Yeah, you're right. I'll wait for the "Hollywood" version of this technology where the constraints of physics, etc. are swiftly banished by handwavium, ignorefactium and the ever popular technologyisjustmagicium.
A part of the problem here is the use of the term "is", which has multiple different meanings, none of which precisely fit the universe in which we live. However, let me try...
Sounds like the conundrum faced by Bill Clinton to me.
I am strongly in favor of a strict constructionist viewpoint of the constitution, i.e., Scalia is my man in SCOTUS.
Privacy is not mentioned in the constitution specifically, but the bill of rights, amendments 9 & 10 cover this fairly well I think. #9 says other rights not specifically mentioned are not excluded and #10 says that right not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people respectively.
So, I don't really see much need for an amendment recognizing this right, nearly as much as SCOTUS should be enforcing this right (when abrogated of course). Sadly, they (and the rest of the federal government) fail to do so
SCOTUS has even specifically addressed the right to privacy in the past in the famous 1965, Griswald v Connecticut decision (the basis for the birth control rights). Justice Douglas claimed to find the "right to privacy" in "penumbras and emanations" of other constitutional protections. Frankly he blew it, he should have simply cited the 9th and 10th amendments as the basis for privacy protections. The "penumbras and emanation" phrase has been scoffed at repeatedly (and justly IMO), but had he cited the protections then he would have been on solid ground.
Just because the literal meaning of "ex post facto" literally mean that which you have described, does not mean that that was the constitution was written to match the simple literal definition. Ex post facto, like many expressions is a substitute phrase for a the complete (and well understood) intent.
SCOTUS justice Chase, in Calder v Bull (1798) wrote, "Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law: The former, only, are prohibited.... But such laws may be proper or necessary, as the case may be. There is a great and apparent difference between making an UNLAWFUL act LAWFUL; and the making an innocent action criminal, and punishing it as a CRIME. The expressions âex post facto laws,â(TM) are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors. The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his commentaries, considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done"
Your interpretation of the Latin would have the US Constitution prohibiting "retrospective law" not merely "ex post facto law."
There is plenty of evidence that pirate copies are used in place of licensed copies. Much of it is anecdotal. BSA Gestapo audits don't count, because the business will pay for stuff they would not otherwise in that case to avoid legal problems and fines.
A few examples:
I happened to know that a large law firm in town pirated about 300 copies of a commerical wordprocessor. There was no non-commercial product that was anywhere close at the time, especially considering the legal dictionaries, etc. that were available.
If they had been unable to duplicate the software in house, I am quite certain they would have paid the price because the software was of extreme value to them, but they were forced to by the technology, nor their morals (remember, they were lawyers). One of the lawyers in the firm told me as much.
I knew of another customer using expensive software frameworks (which they pirated), and only licensed legally when the threat of lawsuit was applied -- note, they did not switch to noncommercial software, they paid up only because they felt they were forced to.
Similar cases of sudden upsurge in sales when dongles were required in the new release reveal basically the same behaviors.
Short of being inside the mind of the decision makers, these examples are about as close as I can get to establishing that some of the piracy is replacement for licensed copies.
Is it 100% replacement -- certainly not, many people just like copying the software and playing around with it for a while, or perhaps collecting and trading like baseball cards.
BTW, I find neither of these uses morally objectionable. I feel that if you use commercial software, you should either pay for it, or stop using it. (Not that you necessarily disagree).
Is piracy important to you as a software vendor? Most likely, but you are unlikely to know just how much of an effect is present.
Perhaps a solution is.NET (or equivalent) where software is rented whenever you use it. Does not mean vendor you rent you unlimited usage rights (aka 'buying it'). Perhaps the solution is using open source.
I'm fairly sure the solution is not arguing about whether or not piracy is stealing or harming the vendor. The vendor and pirate will never come to an agreement on that basis.
If I was trying to help a college student get a real job. I would suggest...
Get some real coding experience, preferably paid, but volunteer if needed. People pay more attention to paid experience. Nothing wrong with open source for experience (its just another form of volunteer work), biggest problem compared to other vol. work suggested below is that it does not have a local presence, but it tends to use more hot skills than some of the local work.
Call local software companies and and if you can have any fixed-bid job that can be done off-site, and do a good job on them, including being done on time.
Volunteer some programming work for the church, or the local youth center, or whatever you prefer -- just make sure it's real programming experience. Do a good job, and have that person vouch for your work. Some volunteer organizations are run by people with lots of solid business contacts.
Join some local programming user-groups to match your interests. There is likely to be Linux, Windows, Java, C, Delphi, etc. groups in your area. Volunteer to help, make presentations, etc. Make contacts with these people.
