Caffeine also raises your base metabolic rate. I don't know of
any studies, and it may vary from person to person, but the rise in
basal temperature due to increased metabolism may affect some people's comfort more than the vasoconstriction.
Programmers are morally obligated to give the code to their users and allow their users to freely modify and redistribute the code.
When did this happen? --- Good question. "Morally obligated?" In what reality?
The only thing I feel *should* be morally and legally obligated is the intent of copyright law. If the intent was to promote society by rewarding the inventors/creators, but ultimately to benefit society, copyrights and patents should be limited to 3-7 years. Creators get the benefits, then society uses those benefits to move forward. Too often copyrights and patents are being used as perpetual income machines for corporations other than the creator anyway -- to the detriment of society.
I thought in order for something to be copyrighted, it had to be published? Didn't it used to be 5 years from date of copyright before a copy had to be archived with the copyright office? What ever happened to those requirements? They get rescinded? Seems like the copyrighted source of Win95 should have been out under those old rules and Win98 would be coming out right around now, but, as usual, I digress.
Morally -- I think the source of a program should be moved into the public domain should a company be unwilling or unable to support customers who bought a specific product based on the source. I hate it when I buy a product, the company goes belly up, then I'm stranded with what was a useful program, that slow grows incompatible. I approached one company and asked to buy some old source from them (they got out of the business, last release was >5 years ago). They refuse to support and refuse to let customers support themselves.
Imagine if an auto-maker with proprietary chips in their car engines decided after 3 years to not support the car anymore -- those who had diag tools could keep them, but once they broke down there were no more replacements. People put up with this type of treatment all the time in the software industry.
I can't believe what people put up with in the software industry that wouldn't fly farther than a turtle could leap in any other industry.
Can you imagine: a shrink wrapped screwdriver: by opening this shrink wrap you are agreeing to our license -- you don't really own the screw driver but are allowed to use it on one appliance or project. Use of the screw-driver on more than one appliance will void your license and the screwdriver must be immediately returned. Before the screwdriver will work, you must attach the screwdriver protection device to the object being worked on. Once attached, any movement of the device will activate a homing beacon to track the location of the violator. Of course this is being done to protect us against pirates who use screwdrivers on multiple items all in the same day, even!
Maybe we can have a screwdriver server license that can be sold with 10 screw licenses that allow the screwdriver to be used with 10 screws. Yeah...this could really be a new money making venture...
And people wonder why prices continue to rise while quality of life continues to decline and the gaps between the rich and working-class (those who must work for a living) grow larger and larger.
Maybe a first step would be a government by the people and for the people -- not by corps and for corps.... Maybe one of the pivotal points of legal mismanagement was assigning the right of 'personhood' to corporations back in the early 20th century.
The American ideal is lost and grown into a sham. Is it fixable or is another revolution going to be required to recreate America? (Prolly won't see it in my lifetime, but as oppression grows, discontent may as well. What will happen if it becomes the case that terrorists aren't just foreigners? Life would really suck then...:-(
lpq
Re:Google is becoming a ruthless monopoly
on
Altavista Renewed
·
· Score: 1
"legitimate", in context of "search engine", in context of reputation for returning results that users have found to be most useful, as applied to results:
Something that does just that. If sites can buy their way to the top,it distorts user preference.
If users are "happy" with their results: define "happy"? Is it something that can be objectively measured? At what point does the frog slowly heated in water notice that the water is too hot?
Capitalism doesn't promote 'best' nor 'diversity' -- just most popular as indicated by those with most capital.
All that aside, an exercise for readers: Describe how one would create a search engine and support its operation in a way that doesn't taint results based on money.
Microsoft is bad enough without you spreading FUD on top of matters.
There is nothing illegal about turning off auto-updated. You don't like it -- turn it off. You have exactly the same functionality and status quo that existed before SP3.
