"After the delay MS SQL 2005 experianced, and this, I'll be real surprised if people are willing to believe them again."
Why would you think that? Microsoft hasn't changed its behavior in this regard one bit in the last 15 years, yet people continuing buying Microsoft stuff as if everything is just fine.
"Computers no longer ship with an easy to use basic that gives instant results."
He shoots! Nothing but net!
There are many other tangential reasons, but I think you have nailed the most important one. The explosion of computer programming interest in those of us who went through our teen years in the 80s was fueled primarily by the presence of the BASIC ROM. That was probably Microsoft's last (if not only) genuine contribution to the rise of the personal computer.
"As the original article implies, the unfortunate side-effect of the ruling is that people in rural areas may have to pay long distance charges to access their ISP."
Not necessarily. I used to live in a rural midwest area (until about 4 months ago), even when Verizon was the local monopoly (CenturyTel has it now), and even before then when GTE was the local monopoly. They all offered what they termed a "Metropolitan Calling Plan". It coupled the local town's calling area with the calling area of the three or four closest towns. In most cases, one of the closest towns was a major midwestern city. Subscribers to the metropolitan calling plan paid a flat monthly fee to treat all areas within the calling plan as local calls -- whether voice or data.
Since this plan is offered by the telcos, and not an ISP, I don't expect Internet users in these rural areas to be affected one way or the other if they subscribe to a local ISP. I expect AOL, Earthlink, and the other national ISPs to either pass all the per-minute charges onto their customers or to dramatically raise their monthly rates. If the latter, I would then expect DirecWay to drum up a lot more business since dialup rates would easily exceed DirecWay's monthly access charges and hardware costs combined.
As much as DirecWay's customer sevice sucks, and as much as satellite Internet sucks compared to DSL and cable, satellite Internet is heads and shoulders better than dialup. If the cost of dialup per-minute charges gets even remotely close to the cost of satellite equipment and service (DirecWay 2-way satellite service+equipment payments cost me $100/month for the first year, at which time I then owned the equipment, and $60.00/month after that, which was purely service fees), then switching to satellite Internet is a no-brainer.
If you're poor, though, you obviously can't afford either option. I wonder if those universal access fees we've been paying all these years could cover the poor.
"It is also not reasonable to say that people should know this stuff to use the www. Nonsense! Do you need to know the difference between a knit and purl stich to wear a sweater? Do you need to know what advance and retard are to drive a car? Why the hell should you know what a hosts file is to use the www?"
If my sweater's knit could wipe out your bank account with a drive-by purl, then yes, I should be required to know the difference before being allowed within ten cross-stitches of anyone else.
If knowing the difference between an advance and a retard (sigh, I can hear the bad puns brewing across Slashdot as I type) is the difference between killing someone (this is a deadly machine, after all) and saving a life (or many lives), then hell yes, I, you, and everyone else should be required to know the difference before being allowed to drive.
People should be required to know the basic components of networking because their (and my! indirectly through their incompetence) entire economic existence is at risk with their ignorance. Their remarkable inability to spot obvious (spy | bot)ware increases the size of the world wide botnets, increases the already relentless attacks on my systems (I saw over 12 thousand break-in attempts on my home Linux computer last month alone; none succeeded thanks to Linux security).
Don't be so sure. I had a beautiful nymphomaniacal girlfriend who shriveled me up and discarded me in two weeks. I was happier when she left than when we first met. I didn't have (or even want) sex for the next five years.
"It's a bad precedence to assume you need to be a journalist to have First Ammendement protection."
There are three issues here.
1) The first amendment protection of the Press applies was intended to protect the right to have yourself heard.
2) The Supreme Court has issued a decision just a few years ago saying that anyone acting in the capacity of a journalist, whether full time, part time, for a professional organization, a school paper, or even just a one time fancy, is considered a journalist and is entitled to all protections and responsibilities typically afforded to journalists.
3) IANAL, but I seriously doubt that theft of trade secrets is protected by any law.
