It is interesting that you include the Roman Empire, an empire that arguably fell through corruption, as a positive example of hierarchical structure.
I'm not sure I completely follow the chain of logic associating hierarchical organisations with abstraction as a software development methodology ("what is true for the computer is also true for the world" indeed!), but I'm a little short on sleep and might be missing something here.
I'm guessing you're poking fun at me, so I'll take it on the chin and say "good shot Sir!".;)
Mismanagement. Same as large projects in commercial organisations.
Basically, layers of layers of people produced by a hierarchical system that encourages mediocrity in ability and excellence in deception. Liars with superb brown-nosing skills and minimal ability leading skilled developers without those career-climbing skills. Recommendations from the knowledgeable ignored for reasons as petty as favouritism and wounded pride. Uninformed directives passed down. Valuable feedback distorted or disregarded going upwards. Career employees who couldn't care less doing the minimum they can and maximising the amount they seem to be doing. Burnt-out and defeated employees who believed once but can no longer care. Code and credit theft. Incompetents hiding their errors by sabotaging the work of others. Narcissistic managers who simply don't want negative feedback. Accomplishments delayed or distorted to fit the drip-feed system of delusional managers. Sacrifices of the innocent to protect the careers of the guilty. All held in place by a system that encourages all the negative aspects and hides it away in a nice, neat, convoluted bundle.
Did I miss anything?;)
And people are surprised that large projects frequently fail.
Haha, yes, well spotted Alsee. I had to fly out at short notice and was having trouble getting a confirmation letter from a doctor in time. If I couldn't, I was going to write one myself. Verification involved flashing the official-looking letter. My doctor knew the sense of legitimacy it would convey too.
I'd say you'd be surprised the leaps of faith some people can make if you offer them tenuous "proof" (eg. an official sounding letter) from an "authority" (eg. someone like a doctor), but since you've picked up on that little subtlety already, I think you would be as unsurprised as I.:)
Nothing against the majority of the airline folks who did the checking though, I think many were frightfully bored of performing these ineffective checks that they were directed to do.
The glucometer surely looks dodgy through an x-ray. A small electronic device with a LCD screen that flashes cryptic messages when you turn it on. It could be anything.;) Strangely, nobody seems fussed about that. Having said that, I do store that, and the lancets, in my ordinary luggage. Usually next to the dirty laundry on the return flight.;) The insulin pen comes with me though. I don't want to be caught in a strange city after 10 with no insulin because my luggage was lost...
Most of the time I've had no hassles. They look at the bits and pieces, the doctors note, and just wave me on.
The first one was when I was checking in for a flight. Diabetic needleheads in my bag (these are sealed thumb-sized packages that you fit onto the end of an insulin pen). The attendant asked, probably for the umpteenth hundredth time, the boilerplate question "Do you have any sharp metal objects, etc, etc?". My nonchalant answer was "yes". After getting a few hundred "no"'s in a row, followed by my calm response of "yes", the look on her face was priceless. After leaving her in a state of confusion for a few moments I explained to her that I was diabetic, what they were for, and gave her a doctors letter confirming it. She seemed strangely relieved.;)
The not-so-happy second story was on a domestic return trip back home to Adelaide (Australia). After having traveled to a different state, on the way back the jerkoff checking my stuff (which I politely and properly declared), obviously looking for a power trip decided to give me a hard time for having too many needleheads (I had three). Never mind I can't eat food without getting sick without insulin. Sometimes needleheads break and warp, especially when you are trying to jab yourself with a pen between two other passengers on a cramped airline seat. I had a letter from my GP explaining I was diabetic, a medic-alert bracelet, etc, anticipating the whole post-9/11 paranoia. And I wanted to get home. I'm hoping karma comes back and bites that jerk in the ass.
I can't imagine what it would be like with an insulin pump. I put off looking into one for a while because I made too many flights post-9/11 and didn't want someone trying to yank the thing...
