I have to mention that the tool will report a number of warnings or so called errors that are noise in the output, as most tools have this problem.
Lets not forget, the company that is analyzing the code is a company who sells a product to do just that. It could be seen as a marketing ploy as well since the code is open source, they can do that.
This is not to say that there are not errors, but no tool finds all errors without finding non errors.
It does not cost the search engine anything for the browser to be developed.
Google pays to have their search engine listed first. MSN could pay Dell to list their MSN Search first. This has nothing to do with how much it costs to write a browser. Microsoft could take funds from Google to list them first as well, which might be quite interesting, but I doubt that would happen.
I am sure that everyone that programs for a living has encountered code written by the 'Average Joe'. There usually is little, if any, documentation, nothing planned, and bad structure etc. Shortly after the program becomes useful to the company, 'Average Joe' is no longer around to maintain the code, or he can not get it done in a timely fashion.
This program is now a requirement in the company, and it needs a major overhaul to get it working with the new Ordering system, or what ever application. Professional programmers are now required since no one else but the 'Average Joe' can understand what was happening. Also the code is so inner mixed with other processes, that the maintenance is now almost impossible.
Professional developers bring a level of sophistication to the program, and maintainability, re-use, that today's software environments require.
Get a good professional programmer, and then 5 'Average Joes', and give them a current project that is more than a complex macro in a spreadsheet, and you will see why this idea will not work. You pay good money for good programmers, and there is a reason. There are still bad professional programmers, but they are hopefully the exception, instead of the norm.
That would be great, then we can use the firewall popup blockers and other software to remove these ads. I think this would be helpful as we would get the message out to Micro$oft.
There was a post previously where the Pay Per View were thinking of sending a DVD copy of the event/movie a couple of days after the PPV event. If this was the same with the DVD purchased online, then I would be willing to pay a little more even, $10-$15 (Canadian) which is a little cheaper than buying the DVD.
I would be willing to pay the $8 if the movie did NOT have DRM or any limitations on how I play/view it. I want to be able to burn my legally purchased copy on to a DVD and watch it anywhere, a portable DVD player, my main player, or even my XBox. Considering it would cost them next to nothing to distribute this movie, $8 is a fair price. The theaters charge that and have all these expenses as well, such as property taxes, building the theater, employees, etc...
If there are restrictions, then I am not interested in buying it period. Also, with Sony's recent RootKit, I am not sure I would trust them not to do that again.
In Canada, we already pay large royalties on blank media just so that the "CRIA, the Canadian version of the RIAA can receive the royalties to forward to their members.
These royalties were put in place long before CD-R's were common, back when DAT taping of the radio was to be the threat, and are now on all blank media. These companies take the money without even proving that you pirate music. Our company sells its software on CD-Rs, and we produce them inhouse and pay the record industry a royalty on every one of these CDs.
The original reason for the tariff was to cover the problem when some people used these CDs for this purpose, and has simply been a collection ever since for the CRIA.
According to the Wikipedia Entry the following notes are quite interesting.
* The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", such as CD-Rs.
* The levy is paid by importers and manufacturers of such media sold within Canada (and typically passed on to the retailer, and passed on to the purchaser).
* The levy is collected regardless of the purchaser's end use of the media.
* Only copyright holders of sound recordings of musical works are entitled to a share of the proceeds. (Note that these copyright holders may be separate persons from the holders of the copyright in the musical works themselves; ie. the composer or performer. Holders of copyrights in sound recordings are those who record or authorise the recording of a song; often this is a recording label.)
* The Canadian Private Copying Collective has devised a scheme by which the proceeds are to be allocated to registered sound recording copyright holders. AS of July 30th, 2004 none of the collected funds had yet been disbursed.
* In conjunction with the levy, the Copyright Act allows individuals to make copies of sound recordings for their own private, non-commercial use. They may not distribute the copy.
* On December 17th, 2004, a Canadian judge ruled that the blank media tax no longer applied to MP3 players such as Apple Computer's iPod. Before this, the rates were $2 for players with less than 1 GB of capacity, $15 for players up to 15 GB, and $25 for players 15 GB and over.
Can you imaging, all this collected, and nothing given out to the artists. How can anyone think it will be different with the RIAA?
I could not agree more. Since this whole sue for the sake of sueing began, I can say I have not purchased one commercial CD, where I use to buy 4-5 per month. I have not downloaded music either, I am simply listening to what I already own.
The record publishers are in for trouble if they keep this up. How many times do you have to show them a better marketing tool before they decide to use it instead of their legal fees?
A captive audience, let them hear the song and maybe they will buy an album.
If the radio is playing in my backyard, and someone hears it, is that a public performance for the sake of the SOCAN and then can they sue me? When will this end?
