"Many moderators, myself included (shame on me) just don't bother to read AC posts at all. Why? I'm not sure. "
Good point. I sometimes look at AC posts when moderating, but usually end up moderating up logged-in users. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but what about: A) Locked moderators into -1 threshold (as discussed above) B) Make the poster invisible to moderators so they can't tell who is logged in or not. C) Also, make the post score invisible. All too often I find posts moderated too far up simply because someone else thought it was a good idea. While meta-moderation helps and should continue, this would also decrease the odds of a post being "over" moderated.
Points B and C would also help eliminate the "super" posts. For example, when John Carmack posts something, it's almost always boosted to a +5. That's fine, because usually he only posts to articles involving id software and what he says initially is (usually) of high importance or meaning. Now, say someone replies to his post, and John C. replies to that post. All too often I've seen this "reply-to-a-reply-to-a-reply" moderated up to a +5, when really it has little significance and is only a follow-up to what someone else had.
While an avid Linux user, I completely understand your point. I don't think it could be overstated. Yes, support is nice, but the whole friggin reason I moved away from my previous OS (any guesses which one that was?) was because I wanted an open platform where I can learn from others work. Support is great, but unless it is total openness, then forget it. Once companies start releasing binary only drivers/apps/whatever then Linux becomes no better than any other closed source OS. And if Linux becomes more and more proprietary, our "open source" revolution will be right back at square one.
Interesting thoughts. But, there are a few problems. First and foremost, your methods seem to be aimed at creating an unencrypted (sp?) copy of the movie to distribute. That's not what this is all about. We're trying to get a simple DVD player for alternative OS's.
"Even if the software/hardware players don't let you grab the images at a higher software level, it's very easy to write a new graphic card driver, or change an existing one, and use it to store direct video streams to a file. "
You're right, it most certainly would have to be implemented at a lower level. Hardware decoders overlay the images directly from the video cards signal, and all the software players I've seen also rely on the video card capable of supporting hardware overlay. Notice when you are playing a DVD that you cannot freeze-frame capture the image on most players (if anyone knows how, PLEASE let me know. There are a few stills of 'The Matrix' I would LOVE as a desktop wallpaper). But, there aren't any players for Linux (if there were, this would all be a moot point), you'd have to somehow modify the Windows (or Mac, whatever) drivers. Most of the video drivers I've seen for Windows are closed-source. So, then we'd have to reverse-engineer the drivers. Video drivers are a delicate thing (especially with the high performance 3dfx and Nvidia drivers). Notice how small tweaks by Nvidia and 3dfx on their drivers produces markedly better performance. Reverse engineering the drivers and making them 100% as good as the originals + adding the ability to "intercept" the hardware overlay features is quite a daunting task, to say the least (not to mention, if you could write drivers like that, geez you should be helping Nvidia port their TNT/TNT2/GeForce drivers to Linux!) Finally, all this work would have to be done on a Windows box (because we don't have any players for Linux). So, you'd end up with a plain MPEG instead of the encrypted DVD that you could play the movie from. Nice, but I think the goal is to be able to simply drop a plain DVD in the drive on a Linux box and off we go. Like I said, interesting ideas, but unfortunately I don't think they are practical.
I think their efforts backfired big time. Instead of scaring the daylights out of anyone even thinking of posting and/or distributing the "crack", there seems to be MORE people willing to distribute it now. At least, that's how I feel. I'm setting up a site now that will host the program. I'm sure there's a lot more people out there who are doing the same. And the nice thing is, the more people who do it, the harder it will be to stop all of them. BTW, if anyone is having problems finding a site to download it from, email me and I'd be more than happy to provide you with it:)
You are right. If LinuxOne makes improvements over Redhat, we win. If LinuxOne simply rips off Redhat without offering anything new then, just like in the "traditional" market, you simply will not have a customer base. You tank, crash, and fall over like a dead cockroach. Again, we (the community) win again.
I simply won't purchase, contribute, or have anything to do with this company. Neither will many others, I suspect. Do whatever they like. Unless they come out with something "special" (i.e something that sets them appart from the rest of the pack), then I simply won't waste my time on them.
So, they go public. They ride the Linux bandwagon and all become millionaires overnight. Big deal. Life goes on. I'd rather support and invest in companies that care about the community they are serving.
