the company's customers and put said pictures on the internet without the permission of the customers.
Who benefits from his actions? He does. Who benefits from him claiming to have permission? He does. Who is harmed by his actions and his claim? Apple.
How would you feel if someone snuck software on to your computer that took pictures from your webcam and then strung them together into a video and put said video on the internet? Think on that then tell me if you, as a business owner selling computers, would allow someone to stick software on the display computers in your business that did just that. Think about the possible legal ramification from it as well.
Apple had no reason to and many reasons not to grant him permission to tamper with their computers. He, however, has every reason to claim he had permission, especially if did not.
But. that is not "willful". Using metal as a construction material for it's strength is not the same as wrapping a building or even just a room for the sole purpose of blocking signals.
Who is being accused of wrong-doing? Who is profiting from the actions he took? He admits he did something and claims he had permission but can not produce any evidence of said permission. Why should I or anyone believe something without evidence?
All we have is his insistance he asked for and received permission. Unless you assume that no one would ever lie to protect themselves from legal consequences, his word is untrustworthy.
How about with the reporter's misrepresentation of the facts? The CDC doctor's report was acted on, just not effectively. The reporter makes it look like the Florida Department of Health did nothing. They underestimated the danger.
How about with the post's title? Florida is not accused of concealing. It is being said they didn't publicize the outbreak.
How about with the submitter's apparently lack of knowledge about the Sunshine law. It says documents must be available. It doesn't say the documents weren't available. The article says that the reporter had to travel to Tallahassee to get the documents. The reporter and the submitter imply that the government was hiding the information when they could have been serving the requests of people in the office first, and the mailed requests in order.
I also notice that the article talks about the closure A.G. Holley hospital, but fail to mention that it only has 55 beds and was being closed to be consolidated with other facilities. According to the article, less than half of the infected could be housed at that hospital.
Seriously, the submitter, the reporter, and many slashdotters seem to have forgotten Hanlon's Razor.
Poorly. Objectives that come and go and are often unobtainable. Shuffled from team to team and project to project with little training and preparation. Forced to work on previous projects or side projects that are not evaluated but are required to be done. Little to no understanding of what we do and the tools we are forced to use.
Except, with Linux, they HAVEN'T realized and implemented it yet. That is the problem. Too often, Linux end-users are having to resort to the CLI to do things like get the WiFi card or sound working or to install an application. And, sadly, often the GUI replacements for CLI tools are nothing but empty interfaces to the CLI which often work poorly.
The breaker panel is just a bunch of switches. It is like the Control Panel in Windows. Now, having a light switch stop working and the breaker is OK, that requires actually working with the wires, the dangerous parts of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Florida, in one of the most dangerous city in which to ride a bicycle. My route to work has almost no bike lanes or side walks. It routinely hits 85F+ degrees, often with 80+% humidity, before 0800. We don't have a gym or showers at work. Most of my co-workers and I don't have the option of refusing most meetings. Combine that with 90F+ degree/85+% humidity with blazing sun in the afternoons. Thanks to Day Light Savings, the sun doesn't set until after 2000.
The gym is often the best, or only , option resulting in long waits for equipment.
Because the original intent of the Internet was that links were gold, that searchability was key, that this ability to find anything and use resources from wherever was magic.
Um, no. The original intent of the Internet was to allow computers to communicate. The above quote doesn't even describe the World Wide Web. What it does describe is GOPHER. Why should anyone take seriously the comments of someone who obviously has no clue about the subject of which he speaks?
Your logic is flawed because they don't "feel they're getting reamed over" before they purchase the item in question. If they did know they were going to be "getting reamed over" before purchasing, then why bother even taking the software? No, your post is simply an attempt to justify piracy after the fact.
It is not about closed source. It is about all those "basement kids" wanting to write updates to someone else's code. Instead, they reinvent an open source application that is often a reinvention of a closed source product.
Oh, and for the record, constant updates is a sign of crappy, unprofessional code.
Software being a cheap app turns software into a fungible commodity. That is why the price, and thus margin, of software keeps going down. The problem is that most software will be cheap, throw-away products earning little for the developer. The only way to make decent money will be via lock-in, in-app purchase, or huge volume. Guess which of those options are easiest to implement.
Software as a commodity will result in lots of low quality choices that pop into existence, live for a short while, then stagnate and become cruft in the "ecosystem". Sure, there will be the rare app that takes off and becomes the next "Angry Birds" but even those will stagnate and die once market penetration gets high enough.
And you have evidence of that right?
If that popularlity doesn't net Adobe any revenue, then the bulk of that popularity isn't doing much for Adobe. Adobe would still be making the same money. It is the freeloading copyright violators who would "suffer" by not being able to get something for nothing.
That is because people actually want to make money for their work.
And what do they do? They reinvent the wheel and that app you have been using becomes yet another piece of abandoned FLOSS crapware.
Just think, if he had put the initial release of the game through the wringer (yes, that is the proper word), he would not have needed to release a patch in the first place.
If structural engineering was done at the level of software engineering, parts of buildings would collapse and there would be a "patch" to the blue prints to fix the problem, which might cause doors not to open, stairways to disappear or lead nowhere, or cause other parts of the building to break.