I, among many others, used to be a regular on Yahoo's programming chat rooms. Here's a pretty typical exchange (abbreviated), and the observed aftermath:
Newbie: Somebody tell me what I'm doing wrong.
Us: Post the smallest snippet of code that exhibits the problem, or be more specific in your question.
Newbie: Why the fuck can't you pricks just tell me what I'm doing wrong.
Us: We can't tell you what you're doing wrong unless you give us more information.
Newbie: You guys are elitist assholes. I'm reporting you to Yahoo! [Newbie leaves the chat room]
By chance, I happened into a different room that the newbie had run off to.
Newbie (to the room): Those programming guys are assholes. All I did was politely ask for help with a simple problem, and I got nothing but flames and attitude.
Here's another common scenerio:
Us: (answering the same question for the 10th time in a hour, and one of us adding the question to a FAQ maintained by one fo the regulars).
Newbie: (asking the same question).
Us: Go to [our web site]. We've answered the question at length too many times to want to type it all in again.
Newbie: Fine, be an asshole. Why can't you just answer it here??! You guys are such pricks.
Whenever I read a story about someone claiming that he was maligned by people in a chat room, I take it with a huge chunk of skepticism. I don't doubt that he was eventually bashed. I doubt that the bashing materialized out of nothing, and for something as simple as asking a question. That isn't to say that it never happens this way, but I have never in my 11 years using Linux seen it happen as described by the supposed victim.
"We hard cap throughput based on what our clients have paid for. ie, if they've paid for 1.5 down, 768k up, those hard caps are put into place."
This is reasonable, as you're giving customers what they are paying for, but the rest of traffic shaping is not. If an ISP can't sustain my connection at the speeds that are advertised, then the ISP shouldn't be allowed to advertise that rate.
The web sites and commercials that run here in the states always claim Xmbps. That claim is what drives people to the service. If the ISP can't deliver Xmbps as claimed, then it is just cause for breach of contract (their TV ads are valid contract offers), false advertising, and fraud actions.
He makes two contradictions that completely unravel his entire premise that software patents are not evil.
First he says:
"There's nothing special about physical embodiments of control systems that should make them patentable, and the software equivalent not."
Then later, he says:
"Building physical things is expensive and dangerous. The space of possible choices is smaller; you tend to have to work as part of a larger group; and you're subject to a lot of regulations. You don't have any of that if you and a couple friends decide to create a new web-based application."
Hence the justification for patents on physical inventions but not on software.
He says:
"A lot of companies (Microsoft, for example) have been granted large numbers of preposterously over-broad patents, but they keep them mainly for defensive purposes."
Then he says:
"They win by locking competitors out of their sales channels."
This is the sole purpose of software patents, hence they are evil. The companies which began the patent land grab didn't do it for self defense (there was nothing to defend against). They did it to drive potential competitors out of the market. Software patents serve no other purpose.
"But the reason CS enrollment is down is the bubble burst and the gold-rushers are gone."
I wish you could be modded above 5, as you are 100% correct. I have been programming since 1985, and decided to go to college years later (for employability). I majored in CIS also, and saw the exact same thing you described: very nice people with almost zero interest in programming, and just enough computer aptitude to operate the power button.
When asked their reasons for entering CIS, it was almost always because of the reports of large starting salaries. I certainly don't object to people doing something for the money, but they do everyone a disservice (especially themselves) by doing it ONLY for the money. The value of money decreases exponentially as hatred for your job increases. It doesn't take long for the allure of money to disappear when you hate what you're doing.
When the huge money outlook in CIS went away, so did the enrollment.
"All they need to do is clearly legislate that software patents are not allowed in Europe and the rest will take care of itself."
This has nothing to do with software patents. Microsoft was found guilty of (non-patent) monopoly abuses, and now is whining about being punished. If the EU is lucky, Microsoft will pick up all its marbles and leave. I would be very envious of the EU then.
"...[PostgreSQL] does not support case insensitive queries like mysql, sql server and sybase."
"select * from table where upper(field) = 'SOME STRING';" "select * from table where lower(field) = 'SOME STRING';"
If the query goes slow, then create an index on upper(field) and/or lower(field).
