I've never had problems with it rendering slashdot, even back through version 7 or so. Also, being able to just type "/." into the url bar to get here is a nice trick. Not really useful, but neat.
Verizon not only didn't do a background check and hired this guy and sent him to the customer's home (when it turns out they didn't need to even send him in the first place)...
We don't know that. Perhaps he has no history of violence or any sort of crime. Perhaps he does and was never caught. They may very well have done a background check and come up with nothing.
Furthermore, we don't know that he didn't need to be there. We know the INITIAL claim was that the tech wouldn't need to enter the house, but we don't know what he found when he got there.
That said... you're right that Verizon shouldn't have called the guy blameless, and they should have fired him, and they should have apologized.
People don't just attack random strangers, there is always a reason.
You're right. I mean, sometimes the reason is that they were drunk, or they were dumb, or they were having a bad day, or the magic pixies told them to, but there's always a reason.
Very few of those reasons are ones I would consider valid.
Man... if any one of these was going to be modded as flamebait, I would have though it was the one where I called Stallman and Raymond kooks, or directly called Stallman an idiot. Not the one where I made a legitimate (if slightly misinformed) comment.
... who insists that open source software is inevitably better, and will inevitably beat the closed source competition? If so, why is he trying to mandate protection for it in the law? Sure, mandate that states can't ignore open source just because it doesn't include junkets and dinners with executives, but forcing people to open their own software just to "level the playing field"?
That sounds like an idea from someone who's afraid that maybe his side won't measure up. "Yes, we're better! All of our software is inherently better, and anyone who tries it will clearly see that! Now, let's force the other side to ruin their business plan and do things our way, because otherwise they have an unfair advantage!"
And as soon as someone decides to type up the contents of one of the books and put it online, what happens to their business model then?
Nothing. They're still the ones selling bound paper copies. Sure, you can download what someone else typed or copied and print it, but you won't have a real bound book, unless you've got some unusual equipment at home.
They're not really asking you to pay for the data contained in the book. THAT is clearly public domain (except where it isn't, of course). They are, however, asking you to pay for the parts and labor, which are not in the public domain.
Yup. Some of us just need the "exercise more" part (that would be me), some need just the "eat less" part, and some need both.
On the other hand, you could easily say to a cigarette smoker "It's simple. Just stop smoking, and you won't have this problem anymore." It's really not that easy.
I think the real trick to find exercise you enjoy: take up a martial art, buy a good bicycle, start swimming, join a local adult sport team (or form one!), something like that. It makes the willpower easier, though still not easy.
The type of thing MySQL is good at is content management, where the queries are usually simple and small. for that kind of stuff I can totally understand sticking with it. Like Slashdot!
Precisely.
And for those of us who've never done anything much out of the realm of content management, MySQL is all we need.
For something substantial... that's where you want Postgres.
Oddly, I found myself spending about an hour in a meeting yesterday trying to convince people to go with Postgres instead of MySQL -- we're building a backend for a database that's going to probably end up being used by 4-12 departments, and needs to reliably store and manipulate data for potentially upwards of 15,000 students. That really seems like a place where reliability counts more than anything. Everyone else decided to go with mysql on the grounds that they know it.
Yes... but a lot of us don't NEED to do more than single-table selects.
Sure, if you're doing professional work with huge dbs, Posgresql is clearly superior. If you're doing something simple with small tables, why not just use mySQL?
I'm not developing any major applications: generally I build things that could just as easily be kept in a spreadsheet, if only I didn't want want it to run on the server, with a web interface. If I already know mySQL, why should I spend my time learning a different interface? MySQL does everything I need.
If it's what you know, and you have no problems with it, it's good enough.
That said... I'm looking at rebuilding one of my earlier apps, and there's functionality in Postgres that will be useful to me, so I'll probably end up learning that soon. MySQL has been more than adequate for my hobby use for six or seven years, though... I'm only finding a use for Postgres now that I'm building apps for a larger scale environment.
So when was the last time you tried Opera? I still use Firefox for a few things, and even IE, but the vast majority of my web browsing is done in Opera. It's faster, it's cleaner, mouse gestures are installed by default, and I like the way they use tabs better. With 10, the speed-dial tool actually got to be slightly useful, which I hadn't expected. It's been ages since I found a site that just plain didn't work in Opera, except ones that require ActiveX, and those don't work all that well in Firefox, either.
So why the hatred? Given that it's just a browser, and can't have killed your dog/cat/relative, I don't get it.
If you don't like it, don't use it. But don't insult those of us who find it to be a more usable browser.