After building my PVR I could do other things on Sunday night and I let my PVR record them. Soon those Simpson's episodes were building up because I was no longer watching them. When I *had* to watch them at a specific time, I'd make the time. But once I could watch them whenever, I wouldn't make the time.
After a while I simply deleted the files and I no longer even bother to record it.
It sounds like you simply found something better to do with your time. Your scenario matches mine from a year ago almost precisely when I taped shows to watch at a faster rate than I was prepared to watch them. Eventually I just stopped taping them. Nothing against the shows, I just had better things to do.
If I was a Griefer, I would probably be annoyed that I was being shut down by an in-game system I was paying real-life cash for. A few loud, public complaints of "Why should I pay for a system that screws me? I'm taking my allmightly dollah somewhere else!" and most corporations will bend and let them continue to Grief.
Quite true. But since Griefers tend to chase away a lot of players (particularly new ones), wouldn't it be best to refund their money, say "it's been great, don't ever come back", and perhaps buy them a subscription for a competitors online service?;) I'm sure that once word got out that Griefers were being barred from play, furious new and established players would beat you senseless... with large stacks of cash for subscription fees.
It's been said a few times over already but I just wanted to lend a voice in support. As long as you are giving proper credit (changelog and source), IMHO there is nothing wrong with you using code under the license in which it was released. It is entirely hypocritical that the leader of the spinoff project has a problem with this. Even if you were the spinoff project and copying code you would (again IMHO) still be ethically in the right. The fact that the spinoff leader has a problem with it, after copying so much code to do the fork in the first place, is absolutely shameful. You are on solid ethical ground. Perhaps ask them publicly why they feel it is a problem. I can see few arguments that could be presented by the spinoff leader that wouldn't be mocked widely.
In that case, it's more like having tomatoes that are rotten inside or apples that are wormy when you get home - you still have to return them for a refund.
That is certainly an interesting analogy, I hadn't thought of anything like that. Quite true. One significant difference is the market doesn't sell 100% rotten tomatoes (analogous to EULAs), and if they did they could expect some sort of pressure from the local health department. Perhaps if only 1% of a particular software sale contained an EULA, and you could take it back to replace it with one a little less rotten.;)
Couple that with an external EULA, and I think most of the worst points of the software maker/seller collusion are addressed, even if not perfectly.
I for one will be quite happy when it is legally required (and enforced) to present all relevant terms of an agreement at the point of that agreement (eg. sale), and quite illegal to attempt to change them afterwards. Rather than the current system of software EULAs after sale, hire car companies shoving legal paperwork at you when you no longer have a chance to find another car, removalists presenting you with paperwork and not unloading until you have signed, bank managers only progressively showing you loan paperwork as you sign and refusing to show the lot upfront, and real estate agents waiting for the last possible moment to present paperwork to try to compel you to sign at threat of having nowhere to live.
Anyway, it is merely a pipe dream, I cannot see that sort of situation arising any time soon, although it definitely should.
As far as I can tell, though, the general consensus of courts is that they should be made binding after the consumer has a chance to read and reject them, because pragmatically it just works better.
If true I find this somewhat disturbing. It basically eliminates any way to make an informed decision before sale and puts the burden on you to recover your money if you disagree. This is worse when there are multiple components to a purchase (eg. a new PC) with multiple licenses to "agree" to.
Quite interesting. This could be circumvented by including the terms at the time of the sale, but it looks like Adobe tried to get it both ways: not include the agreement as part of sale yet try to claim they can enforce it.
The point is this is one of the first tests of the scope and legality of these EULAs which claim to legally bind the buyer.
Indeed. And hopefully it ultimately leads to affirmation of non-enforceability of such terms post-sale.
People have been unable to return this stuff until now. It's a step in the right direction.
Yes, it definitely is a step in the right direction. Although you shouldn't have to waste your time returning it at all. I don't get home after grocery shopping to find terms of use stuck on my tomatoes, and if I did find such terms, it isn't my responsibility to waste my time to return them. If there are terms, they can tell me about them at or before point of sale, not after.
