I don't see how this is very different from the current M$ policy, other than the fact that it's now being officially stated. With their current method of "dribbleware," customers are pretty much required to upgrade at least every three years, or face the prospect of using obsolete software that may or may not be compatible with what their business partners are using. I think most of the impact will be on smaller companies who don't have interoperability concerns and are perfectly happy with using MS Word 3.0 for the next century or so.
Of course, this is only my 2 cents, which by the time of reading will only be worth 1/10 of a cent.
But nobody creates a passenger aircraft, or an automobile, or a new, nicer design of personal computer for pure creative self-actualising joy.
OK, so nobody ever created a PASSENGER aircraft for the joy of doing so, but I think you would have to agree that two well-known bicycle shop owners were primarily motivated by the prospect of a human actually flying when they made their first successful flight in Kitty Hawk.
For those of you who don't know, I'm referring to the Wright brothers.
I like the aspect of sticking to the contract, but unfortunately, that's rarely possible. I strongly disagree that people who work 60+ hours a week are largely unorganized. In the past, most nasty gobs of unpaid overtime were due to the disorganization of others. How many people here have been asked to put together a project plan to deliver something, where they were GIVEN the deadine instead of being asked how long it would take with current resources? I believe that describes nearly every project I've participated in. And the people giving you the deadline are rarely flexible on what actually gets delivered. They like to tell you that they'll help you get more resources, but you know that if you've got two months to deliver something, you aren't going to be able to train somebody to help in time.
So how do we reduce the hours we work? We need to train management to stop making promises or announcing vaporware before they even consult their development staff. We need them to fully understand the development triangle (cheap, quick, good -- pick any two). We need them to understand that just because they are either single or divorced doesn't mean that the rest of us want to follow the same path. (not a slam on single or divorced people -- just those that are that way because of their job and think others should do the same) And we need them to understand that good computer programming requires years of experience and that Joe Schmoe down the hall who figured out how to make his VCR stop flashing "12:00" isn't going to pick up a manual and learn to program a computer in a few hours; and that even a talented new hire with a computer science degree and prior experience will usually require months of internal training before they can really contribute to a project. We need leverage to make them understand this. And that's what we're missing. For the most part, we aren't unionized, so we can't all just walk off the job to make them understand. (I'm not advocating or condemning unions here, BTW). And we can't usually make them pay us for the overtime -- but if we could, I think that would get their attention. Most of us would at least double our salary.
Speaking of being paid for overtime, I once heard a rumor that computer programming and accounting were two areas that are automatically legally exempt from being paid for overtime, and that people working all other jobs could demand overtime pay. Is there any truth to this? Anybody know?
Written code is definitely an expression of free speech. Although writing code is certainly an art form in itself, it may be more appropriate to compare computer code to a self-help book. This may be a tad in left field, so bear with me.
If you wanted to write a book about living with a disease, such as Glaucoma, you would probably do so because either you or someone close to you suffered from the disease. In your book, you'd detail your personal opinions of how to deal with the disease, and you'd probably include information about treating the disease with controlled substances like marijuana. If you were aware of the best ways to obtain marijuana to help people cope with their disease, you'd provide them in your book. Wait a minute, though. You've just given information that people who DON'T have Glaucoma could use to obtain and abuse a controlled substance. Does this mean that your book should be banned because it gives people a tool that could be used for something illegal? Of course not. People may question your motives, but this is the 21st century, and I don't think they'll be burning your book.
How does this apply to writing code? Well, the author was obviously presented with a problem that needed to be solved. It was probably as simple as, how do I play CSS-encrypted DVD's (that I purchased legally) on my computer that runs an alternative operating system? My operating system doesn't have the software needed to decode the DVD, so I guess I'll have to write my own. At this point, you have to realize that there were many different ways to write a DeCSS routine, and the author developed an algorithm to accomplish the task which included personal style -- it was tailored the the way the author thought and understood the problem, just like writing the self help book on Glaucoma would be. The author figured that others must be plagued with the same problem, and therefore made the program available, free of charge, to others who were in a similar situation. This is no different than publishing a book. It's certainly much less dangerous than publishing a how-to guide on building nuclear weaponry. If I wrote the program, I probably wouldn't approach it in the same manner, but as a programmer, I could read the DeCSS code and appreciate the elegance with which the author solved the problem, just as I could appreciate an author's proposed solutions in a self-help book.
As a side issue, we should take a look at literary works (as well as movies) that have NOT been censored by our government. Many of them include ideas that are dangerous (such as building a bomb), or build racial or religious tensions (I bet you can list hundreds of works that fall into this category). Some of the works have actually caused full-scale riots. Perhaps it was irresponsible of authors and publishers to submit such works to the public, knowing what the reaction would be. But it wasn't illegal. It was their constitutional right. They had an opinion that they felt needed to be heard, and they said it so that anyone who chose to listen could hear it. Don't tell me that my computer programming isn't an opinion or an idea. It most certainly is. Here's how I would do it. If you like it, feel free to use it.
