And the fact is, if you refuse the job, someone else will do it anyway, and probably won't put near the care into making it that you would have.
For the sake of people affected by such a rootkit, and given that most workers are not in a position to quit every time their boss tells them to do something immoral -- ISTM it's better to just go ahead and do the job *well* (so it does minimal *damage* to infected systems) rather than let someone with no ethics do the job any which way, or even maliciously.
I realise this makes it harder for the world at large to castigate and/or penalize one's employer for evil behaviour, since reduced harmfulness also means less public outrage; and sometimes there comes a point where you must refuse to participate. But that aside, which is the more worthy goal -- preserving your own sense of ethics, or reducing the harm caused by your employer's lack of ethics?
I also note from TFA that he was contacted by "The Seed Intellectual Property Law Group" (seedlaw.com, I think), not by Microsoft.
So unless they had explicit instructions from M$ to be sneaky about it, blame the lawyers.
And for not asking for compensation (acto TFA, he didn't) for giving over the name -- the guy has only himself to blame. It wouldn't have hurt to at least ask.
Hmmm... one could make a good living at this:
1) Think up catchy "Windows Something" name 2) Attract the notice of Microsoft 3) Agree to hand over the name, for a suitable fee 4) ??? 5) Profit!
1) Next to (ie. no other gods) or 2) On a part with (ie. all others are lesser gods)
Because in archaic English, the meaning could go either way. So I'm wondering what the literal Hebrew context is.
The way *I* was taught, the phrasing was "no other gods *before* me" ("before" here referring to relative quality, not timeline), whereby #2 above would be the literal meaning.
On a similar note, I wonder if the DRM is built from an opensource rootkit? and if so, isn't this a violation of the original's source license?
Side thought: if the DRM authors were lazy and based their product on an available rootkit instead of writing their own -- what unknown backdoors might the DRM inherit from the original rootkit?
I've only tried Novell's SuSE 9.1, which I didn't particularly like. How does it compare to OpenSuSE? (I can't readily download 'em myself; no broadband.)
And this Windows user found it was just the opposite:
KDE is enough like Windows that it was immediately usable, with a relatively painless learning curve. Most stuff was where I expected it to be, and behaved pretty much how I expected it to behave. What was different was only a little different, not shockingly so. Hence the differences were only transient annoyances, not show-stoppers.
Conversely Gnome reminds me of MacOS (more so now than in the past!), and I find it nearly as baffling. I spend too much time looking for stuff and sometimes never do find it. Get that enough times, and it becomes a show-stopper.
Now, the relatively novice Windows user might not notice, because Windows itself isn't truly all that familiar to him, and all he really wants is for the office suite and the internet stuff to all "just work". And Ubuntu's incarnation of Gnome seems perfectly good for that. IOW, for the user to whom ALL desktops are foreign and scary, identity of the desktop or OS doesn't matter so long as it's simple to use.
But to myself, an advanced Windows user who is used to making Windows jump thru hoops, Gnome's unfamiliarity seems... well, limiting and discouraging. Whereas KDE's very "familiarity" encourages me to work past its sticking points.
[Even so, I firmly believe both have their place, and that both should be available.]
My current linux test box has 768mb RAM. I don't know what's typical usage, but a default install of SuSE 9.1, running whatever it does by default, informed me that it was using ~650mb RAM (WTF?!!) and 40mb swap. I just stuck Ubuntu 5.current on the same box, also doing whatever it does by default, and it tells me that it is using ~125mb RAM and no swap. (Hell if I recall where I saw this. I'm not an everyday linux user.)
I vastly prefer KDE and dislike Gnome, but even so I absolutely agree with your points about how strong support for both is a GOOD thing.
Well, if I were a SuSE user, he'd have got me, hook line and sinker... I was very disappointed to read that Novell was making SuSE Gnome-only. I can see the corp viewpoint of only having to support one desktop, but still seems to me that KDE has too large a following to snub like that.
I just got Ubuntu CDs in the mail last week so gave it a spin (tho I dislike Gnome and much prefer KDE, so was glad to be hereby reminded that Kubuntu exists). It seems generally mature, geared to ordinary users, and everything worked. But you touch on what was my one big complaint -- if I set something in one window, the setting vanished the moment I changed to another view. The file browser persistently reverting to icon view was about to drive me insane. (If there's a way to make it stick, I never found it.)