More generally...
Be flexible, if the job involves knocking off some VB screens, do it well. The boss remembers that you did a good job, more than he remembers you did a good job with some VB screens.
Learn more and work harder and faster than the next guy. Listen more than you talk.
Be friendly. Brush you teeth. Use mouthwash if necessary. Take regular showers. Wear clean clothes without holes.
One key point of your aguement is somewhat revisionist however. When Windows 95 was released, it included Internet Explorer.
Yes, it stunk. Bad. Really bad. I actually used it once (to download Netscape naturally), it was on the original 95 distribution.
But since MS included IE 1.0 with 95 (at no additional cost), its kind of hard to argue legally thay IE was created in order to kill Netscape -- unless you get a real smoking gun admission from MS
Although I believe this is more a little than convenient for MS, it probably has a significant bearing on the Netscape/MS collision.
Can't disagree with the sentiment, but the NetScape case is not the best legal argument on the table. Beos has a much better case, as does a few other companies (even some still in business).
This was always one thing that annoyed about the DOJ using Netscape as the case, it was not very strong legally, had they gone after the bootloader restrictions (or other anti-competitive behaviors), the result could have been much more useful.
Sure, Indy was a possibility, but they were afraid users might play violent video games in a public place.
I'm an Indy resident, and I know the video game ordinance was stupid. But it was a fairly major campaign promise for the new mayor. Logic or Politics, apparently you can't have both.
Sounds likes Minnesota beats Indy on the high-tech frontier (like everybody else).
There are well-known vulnerabilities in vi. Don't recall details, but there was a problem in a SCO
version that allowed any access to the scratch files. There have also been version that played with macro capabilities in vi to run aribtary code, etc.
To my knowledge, none of these exploits even became very popular.
A better example would be to consider use of Pine, Elm, mailx, kmail, mutt or whatever is your favorite.
If memory serves correctly, There are (or have been) buffer overflow vulnerabilites in Mutt, Pine, MailX at least and I personally would be surprised that Elm, kmail and others have not also been vulnerable. Don't recall buffer overflows in vi.
Go to CERT and do a search for remote root, read the vulnerabilities and then explain to me how Linux/Unix is immune to attacks.
Actually, adding native linix binary support was something I recommended to Microsoft years ago. Call it Winux. Implementation would be equivalent to the horribly lame OS/2 or POSIX subsytems.
Windows would gain the availability of many programs that do not have equivalents in the windows world (plus for MS users) Downside would be cost to support Winux (not large compared to cost of developing NT, linux is much less complicated then windows APIS). 98% of the Linux API is easily matched to the kernel, the 2% leftover would not be too challenging (e.g. cygwin or VMWare could be bribed into completing the job or licensing the base to MS)
The linux kernel & device drivers would not be supported directly by Winux, but by mapping to windows equivalents. Linux kernels and drivers would not be functional under Winux, but MS could build the most commonly needed drivers and document how to add your own. This would be way better than Interix because of the simple -- just copy the binaries around.
MS would be able to claim you could have you cake & eat it too, reduce the risk run Linux Apps and NT and don't get locked out of the use of Word & Excel. They could even claim the advantage of a O/S.supported by the mighty MS. And finally, they could be sure that the Linux apps would run at a disadvantage because of the extra overhead in the translation layer. They could even charge a few bucks for Winux -- people would be lining up to pay for it. Just consider the success of the MKS toolkit & even Interix
Linux would gain exposure by Windows users. They would see advantages and disadvantages of Linux software firsthand without a major investment of time to install Linux, esp. the headaches of dual-boot setup to try. Many open source projects seem to have a Windows option, save time & stop supporting that since Winux would avoid the need for such. Finally, Linux lovers would still be able to say just how bad, unstable, limited, etc. Winux is and that any right-minded person would just use the real thing. And for the coup-de-grace, Linux viruses, trojans, etc. would then be able to bring down Window too.
True believers of either side could ignore the other side, flame about it, or even cooperate with it as suits them personally.
Consumers could buy MS and have a choice as to what kind of software they use.
This obviously made so much sense that it did not stand a chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you're right. I'll wait for the "Hollywood" version of this technology where the constraints of physics, etc. are swiftly banished by handwavium, ignorefactium and the ever popular technologyisjustmagicium.
Yeah, a buddy of mine was the Y2k guy for a major hospital. Lots of medical equipment had to be upgraded (or scrapped) because of Y2K problems.
A part of the problem here is the use of the term "is", which has multiple different meanings, none of which precisely fit the universe in which we live. However, let me try...
Sounds like the conundrum faced by Bill Clinton to me.