SP3 isn't magical. It simply says if you use their auto-update feature then they are allowed to download updates to fix security problems on your computer. Included in this 'allowance' is a provision that if they patch a security flaw on your system, it may disable some program you are using:
Example -- suppose you use somethink akin to back-orifice to manage your computer except you've upgraded your copy of back-orifice to require a use of one-time passwords from a smart-key. MS downloads a security patch disabling back-orifice. Your software stops working. They absolve themselves of blame. Is this surprising? Can you expect them to test every possible custom-setup before releasing a security fix?
Suppose you are running the MS-bookreader. Along with that you have the latest book-backup software from Russia. MS discovers a flaw in their book-reader encryption software. If you download an update, then using the license database on your computer -- MS can perhaps update existing encrypted works to the new system -- automatically -- while updating the book-encryption software. Now your book-backup software from Russia no longer works. Any surprises so far? Any "evil plans"? The same would apply to 3rd party book readers that broke the encryption scheme -- they would stop working. Why? Because the books are stored in the new format.
Let's use a half a brain here. If I am MS and I want to stop you from playing WMA files in Winamp am I going to mess with Winamp on your computer? What the h*** good is that going to do? You just click on the Winamp-reinstall and you're back in business. What makes perfect sense is if they fix some security flaw -- then any software that relies on the flaw to work will break (be disabled). Please tell me you understand this concept. It's not rocket science.
They *aren't* promising compatibility for any of your apps that rely on bugs. This is not a surprise.
If you don't want auto-upgrade, *turn it off* (I do). I don't leave it on because I don't want the overhead. But on Win98 I did have a security-patch alert program that ran daily -- the Win Critical Update checker. It told me (annoyingly so) about critical updates I should go manually install. Did it violate security? No!
Now MS has upgraded the technology to provide 3 options: 1) tell you if critical updates are available for download 2) auto-download updates and tell you they are available for installation or 3) auto-download updates and auto-install.
In Win98 and in Win2ksp3/winXPsp1, you can also choose not to run the notification service. There is no evil magic here. There is no surprise.
I can go into more examples, but I've already exceeded the average reader attention span, greatly. But I'll give you one more anyway:
If I have anti-vir and anti-ad software that has auto-update, isn't it quite possible that that an update might stop some ad-dependant program from working -- i.e. it is now disabled?
MS is damned if they do and damned if they don't -- people talk about how bad security is with MS OS's but if they overcome the biggest obstacle to security fixes -- getting them installed, then everyone whines about it violating privacy.
Besides -- do you really think their new EULA really changes anything?
MS software has automatically 'phoned home' for some time now. Do you know the full content of each communication? MS-Money, IE's auto- feature download option (similar to many browswers' hunt-for-a-plugin-feature).
MS has optional program-crash reporting in XP. Do you 1) not report it to MS and complain about how MS bugs? or do you 2) send the bug report and hope that if MS gets enough reports about a bug they will fix it? Is this a violation of privacy? Perhaps -- the reports might contain sensitive data on a stack or a dumped page. But if your life depends on your computer remaining impregnable, are you really going to be hooking it up to the internet?
Not true.
Just because MS asserts it is true doesn't mean it is.
Just because my dog or my 5 year old kid clicks the mouse when
it's hovering over accept doesn't legally bind them or me.
How many kids under 18 are clicking away their rights under some
bogus EULA clause? Can you say patently illegal? How many
dogs have agreed to such tripe?
Personally, When I see a screen that indicates I must click to use
a product I just purchased, its just that -- a click-to-use box.
Microsoft and other vendors think if they sell this fiction that
they legally own the software after we have bought it loud enough
and often enough, people will believe it.
Wake up or I'll shrink wrap your home, your car, your clothing --
everything you own -- nothing will be yours -- it's all rented
in the service economy and you pay pertpetual fees just to 'live'.
(ok, the cynics among you can say its already that way, but we know
it isn't really)
If I buy a screwdriver and the company said it was licensed to be
used only on 1 appliance in your house, would you just roll over and
say 'ok'? Get a clue people, A BIG CLUE!!!
-lpq
* If you choose to utilize the update features within the OS Product or OS Components === You give them permission if and only if you use the auto-update features.