Is there a real reason why "what do you mean it didn't stick" or "why in hell isn't this setting global" are such common complaints, regardless of disty and desktop?
One of the major reasons why smoking rooms have been eliminated even where not legally mandated, is because doing so significatly reduces the cost of property insurance -- here in California, by somewhere around 30%.
You're absolutely right -- and I had that thought as I muttered to myself on that last post. It would be great to have a sliding scale that would charge a fair fee based on what the inventor gets from his invention, but how do you determine what qualifies for which fee level? and how do you prevent cheating by corporations who are masters at hiding profits? and what about the bureaucracy this would necessarily generate to oversee it? Bah humbug, back to the drawing board!
I suppose an alternative would be to charge a microfee for each unit shipped, but then you've got the problem of the $1 item vs the $1M item, and the results are no more fair than before.
And I agree, the only way the current patent and copyright nonsense will ever get turned around is if it bites someone who has the power to put a halt to it.
Personally, I think I'll patent useless suggestions. I could make a mint right here on slashdot.:)
I agree that's one set of potential problems with high patent fees. And clearly there's a power gap between large and small inventors.
More thoughts:
Does the legit small inventor ever make any real money on patents anymore? I'm wondering if that's a valid concern -- have patents become valueless to small inventors? (of real stuff, not bogus crap like the present topic)
Maybe some sort of sliding scale based on gross income from each patent is in order. As it is, a megaprofitable invention costs no more to register than does a total dud. Previously here we've discussed a sliding scale for copyrights, based on whether they're making enough money to be worth holding onto (by raising the renewal price every year, starting when the default 7 or 14 years runs out). Might such a system work for patents?
I don't really have a solution, so I'm just throwing out ideas; feel free to gaff them and throw them back.:)
Not only that, but I vaguely recall once reading that the original fee was calculated to be high enough to discourage casual patent-squatting. Evidently it wasn't high enough. I propose an alternative to your proposal: raise the fee to, oh, say, a couple million bucks. Then only realworld devices in real production would be worth the bother.
I only skimmed the "legal analysis", but it appears to me that these fuggheads are trying to patent *creativity itself*.
If they succeed, every original work thereafter is at risk for a patent lawsuit. I don't see any exceptions under this patent -- if you had "a flash of inspiration", you're screwed.
Yes, I *know* that lawyers have such an ethical duty. That the **AA's lawyers (and their kin, such as those working for SCO) are knowingly in breach of their profession's established ethical code was in fact my point. They are, in effect, following illegal orders.
And one is lead to suspect that megafees contribute to the problem, given that people are often honest up to the point at which they can be bought, but after that will do anything to keep the money flowing.
Typical punishment for crimes on the level of shoplifting or writing bad checks is 30 days suspended sentence, usually "payable" as community service, and a fine of $1000, or 3 times the value of the bad check (thus covering the value of the item, the value of the proper owner's financial disruption, and a bit more to teach the perp a lesson). And the perp gets punished ONLY for his own crime, never for the potential crimes anyone else might ever commit.
So even tho yes, other petty crimes do get punished more than the nominal value of the item stolen, it still isn't at the absurdly inflated values assigned to punishment for copyright infringement. And the copyright infringer gets punished for *potential* infringement ("how many people MIGHT have downloaded that file from you?") rather only than for their own single theft. IOW, an individual gets punished for everyone else's unprosecuted crimes too, not just their own.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if the punishment was, say, a fine of three times the retail value of a CD. But $150,000 for a single incident? What's fair or reasonable about that?
Slashdot Mirror
LOL!! good one.
Conversely, there's the Sgt.Schultz approach:
A: Knock, knock.
B: Who's there?
A: What are you asking ME for??
An email I got from a friend, about two minutes ago:
"Sony should know that I avoided them when buying my new Plasma TV... Partly because of this... The a$$holes."
$l.oo was a common style, dating back to the 1800s. Tho I expect it had its origins in early typewriters that lacked a zero.
:)
[Note lowercase L used for authenticity
And the fact is, if you refuse the job, someone else will do it anyway, and probably won't put near the care into making it that you would have.
