I can't speak for Candada, but I believe Texas is the only place that "Engineer" can't be used, because people with certifications don't take/pass some sort of official engineering exam. Sturt Univeristy can get away with it because they're not in Texas, and can't feel the wrath of a Texas court -- wheras MS can.
And Watson can and does report back to "the mothership" for driver crashes, when the user allows it.
Life support systems, heart monitors, and other devices of that sort are not plugged into a LAN. The requirements for those kind of devices is unbelievable -- I actually feel sorry for anyone who has to work on such systems, after having seen what kind of hoops those devices have to go through.
They sold it to the original owner, didn't they? They most definitely got the money for that car.
In the analogy, the car was stolen from the car dealership (new off the lot), not from a person who had bought it.
But what does matter is where that cost lies. In the physical case, it's the original owner who incurs the cost. In the 'virtual' case, the manufacturer loses out on a sale, but doesn't really *lose* any additional money. That is where the difference is, and that is where the analogy doesn't work.
So if nobody paid for commercial software, commercial software companies would still make money right? Didn't think so.
I think we might be trying to prove different points. You seem to be trying to say, "piracy is stealing", which I agree with 100%. I just don't think that the car-theft analogy fits very well. It's difficult to use an analogy in this case becase nothing really fits. There's no other medium that really compares to software...except other software, which doesn't really work for comparison.
If it was a perfect fit it wouldn't be an analogy then, would it?:p The points being made with the analogy are valid -- that someone who steals something shouldn't expect help from the person being stolen from. The fact that the physical costs of the product are different between the two doesn't really enter the equation.
I'm not even arguing if something is legal -- I'm dealing with what I consider right and wrong. If you pirate software, as far as I'm concerned, you've stolen it. The fact that the guy you copied it from still has a copy doesn't enter into the equation -- it's still stealing.
In the analogy, the company selling the car didn't get their money for the car and the company selling the software didn't get their money for the software. The fact that one of those pieces of property has more "physical" cost associated with it doesn't matter.
You can say it does until you're blue in the face, but you won't convince me otherwise.
While there is a difference between having a real object (car) and a "virtual" one (software), the difference is academic.
If you have an illegal copy of a product, you didn't pay for it. If you have an stolen car, you didn't pay for it. The product was stolen (product being the "virtual" software package, or the car).
I suspect that the ddos risk would be present regardless of the number of pirated installs...mainly because most lusers don't keep their systems up to date (as evidenced by the huge number of people posting on message boards all over the place with things like "why am I getting RPC errors, and why is my computer rebooting?").
As a side note, due to the way the attack propogates, the people most subject to the ddos attack are not businesses, but rather people on DSL/Cable modems... And the fact that ever website I've visited today exhibits it's usually snappy response, I'd be willing to bet that most sites aren't having a problem with it.
I'm sure I'll have fun checking my firewall logs when I get home tonight to see how bad the problem really is though. Probably similar to CodeRed and it's related ilk.
No, it isn't a better analogy, because a 3rd party provides the treatment for the disease. The person you stole from isn't providing the treatment. And I would not expect the person who was stolen from to provide the thief with treatment at their own expense.
Your analogy is more along the lines of the cases where a thief breaks into a house to steal something, slips on something and injures himself, then turns around expecting the owner to pay for his medical bills (ie: sues).
Except in this case, the people who are in danger from the bad car the thieves stole are only in danger until they get their car fixed. And they'd be in danger anyway regardless of the number of car thieves out there.
These aren't people who bought used Pintos.. these are people who stole a Pinto (for whatever reason why you'd steal a Pinto). You can't honestly expect to be able to walk into a Ford dealership with a car you stole off of their lot and say "fix my car" without any problems. You can expect them to call the cops on you, fix the car, and sell it to someone else though.
No it isn't. Because the dealership would still call the cops and bust you, and the dumb theif would still be wondering "wtf"? As a result the smart theif would still be driving around in a dangerous vehicle (though in reality they'd probably ditch it and steal something else).
A thief is a thief. They're responsible for their own actions. You can make all of the arguments you want about how software should be free, or how overpriced it is, or whatever -- but at the end of the day you've still got a person who decided to steal it instead of pay for it.