So, as someone else mentioned earlier, would you prevent people from using a crowbar to open packing crates just because it could also be used to pry open a car trunk (boot) or window or door so that you could steal something? A crowbar is a tool (digital or otherwise). It's use is a personal thing. Personally, I think you should arrest the people using them illegally rather than the people manufacturing and selling them.
Re:I can see the medical claims rolling in...
on
Surround Lights
·
· Score: 1
So wait a minutes, are you telling me that the reason I used to always get sick in the I-MAX at our local theme park was because the timing was off? Or am I just prone to puking after simulated motion?
Do you like to burn books, too? And perhaps we should destroy all the old microfilm archives of back-issues of newspapers?
I'm sure there are plenty of articles and other literary works that people wish they had never written. But like it or not, they are history, and valuable information is still there for the finding. If you don't want any old records to be archived, don't ever publish anything -- electronic OR otherwise.
OK, this solution works great for a one-building situation, but what if you're on a corporate campus? Even 200m won't cut it. Still, a definite improvement over IT professionals on walk-about....
I definitely agree that PARENTS are the major factor here. As a parent, I've seen (and played) video games that I would NEVER let my child near. That's my job as a parent -- to keep bad things away from my child, until he leaves the house and is responsible for his own decisions. That's the best any parent can do.
However, I do also agree that the purchase of video games and similar media should be restricted by age group. The problem isn't so much that I need help as a parent, but is instead related to the failure of other parents. If my son goes to a school where even 10% of the parents have no interest in what their kids do (and believe me, the numbers are much worse than that), then my kid has a one in ten chance of bumping into somebody that may cause him harm.
Other than that, I take full responsibility for the actions of my child.
There used to be this company called Matsi that was working on the development and production of Zinc-Air batteries. Basically, they used the chemical reaction between the Zinc and Oxygen to produce long-lasting power. Most of the batteries they designed were somewhat bulky, but would have been ideal for some of the more power-hungry applications. I think they did actually work with another company (Panasonic?) to produce batteries for cell phones that had something like four times the capacity of a normal battery at similar weight.
Anybody know where they went? The URL doesn't seem to work anymore.
Would the court decision keep him from taking what he has learned in the process of writing the programs he had stolen from him and using that knowledge to write something better that does something similar?
Nobody quote me, but based on my amateur opinion, I believe he is free to write anything he wants. He stated that there are no longer any noncompete agreements effective, so the only restriction that I think remains is that he can't start with any of his old source code. As long as the source is not duplicated, he should be ok.
Now the skeptic in my has to comment. If he chooses to write competing software, or participate in a similar effort, the companies that were party to this suite could choose to take him back to court, accusing him of copyright infringement. While we know that this kind of case would ultimately be dismissed, we have to remember that the companies have far more financial resources than he, and could therefore drag things through the legal muck enough to force him to comply due to lack of resources -- which is pretty much what happened in this ruling.
Maybe this doesn't strike anybody else as funny, but I remember when I first started into the work force (Put on geezer hat) that a person went to work for one company for pretty much their entire career. That company took very good care of them and their family. The benefits were excellent, and the pay was competitive. Sure, they could make a little more money elsewhere, but the total package was better if they stayed put. That's what I expected my career to be like. But right after I started working at a huge company, the world started to change. Companies traded in their desire to take care of their employees for a better "bottom line." Salaries were no longer competitive; Benefits were reduced drastically; and employees were required to work longer hours. Even worse, the layoffs started soon afterward. No longer was your job secure. So, like everyone else, I realized that I would have to change jobs every few years to keep my skills update and my salary competitive. When the company dropped its loyalty, I dropped mine.
Now it seems as though companies want to return to the days of loyal employees. But they want it to be a one-sided deal. Instead of attracting loyal employees with competitive pay and excellent benefits, they want to use the corporate-corrupt government to FORCE them into submission. I can, to some extent, understand a no-compete clause, but I can't fathom using the courts to enforce a nonexistent clause. Somebody back of the list of replies posted the bright idea of keeping a database of companies using these kind of tactics. I hope somebody does create such a database, and we should all just avoid those companies like the plague. They think it'll be cheaper to go through the courts than to keep their employees happy. If everybody avoids them, they'll soon see just how costly their mistake can be.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, this is only my 2 cents, which by the time of reading will only be worth 1/10 of a cent.
GreyPoopon
OK, so nobody ever created a PASSENGER aircraft for the joy of doing so, but I think you would have to agree that two well-known bicycle shop owners were primarily motivated by the prospect of a human actually flying when they made their first successful flight in Kitty Hawk.
For those of you who don't know, I'm referring to the Wright brothers.
So how do we reduce the hours we work? We need to train management to stop making promises or announcing vaporware before they even consult their development staff. We need them to fully understand the development triangle (cheap, quick, good -- pick any two). We need them to understand that just because they are either single or divorced doesn't mean that the rest of us want to follow the same path. (not a slam on single or divorced people -- just those that are that way because of their job and think others should do the same) And we need them to understand that good computer programming requires years of experience and that Joe Schmoe down the hall who figured out how to make his VCR stop flashing "12:00" isn't going to pick up a manual and learn to program a computer in a few hours; and that even a talented new hire with a computer science degree and prior experience will usually require months of internal training before they can really contribute to a project. We need leverage to make them understand this. And that's what we're missing. For the most part, we aren't unionized, so we can't all just walk off the job to make them understand. (I'm not advocating or condemning unions here, BTW). And we can't usually make them pay us for the overtime -- but if we could, I think that would get their attention. Most of us would at least double our salary.