Not only is it ridiculous to attempt to change the terms of sale after sale with hidden EULAs, AFAICT it is generally not legally binding to do so, unless specifically legislated to do so. I seem to recall specific legislature in some state in America, easy mod points to those who know it.
IA-definitely-NAL but in a very-very-light commercial law subject I took at Uni we looked at cases where terms and conditions were displayed inside a carpark (which you can't see unless you purchase the ticket). When something went wrong, the ones trying to enforce the terms and conditions lost their cases quite convincingly.
Morally (and with any luck legally) you shouldn't be obliged to go to the hassle of returning something because it contained a EULA or similar that you didn't know about (or weren't told about) that you disagree with. The transaction of cash for product ended when you handed your money over for the product and got the product in return. You shouldn't have to chase your money back because they chose to alter the deal afterwards. *does best Vader breath*
Of course things may be very little different if you obtained something for free or were presented with the agreement before purchase. A new trick used in car parking is to say it is subject to the terms and conditions, and if you don't agree, you can leave without charge in the first half hour. These were the first car parking terms I ever actually bothered to read, as they may actually stand up in court. I am guessing the GPL is pretty solid too, being a distribution license that gives you rights above what you already have, should you choose to accept it.
I spent a bit of time in my youth watching arcade games because I couldn't afford to play them. This probably spurred the creative process somewhat. As I got older I got more access to games through the C64. I couldn't afford full-priced games at $50-odd but could get them when they hit the bargain bin at $5. Combine the creative process with a wealth of ideas from the exposure and you're set.:) I've written more mini-games in my time than I could ever count. My original post advocates some exposure to playing games but not too much, although I'd add to that that programming your own shouldn't be limited to the same degree, in fact it should be encouraged. Balanced of course with outdoor play of some sort.;)
Good to hear about the board and card games, as well as encouraging outdoor play. Given my background I think we'd fundamentally disagree on the computer game rule, but as for other games I think we're on the same page.
Good on you for encouraging musical creativity. That is one area where I didn't really have much opportunity or encouragement that I sorely regret at my age, and something I'd encourage should I have children one day.
What's with no computer games? I can understand discouraging excessive play, but none at all? I would never have gotten into software development if not for playing computer games. I would never have known how rewarding it was to create my own. Without them I'd probably be a mediocre economist or accountant by now and hating life.
I hope you at let your lil' ones play board games, at least for the social aspect.
I'd agree with many of your other rules, disagree with the others, but to each their own.;)
...the show's creators managed to include nearly every conceivable obscenity, and references to every imaginable sexual perversion from incest to necrophilia. Series staples included nudity and references to pornography and masturbation. One episode this spring featured...
I think I may have to give Family Guy another chance then. Thanks for the review, Parents Television Council!
I know it's wrong to reply to my own post, but I just found that they green-lighted "Everybody Loves Raymond". For perspective, they red-lighted Alias and Buffy. They must be destroyed. Where may I sign up for the Slashdot ninjas?
Is it wrong but every single show from that their list that I have enjoyed or at least considered watching is rated with a red light, and almost every single piece of lowest-common-denominator derivative garbage I checked is yellow light or better?
On the bright side, I am thinking of writing to them to thank them for providing a good method for evaluating new TV shows. Just search for the ones with the most red lights.
Anyway, I must be off now to use cuss words and thinking unwholesome thoughts about sexual issues, all whilst advocating non-peaceful solutions for complex problems.
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting that you include the Roman Empire, an empire that arguably fell through corruption, as a positive example of hierarchical structure.
;)
I'm not sure I completely follow the chain of logic associating hierarchical organisations with abstraction as a software development methodology ("what is true for the computer is also true for the world" indeed!), but I'm a little short on sleep and might be missing something here.