One of the consequences of that action is that they now have a machine they can't patch, which poses a risk to all of the other unpatched machines in existance. I feel no pitty for the thief, and very little pitty for the person who didn't keep their system up to date (which takes no effort with the way windows update works these days).
Whatever they're doing, it's taken down the net connection to my computer at home. And it's been down 2 hours longer than it normally does (it isn't unusual to see the connection go off for a half hour or so during the middle of the afternoon once or twice a week).
I think it's pretty irresponsible of them not to allow the autoupdate really...
That's like stealing a car, bring it back to the car dealership to get a warantee issue fixed, and then acting all miffed when they call the cops on you.
If you steal something, don't expect the company you stole from to treat you like a customer.
No. OEM copies just have to be sold with "core" hardware components. Ie: harddrive, motherboard, cpu, etc. Things like cables, network cards, video cards, ram, and so on (ie: peripherals) don't count.
The FSF wants all software to be released under the GPL, as that's the only liscense they'll recommend. Which is a giant DUH given the name and goals of the organization...
Microsoft is a monopoly and they broke the law. I don't understand why people find this so difficult to get their heads around.
Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Great, I agree with that.
When you become a "monopoly", the rules of 'acceptable' behavior change. However, you don't have to play by those rules until you're a monopoly.
However, once MS was declaired a monopoly, their behavior before that time suddently became subject to those changed rules. That I have a problem with.
Let's say the speed limit on a road last week was 70mph. You drove on that road at 70mph. This week the speed limit is changed to 60mph. When the change occurs, you get a ticket in the mail for doing 70 in a 60 last week.
I could have 1 cup of water. You can break that into smaller and smaller cups of water, but eventually you will end up with bits of matter that make up water, instead of water itself.
Most of the time, the movies available for download on the Internet are obtained when someone sneaks a camcorder into a theatre and illegally records the movie up on the screen. The sound isn't right, the picture isn't in focus, people are walking in front of the camera, and scenes are missing. Is that any way to experience the magic of the movies?
Funny, I could swear the last time I went to see a movie in a real movie theater that...
* The sound was off (too much treble, no bass) * Lots of "muching" sounds by people in the audience pigging out on snacks * Random noise/chitchat * Cell phones/pagers going off * The picture wasn't in focus (it was slighly out of focus until the last 15 minutes) * People would walk across my field of vision (in order to get more snacks or to use the bathroom) * I missed scenes when I went to the bathroom
Now, what am I gaining by going to an actual movie theater? They need to come up with a better arguement than the one they're using, that's for sure...
The settlement "settles" any and all anti-trust wrongs MS may have done in the past. By accepting that $5 or $12 check, you agree to the terms of the settlement (ie: you agree that $5-$12 covers any and all "damages" MS did to you, regardless of things you may or may not know about at the date of the settlement).
This does not cover any future wrongs they may do, just existing ones that you may or may not know about today.
It is similar, but it isn't the same thing. The Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle relates to physical position of objects. It still assumes that there is an "instant" in time. It would make sense to extend that principle with respect to time as well though (ie: you can't measure exactly when something occurs).
The Calculus approach is really a summation of an infinite series. Basically that approach breaks the bits of time into infinitely small pieces -- but they are still broken into pieces. The assumption that time can be broken down into an atomic unit is still there. At least, I think that's the gist of what he's saying.
Please tell me why you can't have a well determined position as a function of time and be in motion as well?
If you assume that there is no atomic unit of time, then any representation of an "instant" in time actually represents a delta of time. In any delta of time, an object in motion is changing position -- which means that while you may get a pretty acurate measure of an items position, it is impossible to measure it's exact position.
What he's also stipulating is that if it was possible to have an atomic unit of time, and it was possible to take an exact measure of the position of an item, then it wouldn't be possible for that item to be in motion. An item is in motion if it is changing position -- but if you can measure it's exact position, then it isn't changing position. At least I think that's what he's trying to get across.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for Candada, but I believe Texas is the only place that "Engineer" can't be used, because people with certifications don't take/pass some sort of official engineering exam. Sturt Univeristy can get away with it because they're not in Texas, and can't feel the wrath of a Texas court -- wheras MS can.