Speaking of being paid for overtime, I once heard a rumor that computer programming and accounting were two areas that are automatically legally exempt from being paid for overtime, and that people working all other jobs could demand overtime pay. Is there any truth to this? Anybody know?
GreyPoopon
If you wanted to write a book about living with a disease, such as Glaucoma, you would probably do so because either you or someone close to you suffered from the disease. In your book, you'd detail your personal opinions of how to deal with the disease, and you'd probably include information about treating the disease with controlled substances like marijuana. If you were aware of the best ways to obtain marijuana to help people cope with their disease, you'd provide them in your book. Wait a minute, though. You've just given information that people who DON'T have Glaucoma could use to obtain and abuse a controlled substance. Does this mean that your book should be banned because it gives people a tool that could be used for something illegal? Of course not. People may question your motives, but this is the 21st century, and I don't think they'll be burning your book.
How does this apply to writing code? Well, the author was obviously presented with a problem that needed to be solved. It was probably as simple as, how do I play CSS-encrypted DVD's (that I purchased legally) on my computer that runs an alternative operating system? My operating system doesn't have the software needed to decode the DVD, so I guess I'll have to write my own. At this point, you have to realize that there were many different ways to write a DeCSS routine, and the author developed an algorithm to accomplish the task which included personal style -- it was tailored the the way the author thought and understood the problem, just like writing the self help book on Glaucoma would be. The author figured that others must be plagued with the same problem, and therefore made the program available, free of charge, to others who were in a similar situation. This is no different than publishing a book. It's certainly much less dangerous than publishing a how-to guide on building nuclear weaponry. If I wrote the program, I probably wouldn't approach it in the same manner, but as a programmer, I could read the DeCSS code and appreciate the elegance with which the author solved the problem, just as I could appreciate an author's proposed solutions in a self-help book.
As a side issue, we should take a look at literary works (as well as movies) that have NOT been censored by our government. Many of them include ideas that are dangerous (such as building a bomb), or build racial or religious tensions (I bet you can list hundreds of works that fall into this category). Some of the works have actually caused full-scale riots. Perhaps it was irresponsible of authors and publishers to submit such works to the public, knowing what the reaction would be. But it wasn't illegal. It was their constitutional right. They had an opinion that they felt needed to be heard, and they said it so that anyone who chose to listen could hear it. Don't tell me that my computer programming isn't an opinion or an idea. It most certainly is. Here's how I would do it. If you like it, feel free to use it.
So, as someone else mentioned earlier, would you prevent people from using a crowbar to open packing crates just because it could also be used to pry open a car trunk (boot) or window or door so that you could steal something? A crowbar is a tool (digital or otherwise). It's use is a personal thing. Personally, I think you should arrest the people using them illegally rather than the people manufacturing and selling them.
I'm sure there are plenty of articles and other literary works that people wish they had never written. But like it or not, they are history, and valuable information is still there for the finding. If you don't want any old records to be archived, don't ever publish anything -- electronic OR otherwise.
Now I know why Verizon is so terrible! Talk about telecommunications nightmares!
However, I do also agree that the purchase of video games and similar media should be restricted by age group. The problem isn't so much that I need help as a parent, but is instead related to the failure of other parents. If my son goes to a school where even 10% of the parents have no interest in what their kids do (and believe me, the numbers are much worse than that), then my kid has a one in ten chance of bumping into somebody that may cause him harm.
Other than that, I take full responsibility for the actions of my child.
--
Anybody know where they went? The URL doesn't seem to work anymore.
Nobody quote me, but based on my amateur opinion, I believe he is free to write anything he wants. He stated that there are no longer any noncompete agreements effective, so the only restriction that I think remains is that he can't start with any of his old source code. As long as the source is not duplicated, he should be ok.
Now the skeptic in my has to comment. If he chooses to write competing software, or participate in a similar effort, the companies that were party to this suite could choose to take him back to court, accusing him of copyright infringement. While we know that this kind of case would ultimately be dismissed, we have to remember that the companies have far more financial resources than he, and could therefore drag things through the legal muck enough to force him to comply due to lack of resources -- which is pretty much what happened in this ruling.
Now it seems as though companies want to return to the days of loyal employees. But they want it to be a one-sided deal. Instead of attracting loyal employees with competitive pay and excellent benefits, they want to use the corporate-corrupt government to FORCE them into submission. I can, to some extent, understand a no-compete clause, but I can't fathom using the courts to enforce a nonexistent clause. Somebody back of the list of replies posted the bright idea of keeping a database of companies using these kind of tactics. I hope somebody does create such a database, and we should all just avoid those companies like the plague. They think it'll be cheaper to go through the courts than to keep their employees happy. If everybody avoids them, they'll soon see just how costly their mistake can be.