The problem with the pseudo-Free software movement is that they talk the libertarian talk and then reach for all types of coertion.
First off, it's "coercion." Sorry for the speling flame.
But my main point is, when a legislature tells the government what to do, calling it "coercion" is twisting language beyond any credibility. If a state legislature isn't in charge of the government, who the hell is?
Your bad rhetoric aside, state and national legislatures make high-level purchasing decisions all the time. One state might say we will or won't buy non-union-made products where possible. Another state might say we will or won't buy from local suppliers where possible. These are the choices that elected representatives are supposed to be making.
Finally, unless I missed something vitally important in the article, I doubt anyone's seriously proposing an open-source-only law. The proposed laws in the various jurisdictions seem, in general, to be saying that open source software should be included in procurement decisions on an equal footing with closed source, and that purchasing agencies should give some weight to the obvious advantages of having free access to source code. If someone has contrary information I'd love to see a citation for it.
Much better to use a BCDish class or dedicated decimal type, depending on your programming language. Worst case, do all your calculations in the smallest unit possible, e.g. cents in the US.
What struck me most though is that in the midst of the rant from Timothy Mullen (no stranger to hacking the hack as this story from computerworld magazine shows, was
a throw-away line justifying the RIAA and MPAA's appeal to Congress to make it legal to do this!
Did they change the original article online? 'Cause I don't see anything like that in the news.com article now.
Many of the personal e-mails which I send are unsolicited and, while I am certainly not a spammer, could violate anti-spam laws because the recipient did not specifically request to be sent e-mail. I don't generally send mailing list removal instructions with my personal correspondance either. Does this mean that I am in violation of anti-spam laws?
You're right. Those arguments could not possibly have occurred to the legislators and people who advised them. *cough*
Have you tried reading the linked articles, or even reading the laws as passed? Maybe then you could show us which parts are unconstitutional?
That's not new. You needed to buy all new tools for Component Object Model (COM), which is Microsoft's current mainstream programming model. Granted they were available for "upgrade" pricing and such, but the point is that Microsoft left the concept of portable code behind years ago. We've been writing Microsoft-specific C++ code for ten years now!
Fishbowl is right. This is pretty similar to what Randal did several years ago--a trivial hack resulting in unauthorized access, no hard or money damage done, institution embarrassed, no attempt to obfuscate source of hack, yadda yadda.
The main difference is that Randal could have reasonably argued (and ISTR he did) that the machines he broke into were at least somewhat close to his sysadmin responsibilities, giving him some expectation that running crack on them wouldn't be considered a hostile attack. I doubt the Princeton admissions officers have such an exculpatory excuse. They were after information that they had no right to, in order to use it competitively. (For example, they could have offered less financial aid to the students in question, knowing their other options were limited.)
On the other hand, Randal was prosecuted under an Oregon law, which obviously doesn't apply between New Jersey and Connecticut.
(Good grief, was that five years ago already? I feel old.)
How about reversing DMCA, shortening the span of software patents, reversing copyright lengthening, passing laws about *not* passing laws to enhance the *life* of businesses?
All federal issues, not applicable to the group being lobbied.
Can anyone explain how having (for example) IIS signed by Microsoft is going to make it any more secure? It's not as though there's some "untrusted" version of IIS going around that the Palladium system will be able to detect and disable, is it?
All signing can do is reassure you that you are indeed running the same binary that Microsoft (or whoever) is offering. It certainly doesn't prove that the binary is competently designed, well tested, or secure against crack attempts.
Palladium is a terrific solution for a nonexistent problem.
The really unusual thing about the deal is that the state isn't offering any tax breaks or loans to lure the consortium to its capital.
Only a perpetrator or hapless victim of "spin" would look at the state paying outright cash for half of the cost of the new center and say, "Hey, the state isn't offering loans or tax breaks!"
But that's not what the article's about. "Aggressive" might have been a bad word. "Visible" would have been better. And there was not a thing in the article that was about attacking Microsoft, childishly or otherwise.