For the sake of people affected by such a rootkit, and given that most workers are not in a position to quit every time their boss tells them to do something immoral -- ISTM it's better to just go ahead and do the job *well* (so it does minimal *damage* to infected systems) rather than let someone with no ethics do the job any which way, or even maliciously.
I realise this makes it harder for the world at large to castigate and/or penalize one's employer for evil behaviour, since reduced harmfulness also means less public outrage; and sometimes there comes a point where you must refuse to participate. But that aside, which is the more worthy goal -- preserving your own sense of ethics, or reducing the harm caused by your employer's lack of ethics?
Joining the army isn't always voluntary -- remember the draft? and some countries have obligatory service.
I also note from TFA that he was contacted by "The Seed Intellectual Property Law Group" (seedlaw.com, I think), not by Microsoft.
So unless they had explicit instructions from M$ to be sneaky about it, blame the lawyers.
And for not asking for compensation (acto TFA, he didn't) for giving over the name -- the guy has only himself to blame. It wouldn't have hurt to at least ask.
Hmmm... one could make a good living at this:
1) Think up catchy "Windows Something" name
2) Attract the notice of Microsoft
3) Agree to hand over the name, for a suitable fee
4) ???
5) Profit!
...that should read "on a PAR with"... geesh.
[insert snide remarks about Intelligent Typing]
Um... is the original meaning of "beside"
1) Next to (ie. no other gods)
or
2) On a part with (ie. all others are lesser gods)
Because in archaic English, the meaning could go either way. So I'm wondering what the literal Hebrew context is.
The way *I* was taught, the phrasing was "no other gods *before* me" ("before" here referring to relative quality, not timeline), whereby #2 above would be the literal meaning.
On a similar note, I wonder if the DRM is built from an opensource rootkit? and if so, isn't this a violation of the original's source license?
Side thought: if the DRM authors were lazy and based their product on an available rootkit instead of writing their own -- what unknown backdoors might the DRM inherit from the original rootkit?
I've only tried Novell's SuSE 9.1, which I didn't particularly like. How does it compare to OpenSuSE? (I can't readily download 'em myself; no broadband.)
And this Windows user found it was just the opposite:
... well, limiting and discouraging. Whereas KDE's very "familiarity" encourages me to work past its sticking points.
KDE is enough like Windows that it was immediately usable, with a relatively painless learning curve. Most stuff was where I expected it to be, and behaved pretty much how I expected it to behave. What was different was only a little different, not shockingly so. Hence the differences were only transient annoyances, not show-stoppers.
Conversely Gnome reminds me of MacOS (more so now than in the past!), and I find it nearly as baffling. I spend too much time looking for stuff and sometimes never do find it. Get that enough times, and it becomes a show-stopper.
Now, the relatively novice Windows user might not notice, because Windows itself isn't truly all that familiar to him, and all he really wants is for the office suite and the internet stuff to all "just work". And Ubuntu's incarnation of Gnome seems perfectly good for that. IOW, for the user to whom ALL desktops are foreign and scary, identity of the desktop or OS doesn't matter so long as it's simple to use.
But to myself, an advanced Windows user who is used to making Windows jump thru hoops, Gnome's unfamiliarity seems
[Even so, I firmly believe both have their place, and that both should be available.]
My current linux test box has 768mb RAM. I don't know what's typical usage, but a default install of SuSE 9.1, running whatever it does by default, informed me that it was using ~650mb RAM (WTF?!!) and 40mb swap. I just stuck Ubuntu 5.current on the same box, also doing whatever it does by default, and it tells me that it is using ~125mb RAM and no swap. (Hell if I recall where I saw this. I'm not an everyday linux user.)
I vastly prefer KDE and dislike Gnome, but even so I absolutely agree with your points about how strong support for both is a GOOD thing.
"He is fishing for SuSE's KDE users"
Well, if I were a SuSE user, he'd have got me, hook line and sinker... I was very disappointed to read that Novell was making SuSE Gnome-only. I can see the corp viewpoint of only having to support one desktop, but still seems to me that KDE has too large a following to snub like that.
"Even if it's called something else, you pay."
Uh....... taxes???