And Watson can and does report back to "the mothership" for driver crashes, when the user allows it.
Life support systems, heart monitors, and other devices of that sort are not plugged into a LAN. The requirements for those kind of devices is unbelievable -- I actually feel sorry for anyone who has to work on such systems, after having seen what kind of hoops those devices have to go through.
No. Windows ME isn't either.
Win95, 98, 98SE, and ME are all based off of the same codebase. All are unaffected.
WinNT, Win2k, WinXP, and Win2k3 are all based off of the same codebase. All unpatched machines are targets.
They sold it to the original owner, didn't they? They most definitely got the money for that car.
In the analogy, the car was stolen from the car dealership (new off the lot), not from a person who had bought it.
But what does matter is where that cost lies. In the physical case, it's the original owner who incurs the cost. In the 'virtual' case, the manufacturer loses out on a sale, but doesn't really *lose* any additional money. That is where the difference is, and that is where the analogy doesn't work.
So if nobody paid for commercial software, commercial software companies would still make money right? Didn't think so.
I think we might be trying to prove different points. You seem to be trying to say, "piracy is stealing", which I agree with 100%. I just don't think that the car-theft analogy fits very well. It's difficult to use an analogy in this case becase nothing really fits. There's no other medium that really compares to software...except other software, which doesn't really work for comparison.
If it was a perfect fit it wouldn't be an analogy then, would it?
I'm not even arguing if something is legal -- I'm dealing with what I consider right and wrong. If you pirate software, as far as I'm concerned, you've stolen it. The fact that the guy you copied it from still has a copy doesn't enter into the equation -- it's still stealing.
In the analogy, the company selling the car didn't get their money for the car and the company selling the software didn't get their money for the software. The fact that one of those pieces of property has more "physical" cost associated with it doesn't matter.
You can say it does until you're blue in the face, but you won't convince me otherwise.
While there is a difference between having a real object (car) and a "virtual" one (software), the difference is academic.
If you have an illegal copy of a product, you didn't pay for it. If you have an stolen car, you didn't pay for it. The product was stolen (product being the "virtual" software package, or the car).
I suspect that the ddos risk would be present regardless of the number of pirated installs...mainly because most lusers don't keep their systems up to date (as evidenced by the huge number of people posting on message boards all over the place with things like "why am I getting RPC errors, and why is my computer rebooting?").
As a side note, due to the way the attack propogates, the people most subject to the ddos attack are not businesses, but rather people on DSL/Cable modems... And the fact that ever website I've visited today exhibits it's usually snappy response, I'd be willing to bet that most sites aren't having a problem with it.
I'm sure I'll have fun checking my firewall logs when I get home tonight to see how bad the problem really is though. Probably similar to CodeRed and it's related ilk.
No, it isn't a better analogy, because a 3rd party provides the treatment for the disease. The person you stole from isn't providing the treatment. And I would not expect the person who was stolen from to provide the thief with treatment at their own expense.
Your analogy is more along the lines of the cases where a thief breaks into a house to steal something, slips on something and injures himself, then turns around expecting the owner to pay for his medical bills (ie: sues).
Except in this case, the people who are in danger from the bad car the thieves stole are only in danger until they get their car fixed. And they'd be in danger anyway regardless of the number of car thieves out there.
These aren't people who bought used Pintos .. these are people who stole a Pinto (for whatever reason why you'd steal a Pinto). You can't honestly expect to be able to walk into a Ford dealership with a car you stole off of their lot and say "fix my car" without any problems. You can expect them to call the cops on you, fix the car, and sell it to someone else though.
No it isn't. Because the dealership would still call the cops and bust you, and the dumb theif would still be wondering "wtf"? As a result the smart theif would still be driving around in a dangerous vehicle (though in reality they'd probably ditch it and steal something else).
A thief is a thief. They're responsible for their own actions. You can make all of the arguments you want about how software should be free, or how overpriced it is, or whatever -- but at the end of the day you've still got a person who decided to steal it instead of pay for it.
One of the consequences of that action is that they now have a machine they can't patch, which poses a risk to all of the other unpatched machines in existance. I feel no pitty for the thief, and very little pitty for the person who didn't keep their system up to date (which takes no effort with the way windows update works these days).