---
You're reasoning is flawed. No where in what you quote does it say you give up control of your system *only* if you use auto-update. It uses the phrase "update features". Update features could include the microsoft installer one loads off a CD -- anything. Any 'update' is allowed to convert your machine into an open-port to microsoft and/or anyone smart enough to hack the system.
Ooops -- that copy of winamp just used an update feature (think of the OS routine to write to disk -- that's updating the disk). Now MS has permission to log and send that detail to Redmond. Why, my gosh, you just copied an MP3 to your HD? Redmond should hear about this update to your hard disk...etc. etc. etc. You can argue all day about what you might want MS to have said, but the words are the words. Update features, to me, include the ability of the user to update disk contents -- i.e. anything that allows writing to disk, for example.
-q
Yoga can be a very good workout. It can help back flexibility and reverse bad curvatures of the spine. It is also shown to be successful in treating RSI problems -- carpal tunnel among others. There are upper level asanas that require a great deal of strength and flexibility. It isn't for wimps. It can also be a good counter remedy to stress (what -- geeks, stressed?...na...we don't need no stinkin' schedules). Whole bunches of health benefits.
Does anyone really think buying a diamond is buying happiness for their girlfriend?
Let's say you buy the diamond. So how long do you think that will make her happy?
There's a difference between 'happy' and 'appreciation'.
If you are buying her 'things' in an effort to make her happy, then isn't this you making her happiness dependent on how much you can buy her?
Personally, I wouldn't want a girl who'd be happy with a diamond. I prefer one who values herself and one who values me.
I do believe in reciprocation. If both of youo want to buy each other a diamond ring, then sure -- it's an equal exchange symboliing, perhaps an equal commitment, of the same measure, to each other.
-l
Until companies and individuals are held accountable, any testing, other than 'getting it to work', may be "too much.
That's the message I have gotten over the years. Some managers believe it 'fine' to call a project 'done' that hadn't been given any SMP, boundary or stress testing. It might not meet the original design specs, but still be acceptable if it was shippable. I ported some third-person code to a new OS. I found built-in kludges, one of the heinous being a check for a data-object stack overflow that quietly stopped keeping state and kept only 'nesting level' beyond a several-item hard-coded limit. This effectively hid imbalances of pushes-pops in the code something not readily observable unless you did thorough testing for expected output and then only if rare routines were called.
During my work, I found and reported problems and fixed them as part of the porting process. This stopped as the manager reprimanded me for not staying on target and getting the port done. He compromised by allowing me to file the bugs in the bug database but still counted much of that as wasted time.
The result: the original coder was 'great' and I was a someone who rocked-the-boat and didn't strictly follow orders.
Other managers have chosen to ignore bugs in hopes that they won't be found because the cost-to-fix was 'too high' (manager might not make his 'schedule'). "Bugs", however, are expected and folded into schedules later on -- they aren't regarded as a negative against the manager or programmer -- they just "exist" like thunderstorms and wind -- random events beyond our control. Keeping schedules, however, is a metric that can be used to evaluate performance.
It's rare to see metrics on bugs/program or project or/# lines or by department or programmer. Often, looking for why a bug exists or who wrote the code is often seen as "searching for someone to blame". What is important is fixing them. We are not to care why they exist. Speaking of someone's bug-laden code is 'bad-mouthing' them and considered 'unprofessional'.
What is one to do when market pressures care about who's first -- who's the market leader? Who provides feature "X" first? Who is "innovative" -- and who can get their hands into customer pockets first?
Often programs are outdated within a few years, so if you can get it out fast and do a few patches for high-profile bugs, that is often more cost effective than more thorough testing up front. Often customers are migrated to 'upgrades' before fundamental flaws in the old software become a problem.
Customers can be forced into new versions by the company just declaring the old version is no longer supported -- and then you have to upgrade to a new version which may not work as well as the original. Then the company stalls for months while working on a patch that, sometimes, you have to pay extra for, via a support contract!
No *real* warrantee other than maybe being offered a refund -- but if you wanted a working program? Sorry, that's sometimes not available at any price.:-(
Slashdot Mirror
Caffeine also raises your base metabolic rate. I don't know of any studies, and it may vary from person to person, but the rise in basal temperature due to increased metabolism may affect some people's comfort more than the vasoconstriction.