Look. They're going to be mad at you. Things stop working, and you come in and do something really simple, and then things work again. It makes them feel stupid. Yeah, there may be good reason they feel stupid, but they still don't like being reminded of it. You don't have to be consistently a jerk -- in fact, it will make your life harder -- but you need to be capable of it.
The key is consistency. Put the rules out in writing, and then enforce them. Enforce them every time, for everyone who violates them. I don't care whether it's the CEO or the janitor... the rules are there to be followed. If it's a rule that might have legitimate exceptions (use of BitTorrent, perhaps), write that in: "We understand there may be legitimate, business related uses for this technology. If you believe you have a legitimate use, contact us before using it, and we'll be glad to discuss it with you." When you have to be a jerk, do it; nobody respects a manager who is always smiling and cheerful -- but if you're ALMOST always smiling and cheerful, the occasional statement of "This is the rule, and you will follow it or be removed from the network" will have a much greater impact.
Also: don't bluff. It doesn't work. If you make a threat, carry through. If you say you'll have to take someone off the network if they don't change whatever it is they're doing, do it. As soon as people realize you're making threats you won't carry through on, you've lost.
Exactly. I have four Opera windows open right now, with 3-10 tabs in each. If I want to, I can open a list of my windows and tabs in the sidebar, but I've never actually wanted to. It's a waste of space that I'd rather give to actual webpages.
I know an awful lot of non-technical people who use tabbed browsing. My parents, for instance, are not exactly technical (or at least, not with modern computers...), but they both used tabbed browsing. It took them a while to get the hang of it, but once I'd explained how it worked, they were fine.
It's not that difficult, it's just not intuitive. Some clear instruction makes a big difference.
Agreed -- it's a great book. My father worked with the ARPANET team, so I got to meet most of the BBN folks mentioned in the book over the years (most at dinner parties at one or another of their houses). Once I'd read the book, I went back and asked a bunch of them how accurate it was: they all had some nitpicking to do ("Well, it was a long time ago, but this piece isn't quite how I remember it...."), but agreed that it was the most accurate account they'd seen.
Kate and Matt did a great job; it should really be required reading for anyone who's going to work in IT.
No problem... like I said, I don't have any personal experience with them, but I've heard good things. There are a few other manufacturers as well, at least for some models. You might try a google search for "split prism nikon D60".
What kind of camera do you have? I've got an old Canon 20d, and focus prisms are easily available, and simple to install. They're not cheap, but admit it, photography isn't a cheap hobby. I don't have one yet (spent all my money on lenses), but I'm hearing good things about Katz Eye Optics.
Well, you were addressing h4rm0ny, but I'll answer anyway, because I enjoy troll-baiting. (If you're simply a poor reader, or jumping to conclusions based on things we didn't say, I apologize for calling you a troll. It's just an easy assumption.)
Neither h4rm0ny or I said that "100% of illegal copies == 100% of lost sales". Really. Go back and read more closely. I'll wait here....
What we said is that, moral questions aside, there's a difference between theft of a physical object and illicit copying of a digital object.
I further stated (somewhere in this subthread) that, while I'm inclined to believe that illicit copying is generally wrong, I've done it myself. In point of fact, it was usually for the reasons you point out: there are a lot of non-functional games out there, and I hate buying them. Sometimes it was because I wanted to play a game I can't even find used anymore. h4rm0ny stated that, in his (this language really needs a gender-neutral pronoun) mind, "dishonesty [is still] dishonesty," with no statement of whether he's ever copied software.
So: Neither of us said that everyone who makes an illegal copy counts as a lost sale. Neither of us mentioned the quality of goods in any way. Assuming you went back and read what we said, what does your argument have to do with anything?
If you have an actual, honest answer, having read our comments, I'd be happy to read it. If not, kindly go on to misread someone else's comment.
You answered the question before I could! Perhaps I was too brief - the statement that when you copy a file the original is still there is correct. Of course! The argument that because this is so there is no harm done, is, as you point out, a faulty conclusion. We're probably in agreement. It's just hard to tell on the Internet because you don't expect it.;)
Got it... yeah, I think we're in agreement. I'm just shocked that no-one has flamed me yet for stating that theft is wrong. Usually I give up on this sort of thread after a few rounds of that. 8-)
Yes and no. Yes, if infinite free copies are made, and shared out to everyone, then the original loses most or all of its value.