I'm guessing you're poking fun at me, so I'll take it on the chin and say "good shot Sir!".
Bravo sir, bravo. You have just summarized my life in IT up til I retired a few years ago.
:) I just summarised my last five years and it just wrote itself. ;)
Why thankyou.
Mismanagement. Same as large projects in commercial organisations.
;)
Basically, layers of layers of people produced by a hierarchical system that encourages mediocrity in ability and excellence in deception. Liars with superb brown-nosing skills and minimal ability leading skilled developers without those career-climbing skills. Recommendations from the knowledgeable ignored for reasons as petty as favouritism and wounded pride. Uninformed directives passed down. Valuable feedback distorted or disregarded going upwards. Career employees who couldn't care less doing the minimum they can and maximising the amount they seem to be doing. Burnt-out and defeated employees who believed once but can no longer care. Code and credit theft. Incompetents hiding their errors by sabotaging the work of others. Narcissistic managers who simply don't want negative feedback. Accomplishments delayed or distorted to fit the drip-feed system of delusional managers. Sacrifices of the innocent to protect the careers of the guilty. All held in place by a system that encourages all the negative aspects and hides it away in a nice, neat, convoluted bundle.
Did I miss anything?
And people are surprised that large projects frequently fail.
Not at the moment. Thanks for reminding me to clean my monitor and get some better lighting into the room.
Haha, yes, well spotted Alsee. I had to fly out at short notice and was having trouble getting a confirmation letter from a doctor in time. If I couldn't, I was going to write one myself. Verification involved flashing the official-looking letter. My doctor knew the sense of legitimacy it would convey too.
:)
I'd say you'd be surprised the leaps of faith some people can make if you offer them tenuous "proof" (eg. an official sounding letter) from an "authority" (eg. someone like a doctor), but since you've picked up on that little subtlety already, I think you would be as unsurprised as I.
Nothing against the majority of the airline folks who did the checking though, I think many were frightfully bored of performing these ineffective checks that they were directed to do.
The glucometer surely looks dodgy through an x-ray. A small electronic device with a LCD screen that flashes cryptic messages when you turn it on. It could be anything. ;) Strangely, nobody seems fussed about that. Having said that, I do store that, and the lancets, in my ordinary luggage. Usually next to the dirty laundry on the return flight. ;) The insulin pen comes with me though. I don't want to be caught in a strange city after 10 with no insulin because my luggage was lost...
Most of the time I've had no hassles. They look at the bits and pieces, the doctors note, and just wave me on.
Ah, diabetes and airlines after 9/11. Such fun! ;)
;)
I have two stories here.
The first one was when I was checking in for a flight. Diabetic needleheads in my bag (these are sealed thumb-sized packages that you fit onto the end of an insulin pen). The attendant asked, probably for the umpteenth hundredth time, the boilerplate question "Do you have any sharp metal objects, etc, etc?". My nonchalant answer was "yes". After getting a few hundred "no"'s in a row, followed by my calm response of "yes", the look on her face was priceless. After leaving her in a state of confusion for a few moments I explained to her that I was diabetic, what they were for, and gave her a doctors letter confirming it. She seemed strangely relieved.
The not-so-happy second story was on a domestic return trip back home to Adelaide (Australia). After having traveled to a different state, on the way back the jerkoff checking my stuff (which I politely and properly declared), obviously looking for a power trip decided to give me a hard time for having too many needleheads (I had three). Never mind I can't eat food without getting sick without insulin. Sometimes needleheads break and warp, especially when you are trying to jab yourself with a pen between two other passengers on a cramped airline seat. I had a letter from my GP explaining I was diabetic, a medic-alert bracelet, etc, anticipating the whole post-9/11 paranoia. And I wanted to get home. I'm hoping karma comes back and bites that jerk in the ass.
I can't imagine what it would be like with an insulin pump. I put off looking into one for a while because I made too many flights post-9/11 and didn't want someone trying to yank the thing...