Anyway the reason there is warez is because software companies charge too much for software. 9500 dollars for an engineering program? Nobody can afford that! If I'm an engineer who makes say 80 grand a year and I use that software at work. Now I want to use it at home, to get work done at home. To be completely legal I need to spend 1/8 of my yearly income! insanity!
You don't know that, child.
Lots of companies give home-use riders on their commercial licenses for exactly that reason--they know it makes the customer happy and it doesn't hurt their revenue stream. But you know what? That's the vendor's choice, not yours.
All we know from the article is that it's some "engineering program"--we don't even know whether it's the kind of thing one would even try to use at home. (Hint: not everything is a game or a desktop application.)
NO, I didn't actually pirate photoshop, I bought PSP it's only 70$, when I bought it anyway.
So what's your point? You're outraged at Adobe for their pricing on Photoshop, which is ridiculous, but then you bought PSP legitimately for about a tenth of the price. And now you have something with most or all of the functionality you really wanted for far cheaper. Isn't that a good thing?
*shrug* I'm really having a hard time seeing where this outrage is coming from. DMCA, CBDTPA, elimination of Fair Use, those are outrageous. High-priced specialized software? What's outrageous about that? It's a product, go ahead and buy it or don't buy it, but quit whining about everything you want in the world not being cheap enough for your pleasure.
When Joe Blow downloads Photoshop, he doesn't deprive the company of the money of someone else buying it.
Maybe not. And copyright infringement is not the same thing as stealing. But clearly it can (and does) get to the point where it does hurt the copyright holders.
In any case, let Adobe decide how much to charge for Photoshop, and let Joe decide whether it's worth the price to him. It's not up to Joe to tell Adobe how to price their product.
At the risk of being -1 Redundant, I thought the same thing too.
Searching for the "perfect operating system" is actually sort of a luserish thing to do. Nothing's perfect, you have to get over it and see what you like. Churning rarely helps anything.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a bit surprised it took two whole days. I would expect more like two hours. The script kiddies are everywhere.
The browser is an integral part of the operating system!
If it's a five-minute job or ten-minute job, that's one thing.
Much more than that and you're asking the candidate to work for free, which should be a bad sign to the candidate.
What soapvox said.
The ILECs exist and operate only because the federal government and states allow them to. Without government sanction they are less than nothing.
So why are the people acting so subservient to the telcos?
Amen! Testify, brother!
First off, it's "coercion." Sorry for the speling flame.
But my main point is, when a legislature tells the government what to do, calling it "coercion" is twisting language beyond any credibility. If a state legislature isn't in charge of the government, who the hell is?
Your bad rhetoric aside, state and national legislatures make high-level purchasing decisions all the time. One state might say we will or won't buy non-union-made products where possible. Another state might say we will or won't buy from local suppliers where possible. These are the choices that elected representatives are supposed to be making.
Finally, unless I missed something vitally important in the article, I doubt anyone's seriously proposing an open-source-only law. The proposed laws in the various jurisdictions seem, in general, to be saying that open source software should be included in procurement decisions on an equal footing with closed source, and that purchasing agencies should give some weight to the obvious advantages of having free access to source code. If someone has contrary information I'd love to see a citation for it.
You are cool, I don't care what everyone else says about you.
But why not just use the best tool for the job? At least when you're not out to impress people?
You can use floats and have to work around their limitations, or you could use BCDish math as it was intended to work.
Or are we in violent agreement?
Mod parent +1 funny?
You really, really don't want to use floating point for currency values. Eventually the logarithmic nature of floating point data formats will cause your calculations to be just a penny or two off.
Much better to use a BCDish class or dedicated decimal type, depending on your programming language. Worst case, do all your calculations in the smallest unit possible, e.g. cents in the US.
I'm sure you can think of more.
Did they change the original article online? 'Cause I don't see anything like that in the news.com article now.