Programmers are morally obligated to give the code to their users and allow their users to freely modify and redistribute the code.
When did this happen?
---
Good question. "Morally obligated?" In what reality?
The only thing I feel *should* be morally and legally obligated is
the intent of copyright law. If the intent was to promote society by
rewarding the inventors/creators, but ultimately to benefit society,
copyrights and patents should be limited to 3-7 years. Creators
get the benefits, then society uses those benefits to move forward.
Too often copyrights and patents are being used as perpetual income
machines for corporations other than the creator anyway -- to the
detriment of society.
I thought in order for something to be copyrighted, it had to be
published? Didn't it used to be 5 years from date of copyright
before a copy had to be archived with the copyright office? What
ever happened to those requirements? They get rescinded? Seems like
the copyrighted source of Win95 should have been out under those
old rules and Win98 would be coming out right around now, but, as
usual, I digress.
Morally -- I think the source of a program should be moved into the
public domain should a company be unwilling or unable to support
customers who bought a specific product based on the source. I hate
it when I buy a product, the company goes belly up, then I'm stranded
with what was a useful program, that slow grows incompatible. I
approached one company and asked to buy some old source from them
(they got out of the business, last release was >5 years ago).
They refuse to support and refuse to let customers support themselves.
Imagine if an auto-maker with proprietary chips in their car engines
decided after 3 years to not support the car anymore -- those who had
diag tools could keep them, but once they broke down there were no
more replacements. People put up with this type of treatment all the
time in the software industry.
I can't believe what people put up with in the software industry that
wouldn't fly farther than a turtle could leap in any other industry.
Can you imagine: a shrink wrapped screwdriver: by opening this
shrink wrap you are agreeing to our license -- you don't really own
the screw driver but are allowed to use it on one appliance or project.
Use of the screw-driver on more than one appliance will void your
license and the screwdriver must be immediately returned. Before
the screwdriver will work, you must attach the screwdriver protection
device to the object being worked on. Once attached, any movement
of the device will activate a homing beacon to track the location
of the violator. Of course this is being done to protect us against
pirates who use screwdrivers on multiple items all in the same day,
even!
Maybe we can have a screwdriver server license that can be sold
with 10 screw licenses that allow the screwdriver to be used with
10 screws. Yeah...this could really be a new money making venture...
And people wonder why prices continue to rise while quality of life
continues to decline and the gaps between the rich and working-class
(those who must work for a living) grow larger and larger.
Maybe a first step would be a government by the people and for the
people -- not by corps and for corps.... Maybe one of the pivotal
points of legal mismanagement was assigning the right of 'personhood'
to corporations back in the early 20th century.
The American ideal is lost and grown into a sham. Is it fixable or is
another revolution going to be required to recreate America? (Prolly
won't see it in my lifetime, but as oppression grows, discontent may
as well. What will happen if it becomes the case that terrorists
aren't just foreigners? Life would really suck then...:-(
lpq
"legitimate", in context of "search engine", in context of reputation for returning results that users have found to be most useful, as applied to results:
Something that does just that. If sites can buy their way to the top,it distorts user preference.
If users are "happy" with their results: define "happy"? Is it something that can be objectively measured? At what point does the frog slowly heated in water notice that the water is too hot?
Capitalism doesn't promote 'best' nor 'diversity' -- just most popular as indicated by those with most capital.
All that aside, an exercise for readers: Describe how one would create a search engine and support its operation in a way that doesn't taint results based on money.
-lpq
Microsoft is bad enough without you spreading FUD on top of matters.
There is nothing illegal about turning off auto-updated. You don't
like it -- turn it off. You have exactly the same functionality
and status quo that existed before SP3.
SP3 isn't magical. It simply says if you use their auto-update feature
then they are allowed to download updates to fix security problems
on your computer. Included in this 'allowance' is a provision that
if they patch a security flaw on your system, it may disable some
program you are using:
Example -- suppose you use somethink akin to back-orifice to manage
your computer except you've upgraded your copy of back-orifice to
require a use of one-time passwords from a smart-key. MS downloads
a security patch disabling back-orifice. Your software stops working.