I do have a personal cell phone and internet connection and I work for a small company. I can be contacted if needed via cell phone 24x7, and the company does reimburse me for any charges from that call. I can not access the company network from home, so I have to go in if I am needed to do something. If I am needed at the office, then I have to judge the importance of the requirement for me to be at work versus not going, and the consequences of that decision.
If you are required to connect to the office systems regularily and work via the internet, then some payment for your connection should be made. If they want you to carry a pager or blackberry, and you do not have one, then they should definitely pay for it, or have it clearly stated that your job requires it and you are expected to pay for it. That way, everyone in the same position has the same requirements and everyone has to go buy them, or no one does. This is similar to saying that you are a system administrator in the office, and you should supply your own computer to perform your work.
I would agree with the common interface as an issue, since most Windows programs all look, and behave the same. Having stated that though, this is not true as Lotus Notes on Windows is not the standard GUI of Windows. The new Gnome and KDE interfaces are also changing the common GUI standard considerably for Linux (or other Open Source) all the time.
People have a natural dislike of the open source software I think as they have trouble obtaining and installing the software with little hassle. Downloads really need to be grouped together to ensure the proper libraries and associated files are installed on the computer. Backward compatibility with libraries might help too. Too often I have downloaded an open source program, to only have to go to 2 to 3 more sites to download the components needed to make it run. Sometimes, the newest component is not compatible so then I have more trouble getting it going. The separate components is great as it reduces duplication, frees drive space and ensures that the one file keeps all my applications up to date.
I do not think that the open source is worse off than proprietary systems, it is just sometimes too much choice results in bad choices by some people. If John Doe makes bad choices and can not get his software running, then all his friends that think he knows what is he doing suddenly thinks that the open source software is too hard to use and install. However, John Doe just had enough knowledge to be dangerous, but a large enough mouth to discourage others from trying. Some of the other people may not have made the bad decisions and would have the software running properly.
If this is the case, the RIAA has no jurisdiction outside of the US. For those of us who use P2P in other countries (Canada for instance) we should be able to sue the RIAA for this infection under Canadian laws against Viruses/Trojans/Worms etc...
This might be one way for people to try to teach the RIAA that they are holding on to an outdated business model that makes no sense.
If everyone in various countries sue the RIAA for these sort of things, their legal bills and costs should prevent them from being able to continue this Terrorist activity.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to mention that the tool will report a number of warnings or so called errors that are noise in the output, as most tools have this problem.
Lets not forget, the company that is analyzing the code is a company who sells a product to do just that. It could be seen as a marketing ploy as well since the code is open source, they can do that.
This is not to say that there are not errors, but no tool finds all errors without finding non errors.
It does not cost the search engine anything for the browser to be developed.
Google pays to have their search engine listed first. MSN could pay Dell to list their MSN Search first. This has nothing to do with how much it costs to write a browser. Microsoft could take funds from Google to list them first as well, which might be quite interesting, but I doubt that would happen.
I am sure that everyone that programs for a living has encountered code written by the 'Average Joe'. There usually is little, if any, documentation, nothing planned, and bad structure etc. Shortly after the program becomes useful to the company, 'Average Joe' is no longer around to maintain the code, or he can not get it done in a timely fashion.
This program is now a requirement in the company, and it needs a major overhaul to get it working with the new Ordering system, or what ever application. Professional programmers are now required since no one else but the 'Average Joe' can understand what was happening. Also the code is so inner mixed with other processes, that the maintenance is now almost impossible.
Professional developers bring a level of sophistication to the program, and maintainability, re-use, that today's software environments require.
Get a good professional programmer, and then 5 'Average Joes', and give them a current project that is more than a complex macro in a spreadsheet, and you will see why this idea will not work. You pay good money for good programmers, and there is a reason. There are still bad professional programmers, but they are hopefully the exception, instead of the norm.
That would be great, then we can use the firewall popup blockers and other software to remove these ads. I think this would be helpful as we would get the message out to Micro$oft.
There was a post previously where the Pay Per View were thinking of sending a DVD copy of the event/movie a couple of days after the PPV event. If this was the same with the DVD purchased online, then I would be willing to pay a little more even, $10-$15 (Canadian) which is a little cheaper than buying the DVD.
I would be willing to pay the $8 if the movie did NOT have DRM or any limitations on how I play/view it. I want to be able to burn my legally purchased copy on to a DVD and watch it anywhere, a portable DVD player, my main player, or even my XBox. Considering it would cost them next to nothing to distribute this movie, $8 is a fair price. The theaters charge that and have all these expenses as well, such as property taxes, building the theater, employees, etc...
If there are restrictions, then I am not interested in buying it period. Also, with Sony's recent RootKit, I am not sure I would trust them not to do that again.
Giving out a phone number should keep Spammers from requesting their own address though.
In Canada, we already pay large royalties on blank media just so that the "CRIA, the Canadian version of the RIAA can receive the royalties to forward to their members.