You can segment the rows of large tables with partial indexes too, speeding up queries on large tables by a huge amount. The gains will depend entirely on your specific data set, and how you configure your indexes.
"I think the biggest lesson here is that ALL your files that are important or private MUST be encrypted on your computer."
I think the bigger lesson here is to not go poking through private networks. Only the owner of the network (or its authorized proxies) can give permission to 3rd parties to access that network. Even if the Coroner had given the newspaper his password, the Coroner is not authorized to grant network access to 3rd parties.
The freedom of the press only exists to the extent that the press is used legally. That is a wide margin of operation, but it is not absolute (and never has been). It seems clear to me that the newspaper crossed the boundary.
The only factor that I think should exonerate the newspaper is if the unauthorized access to the private network uncovered crimes being committed by the government. Barring that, then the seizure seems to be proper; a warrant was issued by a judge upon reasonable suspicion that the newspaper committed a crime.
"I mean, if two Chinese-based blogs are "shut down," what does one usually think?"
First, the Chinese blog did not say it was "shut down". Those words were used by the BBC in its poor reporting.
Second, the blog merely said that it was temporarily closed. This is not unusual anywhere in the world. I'm probably going to close my own site soon for lack of traffic, and revise it to be something entirely different. Yet, when I put my notice up saying I'm shutting down the old site, I bet I get nary a blink anywhere in the known universe.
The fault here lies entirely at the keyboards of the BBC. With no fact checking whatsoever, the BBC reported as true something that was entirely fabricated by the same. What should have been reported are the facts:
1) The site contained a notice saying it was temporarily closing, for unknown reasons. 2) The site operator could not be contacted for a statement. 3) The Chinese government was not contacted for a statement, regardless how useless those statements tend to be. 4) The Chinese government has been cracking down on dissident web sites. 5) The site has been opposed by the Chinese government in the past, and has been at risk of forcible closure.
Then the speculation could have begun:
1) Given the history of conflict between this blog and the Chinese government, it's possible that the site was forcibly shut down. We have no confirmation of the actual reason, and will keep you notified of developments.
Then the BBC should have begun investigating the reason for the supposed blog closure using generally accepted reporting principles (if such things even exist anymore; and yes, I adapted the term from accounting). The failure of major news outlets to perform due diligence anymore is greatly reducing their believability, and have all but reduced them to the stature of random blog.
In short, our news outlets are irresponsible to a large degree. This is just one of many examples.
"Unless they can first show he violated the non-compete, they have no proof that they have any right to the data that was erased."
Non-competes have no bearing on a company's right to the data on its computers. He was issued the computer for the purpose of conducting his employer's business. The company therefore has a right to ALL data on the computer. It was horrendously brain damaged to use the computer in the way he did.
That said, the trial judge was correct in dismissing the complaint as it was filed. Using the cited law just to get into federal court requires enormous gymnastics in illogic. The appeals court was also wrong in reinstating the complaints for the reasons they gave. It really boiled down to having no clue how computers operate. I think any competent lawyer with good expert witnesses will get the complaints tossed out.
I also think the employer should win on the face of it (I just can't cite a law they could use).
"The REAL case is that the guy was setting up his competing business, and they wanted the laptop data to prove it."
The real case is trying to measure just how stupid that former employee was.
He uses his employer's computer to conduct his personal affairs.
He then uses his employer's computer to conduct side business (however brief) that competes with his employer's interest.
He then quits to pursue a business that is in direct competition with his former employer, and that was started using his employer's computer.
Many employers will turn a blind eye to 1. Most employers will heavily forbid 2. Any sanely run business will ream you a new hole for 3, and that is common knowledge. There are a number of additional charges they could file against him as well (unfair competition, tortuous interference with a business relationship, so forth and so on).
"...if Microsoft has reasonable evidence to the point, they have the right to claim damages."
I think Microsoft should stand up for itself and show the EU weenies what's what by pulling all Microsoft software off the European market. They could then deliver the knockout blow by doing the same thing in the United States. That would show people who's boss! I think they should do it today.