I just got Ubuntu CDs in the mail last week so gave it a spin (tho I dislike Gnome and much prefer KDE, so was glad to be hereby reminded that Kubuntu exists). It seems generally mature, geared to ordinary users, and everything worked. But you touch on what was my one big complaint -- if I set something in one window, the setting vanished the moment I changed to another view. The file browser persistently reverting to icon view was about to drive me insane. (If there's a way to make it stick, I never found it.)
Is there a real reason why "what do you mean it didn't stick" or "why in hell isn't this setting global" are such common complaints, regardless of disty and desktop?
One of the major reasons why smoking rooms have been eliminated even where not legally mandated, is because doing so significatly reduces the cost of property insurance -- here in California, by somewhere around 30%.
For the consumer market, I agree, but for the enterprise market, I'd think you'd want to at least do a token test on some species of Unix.
But likely the results would be proportionately the same, even if the absolute performance is different.
You're absolutely right -- and I had that thought as I muttered to myself on that last post. It would be great to have a sliding scale that would charge a fair fee based on what the inventor gets from his invention, but how do you determine what qualifies for which fee level? and how do you prevent cheating by corporations who are masters at hiding profits? and what about the bureaucracy this would necessarily generate to oversee it? Bah humbug, back to the drawing board!
:)
I suppose an alternative would be to charge a microfee for each unit shipped, but then you've got the problem of the $1 item vs the $1M item, and the results are no more fair than before.
And I agree, the only way the current patent and copyright nonsense will ever get turned around is if it bites someone who has the power to put a halt to it.
Personally, I think I'll patent useless suggestions. I could make a mint right here on slashdot.
(And I'm stealing your sig for my tagline file!)
I agree that's one set of potential problems with high patent fees. And clearly there's a power gap between large and small inventors.
:)
More thoughts:
Does the legit small inventor ever make any real money on patents anymore? I'm wondering if that's a valid concern -- have patents become valueless to small inventors? (of real stuff, not bogus crap like the present topic)
Maybe some sort of sliding scale based on gross income from each patent is in order. As it is, a megaprofitable invention costs no more to register than does a total dud. Previously here we've discussed a sliding scale for copyrights, based on whether they're making enough money to be worth holding onto (by raising the renewal price every year, starting when the default 7 or 14 years runs out). Might such a system work for patents?
I don't really have a solution, so I'm just throwing out ideas; feel free to gaff them and throw them back.
Not only that, but I vaguely recall once reading that the original fee was calculated to be high enough to discourage casual patent-squatting. Evidently it wasn't high enough. I propose an alternative to your proposal: raise the fee to, oh, say, a couple million bucks. Then only realworld devices in real production would be worth the bother.
(What is the fee now, $1000 or so?)
[blink] On reading your comment, it occurred to me that this proposed patent is autobiographical.
I only skimmed the "legal analysis", but it appears to me that these fuggheads are trying to patent *creativity itself*.
If they succeed, every original work thereafter is at risk for a patent lawsuit. I don't see any exceptions under this patent -- if you had "a flash of inspiration", you're screwed.
As someone once put it, "Justice is not within the purview of the law."
:(
Sad but true.
Yes, I *know* that lawyers have such an ethical duty. That the **AA's lawyers (and their kin, such as those working for SCO) are knowingly in breach of their profession's established ethical code was in fact my point. They are, in effect, following illegal orders.
And one is lead to suspect that megafees contribute to the problem, given that people are often honest up to the point at which they can be bought, but after that will do anything to keep the money flowing.
Typical punishment for crimes on the level of shoplifting or writing bad checks is 30 days suspended sentence, usually "payable" as community service, and a fine of $1000, or 3 times the value of the bad check (thus covering the value of the item, the value of the proper owner's financial disruption, and a bit more to teach the perp a lesson). And the perp gets punished ONLY for his own crime, never for the potential crimes anyone else might ever commit.
So even tho yes, other petty crimes do get punished more than the nominal value of the item stolen, it still isn't at the absurdly inflated values assigned to punishment for copyright infringement. And the copyright infringer gets punished for *potential* infringement ("how many people MIGHT have downloaded that file from you?") rather only than for their own single theft. IOW, an individual gets punished for everyone else's unprosecuted crimes too, not just their own.
I wouldn't have a problem with it if the punishment was, say, a fine of three times the retail value of a CD. But $150,000 for a single incident? What's fair or reasonable about that?