Actually, it is a bit more ethical and along the lines of 'analog sharing'. What producers of contents are concerned with is that electronic media is far easier to copy and distribute. Unfortunately they go overboard and want to smash out ALL sharing; THIS is unethical. A certain amount of sharing needs to be acceptible but unlimited sharing should not.
What you suggest (unlimited copying and distributing) is FAR MORE unethical. I suggest limited copying and sharing which is a bit more like the 'analog' version of sharing that we currently have.
But you are right, I doubt that this would happen for at least another 20 years if at all.
Good point. I always say the problem with P2P is that it 'copies' instead of shares. The difference being that if I borrow a book from the library, the library no longer has that book. P2P systems are not 'file sharing' systems but are 'file copying and distribution' systems.
I agree that artists do need to be compensated but at the same time, users should have the right to share. And even furthermore, perhaps even copy A LITTLE (for instance copying for my personal computer, my IPOD, my TIVO, my wifes computer, etc). But unlimited copying of files is perhaps a bit overboard.
The problem is that no one has come up with a solution to solve this universally and so the problem persists.
Lawsuits won't solve this problem. You have to intriduce a new paradigm and model that allows limited copying but unlimited sharing (and zero copying of copies).
I have seen precisely why companies are having a hard time finding.NET developers. It's because companies choose to go with.NET technologies which are probably not the industry norm in their field (ie web development) and then try to recruit rsther than trying to see what the majority of the market is and what the majority of developers are using.
C# is still very low on the Tiobe Index wavering between 9-11 with only a 3% permeation of the market. By comparison, PHP and PERL both waver around 9% with C/C++ and JAVA being MUCH higher.
These shortages that companies are feeling is not so much the communities fault as it is the companies fault for deviating from what are commonly accepted coding languages for certain tasks.
Aside from C# not being widely adopted by developers yet (outside of the greater Seattle/Redmond area), Microsoft itself has only just not started porting applications to a large extent to C#. Before now, even they were still using C/C++ for most of their desktop applications (notice I said MOST to avoid anyone pointing out their favorite C# applicatioon).
In short, this shortage is mostly due to companies believing in Microsoft's hype of the.NET platform but developers not following suit. It's easy to convince a company through hype but alot harder to convince engineers.
Yes, 50,000 'employees'.... emphasis on 'employees'. This does NOT take into consideration the vast army of temps that they keep employed on rotating 6 month contracts so they don't have to bring them on full time (which easily doubles the number of ACTUAL employees), the overseas contractors and agencies that they outsource work to such as customer service, nor the multitude of 'leech companies' that suckle at their dark mothers teet.
Up here in the greater Seattle area, several cities have gone from being podunk little two-horse towns to yuppieville, USA overnight. Tyhe population explosion in Seattle since the 90's has not stopped and while housing prices across the US are now dropping. Ours are still skyrocketing out of control.
So, to corrrect the original poster, it's actually the population of SEVERAL small cities!
Excuse me? No Progress? Including a firewall with Windows is no progress?
Yes... something that secures your system and slows it down significantly does not encourage the end user to use it. The firewall they supplied was too little, too late and too much of a resource hog.
Well the story might still be interesting so just submit it without crediting the user. Either that or credit them and create controversy. Always remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. After all, I hear that chair throwing is now being considered as an Olympic event.
You know I've been a big C# opponent for awhile (and still am) because of the fact that Microsoft owns it. Yes yes, it's an open standard but the Microsoft approach of embrace, extend and destroy still looms over the open standard on which the MONO projectis based.
But not once did I consider this fact that applications built for Windows would be running on Linux thus replacing WINE. This is a fascinating idea but I have to ask, will this replace other types of development if this is the standard across two major platforms?
Also, it has been noted that due to the different implementations, applications built for.NET may not work with MON due to the differences in the language and the underlying architecture of the OS.
I'm still no big fan of MONO/.NET but if this DOES pan out, it should be very interesting.
Re:I don't want to be stuck with one..
on
Pro C#
·
· Score: 1
MONO and.NET are two different implementations of the standard. MONO has openly admitted that some functionallity in Microsofts versions won't work with theirs and vice versa. It's great that it's a standard but let's face facts, it's a standard that owned by Microsoft to be RUN on Microsoft's OS and integrate with Microsoft apps.
They can easily change THEIR codebase, not make the new version a standard (hence deviating from the standard as they often do) and then build a converter so that it will convert all MONO apps to the new Windows version.
Always remember... embrace, extend, destroy. It is the Microsoft way. Embrace open standards, build onto that standard with a proprietary version and destroy open implementations with incompatibility with the newest versions.