They absolve themselves of blame. Is this surprising? Can you expect
them to test every possible custom-setup before releasing a security fix?
Suppose you are running the MS-bookreader. Along with that you have
the latest book-backup software from Russia. MS discovers a flaw in
their book-reader encryption software. If you download an update,
then using the license database on your computer -- MS can perhaps
update existing encrypted works to the new system -- automatically --
while updating the book-encryption software. Now your book-backup
software from Russia no longer works. Any surprises so far? Any
"evil plans"? The same would apply to 3rd party book readers that
broke the encryption scheme -- they would stop working. Why? Because
the books are stored in the new format.
Let's use a half a brain here. If I am MS and I want to stop you
from playing WMA files in Winamp am I going to mess with Winamp on
your computer? What the h*** good is that going to do? You just
click on the Winamp-reinstall and you're back in business. What
makes perfect sense is if they fix some security flaw -- then any
software that relies on the flaw to work will break (be disabled).
Please tell me you understand this concept. It's not rocket science.
They *aren't* promising compatibility for any of your apps that rely
on bugs. This is not a surprise.
If you don't want auto-upgrade, *turn it off* (I do). I don't leave it
on because I don't want the overhead. But on Win98 I did have a
security-patch alert program that ran daily -- the Win Critical Update
checker. It told me (annoyingly so) about critical updates I should go
manually install. Did it violate security? No!
Now MS has upgraded the technology to provide 3 options:
1) tell you if critical updates are available for download
2) auto-download updates and tell you they are available for installation
or
3) auto-download updates and auto-install.
In Win98 and in Win2ksp3/winXPsp1, you can also choose not to run the
notification service. There is no evil magic here. There is no
surprise.
I can go into more examples, but I've already exceeded the average
reader attention span, greatly. But I'll give you one more anyway:
If I have anti-vir and anti-ad software that has auto-update,
isn't it quite possible that that an update might stop some
ad-dependant program from working -- i.e. it is now disabled?
MS is damned if they do and damned if they don't -- people talk about
how bad security is with MS OS's but if they overcome the biggest
obstacle to security fixes -- getting them installed, then everyone
whines about it violating privacy.
Besides -- do you really think their new EULA really changes anything?
MS software has automatically 'phoned home' for some time now. Do you
know the full content of each communication? MS-Money, IE's auto-
feature download option (similar to many browswers' hunt-for-a-plugin-feature).
MS has optional program-crash reporting in XP. Do you 1) not report
it to MS and complain about how MS bugs? or do you 2) send the bug
report and hope that if MS gets enough reports about a bug they
will fix it? Is this a violation of privacy? Perhaps -- the reports
might contain sensitive data on a stack or a dumped page. But if
your life depends on your computer remaining impregnable, are you
really going to be hooking it up to the internet?
-lpq
Not true. Just because MS asserts it is true doesn't mean it is. Just because my dog or my 5 year old kid clicks the mouse when it's hovering over accept doesn't legally bind them or me. How many kids under 18 are clicking away their rights under some bogus EULA clause? Can you say patently illegal? How many dogs have agreed to such tripe? Personally, When I see a screen that indicates I must click to use a product I just purchased, its just that -- a click-to-use box. Microsoft and other vendors think if they sell this fiction that they legally own the software after we have bought it loud enough and often enough, people will believe it. Wake up or I'll shrink wrap your home, your car, your clothing -- everything you own -- nothing will be yours -- it's all rented in the service economy and you pay pertpetual fees just to 'live'. (ok, the cynics among you can say its already that way, but we know it isn't really) If I buy a screwdriver and the company said it was licensed to be used only on 1 appliance in your house, would you just roll over and say 'ok'? Get a clue people, A BIG CLUE!!! -lpq
You're reasoning is flawed. No where in what you quote does it say you give up control of your system *only* if you use auto-update. It uses the phrase "update features". Update features could include the microsoft installer one loads off a CD -- anything. Any 'update' is allowed to convert your machine into an open-port to microsoft and/or anyone smart enough to hack the system.