Actually, there's nothing new here. It's the age old story of the software industry:
1) Rely on Microsoft. . . 1+x) Die a horrible death.
Although I think Napster has other facets of its business that may account for its eventual demise outside of Microsoft, such as marketing a product that customers don't want -- highly publicized crippling of digital music files.
"What would have been the advantage of using Linux for the past three years instead of Mac OS X, even under the brutal worst-case regime I described above? I really don't get it."
That's because you are not accounting for history. I'll skip the details, and bottom line it for everyone: control.
The point behind using Linux (and Free software in general) is because someday, for whatever reason, your favorite proprietary vendor can pull the rug out from under you. Even if Apple is currently the friendliest proprietary company on the face of the planet, it still has the option of saying, "As of this moment, OSX (or whatever version) will no longer run [insert your favorite software], or will no longer support [insert your favorite product]."
Free software guarantees availability regardless of the whims of the developer(s) and/or providers. It is the single most important issue in computing, and is the biggest reason why Mac and Windows are not even options to me. Having been bitten by proprietary control too many times over the years, and having experienced the significant benefits of being in control of my own infrastructure, I won't go back.
The point being made is that OOP principles were being used in procedural programming long before OOP principles were formalized. OOP is a formalization and extension of certain long standing techniques that proved to be productive, many of which you almost certainly use even in languages that do not specifically define them.
OOP languages make those techniques easier. The first 14 or so years of my programming life were as a procedural programmer. The last 7 or so were as an OOP programmer in a variety of OOP languages. It's highly painful for me to have to use non-OOP languages, as there are just too many dramatic efficiency gains provided by OOP programming.
OOP is not a fad that is going away. The productivity gains are too real and too substantial. OOP is also not going to remain static, but will rather evolve. No amount of attempted and/or nonsensical humor is going to change that.
"Why should they spend a billion dollars to fab the first version of the chip just so they can ship it to Washington so a patent clerk can validate its worthiness?"
I don't think it's as big a problem as that. Prototypes are never fabricated to the same degree of quality as the final product. A working (note I didn't say working well) prototype should be required as a proof of concept before a patent is issued.
Anything that costs a billion dollars to fabricate will have many subcomponents. As each of those subcomponents is completed, it can be patented (if it's worthy of a patent) until the grand parent project is completed.
The reason I object to patents being granted on ideas alone is that someone will acquire a patent on an abstract idea that is beyond his ability to implement, then wait for someone smarter to expend all the time, effort, and expense to actually implement it, then sue for infringement on something the plaintiff has no realistic chance on actually creating.
The second reason I object is that an abstract idea (for which the USPTO issues patents, almost to the exclusion of all else it seems) patent will then be used in a lawsuit for anything even remotely similar in concept. The suer will then claim, "that was the specific intent of my patent all along, your honor!". Whereas if working prototypes were required, it would be easy to judge the actual product against the patent suit claim.
In essence, only creations should be patentable. And a creation isn't a creation until it's actually created. An idea without a corresponding implementation isn't (or shouldn't be) a creation.
I can't count the number of times I thought I had a great idea, only to have it killed by the reality of it's infeasibility, and then see something on the market that is remarkable similar with the sole exception that some small, idiotic, and seemingly insurmountable aspect of my idea was changed to fit reality by someone more ingenious. My idea could never have made it to market, while the other idea could. That other inventor deserved to succeed because he actually solved the problem and created a working model. It I had the money to patent my unworkable idea, I could have extorted the real inventor. That's just wrong on the face of it.
You posted that in jest, and got moderated as funny, but that isn't such a stretch. If you go to Groklaw and read the reports by people who were at the patent reform conference, you'll see that at least one patent examiner present at the meeting mentioned Slashdot as a good source of prior art information.
Slashdot ran a previous story on the warp drive patent application, so it's not unthinkable that the application was reviewed by a Slashdot reading patent examiner.
Slashdot Mirror
"PS. what's this subject got to do with debian?"
The article is presented from the perspective of a Debian admin.
"After the delay MS SQL 2005 experianced, and this, I'll be real surprised if people are willing to believe them again."