I am strongly in favor of a strict constructionist viewpoint of the constitution, i.e., Scalia is my man in SCOTUS.
Privacy is not mentioned in the constitution specifically, but the bill of rights, amendments 9 & 10 cover this fairly well I think. #9 says other rights not specifically mentioned are not excluded and #10 says that right not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people respectively.
So, I don't really see much need for an amendment recognizing this right, nearly as much as SCOTUS should be enforcing this right (when abrogated of course). Sadly, they (and the rest of the federal government) fail to do so
SCOTUS has even specifically addressed the right to privacy in the past in the famous 1965, Griswald v Connecticut decision (the basis for the birth control rights). Justice Douglas claimed to find the "right to privacy" in "penumbras and emanations" of other constitutional protections. Frankly he blew it, he should have simply cited the 9th and 10th amendments as the basis for privacy protections. The "penumbras and emanation" phrase has been scoffed at repeatedly (and justly IMO), but had he cited the protections then he would have been on solid ground.
Just because the literal meaning of "ex post facto" literally mean that which you have described, does not mean that that was the constitution was written to match the simple literal definition. Ex post facto, like many expressions is a substitute phrase for a the complete (and well understood) intent.
... But such laws may be proper or necessary, as the case may be. There is a great and apparent difference between making an UNLAWFUL act LAWFUL; and the making an innocent action criminal, and punishing it as a CRIME. The expressions âex post facto laws,â(TM) are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors. The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his commentaries, considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done"
SCOTUS justice Chase, in Calder v Bull (1798) wrote, "Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law: The former, only, are prohibited.
Your interpretation of the Latin would have the US Constitution prohibiting "retrospective law" not merely "ex post facto law."
Just a minute know, we all know that faster than light travel is possible. How else can Captain Kirk ever get a babe on every planet.
There is plenty of evidence that pirate copies are used in place of licensed copies. Much of it is anecdotal. BSA Gestapo audits don't count, because the business will pay for stuff they would not otherwise in that case to avoid legal problems and fines.
.NET (or equivalent) where software is rented whenever you use it. Does not mean vendor you rent you unlimited usage rights (aka 'buying it'). Perhaps the solution is using open source.
A few examples:
I happened to know that a large law firm in town pirated about 300 copies of a commerical wordprocessor. There was no non-commercial product that was anywhere close at the time, especially considering the legal dictionaries, etc. that were available.
If they had been unable to duplicate the software in house, I am quite certain they would have paid the price because the software was of extreme value to them, but they were forced to by the technology, nor their morals (remember, they were lawyers). One of the lawyers in the firm told me as much.
I knew of another customer using expensive software frameworks (which they pirated), and only licensed legally when the threat of lawsuit was applied -- note, they did not switch to noncommercial software, they paid up only because they felt they were forced to.
Similar cases of sudden upsurge in sales when dongles were required in the new release reveal basically the same behaviors.
Short of being inside the mind of the decision makers, these examples are about as close as I can get to establishing that some of the piracy is replacement for licensed copies.
Is it 100% replacement -- certainly not, many people just like copying the software and playing around with it for a while, or perhaps collecting and trading like baseball cards.
BTW, I find neither of these uses morally objectionable. I feel that if you use commercial software, you should either pay for it, or stop using it. (Not that you necessarily disagree).
Is piracy important to you as a software vendor? Most likely, but you are unlikely to know just how much of an effect is present.
Perhaps a solution is
I'm fairly sure the solution is not arguing about whether or not piracy is stealing or harming the vendor. The vendor and pirate will never come to an agreement on that basis.
1) MS is based on upgrade software where more machine resources is required to run each subsequent version of the same software.
...
.. he is a liar and the father of lies." NIV
2) BG is the Anti-Christ, as such he is master of space and time (and other amusing parlor tricks)
3) BG knew for a fact the 640K would not last long, it fact it would be impede the upgrade treadmill for a number of years.
Thus, BG would never have said it. However, I wonder about
4) John 8:44 "for the devil
I could be wrong.
If I was trying to help a college student ...
...
get a real job. I would suggest
Get some real coding experience, preferably paid, but volunteer if needed. People pay more attention to paid experience. Nothing wrong with open source for experience (its just another form of volunteer work), biggest problem compared to other vol. work suggested below is that it does not have a local presence, but it tends to use more hot skills than some of the local work.
Call local software companies and and if you can have any fixed-bid job that can be done off-site, and do a good job on them, including being done on time.
Volunteer some programming work for the church, or the local youth center, or whatever you prefer -- just make sure it's real programming experience. Do a good job, and have that person vouch for your work. Some volunteer organizations are run by people with lots of solid business contacts.
