whenever an employee underperforms, management's initial assumption is that it's their fault.
This seems to make sense. A lot of the time, employees underperforming is the result of them not knowing what to do and not having a clear process to find this out. Management taking responsibility will typically solve this problem. The solution is to give more direct support to the employee.
Personally I find I'm a lot happier at work when I'm producing software that I know is beneficial to the end product. I like to feel useful. I also like to feel that I'm not going to become unemployed. If I'm doing something that seems unlikely. I assume most people feel this way.
Maybe. Although I'm a little more inclined to accept Bill Gates' judgement. He has at least demonstrated considerable business savvy in the past. It could be that he felt that the product wouldn't have been successful at the time. And he might be right.
Everyone tries to get ahead of each other. This can work, if the metrics are totally objective, but they rarely are. Even if they were, it's a high stress way of doing things. Only a certain personality type thrives under constant stress. These people will usually leave and set up their own business
I know, and have worked for, some employers who would initiate termination if the found out one of their employees was seriously considering moving to a competitor
That's surely a sign that you really need to leave! Look for other jobs. Apply by email. Don't answer the phone at work at all.
Copy-writing is the act of writing copy. Copy being the text of an piece of media. I guess technically this is true - much of the copy had been written. I'm not sure this is what you meant.
Copyright is the exclusive right to make a copy. Much of the material has been copyrighted. This is presumably what was meant here.
Selling someone a computer or blank media could be construed as facilitating then. Are they to go after BestBuy or Intel next? Certainly they're both aware that people use their wares to infringe copyrighted works.
Indeed. But they can demonstrate substantial non-infringing use. Although in many countries, as a compromise, a tax is levied to compensate the cartels for the infringing use.
The DoJ effort in this is driven by an ex-MafiAA employee.
I think your opinion would hold more weight if you didn't announce your bias quite so blatantly. Just a suggestion.
But yes, it's true that the DOJ does have someone who used to work for the media industries. This does not, in itself, prove that there's any bias any more than your referring to the MPAA as the MafiAA invalidates your point. Surely the DOJ is responsible for protecting American companies from criminal harm.
Copyright infringement is against the law. Aggregating and posting links is not against the law
This is why he's on trial for facilitating copyright infringement and not Aggregating and posting links. Speeding is against the law. Pushing down on an accelerator pedal is not. Housebreaking is against the law, as is assisting others in doing so. Picking locks is not. It's about intent. The DOJ believes it has adequate evidence to prove intent.
My corner store sells drug paraphenlia. They know what the stuff's for. Should they go to jail for that?
The reason i think they shouldn't is that I don't think selling drug paraphernalia should be illegal.
But since the law makes this illegal, and they're clearly knowingly breaking the law, according to the law, they should go to jail. Why? Because they're intentionally breaking the law!
Brute force sudoku solvers will attempt a partial solution and backtrack when it's clear that the solution is invalid.
It looks like you'll need to do something similar with this one. Speculatively try a solution for a specific number in a specific square, and if that means that you end up with an invalid configuration, you need to try the other possible solution.
The brute force solution is a much less directed version of the same thing.
No. He was facilitating copyright infringement, which is what I imagine the charge is.
Can he read the minds of those looking at his website results?
No, but a reasonable person would realise that most of the sites probably aren't there with the copyright holder's intent, and most of the users probably want to avoid paying.
If a (unbeknownst by you) bank robber asks you for directions to the nearest bank and you tell him, are you going to jail for criminal conspiracy?
Well, there's the thing. Is it unbeknownst to me? Would a reasonable person assume that the guy with a ski mask and a sawn off shotgun was going there to discuss a change in his mortgage? A taxi driver and a getaway driver may well do exactly the same thing (drive people away from a bank in exchange for money) but one of them is a criminal.
Let me ask you this - Do you genuinely believe, that O'Dwyer set up tvshack without being aware that most people were going to use it to infringe copyright? Because if you do, you, I think you're very naive.
It's based on, amongst other things, a reasonable man test. Would a reasonable man believe, based on evidence available (the quantity of infringing material, how proactive the organisation is in policing this, whether there are other activities by the organisation where the profits are so overwhelming that it would make a low profit criminal activity pointless?
The percentage is not explicit. The law doesn't work like that. If it did, then people would be careful to work right up to the limit.