Why would you think that? Microsoft hasn't changed its behavior in this regard one bit in the last 15 years, yet people continuing buying Microsoft stuff as if everything is just fine.
"Computers no longer ship with an easy to use basic that gives instant results."
He shoots! Nothing but net!
There are many other tangential reasons, but I think you have nailed the most important one. The explosion of computer programming interest in those of us who went through our teen years in the 80s was fueled primarily by the presence of the BASIC ROM. That was probably Microsoft's last (if not only) genuine contribution to the rise of the personal computer.
"As the original article implies, the unfortunate side-effect of the ruling is that people in rural areas may have to pay long distance charges to access their ISP."
Not necessarily. I used to live in a rural midwest area (until about 4 months ago), even when Verizon was the local monopoly (CenturyTel has it now), and even before then when GTE was the local monopoly. They all offered what they termed a "Metropolitan Calling Plan". It coupled the local town's calling area with the calling area of the three or four closest towns. In most cases, one of the closest towns was a major midwestern city. Subscribers to the metropolitan calling plan paid a flat monthly fee to treat all areas within the calling plan as local calls -- whether voice or data.
Since this plan is offered by the telcos, and not an ISP, I don't expect Internet users in these rural areas to be affected one way or the other if they subscribe to a local ISP. I expect AOL, Earthlink, and the other national ISPs to either pass all the per-minute charges onto their customers or to dramatically raise their monthly rates. If the latter, I would then expect DirecWay to drum up a lot more business since dialup rates would easily exceed DirecWay's monthly access charges and hardware costs combined.
As much as DirecWay's customer sevice sucks, and as much as satellite Internet sucks compared to DSL and cable, satellite Internet is heads and shoulders better than dialup. If the cost of dialup per-minute charges gets even remotely close to the cost of satellite equipment and service (DirecWay 2-way satellite service+equipment payments cost me $100/month for the first year, at which time I then owned the equipment, and $60.00/month after that, which was purely service fees), then switching to satellite Internet is a no-brainer.
If you're poor, though, you obviously can't afford either option. I wonder if those universal access fees we've been paying all these years could cover the poor.
"It is also not reasonable to say that people should know this stuff to use the www. Nonsense! Do you need to know the difference between a knit and purl stich to wear a sweater? Do you need to know what advance and retard are to drive a car? Why the hell should you know what a hosts file is to use the www?"
If my sweater's knit could wipe out your bank account with a drive-by purl, then yes, I should be required to know the difference before being allowed within ten cross-stitches of anyone else.
If knowing the difference between an advance and a retard (sigh, I can hear the bad puns brewing across Slashdot as I type) is the difference between killing someone (this is a deadly machine, after all) and saving a life (or many lives), then hell yes, I, you, and everyone else should be required to know the difference before being allowed to drive.
People should be required to know the basic components of networking because their (and my! indirectly through their incompetence) entire economic existence is at risk with their ignorance. Their remarkable inability to spot obvious (spy | bot)ware increases the size of the world wide botnets, increases the already relentless attacks on my systems (I saw over 12 thousand break-in attempts on my home Linux computer last month alone; none succeeded thanks to Linux security).
"If that were true, we'd all be pornstars."
Don't be so sure. I had a beautiful nymphomaniacal girlfriend who shriveled me up and discarded me in two weeks. I was happier when she left than when we first met. I didn't have (or even want) sex for the next five years.
"It's a bad precedence to assume you need to be a journalist to have First Ammendement protection."
There are three issues here.
1) The first amendment protection of the Press applies was intended to protect the right to have yourself heard.
2) The Supreme Court has issued a decision just a few years ago saying that anyone acting in the capacity of a journalist, whether full time, part time, for a professional organization, a school paper, or even just a one time fancy, is considered a journalist and is entitled to all protections and responsibilities typically afforded to journalists.
3) IANAL, but I seriously doubt that theft of trade secrets is protected by any law.
I, among many others, used to be a regular on Yahoo's programming chat rooms. Here's a pretty typical exchange (abbreviated), and the observed aftermath:
Newbie: Somebody tell me what I'm doing wrong.