Ooops -- that copy of winamp just used an update feature (think of the OS routine to write to disk -- that's updating the disk). Now MS has permission to log and send that detail to Redmond. Why, my gosh, you just copied an MP3 to your HD? Redmond should hear about this update to your hard disk...etc. etc. etc. You can argue all day about what you might want MS to have said, but the words are the words. Update features, to me, include the ability of the user to update disk contents -- i.e. anything that allows writing to disk, for example.
-q
Yoga can be a very good workout. It can help back flexibility and reverse bad curvatures of the spine. It is also shown to be successful in treating RSI problems -- carpal tunnel among others. There are upper level asanas that require a great deal of strength and flexibility. It isn't for wimps. It can also be a good counter remedy to stress (what -- geeks, stressed?...na...we don't need no stinkin' schedules). Whole bunches of health benefits.
Does anyone really think buying a diamond is buying happiness for their girlfriend?
Let's say you buy the diamond. So how long do you think that will make her happy?
There's a difference between 'happy' and 'appreciation'. If you are buying her 'things' in an effort to make her happy, then isn't this you making her happiness dependent on how much you can buy her?
Personally, I wouldn't want a girl who'd be happy with a diamond. I prefer one who values herself and one who values me.
I do believe in reciprocation. If both of youo want to buy each other a diamond ring, then sure -- it's an equal exchange symboliing, perhaps an equal commitment, of the same measure, to each other.
-l
Until companies and individuals are held accountable, any testing, other than 'getting it to work', may be "too much.
/# lines or by department or programmer. Often, looking for why a bug exists or who wrote the code is often seen as "searching for someone to blame". What is important is fixing them. We are not to care why they exist. Speaking of someone's bug-laden code is 'bad-mouthing' them and considered 'unprofessional'.
:-(
That's the message I have gotten over the years. Some managers believe it 'fine' to call a project 'done' that hadn't been given any SMP, boundary or stress testing. It might not meet the original design specs, but still be acceptable if it was shippable. I ported some third-person code to a new OS. I found built-in kludges, one of the heinous being a check for a data-object stack overflow that quietly stopped keeping state and kept only 'nesting level' beyond a several-item hard-coded limit. This effectively hid imbalances of pushes-pops in the code something not readily observable unless you
did thorough testing for expected output and then only if rare routines were called.
During my work, I found and reported problems and fixed them as part of the porting process. This stopped as the manager reprimanded me for not staying on target and getting the port done. He compromised by allowing me to file the bugs in the bug database but still counted much of that as wasted time.
The result: the original coder was 'great' and I was a someone who rocked-the-boat and didn't strictly follow orders.
Other managers have chosen to ignore bugs in hopes that they won't be found because the cost-to-fix was 'too high' (manager might not make his 'schedule'). "Bugs", however, are expected and folded into schedules later on -- they aren't regarded as a negative against the manager or programmer -- they just "exist" like thunderstorms and wind -- random events beyond our control. Keeping schedules, however, is a metric that can be used to evaluate performance.
It's rare to see metrics on bugs/program or project or
What is one to do when market pressures care about who's first -- who's the market leader? Who provides feature "X" first? Who is "innovative" -- and who can get their hands into customer pockets first?
Often programs are outdated within a few years, so if you can get it out fast and do a few patches for high-profile bugs, that is often more cost effective than more thorough testing up front. Often customers are migrated to 'upgrades' before fundamental flaws in the old
software become a problem.
Customers can be forced into new versions by the company just declaring the old version is no longer supported -- and then you have to upgrade to a new version which may not work as well as the original. Then the company stalls for months while working on a patch that, sometimes, you have to pay extra for, via a support contract!
No *real* warrantee other than maybe being offered a refund -- but if you wanted a working program? Sorry, that's sometimes not available at any price.
This still has attribute of being a *plugin* of Visual Studio -- something the original author wanted to get away from.
:-(
I've thought about VP, but bawked at the requirment of buying a MS.NET product.