The Linux community is a (generally) close-knit group. We tend to really support those we like, and eat those we don't alive (whether the mis-feelings are founded or not, that's a different matter altogether). In other words, I believe things will work out on their own, and unless LinuxOne has something to offer that Redhat, SuSE, Debian, Caldera, Mandrake, Slackware, yadda, yadda doesn't offer then they are doomed before they even start.
I admit, when I first read the article, I dismissed it as the standard RMS holy crusade against the "evil" money making industry. But consider this. Yes, the courts will more than likely shoot this down. But, AMZN has already succeeded in what they set out to accomplish. They KNOW the courts are going to send this patent down in flames. However, they succeeded in getting a court injunction to prevent Barnes and Noble from using this (what do they call it, one-click or something like that?). So, while this silly case is tied up in court, AMZN is gaining market share (in their grand scheme of things). And, just in time for the holidays too:) To me, that's just plain wrong. And while I am just an insignificant random person that means null to AMZN, I think I'll be finding a different online site to buy from going forward. It's simply a matter of principle and whether you are going to stand for your beliefs.
I don't distrust science. I don't take it for granted either. We must realize that there are things well beyond our level of understanding. This research has the ability to greatly extend our level of understanding about genetics and all. But it also contains a very real possibility of biting us in the ass if we aren't careful. So no, I don't distrust science per se, but I do kinda cringe when scientists start dicking around with things they know very little of.
"Science usually makes advancements with the goal of knowledge and for the benifit of mankind"
I agree with you on that. But again, they rarely stop and say "Hey wait a minute. Yes it would be cool if I could do this...but SHOULD I? What impact would it have?".
All I'm saying is yes, they should go ahead with it. Just please consider ALL of the possibilities, then go back and say "Is it really worth it?".
"As a catholic, the idea probably didn't occur to you, but to a large number of people, asking religious leaders a question of morals is like asking politicians a question of economics"
No harm in asking people for their opinion. What you do with it is your business.
"The decisions should be made by those who best understand the issues. The issues are not religious issues, they are cost/benefit or risk/return issues, and geneticists are those best qualified to make that call."
The decisions WILL BE MADE by those people. NO ONE SAID that the religious leaders will be making those decisions. They are simply asking for their input. And, BTW, with our VERY LIMITED knowledge of genetics as it is, are you so very sure that the geneticists themselves understand all the issues? Hell no. I don't want them to ONLY consult the religious leaders. I also want them to debate this very heavily (and more so than the religious right) with their own peers and not just take off running with it without hearing all sides of the issue.
"If God doesn't want us creating life, he'll find a good way to stop us, now won't he?"
It would really suck if he did:)
"Besides, if all the religions can't even agree on who god is, what qualifies them for moral judgements?"
Last time I checked, science doesn't have a great track record on "moral" judgement either. Nuclear weapons, enviromental rape, super-bacteria created by the wide spread overuse of antibiotics (sp?), yada, yada. Oh science is DEFINATELY proven that it keeps moral implications high on their list.
Remember, every one asks can we do it. No one asks SHOULD we do it (Jurassic Park, right?). Personally, I think we should. As long as we consider all consequences of our actions.
First off, I'm a firm believer in God (I'm Catholic). I'm kinda glad that that are seeking input from religious leaders. It's always best to hear all sides of an issue before you jump into things. Many of the posts above have said things like "I can't BELIEVE they're asking their PERMISSION to conduct research". Uh, it's called acting responsibly and I for one am glad to see some scientists realizing that their work could very well have adverse affects on humanity as we know it. While getting input from religious leaders great, I sure hope they don't stop there and discuss it in great lengths with their peers before going forward. Remember, many of you aren't believers (which is fine and dandy with me), but that doesn't mean that those who do are without opinion. I, for one, would like to see them proceed. There is great knowledge I'm sure that could be gained from this. And, as long as it's conducted in a safe and responsible manner, we should be encouraging research like this instead of fearing it.
Neither one of us had very "high profile" projects, yet we were still invited to the party. I think this says a lot for VA Research if you ask me. They picked a few big names (from the KDE, GNOME, Gimp, GTK+, etc [see point #1 in their selection method] ) and a few of the not-so-big that still make up what the Linux community is all about. It's just nice to see that even though we don't have our projects highly visible, we're still recongized (in a small way). I dunno, I just think it was pretty cool of them. If only they would have emailed me the letter a bit sooner...:)
I've been wondering how I was put on their list. Most (er, all) of my open source projects are small and insignificant, and really no one outside a close circle work on them (but, of course, it's open for everyone...). I was like "How the hell did they get MY name?"...now I see...Sourceforge...