Us: Post the smallest snippet of code that exhibits the problem, or be more specific in your question.
Newbie: Why the fuck can't you pricks just tell me what I'm doing wrong.
Us: We can't tell you what you're doing wrong unless you give us more information.
Newbie: You guys are elitist assholes. I'm reporting you to Yahoo! [Newbie leaves the chat room]
By chance, I happened into a different room that the newbie had run off to.
Newbie (to the room): Those programming guys are assholes. All I did was politely ask for help with a simple problem, and I got nothing but flames and attitude.
Here's another common scenerio:
Us: (answering the same question for the 10th time in a hour, and one of us adding the question to a FAQ maintained by one fo the regulars).
Newbie: (asking the same question).
Us: Go to [our web site]. We've answered the question at length too many times to want to type it all in again.
Newbie: Fine, be an asshole. Why can't you just answer it here??! You guys are such pricks.
Whenever I read a story about someone claiming that he was maligned by people in a chat room, I take it with a huge chunk of skepticism. I don't doubt that he was eventually bashed. I doubt that the bashing materialized out of nothing, and for something as simple as asking a question. That isn't to say that it never happens this way, but I have never in my 11 years using Linux seen it happen as described by the supposed victim.
"We hard cap throughput based on what our clients have paid for. ie, if they've paid for 1.5 down, 768k up, those hard caps are put into place."
This is reasonable, as you're giving customers what they are paying for, but the rest of traffic shaping is not. If an ISP can't sustain my connection at the speeds that are advertised, then the ISP shouldn't be allowed to advertise that rate.
The web sites and commercials that run here in the states always claim Xmbps. That claim is what drives people to the service. If the ISP can't deliver Xmbps as claimed, then it is just cause for breach of contract (their TV ads are valid contract offers), false advertising, and fraud actions.
"They can't support multiple distributions, so they just don't support any, which seems reasonable to me, if not ideal for the spread of Linux."
But they will happily support 10 different versions of Windows. Call me cynical.
He makes two contradictions that completely unravel his entire premise that software patents are not evil.
First he says:
"There's nothing special about physical embodiments of control systems that should make them patentable, and the software equivalent not."
Then later, he says:
"Building physical things is expensive and dangerous. The space of possible choices is smaller; you tend to have to work as part of a larger group; and you're subject to a lot of regulations. You don't have any of that if you and a couple friends decide to create a new web-based application."
Hence the justification for patents on physical inventions but not on software.
He says:
"A lot of companies (Microsoft, for example) have been granted large numbers of preposterously over-broad patents, but they keep them mainly for defensive purposes."
Then he says:
"They win by locking competitors out of their sales channels."
This is the sole purpose of software patents, hence they are evil. The companies which began the patent land grab didn't do it for self defense (there was nothing to defend against). They did it to drive potential competitors out of the market. Software patents serve no other purpose.
"But the reason CS enrollment is down is the bubble burst and the gold-rushers are gone."
I wish you could be modded above 5, as you are 100% correct. I have been programming since 1985, and decided to go to college years later (for employability). I majored in CIS also, and saw the exact same thing you described: very nice people with almost zero interest in programming, and just enough computer aptitude to operate the power button.
When asked their reasons for entering CIS, it was almost always because of the reports of large starting salaries. I certainly don't object to people doing something for the money, but they do everyone a disservice (especially themselves) by doing it ONLY for the money. The value of money decreases exponentially as hatred for your job increases. It doesn't take long for the allure of money to disappear when you hate what you're doing.
When the huge money outlook in CIS went away, so did the enrollment.
"All they need to do is clearly legislate that software patents are not allowed in Europe and the rest will take care of itself."
This has nothing to do with software patents. Microsoft was found guilty of (non-patent) monopoly abuses, and now is whining about being punished. If the EU is lucky, Microsoft will pick up all its marbles and leave. I would be very envious of the EU then.
"They have an iPod killer.
They have a Google killer.
They have a Java killer.
They have an IBM killer.
Microsoft has a killer for everything!"