Well a staff revolt over software choice (as long as both are equally capable and similar in functionallity and GUI) is childish and a company has every right to make decisions that will affect employee performance and their bottom line. If I have 100 employees and am purchasing 100 licenses for the latest copy of Office every 3 years, thats a major expense.
Aside from that, the GUI is extremely similar, I switched to using Open Office and everything is practically in the exact same place as with Office applications. So throwing a tantrum over a software choice that is so similar as to not make a difference and to not require additional training is assinine.
I got my mom onto a Linux machine running Openm Office because I got sick of her complaining to me about crashes, vbiruses and bugs with her Windows box. Guess how long it took her to learn Open Office. Zero. In fact she just noticed that it looked slightly different but she thought it was the same program.
The two questions you should be asking as a business are :
1. How will this effect productivity? 2. Will it save me money?
If it does not affect productivity dramatically and within a very limited amount of time you get increased or similar productivity for NONE OF THE COST, then it's a no brainer. Your staff will adapt after a little whining... and whining is all part of having a job.:)
I seriously don't know about that. I mean, what do you consider MAJOR... the term is highly ambiguous. Open Office is major when you consider the functionallity it provides as well as the fact that it works (and can export) almost all Office documents. I can open WORD, EXCEL, Power Point, PDF, ODF and many others.
The fact that it is not widely adopted has nopthing to do with it being MAJOR. I think the functionallity is far more important.
Actually, ODF is an attempt to maintain sovereignty and further separate state and corporation. By enforcinf the Open Document Format as the states choice, they guarantee that at any time in the future should older documents not work with current versions of software, that they as the state have the ability to modify existing open source code to ensure that older documents can either be converted to newer versions easily or will at least be accessible regardless of a corporations intelectual property, their development cycle, etc.
It just maintains an oprganizations ability to access their own documents without waiting for a corporation to create some sort of backwards compatible solution on THEIR timeline rather than the states timeline.
All in all a solid decision in theory. How it is implemented however can be an entirely different matter but conmsidering the intelligence and forethought that went into making this decision in the first place, it seems that implementation should be equally well thought out.
Oooh... and another zinger from an anonymous troller. Let me know when you've figured out how to make an account and then come back and play with the big boys.
It's always funny when you guys troll when you don't even have street cred.:)
Since Firefox is sandboxed and not integrated into the OS, the riskj it poses is minimal. But their is a chance that you can download an extension from a site not approved by the Mozilla foundation juist as you could with a WORD addon, IE addon or any other plugin for software out there.
It doesn't exist because everyone with a brain knows it's not needed to be a standard. ActiveX was completely rejected because it creates one giant security hole straight to the OS in Microsoft's case. And jthe vast majority of holes in IE have been a direct result of ActiveX.
There's a reason why these people are in charge and not you. They're smart:)
Duh.... it's their deviation from standards that keeps making them vulnerable. ActiveX is more a security flaw than a feature and it's their choice to continue to try and force it down peoples throats thatn attempt to conform with industry/w3c standards.
Regardless, it's a catch-22. Here's the patch to keep you from being vulnerable but you must be vulnerable in order for us to patch. Gotta love the rocket scientists Microsoft is hiring these days.
Well the funnt thing is that this exploit only affects Internet Explorer as well. Si basically what they are saying is:
'In order to patch for this exploit, please first make yourself vulnerable for a solid kick to the nads.'
Re:I don't want to be stuck with one..
on
Pro C#
·
· Score: 1
Right, ECMA that will standardize anything thrown at them. That's a REAL win. And MONO, the project that Microsoft trys to ignore, does not let them participate or even show at any.NET conference and will eventually make useless byu changing their codebase.
Sounds like they are working REAL hard to work with the community.
You sir are completely ignorant for ignoring the fact that the MONO project openly admits that code built for LINUX will more than likely will not run on Windows. You also forget that MONO implements things that.NET's C# does not (and vice versa). So in other words, its based on the standard but different, may not be cross platform and Microsoft refuses to have anything to do with it and is openly hostile towards its development thus suggesting that they do not plan to work with the community should they change the specs.
Sounds like a language I want to start basing a business off of RIGHT AWAY!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is a bit more ethical and along the lines of 'analog sharing'. What producers of contents are concerned with is that electronic media is far easier to copy and distribute. Unfortunately they go overboard and want to smash out ALL sharing; THIS is unethical. A certain amount of sharing needs to be acceptible but unlimited sharing should not.