I'd never thought of it as a way to break a TV habit. :) I must try that one on some people I know.
After building my PVR I could do other things on Sunday night and I let my PVR record them. Soon those Simpson's episodes were building up because I was no longer watching them. When I *had* to watch them at a specific time, I'd make the time. But once I could watch them whenever, I wouldn't make the time.
After a while I simply deleted the files and I no longer even bother to record it.
It sounds like you simply found something better to do with your time. Your scenario matches mine from a year ago almost precisely when I taped shows to watch at a faster rate than I was prepared to watch them. Eventually I just stopped taping them. Nothing against the shows, I just had better things to do.
If I was a Griefer, I would probably be annoyed that I was being shut down by an in-game system I was paying real-life cash for. A few loud, public complaints of "Why should I pay for a system that screws me? I'm taking my allmightly dollah somewhere else!" and most corporations will bend and let them continue to Grief.
;) I'm sure that once word got out that Griefers were being barred from play, furious new and established players would beat you senseless... with large stacks of cash for subscription fees.
Quite true. But since Griefers tend to chase away a lot of players (particularly new ones), wouldn't it be best to refund their money, say "it's been great, don't ever come back", and perhaps buy them a subscription for a competitors online service?
It's been said a few times over already but I just wanted to lend a voice in support. As long as you are giving proper credit (changelog and source), IMHO there is nothing wrong with you using code under the license in which it was released. It is entirely hypocritical that the leader of the spinoff project has a problem with this. Even if you were the spinoff project and copying code you would (again IMHO) still be ethically in the right. The fact that the spinoff leader has a problem with it, after copying so much code to do the fork in the first place, is absolutely shameful. You are on solid ethical ground. Perhaps ask them publicly why they feel it is a problem. I can see few arguments that could be presented by the spinoff leader that wouldn't be mocked widely.
In that case, it's more like having tomatoes that are rotten inside or apples that are wormy when you get home - you still have to return them for a refund.
;)
That is certainly an interesting analogy, I hadn't thought of anything like that. Quite true. One significant difference is the market doesn't sell 100% rotten tomatoes (analogous to EULAs), and if they did they could expect some sort of pressure from the local health department. Perhaps if only 1% of a particular software sale contained an EULA, and you could take it back to replace it with one a little less rotten.
Couple that with an external EULA, and I think most of the worst points of the software maker/seller collusion are addressed, even if not perfectly.
I for one will be quite happy when it is legally required (and enforced) to present all relevant terms of an agreement at the point of that agreement (eg. sale), and quite illegal to attempt to change them afterwards. Rather than the current system of software EULAs after sale, hire car companies shoving legal paperwork at you when you no longer have a chance to find another car, removalists presenting you with paperwork and not unloading until you have signed, bank managers only progressively showing you loan paperwork as you sign and refusing to show the lot upfront, and real estate agents waiting for the last possible moment to present paperwork to try to compel you to sign at threat of having nowhere to live.
Anyway, it is merely a pipe dream, I cannot see that sort of situation arising any time soon, although it definitely should.
As far as I can tell, though, the general consensus of courts is that they should be made binding after the consumer has a chance to read and reject them, because pragmatically it just works better.
If true I find this somewhat disturbing. It basically eliminates any way to make an informed decision before sale and puts the burden on you to recover your money if you disagree. This is worse when there are multiple components to a purchase (eg. a new PC) with multiple licenses to "agree" to.
Quite interesting. This could be circumvented by including the terms at the time of the sale, but it looks like Adobe tried to get it both ways: not include the agreement as part of sale yet try to claim they can enforce it.
The point is this is one of the first tests of the scope and legality of these EULAs which claim to legally bind the buyer.
Indeed. And hopefully it ultimately leads to affirmation of non-enforceability of such terms post-sale.
People have been unable to return this stuff until now. It's a step in the right direction.