Whatever they're doing, it's taken down the net connection to my computer at home. And it's been down 2 hours longer than it normally does (it isn't unusual to see the connection go off for a half hour or so during the middle of the afternoon once or twice a week).
I think it's pretty irresponsible of them not to allow the autoupdate really...
That's like stealing a car, bring it back to the car dealership to get a warantee issue fixed, and then acting all miffed when they call the cops on you.
If you steal something, don't expect the company you stole from to treat you like a customer.
No. OEM copies just have to be sold with "core" hardware components. Ie: harddrive, motherboard, cpu, etc. Things like cables, network cards, video cards, ram, and so on (ie: peripherals) don't count.
The FSF wants all software to be released under the GPL, as that's the only liscense they'll recommend. Which is a giant DUH given the name and goals of the organization...
There's a difference between choosing to do pro bono work and someone trying to force you to do all of your work pro bono...
They just changed their liscense about a month ago to do exactly that (indemnify users of their software from someone pulling an SCO on MS).
Microsoft is a monopoly and they broke the law. I don't understand why people find this so difficult to get their heads around.
Microsoft was ruled a monopoly. Great, I agree with that.
When you become a "monopoly", the rules of 'acceptable' behavior change. However, you don't have to play by those rules until you're a monopoly.
However, once MS was declaired a monopoly, their behavior before that time suddently became subject to those changed rules. That I have a problem with.
Let's say the speed limit on a road last week was 70mph. You drove on that road at 70mph. This week the speed limit is changed to 60mph. When the change occurs, you get a ticket in the mail for doing 70 in a 60 last week.
That depends on your perspective.
I could have 1 cup of water. You can break that into smaller and smaller cups of water, but eventually you will end up with bits of matter that make up water, instead of water itself.
Most of the time, the movies available for download on the Internet are obtained when someone sneaks a camcorder into a theatre and illegally records the movie up on the screen. The sound isn't right, the picture isn't in focus, people are walking in front of the camera, and scenes are missing. Is that any way to experience the magic of the movies?
...
Funny, I could swear the last time I went to see a movie in a real movie theater that
* The sound was off (too much treble, no bass)
* Lots of "muching" sounds by people in the audience pigging out on snacks
* Random noise/chitchat
* Cell phones/pagers going off
* The picture wasn't in focus (it was slighly out of focus until the last 15 minutes)
* People would walk across my field of vision (in order to get more snacks or to use the bathroom)
* I missed scenes when I went to the bathroom
Now, what am I gaining by going to an actual movie theater? They need to come up with a better arguement than the one they're using, that's for sure...
The settlement "settles" any and all anti-trust wrongs MS may have done in the past. By accepting that $5 or $12 check, you agree to the terms of the settlement (ie: you agree that $5-$12 covers any and all "damages" MS did to you, regardless of things you may or may not know about at the date of the settlement).
This does not cover any future wrongs they may do, just existing ones that you may or may not know about today.
Of course, the typical IANAL disclaimer applies.
How do you measure something without numbers?
It is similar, but it isn't the same thing. The Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle relates to physical position of objects. It still assumes that there is an "instant" in time. It would make sense to extend that principle with respect to time as well though (ie: you can't measure exactly when something occurs).
The Calculus approach is really a summation of an infinite series. Basically that approach breaks the bits of time into infinitely small pieces -- but they are still broken into pieces. The assumption that time can be broken down into an atomic unit is still there. At least, I think that's the gist of what he's saying.
Please tell me why you can't have a well determined position as a function of time and be in motion as well?
If you assume that there is no atomic unit of time, then any representation of an "instant" in time actually represents a delta of time. In any delta of time, an object in motion is changing position -- which means that while you may get a pretty acurate measure of an items position, it is impossible to measure it's exact position.
What he's also stipulating is that if it was possible to have an atomic unit of time, and it was possible to take an exact measure of the position of an item, then it wouldn't be possible for that item to be in motion. An item is in motion if it is changing position -- but if you can measure it's exact position, then it isn't changing position. At least I think that's what he's trying to get across.