What you suggest (unlimited copying and distributing) is FAR MORE unethical. I suggest limited copying and sharing which is a bit more like the 'analog' version of sharing that we currently have.
But you are right, I doubt that this would happen for at least another 20 years if at all.
Good point. I always say the problem with P2P is that it 'copies' instead of shares. The difference being that if I borrow a book from the library, the library no longer has that book. P2P systems are not 'file sharing' systems but are 'file copying and distribution' systems.
I agree that artists do need to be compensated but at the same time, users should have the right to share. And even furthermore, perhaps even copy A LITTLE (for instance copying for my personal computer, my IPOD, my TIVO, my wifes computer, etc). But unlimited copying of files is perhaps a bit overboard.
The problem is that no one has come up with a solution to solve this universally and so the problem persists.
Lawsuits won't solve this problem. You have to intriduce a new paradigm and model that allows limited copying but unlimited sharing (and zero copying of copies).
I have seen precisely why companies are having a hard time finding .NET developers. It's because companies choose to go with .NET technologies which are probably not the industry norm in their field (ie web development) and then try to recruit rsther than trying to see what the majority of the market is and what the majority of developers are using.
.NET platform but developers not following suit. It's easy to convince a company through hype but alot harder to convince engineers.
C# is still very low on the Tiobe Index wavering between 9-11 with only a 3% permeation of the market. By comparison, PHP and PERL both waver around 9% with C/C++ and JAVA being MUCH higher.
These shortages that companies are feeling is not so much the communities fault as it is the companies fault for deviating from what are commonly accepted coding languages for certain tasks.
Aside from C# not being widely adopted by developers yet (outside of the greater Seattle/Redmond area), Microsoft itself has only just not started porting applications to a large extent to C#. Before now, even they were still using C/C++ for most of their desktop applications (notice I said MOST to avoid anyone pointing out their favorite C# applicatioon).
In short, this shortage is mostly due to companies believing in Microsoft's hype of the
Yes, 50,000 'employees'.... emphasis on 'employees'. This does NOT take into consideration the vast army of temps that they keep employed on rotating 6 month contracts so they don't have to bring them on full time (which easily doubles the number of ACTUAL employees), the overseas contractors and agencies that they outsource work to such as customer service, nor the multitude of 'leech companies' that suckle at their dark mothers teet.
Up here in the greater Seattle area, several cities have gone from being podunk little two-horse towns to yuppieville, USA overnight. Tyhe population explosion in Seattle since the 90's has not stopped and while housing prices across the US are now dropping. Ours are still skyrocketing out of control.
So, to corrrect the original poster, it's actually the population of SEVERAL small cities!
And a resounding DUH rang round the world.
Better yet, Windows running on over a million other peoples machines and becoming part of a botnet to DDOS my machine.
Steve Ballmer throws a chair
Excuse me? No Progress? Including a firewall with Windows is no progress?
Yes... something that secures your system and slows it down significantly does not encourage the end user to use it. The firewall they supplied was too little, too late and too much of a resource hog.
Well the story might still be interesting so just submit it without crediting the user. Either that or credit them and create controversy. Always remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. After all, I hear that chair throwing is now being considered as an Olympic event.
Spoken like a Microsoft executive. You just need to work on your chair throwing abilities.
You know I've been a big C# opponent for awhile (and still am) because of the fact that Microsoft owns it. Yes yes, it's an open standard but the Microsoft approach of embrace, extend and destroy still looms over the open standard on which the MONO projectis based.
.NET may not work with MON due to the differences in the language and the underlying architecture of the OS.
But not once did I consider this fact that applications built for Windows would be running on Linux thus replacing WINE. This is a fascinating idea but I have to ask, will this replace other types of development if this is the standard across two major platforms?
Also, it has been noted that due to the different implementations, applications built for
I'm still no big fan of MONO/.NET but if this DOES pan out, it should be very interesting.
MONO and .NET are two different implementations of the standard. MONO has openly admitted that some functionallity in Microsofts versions won't work with theirs and vice versa. It's great that it's a standard but let's face facts, it's a standard that owned by Microsoft to be RUN on Microsoft's OS and integrate with Microsoft apps.
They can easily change THEIR codebase, not make the new version a standard (hence deviating from the standard as they often do) and then build a converter so that it will convert all MONO apps to the new Windows version.
Always remember... embrace, extend, destroy. It is the Microsoft way. Embrace open standards, build onto that standard with a proprietary version and destroy open implementations with incompatibility with the newest versions.