Yes, it definitely is a step in the right direction. Although you shouldn't have to waste your time returning it at all. I don't get home after grocery shopping to find terms of use stuck on my tomatoes, and if I did find such terms, it isn't my responsibility to waste my time to return them. If there are terms, they can tell me about them at or before point of sale, not after.
You are probably thinking the UCITA
Yes, I think that's the one. Good to hear it got shot down in a few places, not so good to hear it survived in others.
Not only is it ridiculous to attempt to change the terms of sale after sale with hidden EULAs, AFAICT it is generally not legally binding to do so, unless specifically legislated to do so. I seem to recall specific legislature in some state in America, easy mod points to those who know it.
IA-definitely-NAL but in a very-very-light commercial law subject I took at Uni we looked at cases where terms and conditions were displayed inside a carpark (which you can't see unless you purchase the ticket). When something went wrong, the ones trying to enforce the terms and conditions lost their cases quite convincingly.
Morally (and with any luck legally) you shouldn't be obliged to go to the hassle of returning something because it contained a EULA or similar that you didn't know about (or weren't told about) that you disagree with. The transaction of cash for product ended when you handed your money over for the product and got the product in return. You shouldn't have to chase your money back because they chose to alter the deal afterwards. *does best Vader breath*
Of course things may be very little different if you obtained something for free or were presented with the agreement before purchase. A new trick used in car parking is to say it is subject to the terms and conditions, and if you don't agree, you can leave without charge in the first half hour. These were the first car parking terms I ever actually bothered to read, as they may actually stand up in court. I am guessing the GPL is pretty solid too, being a distribution license that gives you rights above what you already have, should you choose to accept it.
I spent a bit of time in my youth watching arcade games because I couldn't afford to play them. This probably spurred the creative process somewhat. As I got older I got more access to games through the C64. I couldn't afford full-priced games at $50-odd but could get them when they hit the bargain bin at $5. Combine the creative process with a wealth of ideas from the exposure and you're set. :) I've written more mini-games in my time than I could ever count. My original post advocates some exposure to playing games but not too much, although I'd add to that that programming your own shouldn't be limited to the same degree, in fact it should be encouraged. Balanced of course with outdoor play of some sort. ;)
Good to hear about the board and card games, as well as encouraging outdoor play. Given my background I think we'd fundamentally disagree on the computer game rule, but as for other games I think we're on the same page.
Good on you for encouraging musical creativity. That is one area where I didn't really have much opportunity or encouragement that I sorely regret at my age, and something I'd encourage should I have children one day.
What's with no computer games? I can understand discouraging excessive play, but none at all? I would never have gotten into software development if not for playing computer games. I would never have known how rewarding it was to create my own. Without them I'd probably be a mediocre economist or accountant by now and hating life.
;)
I hope you at let your lil' ones play board games, at least for the social aspect.
I'd agree with many of your other rules, disagree with the others, but to each their own.
...the show's creators managed to include nearly every conceivable obscenity, and references to every imaginable sexual perversion from incest to necrophilia. Series staples included nudity and references to pornography and masturbation. One episode this spring featured...
I think I may have to give Family Guy another chance then. Thanks for the review, Parents Television Council!
Heh. The ratings are actually a useful resource when viewed that way. ;)
Get away from her you *static click* *change of actor* extremely unpleasant xenomorph.
I know it's wrong to reply to my own post, but I just found that they green-lighted "Everybody Loves Raymond". For perspective, they red-lighted Alias and Buffy. They must be destroyed. Where may I sign up for the Slashdot ninjas?
Is it wrong but every single show from that their list that I have enjoyed or at least considered watching is rated with a red light, and almost every single piece of lowest-common-denominator derivative garbage I checked is yellow light or better?
On the bright side, I am thinking of writing to them to thank them for providing a good method for evaluating new TV shows. Just search for the ones with the most red lights.
Anyway, I must be off now to use cuss words and thinking unwholesome thoughts about sexual issues, all whilst advocating non-peaceful solutions for complex problems.