But some -- many -- people will still buy whatever it is, purely to support the company. And in the real world, it's not always easier to get a free, illegal copy than it is to get a non-free, legal copy. Certainly if you want to avoid malware of whatever sort, it's simpler to just buy the software: at least then you can get a pretty good idea before installing it of what spyware is included. My experiences with torrents and warez sites have convinced me that it's mostly not worth the effort, since a quarter of what I download will either be broken, in a foreign language, or infested with malware, or all three. (Yes, I admit it: despite saying it's wrong, I've gone looking for illegal copies of software. Yes, it's hypocritical. It doesn't invalidate the argument. Get over it.)
So despite the possibility of infinite duplication, that logic only works in a theoretical world. The reality doesn't back up the theory. I assume it has happened, and will happen again, but it's not a guarantee, and it can't be put forth as a certainty.
How is the "if a physical object is stolen it's gone, if a digital object is copied it's still there" argument flawed? Certainly many people follow it to its illogical conclusion ("the digital object is still there, so no harm has been done"), but I would say that's a problem with the people drawing the conclusion, not with the basic argument.
Regardless, I agree: dishonest is dishonest, crime is crime. The fact that illegal copying only deprives the company of one sale doesn't make it any better, just less damaging.
There is a difference, though. I'm not saying copyright infringement isn't bad, or that it doesn't harm the company, but there is a difference.
If someone steals a car off a dealer's lot, the dealer doesn't have that car to sell anymore, and thus can't make any money at all off it. If someone steals a comic off the shelf at a comic book store, the store doesn't have that comic book to sell anymore, and can't make money off it. If the person wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't steal it, the store has still lost money in either case: whatever they paid for the item, car or comic, is gone forever with no return. If the person would have bought it if they couldn't steal it, the store has lost whatever they paid for it, plus whatever profit they would have made.
If someone downloads a song, or a game, or a copy of some piece of proprietary software, the company still has it to sell to other people. If the person would have bought a copy if they couldn't download it, the company has lost the value of exactly one sale. If the person would not otherwise have bought it, the company has lost nothing.
Again, I'm not saying downloading software or music illegally is morally or ethically right -- in general, I think it's not, but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand -- but there is certainly a difference between downloading cracked software and stealing a physical item.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never had problems with it rendering slashdot, even back through version 7 or so. Also, being able to just type "/." into the url bar to get here is a nice trick. Not really useful, but neat.
Verizon not only didn't do a background check and hired this guy and sent him to the customer's home (when it turns out they didn't need to even send him in the first place)...
We don't know that. Perhaps he has no history of violence or any sort of crime. Perhaps he does and was never caught. They may very well have done a background check and come up with nothing.
Furthermore, we don't know that he didn't need to be there. We know the INITIAL claim was that the tech wouldn't need to enter the house, but we don't know what he found when he got there.
That said... you're right that Verizon shouldn't have called the guy blameless, and they should have fired him, and they should have apologized.
People don't just attack random strangers, there is always a reason.
You're right. I mean, sometimes the reason is that they were drunk, or they were dumb, or they were having a bad day, or the magic pixies told them to, but there's always a reason.
Very few of those reasons are ones I would consider valid.
Man... if any one of these was going to be modded as flamebait, I would have though it was the one where I called Stallman and Raymond kooks, or directly called Stallman an idiot. Not the one where I made a legitimate (if slightly misinformed) comment.
Gotta love Slashdot moderators!
That's the one. I can never keep the two kooks straight.
Right. Well, I still think he's an idiot, but at least now I think he's a consistent idiot. Thanks for clearing that up.
... who insists that open source software is inevitably better, and will inevitably beat the closed source competition? If so, why is he trying to mandate protection for it in the law? Sure, mandate that states can't ignore open source just because it doesn't include junkets and dinners with executives, but forcing people to open their own software just to "level the playing field"?
That sounds like an idea from someone who's afraid that maybe his side won't measure up. "Yes, we're better! All of our software is inherently better, and anyone who tries it will clearly see that! Now, let's force the other side to ruin their business plan and do things our way, because otherwise they have an unfair advantage!"
And as soon as someone decides to type up the contents of one of the books and put it online, what happens to their business model then?
Nothing. They're still the ones selling bound paper copies. Sure, you can download what someone else typed or copied and print it, but you won't have a real bound book, unless you've got some unusual equipment at home.
They're not really asking you to pay for the data contained in the book. THAT is clearly public domain (except where it isn't, of course). They are, however, asking you to pay for the parts and labor, which are not in the public domain.
Yup. Some of us just need the "exercise more" part (that would be me), some need just the "eat less" part, and some need both.
On the other hand, you could easily say to a cigarette smoker "It's simple. Just stop smoking, and you won't have this problem anymore." It's really not that easy.