I got their letter to buy something like 100 shares. Unfortunately, I got it a day before the forms had to be returned, so I didn't pay too much attention to them. I'm not much of a stock guru, so most of what was said in the letter of introduction and prospectus (?) seemed greek to me. Did anyone else jump in on this?
Well, here's my take on the issue: I don't think companies are going to pull out of the DVD market. Why? Well, what is the alternative? Well, there's the "old" standard, VHS, which is completely insecure (though I have heard of some kind of "copy" protection on the VHS tapes, were the picture fades in and out, but I've never had a problem with any of my tapes). In reality, DVD still offers more benefits and is more secure. Granted, there will be people ripping the movie off, but they will always be those people. The vast majority of people would rather buy the disc, then find some techno-guru that A) has the movie, and B) will rip them a copy. Ripping DVD movies is still a much more detailed process than, say, ripping audio tracks from a CD into MP3s. The population of "hackers" that has that ability will remain small for quite some time, I suspect (i.e there aren't any "point-and-rip" DVD applications out there yet, like Musicmatch Jukebox for MP3s).
This may be a bit offtopic, but according to the article "Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software maker, has never included credits. The company has always considered its name to represent the work of all its internal teams, said company spokesman Adam Sohn." I seemingly recall that in Windows 3.1, you could get a list of developers by holding CTRL+ALT+SHIFT and double clicking on the Windows logo in the about box (or something similar to that). Also, there were similar "easter" eggs in Excel and Word that I heard about.
Anyway, I personally believe in giving credit where credit is due. I don't agree with Apple's excuse for having large development teams, with input coming from "thousands" of developers. True, there may be a large number of people working and contributing to a project, but I still think that everyone should be recognized. And, as the article mentioned, Apple was really good about it from the beginning. Oh well, times do change, I guess.
I thought the same thing too. My guesses are either put a really really small label on the inside (where the CD snaps into a case), which of course would be too small to be identified quickly. The other possibility is that they might use a special dye or something that is visible in normal light, but transparent to the laser. Anyone else have other ideas?
The first edition simply rocked. While it didn't go into complete detail on every topic (which would be impossible considering the number of areas touched on), it gave enough information to get you started. In paticular, I really liked their chapter on programming using network sockets. They offered several different approaches, starting with basic communication to more advanced servers handling multiple clients. Another strong point that a lot of people haven't commented on is how well the code examples are edited. All too often, I have purchased books only to find their example code is buggy or doesn't even work at all. All of the examples I've tried in this book worked perfectly. To top it off, a lot of their examples are evolutionary, meaning you start with a simple program using basic techniques and add to it over a few sections/chapters until you have a robust/advanced application. Even if you are a more experienced Linux programmer, this book serves as a great reference. I definitely recommend picking it up!
Do you think that it is healthy for the country that the government step in and take action? Could there be nasty legal precedence set in the technology market if Microsoft is broken up that could bite us back big time in the long term?
My opinion would not change. HOWEVER, this is totally in the realm of theory. If MS ever did anything like this, I would be especially wary of their intent (duh). But, say for the sake of pure argument, MS actually intented to do something right and reverse engineer the Xing decoder and release their own under the GPL, I would support that move 100%. I fail to see how it matters who did something. The fact of the matter is it was done, and released under terms I find acceptable. End of story.
From my observations, my employer requires all employees to sign non-competes and employees still go off to other competitors after a year or so and nothing happens to them. I think my employers reasoning behind letting us programmers go is that they know they have a better chance of getting us back sometime down the road if they don't make a big deal over it (and many, many people do return, as weird as that sounds). I think some posts above have said similar things. Now, my question is, when I was first hired as a programmer, I was 17. Now, does the non-compete agreement I signed considered null and void since I was under the legal age to sign binding contracts (18? 19?)? I don't know (and I'm not entirely worried about it, since I've seen that it's never enforced), just mildly curious.
Slashdot Mirror
"Many moderators, myself included (shame on me) just don't bother to read AC posts at all. Why? I'm not sure. "
Good point. I sometimes look at AC posts when moderating, but usually end up moderating up logged-in users.