As for who decides on such things, this is a matter of treaties agreed on by diplomats representing the countries, and interpreted by courts.
I would say "I hope that helps", but I get the impression that your views are based on erroneous assumptions that you're reluctant to shed.
I will however say this. The law is not a computer program based on absolute values. It's based on human concepts based on what a typical person might think. There is often some disagreement about what a "typical" person might think, which is why we have a court system. One disagreement was whether the extradition treaty applies. I personally disagree with the court over this but there's not a lot I can do. The other disagreement is whether the actions would, to an ordinary person, indicate deliberate intent. I think they would and that google's wouldn't. You clearly disagree with me. That's fine, but the US DOJ agrees with me here, and O'Dwyer no doubt agrees with you. The solution here is to use the court as a neutral body to interpret the law.
So you're saying that the entire Google operation is simply a cover for their highly profitable -filetype:torrent functionality? Or that the entire purpose that Google provided a -filetype: filter was because they wanted to encourage piracy? Because if you want to prove intent then that's what you'd need to demonstrate.
Can you even demonstrate that a typical user, who uses the -filetype:torrent option is looking for infringing material?
Clearly there's a grey area. However, a site where 99% of its users are provided with legitimate non infringing material, and a site where I'd estimate *at least* 80% of its users were provided with infringing material does indicate a difference in intent. And it's hard to believe the Mr. O'Dwyer was unaware of this infringement.
It also seems pretty clear that TVShack would not have been viable if it only relied on only the subset of material that was legitimate, whereas Google's profitability would hardly be affected.
But there's the problem. This is a lie perpetuated by the software companies.
You can own it. Or at least own a copy. You have every right to do anything that's not explicitly prohibited by law with this copy. Making another copy without permission (outside of fair use) is one of the things that is prohibited.
But then things get confusing. Copyright grants the creator exclusive rights to copy. These exclusive rights can be transferred to other people. This is makes sense to treat them in the same way as land. So you can also "own" rights.
So there are two items with two different owners - the data, and the rights. Possibly a third item - the physical medium - but you can't really transfer that without the data. Data itself *can't* be moved. Only copied. so we have people conflating ownership of these items.
Okay Anon. Coward. Do you think this British representative in EU Parliament is also a "clueless american"?
Nigel Farage is the leader of the UK Independence Party. Pretty much the most strongly anti-Europe party there is. Relying on information from such an obviously biased source doesn't add a lot of weight to your argument
I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another.
If you did this, you were infringing copyright. Perhaps this is a fair use exception, that's a potential defence, and until it's established in court as an exception, there's adequate evidence for a trial. Who knows; perhaps this case will form an important legal precedent.
I mean why the hell should i shell out money to build a fricking DVR or add extra drives so my PC can do it when i can just use the net to find a show i missed and watch it whenever?
Nobody's forcing you to do that.
and I thought the whole point of the Betamax ruling was if something had a non infringing use even if others used it differently it couldn't just be banned outright? or did the cartels get that one tossed when i wasn't looking?
The betamax ruling was that time shifting was not copyright infringement.
If the mechanism is irrelevant, why are they not equally culpable?
Because intent matters.
Did TV shack have substantial genuine use that did not infringe copyright? Perhaps but this is something that needs to be established in court. The web browser and Windows clearly do have non infringing uses.
Be accused of a crime where you'll be tried to standards consistent with the Human Rights act, and you'll not be extradited. We won't extradite criminals if they'll face the death penalty either.
They have different legal systems though. And you would be tried under Scottish law.
But this isn't murder. It's copyright infringement. The physical location of the servers hosting the data, or of the client, or of the website, or of the defendant could all be relevant, but where he happened to register the domain seems to have as much relevance as where he bought his PC.
What I meant to say was "pointers on the stack that point to objects dynamically allocated in freestore (on the heap)."
Destructors aren't called when a pointer goes out of scope. Only the object.
But pointer issues are a problem with all the C family, and pretty much any language where the user has to deal with memory management themselves. Not really related to RAII or exceptions though.
Oh, and another thing, I once read some punditry that freestore and the heap are different in the context of C++.
new and delete have their own memory handling routines, and call their memory area the freestore. new allocates from the freestore. malloc() allocates from the heap. They may be the same, or may not. Using delete on memory allocated by by malloc() or free() on memory allocated by new will result in unpredictable behaviour.