Join some local programming user-groups to match your interests. There is likely to be Linux, Windows, Java, C, Delphi, etc. groups in your area. Volunteer to help, make presentations, etc. Make contacts with these people.
More generally
Be flexible, if the job involves knocking off some VB screens, do it well. The boss remembers that you did a good job, more than he remembers you did a good job with some VB screens.
Learn more and work harder and faster than the next guy. Listen more than you talk.
Be friendly. Brush you teeth. Use mouthwash if necessary. Take regular showers. Wear clean clothes without holes.
Use common sense.
One key point of your aguement is somewhat revisionist however. When Windows 95 was released, it included Internet Explorer.
Yes, it stunk. Bad. Really bad. I actually used it once (to download Netscape naturally), it was on the original 95 distribution.
But since MS included IE 1.0 with 95 (at no additional cost), its kind of hard to argue legally thay IE was created in order to kill Netscape -- unless you get a real smoking gun admission from MS
Although I believe this is more a little than convenient for MS, it probably has a significant bearing on the Netscape/MS collision.
Can't disagree with the sentiment, but the NetScape case is not the best legal argument on the table. Beos has a much better case, as does a few other companies (even some still in business).
This was always one thing that annoyed about the DOJ using Netscape as the case, it was not very strong legally, had they gone after the bootloader restrictions (or other anti-competitive behaviors), the result could have been much more useful.
Sure, Indy was a possibility, but they were afraid users might play violent video games in a public place.
I'm an Indy resident, and I know the video game ordinance was stupid. But it was a fairly major campaign promise for the new mayor. Logic or Politics, apparently you can't have both.
Sounds likes Minnesota beats Indy on the high-tech frontier (like everybody else).
I'm not sure which is closest, the
account in Genesis in a little unclear
on which day pond scum was created.
I mean on day 3, you get herbs, grass
and fruit trees on dry land.
On day 5 you get the living creatures
that move in the ocean. Does pond scum
move? does this count?
There are well-known vulnerabilities in vi. Don't recall details, but there was a problem in a SCO
version that allowed any access to the scratch files. There have also been version that played with macro capabilities in vi to run aribtary code, etc.
To my knowledge, none of these exploits even became very popular.
A better example would be to consider use of Pine, Elm, mailx, kmail, mutt or whatever is your favorite.
If memory serves correctly, There are (or have been) buffer overflow vulnerabilites in Mutt, Pine, MailX at least and I personally would be surprised that Elm, kmail and others have not also been vulnerable. Don't recall buffer overflows in vi.
Go to CERT and do a search for remote root, read the vulnerabilities and then explain to me how Linux/Unix is immune to attacks.
Actually, adding native linix binary support was something I recommended to Microsoft years ago. Call it Winux. Implementation would be equivalent to the horribly lame OS/2 or POSIX subsytems.
.supported by the mighty MS. And finally, they could be sure that the Linux apps would run at a disadvantage because of the extra overhead in the translation layer. They could even charge a few bucks for Winux -- people would be lining up to pay for it. Just consider the success of the MKS toolkit & even Interix
Windows would gain the availability of many programs that do not have equivalents in the windows world (plus for MS users) Downside would be cost to support Winux (not large compared to cost of developing NT, linux is much less complicated then windows APIS). 98% of the Linux API is easily matched to the kernel, the 2% leftover would not be too challenging (e.g. cygwin or VMWare could be bribed into completing the job or licensing the base to MS)
The linux kernel & device drivers would not be supported directly by Winux, but by mapping to windows equivalents. Linux kernels and drivers would not be functional under Winux, but MS could build the most commonly needed drivers and document how to add your own. This would be way better than Interix because of the simple -- just copy the binaries around.
MS would be able to claim you could have you cake & eat it too, reduce the risk run Linux Apps and NT and don't get locked out of the use of Word & Excel. They could even claim the advantage of a O/S
Linux would gain exposure by Windows users. They would see advantages and disadvantages of Linux software firsthand without a major investment of time to install Linux, esp. the headaches of dual-boot setup to try. Many open source projects seem to have a Windows option, save time & stop supporting that since Winux would avoid the need for such. Finally, Linux lovers would still be able to say just how bad, unstable, limited, etc. Winux is and that any right-minded person would just use the real thing. And for the coup-de-grace, Linux viruses, trojans, etc. would then be able to bring down Window too.
True believers of either side could ignore the other side, flame about it, or even cooperate with it as suits them personally.
Consumers could buy MS and have a choice as to what kind of software they use.
This obviously made so much sense that it did not stand a chance.