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but what about:
A) Locked moderators into -1 threshold (as discussed above)
B) Make the poster invisible to moderators so they can't tell who is logged in or not.
C) Also, make the post score invisible. All too often I find posts moderated too far up simply because someone else thought it was a good idea. While meta-moderation helps and should continue, this would also decrease the odds of a post being "over" moderated.
Points B and C would also help eliminate the "super" posts. For example, when John Carmack posts something, it's almost always boosted to a +5. That's fine, because usually he only posts to articles involving id software and what he says initially is (usually) of high importance or meaning. Now, say someone replies to his post, and John C. replies to that post. All too often I've seen this "reply-to-a-reply-to-a-reply" moderated up to a +5, when really it has little significance and is only a follow-up to what someone else had.
Just my $0.02 y'all.
No, it just means I'm out of a job. :)
- PenguinDude, bored because my friends have decided to play trivial pursuit drinking game.
While an avid Linux user, I completely understand your point. I don't think it could be overstated. Yes, support is nice, but the whole friggin reason I moved away from my previous OS (any guesses which one that was?) was because I wanted an open platform where I can learn from others work. Support is great, but unless it is total openness, then forget it. Once companies start releasing binary only drivers/apps/whatever then Linux becomes no better than any other closed source OS. And if Linux becomes more and more proprietary, our "open source" revolution will be right back at square one.
Interesting thoughts. But, there are a few problems. First and foremost, your methods seem to be aimed at creating an unencrypted (sp?) copy of the movie to distribute. That's not what this is all about. We're trying to get a simple DVD player for alternative OS's.
"Even if the software/hardware players don't let you grab the images at a higher software level, it's very easy to write a new graphic card driver, or change an existing one, and use it to store direct video streams to a file. "
You're right, it most certainly would have to be implemented at a lower level. Hardware decoders overlay the images directly from the video cards signal, and all the software players I've seen also rely on the video card capable of supporting hardware overlay. Notice when you are playing a DVD that you cannot freeze-frame capture the image on most players (if anyone knows how, PLEASE let me know. There are a few stills of 'The Matrix' I would LOVE as a desktop wallpaper). But, there aren't any players for Linux (if there were, this would all be a moot point), you'd have to somehow modify the Windows (or Mac, whatever) drivers. Most of the video drivers I've seen for Windows are closed-source. So, then we'd have to reverse-engineer the drivers. Video drivers are a delicate thing (especially with the high performance 3dfx and Nvidia drivers). Notice how small tweaks by Nvidia and 3dfx on their drivers produces markedly better performance. Reverse engineering the drivers and making them 100% as good as the originals + adding the ability to "intercept" the hardware overlay features is quite a daunting task, to say the least (not to mention, if you could write drivers like that, geez you should be helping Nvidia port their TNT/TNT2/GeForce drivers to Linux!)
Finally, all this work would have to be done on a Windows box (because we don't have any players for Linux). So, you'd end up with a plain MPEG instead of the encrypted DVD that you could play the movie from. Nice, but I think the goal is to be able to simply drop a plain DVD in the drive on a Linux box and off we go.
Like I said, interesting ideas, but unfortunately I don't think they are practical.
I think their efforts backfired big time. Instead of scaring the daylights out of anyone even thinking of posting and/or distributing the "crack", there seems to be MORE people willing to distribute it now. :)
At least, that's how I feel. I'm setting up a site now that will host the program. I'm sure there's a lot more people out there who are doing the same.
And the nice thing is, the more people who do it, the harder it will be to stop all of them.
BTW, if anyone is having problems finding a site to download it from, email me and I'd be more than happy to provide you with it
You are right. If LinuxOne makes improvements over Redhat, we win. If LinuxOne simply rips off Redhat without offering anything new then, just like in the "traditional" market, you simply will not have a customer base. You tank, crash, and fall over like a dead cockroach. Again, we (the community) win again.
:)
Gotta love it, man
I simply won't purchase, contribute, or have anything to do with this company. Neither will many others, I suspect. Do whatever they like. Unless they come out with something "special" (i.e something that sets them appart from the rest of the pack), then I simply won't waste my time on them.
So, they go public. They ride the Linux bandwagon and all become millionaires overnight. Big deal. Life goes on. I'd rather support and invest in companies that care about the community they are serving.
The Linux community is a (generally) close-knit group. We tend to really support those we like, and eat those we don't alive (whether the mis-feelings are founded or not, that's a different matter altogether).