Slashdot Mirror
This seems to make sense. A lot of the time, employees underperforming is the result of them not knowing what to do and not having a clear process to find this out. Management taking responsibility will typically solve this problem. The solution is to give more direct support to the employee.
Personally I find I'm a lot happier at work when I'm producing software that I know is beneficial to the end product. I like to feel useful. I also like to feel that I'm not going to become unemployed. If I'm doing something that seems unlikely. I assume most people feel this way.
Maybe. Although I'm a little more inclined to accept Bill Gates' judgement. He has at least demonstrated considerable business savvy in the past. It could be that he felt that the product wouldn't have been successful at the time. And he might be right.
This pretty much guarantees a rat race.
Everyone tries to get ahead of each other. This can work, if the metrics are totally objective, but they rarely are. Even if they were, it's a high stress way of doing things. Only a certain personality type thrives under constant stress. These people will usually leave and set up their own business
That's surely a sign that you really need to leave! Look for other jobs. Apply by email. Don't answer the phone at work at all.
You don't raise the bar for everyone. The median remains the same no matter what happens at the extreme.
Copy-writing is the act of writing copy. Copy being the text of an piece of media. I guess technically this is true - much of the copy had been written. I'm not sure this is what you meant.
Copyright is the exclusive right to make a copy. Much of the material has been copyrighted. This is presumably what was meant here.
Indeed. But they can demonstrate substantial non-infringing use. Although in many countries, as a compromise, a tax is levied to compensate the cartels for the infringing use.
I think your opinion would hold more weight if you didn't announce your bias quite so blatantly. Just a suggestion.
But yes, it's true that the DOJ does have someone who used to work for the media industries. This does not, in itself, prove that there's any bias any more than your referring to the MPAA as the MafiAA invalidates your point. Surely the DOJ is responsible for protecting American companies from criminal harm.
This is why he's on trial for facilitating copyright infringement and not Aggregating and posting links. Speeding is against the law. Pushing down on an accelerator pedal is not. Housebreaking is against the law, as is assisting others in doing so. Picking locks is not. It's about intent. The DOJ believes it has adequate evidence to prove intent.
The reason i think they shouldn't is that I don't think selling drug paraphernalia should be illegal.
But since the law makes this illegal, and they're clearly knowingly breaking the law, according to the law, they should go to jail. Why? Because they're intentionally breaking the law!
Except this is sort of what you're doing anyway.
Brute force sudoku solvers will attempt a partial solution and backtrack when it's clear that the solution is invalid.
It looks like you'll need to do something similar with this one. Speculatively try a solution for a specific number in a specific square, and if that means that you end up with an invalid configuration, you need to try the other possible solution.
The brute force solution is a much less directed version of the same thing.
No. He was facilitating copyright infringement, which is what I imagine the charge is.
No, but a reasonable person would realise that most of the sites probably aren't there with the copyright holder's intent, and most of the users probably want to avoid paying.
Well, there's the thing. Is it unbeknownst to me? Would a reasonable person assume that the guy with a ski mask and a sawn off shotgun was going there to discuss a change in his mortgage? A taxi driver and a getaway driver may well do exactly the same thing (drive people away from a bank in exchange for money) but one of them is a criminal.
Let me ask you this - Do you genuinely believe, that O'Dwyer set up tvshack without being aware that most people were going to use it to infringe copyright? Because if you do, you, I think you're very naive.
It's based on, amongst other things, a reasonable man test. Would a reasonable man believe, based on evidence available (the quantity of infringing material, how proactive the organisation is in policing this, whether there are other activities by the organisation where the profits are so overwhelming that it would make a low profit criminal activity pointless?
The percentage is not explicit. The law doesn't work like that. If it did, then people would be careful to work right up to the limit.
As for who decides on such things, this is a matter of treaties agreed on by diplomats representing the countries, and interpreted by courts.
I would say "I hope that helps", but I get the impression that your views are based on erroneous assumptions that you're reluctant to shed.