Point of order: No where does it say Fish was charged to certify the first patch. It would be reasonable to require a re-certification if his first patch broke other functionality. It is a sign of poor coding.
If he had put out good code to begin with, none of this would be an issue.
If his patch hadn't screwed up the customers' save files, none of this would be an issue.
I don't blame MS for saying he needs to re-certify his code because his code seems to be pretty crappy.
Back the fuck up, shithead.
You, for some reason, seem to think that if Apple is a plaintiff in a case the normal rules do not apply and we instantly declare the defendant a liar
Really? The defendant already admitted to the act, or did you forget that part.
By your reasoning, a car thief can simply claim "they said I could take it" and be set free ...no a car thief can't do that
but then you say I am the who thinks someone in this case deserves special treatment? REALLY? Let's take a look at it.
In both cases, a person has been caught doing something. In both cases, the person caught has claimed to have permission from the victim. In both cases, the victim has denied giving permission. Yet, in one case you say we should believe the accused, and in the other we should not believe the accused.
You are according special status to the accused simply because the victim is Apple.
Except there is no evidence an employee gave permission and no employee has been named.
Face it, McDonald isn't sainted and has every reason to lie about an employee giving him permission, has provided no evidence an employee gave him permission, and has not, and probably cannot, name or identify the employee who allegedly gave him permission.
What you are repeatedly missing, probably deliberately, is that it is known McDonald did something. He has claimed he had permission. Apple has denied that claim. It falls on McDonald to prove his claim that he had permission. Without evidence to the contrary, it is one word against the other and the only known quantity is that McDonald did, in fact, do something to computer systems that the owner of which says he had no permission.
By your reasoning, a car thief can simply claim "they said I could take it" and be set free even if the victim denies giving permission.
And, you are wrong. An entity with a motive to lie is more suspect than an entity that does not have a reason to lie.
We have evidence. We have his use of Apple products. We have Apple's claim he didn't ask for permission. Now, it is on him to provide evidence he did get evidence. You and the AC say we should accept his word without evidence. I say there is no reason to believe him.
Please, explain why anyone should believe his claim that he received permission from a computer retailer to put software on computers in the company's stores, computers which could end up sold to customers, that took secret pictures of the company's customers and put said pictures on the internet without the permission of the customers.
Who benefits from his actions? He does. Who benefits from him claiming to have permission? He does. Who is harmed by his actions and his claim? Apple.
How would you feel if someone snuck software on to your computer that took pictures from your webcam and then strung them together into a video and put said video on the internet? Think on that then tell me if you, as a business owner selling computers, would allow someone to stick software on the display computers in your business that did just that. Think about the possible legal ramification from it as well.
Apple had no reason to and many reasons not to grant him permission to tamper with their computers. He, however, has every reason to claim he had permission, especially if did not.
So, someone please explain how my post is a troll. I stated a fact and provided a link to the law. How is that trolling?
But. that is not "willful". Using metal as a construction material for it's strength is not the same as wrapping a building or even just a room for the sole purpose of blocking signals.
Two words: Federal Law
ref: 47 USC 333
Who is being accused of wrong-doing? Who is profiting from the actions he took? He admits he did something and claims he had permission but can not produce any evidence of said permission. Why should I or anyone believe something without evidence?
All we have is his insistance he asked for and received permission. Unless you assume that no one would ever lie to protect themselves from legal consequences, his word is untrustworthy.
Where should I start?
How about with the reporter's misrepresentation of the facts? The CDC doctor's report was acted on, just not effectively. The reporter makes it look like the Florida Department of Health did nothing. They underestimated the danger.
How about with the post's title? Florida is not accused of concealing. It is being said they didn't publicize the outbreak.
How about with the submitter's apparently lack of knowledge about the Sunshine law. It says documents must be available. It doesn't say the documents weren't available. The article says that the reporter had to travel to Tallahassee to get the documents. The reporter and the submitter imply that the government was hiding the information when they could have been serving the requests of people in the office first, and the mailed requests in order.
I also notice that the article talks about the closure A.G. Holley hospital, but fail to mention that it only has 55 beds and was being closed to be consolidated with other facilities. According to the article, less than half of the infected could be housed at that hospital.
Seriously, the submitter, the reporter, and many slashdotters seem to have forgotten Hanlon's Razor.
Poorly. Objectives that come and go and are often unobtainable. Shuffled from team to team and project to project with little training and preparation. Forced to work on previous projects or side projects that are not evaluated but are required to be done. Little to no understanding of what we do and the tools we are forced to use.
They evaluated us poorly.
Oh, and my company also uses "stacked rankings".
Except, with Linux, they HAVEN'T realized and implemented it yet. That is the problem. Too often, Linux end-users are having to resort to the CLI to do things like get the WiFi card or sound working or to install an application. And, sadly, often the GUI replacements for CLI tools are nothing but empty interfaces to the CLI which often work poorly.
The breaker panel is just a bunch of switches. It is like the Control Panel in Windows. Now, having a light switch stop working and the breaker is OK, that requires actually working with the wires, the dangerous parts of the system.