Especially computers!
"...[PostgreSQL] does not support case insensitive queries like mysql, sql server and sybase."
"select * from table where upper(field) = 'SOME STRING';"
"select * from table where lower(field) = 'SOME STRING';"
If the query goes slow, then create an index on upper(field) and/or lower(field).
You can segment the rows of large tables with partial indexes too, speeding up queries on large tables by a huge amount. The gains will depend entirely on your specific data set, and how you configure your indexes.
"I think the biggest lesson here is that ALL your files that are important or private MUST be encrypted on your computer."
I think the bigger lesson here is to not go poking through private networks. Only the owner of the network (or its authorized proxies) can give permission to 3rd parties to access that network. Even if the Coroner had given the newspaper his password, the Coroner is not authorized to grant network access to 3rd parties.
The freedom of the press only exists to the extent that the press is used legally. That is a wide margin of operation, but it is not absolute (and never has been). It seems clear to me that the newspaper crossed the boundary.
The only factor that I think should exonerate the newspaper is if the unauthorized access to the private network uncovered crimes being committed by the government. Barring that, then the seizure seems to be proper; a warrant was issued by a judge upon reasonable suspicion that the newspaper committed a crime.
"I mean, if two Chinese-based blogs are "shut down," what does one usually think?"
First, the Chinese blog did not say it was "shut down". Those words were used by the BBC in its poor reporting.
Second, the blog merely said that it was temporarily closed. This is not unusual anywhere in the world. I'm probably going to close my own site soon for lack of traffic, and revise it to be something entirely different. Yet, when I put my notice up saying I'm shutting down the old site, I bet I get nary a blink anywhere in the known universe.
The fault here lies entirely at the keyboards of the BBC. With no fact checking whatsoever, the BBC reported as true something that was entirely fabricated by the same. What should have been reported are the facts:
1) The site contained a notice saying it was temporarily closing, for unknown reasons.
2) The site operator could not be contacted for a statement.
3) The Chinese government was not contacted for a statement, regardless how useless those statements tend to be.
4) The Chinese government has been cracking down on dissident web sites.
5) The site has been opposed by the Chinese government in the past, and has been at risk of forcible closure.
Then the speculation could have begun:
1) Given the history of conflict between this blog and the Chinese government, it's possible that the site was forcibly shut down. We have no confirmation of the actual reason, and will keep you notified of developments.
Then the BBC should have begun investigating the reason for the supposed blog closure using generally accepted reporting principles (if such things even exist anymore; and yes, I adapted the term from accounting). The failure of major news outlets to perform due diligence anymore is greatly reducing their believability, and have all but reduced them to the stature of random blog.
In short, our news outlets are irresponsible to a large degree. This is just one of many examples.
"Unless they can first show he violated the non-compete, they have no proof that they have any right to the data that was erased."
Non-competes have no bearing on a company's right to the data on its computers. He was issued the computer for the purpose of conducting his employer's business. The company therefore has a right to ALL data on the computer. It was horrendously brain damaged to use the computer in the way he did.
That said, the trial judge was correct in dismissing the complaint as it was filed. Using the cited law just to get into federal court requires enormous gymnastics in illogic. The appeals court was also wrong in reinstating the complaints for the reasons they gave. It really boiled down to having no clue how computers operate. I think any competent lawyer with good expert witnesses will get the complaints tossed out.
I also think the employer should win on the face of it (I just can't cite a law they could use).
The real case is trying to measure just how stupid that former employee was.
He uses his employer's computer to conduct his personal affairs.
He then uses his employer's computer to conduct side business (however brief) that competes with his employer's interest.
He then quits to pursue a business that is in direct competition with his former employer, and that was started using his employer's computer.
Many employers will turn a blind eye to 1.
Most employers will heavily forbid 2.
Any sanely run business will ream you a new hole for 3, and that is common knowledge. There are a number of additional charges they could file against him as well (unfair competition, tortuous interference with a business relationship, so forth and so on).
"...if Microsoft has reasonable evidence to the point, they have the right to claim damages."