In other words, I believe things will work out on their own, and unless LinuxOne has something to offer that Redhat, SuSE, Debian, Caldera, Mandrake, Slackware, yadda, yadda doesn't offer then they are doomed before they even start.
I admit, when I first read the article, I dismissed it as the standard RMS holy crusade against the "evil" money making industry. :)
But consider this. Yes, the courts will more than likely shoot this down. But, AMZN has already succeeded in what they set out to accomplish. They KNOW the courts are going to send this patent down in flames. However, they succeeded in getting a court injunction to prevent Barnes and Noble from using this (what do they call it, one-click or something like that?). So, while this silly case is tied up in court, AMZN is gaining market share (in their grand scheme of things). And, just in time for the holidays too
To me, that's just plain wrong. And while I am just an insignificant random person that means null to AMZN, I think I'll be finding a different online site to buy from going forward. It's simply a matter of principle and whether you are going to stand for your beliefs.
I don't distrust science.
I don't take it for granted either.
We must realize that there are things well beyond our level of understanding. This research has the ability to greatly extend our level of understanding about genetics and all.
But it also contains a very real possibility of biting us in the ass if we aren't careful.
So no, I don't distrust science per se, but I do kinda cringe when scientists start dicking around with things they know very little of.
"Science usually makes advancements with the goal of knowledge and for the benifit of mankind"
I agree with you on that. But again, they rarely stop and say "Hey wait a minute. Yes it would be cool if I could do this...but SHOULD I? What impact would it have?".
All I'm saying is yes, they should go ahead with it. Just please consider ALL of the possibilities, then go back and say "Is it really worth it?".
"As a catholic, the idea probably didn't occur to you, but to a large number of people, asking religious leaders a question of morals is like
asking politicians a question of economics"
No harm in asking people for their opinion. What you do with it is your business.
"The decisions should be made by those who best understand the issues. The issues are not religious issues, they are cost/benefit or risk/return issues, and geneticists are those best qualified to make that call."
The decisions WILL BE MADE by those people. NO ONE SAID that the religious leaders will be making those decisions. They are simply asking for their input.
And, BTW, with our VERY LIMITED knowledge of genetics as it is, are you so very sure that the geneticists themselves understand all the issues? Hell no. I don't want them to ONLY consult the religious leaders. I also want them to debate this very heavily (and more so than the religious right) with their own peers and not just take off running with it without hearing all sides of the issue.
"If God doesn't want us creating life, he'll find a good way to stop us, now won't he?"
:)
It would really suck if he did
"Besides, if all the religions can't even agree on who god is, what qualifies them for moral judgements?"
Last time I checked, science doesn't have a great track record on "moral" judgement either. Nuclear weapons, enviromental rape, super-bacteria created by the wide spread overuse of antibiotics (sp?), yada, yada. Oh science is DEFINATELY proven that it keeps moral implications high on their list.
Remember, every one asks can we do it. No one asks SHOULD we do it (Jurassic Park, right?).
Personally, I think we should. As long as we consider all consequences of our actions.
First off, I'm a firm believer in God (I'm Catholic). I'm kinda glad that that are seeking input from religious leaders. It's always best to hear all sides of an issue before you jump into things. Many of the posts above have said things like "I can't BELIEVE they're asking their PERMISSION to conduct research". Uh, it's called acting responsibly and I for one am glad to see some scientists realizing that their work could very well have adverse affects on humanity as we know it. While getting input from religious leaders great, I sure hope they don't stop there and discuss it in great lengths with their peers before going forward. Remember, many of you aren't believers (which is fine and dandy with me), but that doesn't mean that those who do are without opinion.
I, for one, would like to see them proceed. There is great knowledge I'm sure that could be gained from this. And, as long as it's conducted in a safe and responsible manner, we should be encouraging research like this instead of fearing it.
Neither one of us had very "high profile" projects, yet we were still invited to the party. I think this says a lot for VA Research if you ask me. They picked a few big names (from the KDE, GNOME, Gimp, GTK+, etc [see point #1 in their selection method] ) and a few of the not-so-big that still make up what the Linux community is all about. It's just nice to see that even though we don't have our projects highly visible, we're still recongized (in a small way).
