...this wouldn't bother me anyways. Even if I *did* copy some other person's code, I'm *really* anal about having my code look like I want it to. I'll even make sure that it's tabs instead of spaces.
As for the cheating part, when I took a CS class in high school I had an algebra major for a teacher. The guy knew nothing about network administration, yet ran the computer lab. We had lots of fun playing jokes on him, and the final exam was a total fiasco.
He gave us worksheets which detailed the project. I was at the time, under his orders to use my laptop for all projects. I typed up all 3 versions of the final exam, using three different programming 'styles'. I printed them out, and put them on disk, and handed them out to half of the class. I typed up mine not using any of my previous notes, because it was such a simple program anyways. The guy never figured it out.
Can't remember the site, but there was an essay I read awhile back. The author said that this type of argument is one of the most common, and one of the most stupid arguments against privacy. Come to think of it I think it was an article on PGP and banning cryptography. Though I haven't flown on a plane in a long time, there's no way in hell you'd get me to show ID just to get on. If I have the ticket, that's all I should need.
Bottom line is, it's not just privacy -- it's assumption of guilt until proven otherwise, which, mind you, IS in the constitution.
Well, I've got alot to say about copyrights, and not much of it is good. Mr. Mundie brings up a good point: many businesses build a model dependednt on their rights to a specific technology or idea. Microsoft is undoubtedly one of these companies.
The problem is, they take this for granted, and want to keep these ideas to themselves. And why not, because they created it right?
Copyrights are hinted at in the constitution with these words: (from Article I, section 8)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;...
Seems fair enough, until you find out that copyrights last 95 years if the author was a company, or 70 years from death if not. I'm sorry but two lifetimes doesn't seem very limited to me.
This, to me promotes laziness and suppress innovation.
The GPL does have its cons, but it has its pros too. I don't consider the GPL an ideal candidate for a business model, but neither is the greedy practice of having your software copyrighted for eternity.
Slashdot Mirror
...this wouldn't bother me anyways. Even if I *did* copy some other person's code, I'm *really* anal about having my code look like I want it to. I'll even make sure that it's tabs instead of spaces.
As for the cheating part, when I took a CS class in high school I had an algebra major for a teacher. The guy knew nothing about network administration, yet ran the computer lab. We had lots of fun playing jokes on him, and the final exam was a total fiasco.
He gave us worksheets which detailed the project. I was at the time, under his orders to use my laptop for all projects. I typed up all 3 versions of the final exam, using three different programming 'styles'. I printed them out, and put them on disk, and handed them out to half of the class. I typed up mine not using any of my previous notes, because it was such a simple program anyways. The guy never figured it out.
if you have a real job to do, why are you arguing over an iMac, which you have made obvious that you don't really like?
Can't remember the site, but there was an essay I read awhile back. The author said that this type of argument is one of the most common, and one of the most stupid arguments against privacy. Come to think of it I think it was an article on PGP and banning cryptography. Though I haven't flown on a plane in a long time, there's no way in hell you'd get me to show ID just to get on. If I have the ticket, that's all I should need.
Bottom line is, it's not just privacy -- it's assumption of guilt until proven otherwise, which, mind you, IS in the constitution.
Why do i keep hearing that "this will never happen", etc.
The Darwin kernel is "open source" so to speak, and I remember hearing about a Darwin/x86 Project. Is it just me, or has it already been done?
I agree. If they were offering MP Cubes, I'd be very tempted to have opted for it instead of my single processor minitower.
The problem is, they take this for granted, and want to keep these ideas to themselves. And why not, because they created it right?
Copyrights are hinted at in the constitution with these words: (from Article I, section 8)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; ...
Seems fair enough, until you find out that copyrights last 95 years if the author was a company, or 70 years from death if not. I'm sorry but two lifetimes doesn't seem very limited to me.
This, to me promotes laziness and suppress innovation.
The GPL does have its cons, but it has its pros too. I don't consider the GPL an ideal candidate for a business model, but neither is the greedy practice of having your software copyrighted for eternity.