Well a staff revolt over software choice (as long as both are equally capable and similar in functionallity and GUI) is childish and a company has every right to make decisions that will affect employee performance and their bottom line. If I have 100 employees and am purchasing 100 licenses for the latest copy of Office every 3 years, thats a major expense.
:)
Aside from that, the GUI is extremely similar, I switched to using Open Office and everything is practically in the exact same place as with Office applications. So throwing a tantrum over a software choice that is so similar as to not make a difference and to not require additional training is assinine.
I got my mom onto a Linux machine running Openm Office because I got sick of her complaining to me about crashes, vbiruses and bugs with her Windows box. Guess how long it took her to learn Open Office. Zero. In fact she just noticed that it looked slightly different but she thought it was the same program.
The two questions you should be asking as a business are :
1. How will this effect productivity?
2. Will it save me money?
If it does not affect productivity dramatically and within a very limited amount of time you get increased or similar productivity for NONE OF THE COST, then it's a no brainer. Your staff will adapt after a little whining... and whining is all part of having a job.
I seriously don't know about that. I mean, what do you consider MAJOR... the term is highly ambiguous. Open Office is major when you consider the functionallity it provides as well as the fact that it works (and can export) almost all Office documents. I can open WORD, EXCEL, Power Point, PDF, ODF and many others.
The fact that it is not widely adopted has nopthing to do with it being MAJOR. I think the functionallity is far more important.
And you know what retards sound like from hanging at home or listening to your own voice?
You anonymous trollers are too easy.
Actually, ODF is an attempt to maintain sovereignty and further separate state and corporation. By enforcinf the Open Document Format as the states choice, they guarantee that at any time in the future should older documents not work with current versions of software, that they as the state have the ability to modify existing open source code to ensure that older documents can either be converted to newer versions easily or will at least be accessible regardless of a corporations intelectual property, their development cycle, etc.
It just maintains an oprganizations ability to access their own documents without waiting for a corporation to create some sort of backwards compatible solution on THEIR timeline rather than the states timeline.
All in all a solid decision in theory. How it is implemented however can be an entirely different matter but conmsidering the intelligence and forethought that went into making this decision in the first place, it seems that implementation should be equally well thought out.
Oooh... and another zinger from an anonymous troller. Let me know when you've figured out how to make an account and then come back and play with the big boys.
:)
It's always funny when you guys troll when you don't even have street cred.
IE's underlying
engine runs as SYSTEM... which has higher levelk permissions than an administrator.
How does Firefox have the same privileges?
Since Firefox is sandboxed and not integrated into the OS, the riskj it poses is minimal. But their is a chance that you can download an extension from a site not approved by the Mozilla foundation juist as you could with a WORD addon, IE addon or any other plugin for software out there.
Still alot safer than IE.
Wow! Way to counter my point. The 'you must be 12' defense. I know I'M convinced!
Can I be the first to say 'eeeeewwwwwww!'.
Yes please, I'd like to add a giant security hole to my browsing experience thank you very much. Where do I sign up?
It doesn't exist because everyone with a brain knows it's not needed to be a standard. ActiveX was completely rejected because it creates one giant security hole straight to the OS in Microsoft's case. And jthe vast majority of holes in IE have been a direct result of ActiveX.
:)
There's a reason why these people are in charge and not you. They're smart
Duh.... it's their deviation from standards that keeps making them vulnerable. ActiveX is more a security flaw than a feature and it's their choice to continue to try and force it down peoples throats thatn attempt to conform with industry/w3c standards.
Regardless, it's a catch-22. Here's the patch to keep you from being vulnerable but you must be vulnerable in order for us to patch. Gotta love the rocket scientists Microsoft is hiring these days.
Well the funnt thing is that this exploit only affects Internet Explorer as well. Si basically what they are saying is:
'In order to patch for this exploit, please first make yourself vulnerable for a solid kick to the nads.'
Right, ECMA that will standardize anything thrown at them. That's a REAL win. And MONO, the project that Microsoft trys to ignore, does not let them participate or even show at any .NET conference and will eventually make useless byu changing their codebase.
.NET's C# does not (and vice versa). So in other words, its based on the standard but different, may not be cross platform and Microsoft refuses to have anything to do with it and is openly hostile towards its development thus suggesting that they do not plan to work with the community should they change the specs.
Sounds like they are working REAL hard to work with the community.
You sir are completely ignorant for ignoring the fact that the MONO project openly admits that code built for LINUX will more than likely will not run on Windows. You also forget that MONO implements things that
Sounds like a language I want to start basing a business off of RIGHT AWAY!!!