I think the real trick to find exercise you enjoy: take up a martial art, buy a good bicycle, start swimming, join a local adult sport team (or form one!), something like that. It makes the willpower easier, though still not easy.
The type of thing MySQL is good at is content management, where the queries are usually simple and small. for that kind of stuff I can totally understand sticking with it. Like Slashdot!
Precisely.
And for those of us who've never done anything much out of the realm of content management, MySQL is all we need.
For something substantial... that's where you want Postgres.
Oddly, I found myself spending about an hour in a meeting yesterday trying to convince people to go with Postgres instead of MySQL -- we're building a backend for a database that's going to probably end up being used by 4-12 departments, and needs to reliably store and manipulate data for potentially upwards of 15,000 students. That really seems like a place where reliability counts more than anything. Everyone else decided to go with mysql on the grounds that they know it.
Yes... but a lot of us don't NEED to do more than single-table selects.
Sure, if you're doing professional work with huge dbs, Posgresql is clearly superior. If you're doing something simple with small tables, why not just use mySQL?
'It's rather like when you first started playing with mysql and went "Wow, this is so much better than Excel!"'
Personally, I never found that mysql (or postresql, for that matter) is better than Excel. They're useful for totally different things.
If what you want is a large relational database, then yes, using a relational database instead of a spreadsheet is better.
If what you want is a spreadsheet, then using a relational database doesn't make much sense, and is a lot more difficult.
Here's an answer I consider to be a good one.
I'm not developing any major applications: generally I build things that could just as easily be kept in a spreadsheet, if only I didn't want want it to run on the server, with a web interface. If I already know mySQL, why should I spend my time learning a different interface? MySQL does everything I need.
If it's what you know, and you have no problems with it, it's good enough.
That said... I'm looking at rebuilding one of my earlier apps, and there's functionality in Postgres that will be useful to me, so I'll probably end up learning that soon. MySQL has been more than adequate for my hobby use for six or seven years, though... I'm only finding a use for Postgres now that I'm building apps for a larger scale environment.
So when was the last time you tried Opera? I still use Firefox for a few things, and even IE, but the vast majority of my web browsing is done in Opera. It's faster, it's cleaner, mouse gestures are installed by default, and I like the way they use tabs better. With 10, the speed-dial tool actually got to be slightly useful, which I hadn't expected. It's been ages since I found a site that just plain didn't work in Opera, except ones that require ActiveX, and those don't work all that well in Firefox, either.
So why the hatred? Given that it's just a browser, and can't have killed your dog/cat/relative, I don't get it.
If you don't like it, don't use it. But don't insult those of us who find it to be a more usable browser.
Look. They're going to be mad at you. Things stop working, and you come in and do something really simple, and then things work again. It makes them feel stupid. Yeah, there may be good reason they feel stupid, but they still don't like being reminded of it. You don't have to be consistently a jerk -- in fact, it will make your life harder -- but you need to be capable of it.
The key is consistency. Put the rules out in writing, and then enforce them. Enforce them every time, for everyone who violates them. I don't care whether it's the CEO or the janitor... the rules are there to be followed. If it's a rule that might have legitimate exceptions (use of BitTorrent, perhaps), write that in: "We understand there may be legitimate, business related uses for this technology. If you believe you have a legitimate use, contact us before using it, and we'll be glad to discuss it with you." When you have to be a jerk, do it; nobody respects a manager who is always smiling and cheerful -- but if you're ALMOST always smiling and cheerful, the occasional statement of "This is the rule, and you will follow it or be removed from the network" will have a much greater impact.
Also: don't bluff. It doesn't work. If you make a threat, carry through. If you say you'll have to take someone off the network if they don't change whatever it is they're doing, do it. As soon as people realize you're making threats you won't carry through on, you've lost.
Exactly. I have four Opera windows open right now, with 3-10 tabs in each. If I want to, I can open a list of my windows and tabs in the sidebar, but I've never actually wanted to. It's a waste of space that I'd rather give to actual webpages.
I know an awful lot of non-technical people who use tabbed browsing. My parents, for instance, are not exactly technical (or at least, not with modern computers...), but they both used tabbed browsing. It took them a while to get the hang of it, but once I'd explained how it worked, they were fine.
It's not that difficult, it's just not intuitive. Some clear instruction makes a big difference.
Agreed -- it's a great book. My father worked with the ARPANET team, so I got to meet most of the BBN folks mentioned in the book over the years (most at dinner parties at one or another of their houses). Once I'd read the book, I went back and asked a bunch of them how accurate it was: they all had some nitpicking to do ("Well, it was a long time ago, but this piece isn't quite how I remember it...."), but agreed that it was the most accurate account they'd seen.