Look up their domain contacts on WHOIS instead then. Arguably, it is they who need to know about the spamming.
You're right. Those arguments could not possibly have occurred to the legislators and people who advised them. *cough*
Have you tried reading the linked articles, or even reading the laws as passed? Maybe then you could show us which parts are unconstitutional?
Ah. She gets it.
That's not new. You needed to buy all new tools for Component Object Model (COM), which is Microsoft's current mainstream programming model. Granted they were available for "upgrade" pricing and such, but the point is that Microsoft left the concept of portable code behind years ago. We've been writing Microsoft-specific C++ code for ten years now!
(Mod parent up please?)
Fishbowl is right. This is pretty similar to what Randal did several years ago--a trivial hack resulting in unauthorized access, no hard or money damage done, institution embarrassed, no attempt to obfuscate source of hack, yadda yadda.
The main difference is that Randal could have reasonably argued (and ISTR he did) that the machines he broke into were at least somewhat close to his sysadmin responsibilities, giving him some expectation that running crack on them wouldn't be considered a hostile attack. I doubt the Princeton admissions officers have such an exculpatory excuse. They were after information that they had no right to, in order to use it competitively. (For example, they could have offered less financial aid to the students in question, knowing their other options were limited.)
On the other hand, Randal was prosecuted under an Oregon law, which obviously doesn't apply between New Jersey and Connecticut.
(Good grief, was that five years ago already? I feel old.)
The state isn't a person. Logically, it can't have rights.
Ah, but is "Beth Roberts" really the name she's using now? Is this woman really the "Beth Werbick" she claims to be?
On the Internet, nobody knows you're not really Beth Werbick.
All federal issues, not applicable to the group being lobbied.
Can anyone explain how having (for example) IIS signed by Microsoft is going to make it any more secure? It's not as though there's some "untrusted" version of IIS going around that the Palladium system will be able to detect and disable, is it?
All signing can do is reassure you that you are indeed running the same binary that Microsoft (or whoever) is offering. It certainly doesn't prove that the binary is competently designed, well tested, or secure against crack attempts.
Palladium is a terrific solution for a nonexistent problem.
Only a perpetrator or hapless victim of "spin" would look at the state paying outright cash for half of the cost of the new center and say, "Hey, the state isn't offering loans or tax breaks!"
What does this article have to do with New England?
(Hint: New York isn't part of New England, even though York is part of England.)
But that's not what the article's about. "Aggressive" might have been a bad word. "Visible" would have been better. And there was not a thing in the article that was about attacking Microsoft, childishly or otherwise.
You don't know that, child.
Lots of companies give home-use riders on their commercial licenses for exactly that reason--they know it makes the customer happy and it doesn't hurt their revenue stream. But you know what? That's the vendor's choice, not yours.
All we know from the article is that it's some "engineering program"--we don't even know whether it's the kind of thing one would even try to use at home. (Hint: not everything is a game or a desktop application.)
So what's your point? You're outraged at Adobe for their pricing on Photoshop, which is ridiculous, but then you bought PSP legitimately for about a tenth of the price. And now you have something with most or all of the functionality you really wanted for far cheaper. Isn't that a good thing?
*shrug* I'm really having a hard time seeing where this outrage is coming from. DMCA, CBDTPA, elimination of Fair Use, those are outrageous. High-priced specialized software? What's outrageous about that? It's a product, go ahead and buy it or don't buy it, but quit whining about everything you want in the world not being cheap enough for your pleasure.
Maybe not. And copyright infringement is not the same thing as stealing. But clearly it can (and does) get to the point where it does hurt the copyright holders.
In any case, let Adobe decide how much to charge for Photoshop, and let Joe decide whether it's worth the price to him. It's not up to Joe to tell Adobe how to price their product.
At the risk of being -1 Redundant, I thought the same thing too.
Searching for the "perfect operating system" is actually sort of a luserish thing to do. Nothing's perfect, you have to get over it and see what you like. Churning rarely helps anything.