These royalties were put in place long before CD-R's were common, back when DAT taping of the radio was to be the threat, and are now on all blank media. These companies take the money without even proving that you pirate music. Our company sells its software on CD-Rs, and we produce them inhouse and pay the record industry a royalty on every one of these CDs.
The original reason for the tariff was to cover the problem when some people used these CDs for this purpose, and has simply been a collection ever since for the CRIA.
According to the Wikipedia Entry the following notes are quite interesting.
* The levy applies to "blank audio recording media", such as CD-Rs.
* The levy is paid by importers and manufacturers of such media sold within Canada (and typically passed on to the retailer, and passed on to the purchaser).
* The levy is collected regardless of the purchaser's end use of the media.
* Only copyright holders of sound recordings of musical works are entitled to a share of the proceeds. (Note that these copyright holders may be separate persons from the holders of the copyright in the musical works themselves; ie. the composer or performer. Holders of copyrights in sound recordings are those who record or authorise the recording of a song; often this is a recording label.)
* The Canadian Private Copying Collective has devised a scheme by which the proceeds are to be allocated to registered sound recording copyright holders. AS of July 30th, 2004 none of the collected funds had yet been disbursed.
* In conjunction with the levy, the Copyright Act allows individuals to make copies of sound recordings for their own private, non-commercial use. They may not distribute the copy.
* On December 17th, 2004, a Canadian judge ruled that the blank media tax no longer applied to MP3 players such as Apple Computer's iPod. Before this, the rates were $2 for players with less than 1 GB of capacity, $15 for players up to 15 GB, and $25 for players 15 GB and over.
Can you imaging, all this collected, and nothing given out to the artists. How can anyone think it will be different with the RIAA?
LAN_Ho
Dirty_Sanchez
LAN_DownUnder
Most offices currently buy the music they play in the background, remember Musak? This is who you should sue if they are not licensing the music.
If you play the radio, is that broadcast not already paying the royalties for people to listen to the music?
I could not agree more. Since this whole sue for the sake of sueing began, I can say I have not purchased one commercial CD, where I use to buy 4-5 per month. I have not downloaded music either, I am simply listening to what I already own.
The record publishers are in for trouble if they keep this up. How many times do you have to show them a better marketing tool before they decide to use it instead of their legal fees?
A captive audience, let them hear the song and maybe they will buy an album.
If the radio is playing in my backyard, and someone hears it, is that a public performance for the sake of the SOCAN and then can they sue me? When will this end?
I do have a personal cell phone and internet connection and I work for a small company. I can be contacted if needed via cell phone 24x7, and the company does reimburse me for any charges from that call. I can not access the company network from home, so I have to go in if I am needed to do something. If I am needed at the office, then I have to judge the importance of the requirement for me to be at work versus not going, and the consequences of that decision.
If you are required to connect to the office systems regularily and work via the internet, then some payment for your connection should be made. If they want you to carry a pager or blackberry, and you do not have one, then they should definitely pay for it, or have it clearly stated that your job requires it and you are expected to pay for it. That way, everyone in the same position has the same requirements and everyone has to go buy them, or no one does. This is similar to saying that you are a system administrator in the office, and you should supply your own computer to perform your work.
I would agree with the common interface as an issue, since most Windows programs all look, and behave the same. Having stated that though, this is not true as Lotus Notes on Windows is not the standard GUI of Windows. The new Gnome and KDE interfaces are also changing the common GUI standard considerably for Linux (or other Open Source) all the time.
People have a natural dislike of the open source software I think as they have trouble obtaining and installing the software with little hassle. Downloads really need to be grouped together to ensure the proper libraries and associated files are installed on the computer. Backward compatibility with libraries might help too. Too often I have downloaded an open source program, to only have to go to 2 to 3 more sites to download the components needed to make it run. Sometimes, the newest component is not compatible so then I have more trouble getting it going. The separate components is great as it reduces duplication, frees drive space and ensures that the one file keeps all my applications up to date.
I do not think that the open source is worse off than proprietary systems, it is just sometimes too much choice results in bad choices by some people. If John Doe makes bad choices and can not get his software running, then all his friends that think he knows what is he doing suddenly thinks that the open source software is too hard to use and install. However, John Doe just had enough knowledge to be dangerous, but a large enough mouth to discourage others from trying. Some of the other people may not have made the bad decisions and would have the software running properly.
If this is the case, the RIAA has no jurisdiction outside of the US. For those of us who use P2P in other countries (Canada for instance) we should be able to sue the RIAA for this infection under Canadian laws against Viruses/Trojans/Worms etc...
This might be one way for people to try to teach the RIAA that they are holding on to an outdated business model that makes no sense.
If everyone in various countries sue the RIAA for these sort of things, their legal bills and costs should prevent them from being able to continue this Terrorist activity.