Kate and Matt did a great job; it should really be required reading for anyone who's going to work in IT.
No problem... like I said, I don't have any personal experience with them, but I've heard good things. There are a few other manufacturers as well, at least for some models. You might try a google search for "split prism nikon D60".
What kind of camera do you have? I've got an old Canon 20d, and focus prisms are easily available, and simple to install. They're not cheap, but admit it, photography isn't a cheap hobby. I don't have one yet (spent all my money on lenses), but I'm hearing good things about Katz Eye Optics.
Well, you were addressing h4rm0ny, but I'll answer anyway, because I enjoy troll-baiting. (If you're simply a poor reader, or jumping to conclusions based on things we didn't say, I apologize for calling you a troll. It's just an easy assumption.)
Neither h4rm0ny or I said that "100% of illegal copies == 100% of lost sales". Really. Go back and read more closely. I'll wait here. ...
What we said is that, moral questions aside, there's a difference between theft of a physical object and illicit copying of a digital object.
I further stated (somewhere in this subthread) that, while I'm inclined to believe that illicit copying is generally wrong, I've done it myself. In point of fact, it was usually for the reasons you point out: there are a lot of non-functional games out there, and I hate buying them. Sometimes it was because I wanted to play a game I can't even find used anymore. h4rm0ny stated that, in his (this language really needs a gender-neutral pronoun) mind, "dishonesty [is still] dishonesty," with no statement of whether he's ever copied software.
So: Neither of us said that everyone who makes an illegal copy counts as a lost sale. Neither of us mentioned the quality of goods in any way. Assuming you went back and read what we said, what does your argument have to do with anything?
If you have an actual, honest answer, having read our comments, I'd be happy to read it. If not, kindly go on to misread someone else's comment.
You answered the question before I could! Perhaps I was too brief - the statement that when you copy a file the original is still there is correct. Of course! The argument that because this is so there is no harm done, is, as you point out, a faulty conclusion. We're probably in agreement. It's just hard to tell on the Internet because you don't expect it. ;)
Got it... yeah, I think we're in agreement. I'm just shocked that no-one has flamed me yet for stating that theft is wrong. Usually I give up on this sort of thread after a few rounds of that. 8-)
Yes and no. Yes, if infinite free copies are made, and shared out to everyone, then the original loses most or all of its value.
But some -- many -- people will still buy whatever it is, purely to support the company. And in the real world, it's not always easier to get a free, illegal copy than it is to get a non-free, legal copy. Certainly if you want to avoid malware of whatever sort, it's simpler to just buy the software: at least then you can get a pretty good idea before installing it of what spyware is included. My experiences with torrents and warez sites have convinced me that it's mostly not worth the effort, since a quarter of what I download will either be broken, in a foreign language, or infested with malware, or all three. (Yes, I admit it: despite saying it's wrong, I've gone looking for illegal copies of software. Yes, it's hypocritical. It doesn't invalidate the argument. Get over it.)
So despite the possibility of infinite duplication, that logic only works in a theoretical world. The reality doesn't back up the theory. I assume it has happened, and will happen again, but it's not a guarantee, and it can't be put forth as a certainty.
How is the "if a physical object is stolen it's gone, if a digital object is copied it's still there" argument flawed? Certainly many people follow it to its illogical conclusion ("the digital object is still there, so no harm has been done"), but I would say that's a problem with the people drawing the conclusion, not with the basic argument.
Regardless, I agree: dishonest is dishonest, crime is crime. The fact that illegal copying only deprives the company of one sale doesn't make it any better, just less damaging.
There is a difference, though. I'm not saying copyright infringement isn't bad, or that it doesn't harm the company, but there is a difference.
If someone steals a car off a dealer's lot, the dealer doesn't have that car to sell anymore, and thus can't make any money at all off it. If someone steals a comic off the shelf at a comic book store, the store doesn't have that comic book to sell anymore, and can't make money off it. If the person wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't steal it, the store has still lost money in either case: whatever they paid for the item, car or comic, is gone forever with no return. If the person would have bought it if they couldn't steal it, the store has lost whatever they paid for it, plus whatever profit they would have made.
If someone downloads a song, or a game, or a copy of some piece of proprietary software, the company still has it to sell to other people. If the person would have bought a copy if they couldn't download it, the company has lost the value of exactly one sale. If the person would not otherwise have bought it, the company has lost nothing.
Again, I'm not saying downloading software or music illegally is morally or ethically right -- in general, I think it's not, but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand -- but there is certainly a difference between downloading cracked software and stealing a physical item.