I dunno, I just think it was pretty cool of them. If only they would have emailed me the letter a bit sooner...:)
I've been wondering how I was put on their list. Most (er, all) of my open source projects are small and insignificant, and really no one outside a close circle work on them (but, of course, it's open for everyone...). I was like "How the hell did they get MY name?"...now I see...Sourceforge...
Thanks for the info, Daniel.
I got their letter to buy something like 100 shares. Unfortunately, I got it a day before the forms had to be returned, so I didn't pay too much attention to them. I'm not much of a stock guru, so most of what was said in the letter of introduction and prospectus (?) seemed greek to me.
Did anyone else jump in on this?
"Then they can unleash this disease in country X and not really have to worry about it spreading to other places (or comming back to them)."
Until it mutates....
Well, here's my take on the issue:
I don't think companies are going to pull out of the DVD market. Why? Well, what is the alternative? Well, there's the "old" standard, VHS, which is completely insecure (though I have heard of some kind of "copy" protection on the VHS tapes, were the picture fades in and out, but I've never had a problem with any of my tapes). In reality, DVD still offers more benefits and is more secure. Granted, there will be people ripping the movie off, but they will always be those people. The vast majority of people would rather buy the disc, then find some techno-guru that A) has the movie, and B) will rip them a copy.
Ripping DVD movies is still a much more detailed process than, say, ripping audio tracks from a CD into MP3s. The population of "hackers" that has that ability will remain small for quite some time, I suspect (i.e there aren't any "point-and-rip" DVD applications out there yet, like Musicmatch Jukebox for MP3s).
This may be a bit offtopic, but according to the article
"Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software maker, has never included credits. The company has always considered its name to
represent the work of all its internal teams, said company spokesman Adam Sohn."
I seemingly recall that in Windows 3.1, you could get a list of developers by holding CTRL+ALT+SHIFT and double clicking on the Windows logo in the about box (or something similar to that). Also, there were similar "easter" eggs in Excel and Word that I heard about.
Anyway, I personally believe in giving credit where credit is due. I don't agree with Apple's excuse for having large development teams, with input coming from "thousands" of developers. True, there may be a large number of people working and contributing to a project, but I still think that everyone should be recognized. And, as the article mentioned, Apple was really good about it from the beginning. Oh well, times do change, I guess.
I thought the same thing too. My guesses are either put a really really small label on the inside (where the CD snaps into a case), which of course would be too small to be identified quickly.
The other possibility is that they might use a special dye or something that is visible in normal light, but transparent to the laser.
Anyone else have other ideas?
The first edition simply rocked. While it didn't go into complete detail on every topic (which would be impossible considering the number of areas touched on), it gave enough information to get you started. In paticular, I really liked their chapter on programming using network sockets. They offered several different approaches, starting with basic communication to more advanced servers handling multiple clients.
Another strong point that a lot of people haven't commented on is how well the code examples are edited. All too often, I have purchased books only to find their example code is buggy or doesn't even work at all. All of the examples I've tried in this book worked perfectly. To top it off, a lot of their examples are evolutionary, meaning you start with a simple program using basic techniques and add to it over a few sections/chapters until you have a robust/advanced application.
Even if you are a more experienced Linux programmer, this book serves as a great reference. I definitely recommend picking it up!
Do you think that it is healthy for the country that the government step in and take action? Could there be nasty legal precedence set in the technology market if Microsoft is broken up that could bite us back big time in the long term?
I had cookies disabled when I posted above and it didn't log me in. Sorry...
-PenguinDude
My opinion would not change. HOWEVER, this is totally in the realm of theory. If MS ever did anything like this, I would be especially wary of their intent (duh). But, say for the sake of pure argument, MS actually intented to do something right and reverse engineer the Xing decoder and release their own under the GPL, I would support that move 100%. I fail to see how it matters who did something. The fact of the matter is it was done, and released under terms I find acceptable. End of story.
From my observations, my employer requires all employees to sign non-competes and employees still go off to other competitors after a year or so and nothing happens to them. I think my employers reasoning behind letting us programmers go is that they know they have a better chance of getting us back sometime down the road if they don't make a big deal over it (and many, many people do return, as weird as that sounds). I think some posts above have said similar things.
Now, my question is, when I was first hired as a programmer, I was 17. Now, does the non-compete agreement I signed considered null and void since I was under the legal age to sign binding contracts (18? 19?)? I don't know (and I'm not entirely worried about it, since I've seen that it's never enforced), just mildly curious.