I will however say this. The law is not a computer program based on absolute values. It's based on human concepts based on what a typical person might think. There is often some disagreement about what a "typical" person might think, which is why we have a court system. One disagreement was whether the extradition treaty applies. I personally disagree with the court over this but there's not a lot I can do. The other disagreement is whether the actions would, to an ordinary person, indicate deliberate intent. I think they would and that google's wouldn't. You clearly disagree with me. That's fine, but the US DOJ agrees with me here, and O'Dwyer no doubt agrees with you. The solution here is to use the court as a neutral body to interpret the law.
Riiiight...
So you're saying that the entire Google operation is simply a cover for their highly profitable -filetype:torrent functionality? Or that the entire purpose that Google provided a -filetype: filter was because they wanted to encourage piracy? Because if you want to prove intent then that's what you'd need to demonstrate.
Can you even demonstrate that a typical user, who uses the -filetype:torrent option is looking for infringing material?
Clearly there's a grey area. However, a site where 99% of its users are provided with legitimate non infringing material, and a site where I'd estimate *at least* 80% of its users were provided with infringing material does indicate a difference in intent. And it's hard to believe the Mr. O'Dwyer was unaware of this infringement.
It also seems pretty clear that TVShack would not have been viable if it only relied on only the subset of material that was legitimate, whereas Google's profitability would hardly be affected.
But there's the problem. This is a lie perpetuated by the software companies.
You can own it. Or at least own a copy. You have every right to do anything that's not explicitly prohibited by law with this copy. Making another copy without permission (outside of fair use) is one of the things that is prohibited.
But then things get confusing. Copyright grants the creator exclusive rights to copy. These exclusive rights can be transferred to other people. This is makes sense to treat them in the same way as land. So you can also "own" rights.
So there are two items with two different owners - the data, and the rights. Possibly a third item - the physical medium - but you can't really transfer that without the data. Data itself *can't* be moved. Only copied. so we have people conflating ownership of these items.
Yes. It's just a shame that it seemed to be only useful for finding copyright infringing sites.
And it is reasonable to argue...
It certainly is. That's what the trial's for! Making reasonable arguments. We need a trial first in order to make them.
Okay Anon. Coward. Do you think this British representative in EU Parliament is also a "clueless american"?
Nigel Farage is the leader of the UK Independence Party. Pretty much the most strongly anti-Europe party there is. Relying on information from such an obviously biased source doesn't add a lot of weight to your argument
I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another.
If you did this, you were infringing copyright. Perhaps this is a fair use exception, that's a potential defence, and until it's established in court as an exception, there's adequate evidence for a trial. Who knows; perhaps this case will form an important legal precedent.
I mean why the hell should i shell out money to build a fricking DVR or add extra drives so my PC can do it when i can just use the net to find a show i missed and watch it whenever?
Nobody's forcing you to do that.
and I thought the whole point of the Betamax ruling was if something had a non infringing use even if others used it differently it couldn't just be banned outright? or did the cartels get that one tossed when i wasn't looking?
The betamax ruling was that time shifting was not copyright infringement.
If the mechanism is irrelevant, why are they not equally culpable?
Because intent matters.
Did TV shack have substantial genuine use that did not infringe copyright? Perhaps but this is something that needs to be established in court. The web browser and Windows clearly do have non infringing uses.
Be accused of a crime where you'll be tried to standards consistent with the Human Rights act, and you'll not be extradited. We won't extradite criminals if they'll face the death penalty either.
They have different legal systems though. And you would be tried under Scottish law.
But this isn't murder. It's copyright infringement. The physical location of the servers hosting the data, or of the client, or of the website, or of the defendant could all be relevant, but where he happened to register the domain seems to have as much relevance as where he bought his PC.
Facilitating copyright infringement. The mechanism used is irrelevant, even if the mechanism is something as simple as a link.
The argument is that this is illegal in the UK. Not totally convinced myself but this is what they claimed.
What I meant to say was "pointers on the stack that point to objects dynamically allocated in freestore (on the heap)."
Destructors aren't called when a pointer goes out of scope. Only the object.
But pointer issues are a problem with all the C family, and pretty much any language where the user has to deal with memory management themselves. Not really related to RAII or exceptions though.
Oh, and another thing, I once read some punditry that freestore and the heap are different in the context of C++.
new and delete have their own memory handling routines, and call their memory area the freestore. new allocates from the freestore. malloc() allocates from the heap. They may be the same, or may not. Using delete on memory allocated by by malloc() or free() on memory allocated by new will result in unpredictable behaviour.