I think Microsoft should stand up for itself and show the EU weenies what's what by pulling all Microsoft software off the European market. They could then deliver the knockout blow by doing the same thing in the United States. That would show people who's boss! I think they should do it today.
"Apparently they came up with a new twist..."
Actually, there's nothing new here. It's the age old story of the software industry:
1) Rely on Microsoft.
.
.
1+x) Die a horrible death.
Although I think Napster has other facets of its business that may account for its eventual demise outside of Microsoft, such as marketing a product that customers don't want -- highly publicized crippling of digital music files.
"What would have been the advantage of using Linux for the past three years instead of Mac OS X, even under the brutal worst-case regime I described above? I really don't get it."
That's because you are not accounting for history. I'll skip the details, and bottom line it for everyone: control.
The point behind using Linux (and Free software in general) is because someday, for whatever reason, your favorite proprietary vendor can pull the rug out from under you. Even if Apple is currently the friendliest proprietary company on the face of the planet, it still has the option of saying, "As of this moment, OSX (or whatever version) will no longer run [insert your favorite software], or will no longer support [insert your favorite product]."
Free software guarantees availability regardless of the whims of the developer(s) and/or providers. It is the single most important issue in computing, and is the biggest reason why Mac and Windows are not even options to me. Having been bitten by proprietary control too many times over the years, and having experienced the significant benefits of being in control of my own infrastructure, I won't go back.
The point being made is that OOP principles were being used in procedural programming long before OOP principles were formalized. OOP is a formalization and extension of certain long standing techniques that proved to be productive, many of which you almost certainly use even in languages that do not specifically define them.
OOP languages make those techniques easier. The first 14 or so years of my programming life were as a procedural programmer. The last 7 or so were as an OOP programmer in a variety of OOP languages. It's highly painful for me to have to use non-OOP languages, as there are just too many dramatic efficiency gains provided by OOP programming.
OOP is not a fad that is going away. The productivity gains are too real and too substantial. OOP is also not going to remain static, but will rather evolve. No amount of attempted and/or nonsensical humor is going to change that.
"Why should they spend a billion dollars to fab the first version of the chip just so they can ship it to Washington so a patent clerk can validate its worthiness?"
I don't think it's as big a problem as that. Prototypes are never fabricated to the same degree of quality as the final product. A working (note I didn't say working well) prototype should be required as a proof of concept before a patent is issued.
Anything that costs a billion dollars to fabricate will have many subcomponents. As each of those subcomponents is completed, it can be patented (if it's worthy of a patent) until the grand parent project is completed.
The reason I object to patents being granted on ideas alone is that someone will acquire a patent on an abstract idea that is beyond his ability to implement, then wait for someone smarter to expend all the time, effort, and expense to actually implement it, then sue for infringement on something the plaintiff has no realistic chance on actually creating.
The second reason I object is that an abstract idea (for which the USPTO issues patents, almost to the exclusion of all else it seems) patent will then be used in a lawsuit for anything even remotely similar in concept. The suer will then claim, "that was the specific intent of my patent all along, your honor!". Whereas if working prototypes were required, it would be easy to judge the actual product against the patent suit claim.
In essence, only creations should be patentable. And a creation isn't a creation until it's actually created. An idea without a corresponding implementation isn't (or shouldn't be) a creation.
I can't count the number of times I thought I had a great idea, only to have it killed by the reality of it's infeasibility, and then see something on the market that is remarkable similar with the sole exception that some small, idiotic, and seemingly insurmountable aspect of my idea was changed to fit reality by someone more ingenious. My idea could never have made it to market, while the other idea could. That other inventor deserved to succeed because he actually solved the problem and created a working model. It I had the money to patent my unworkable idea, I could have extorted the real inventor. That's just wrong on the face of it.
"I bet that the clerk is a /. reader."
You posted that in jest, and got moderated as funny, but that isn't such a stretch. If you go to Groklaw and read the reports by people who were at the patent reform conference, you'll see that at least one patent examiner present at the meeting mentioned Slashdot as a good source of prior art information.
Slashdot ran a previous story on the warp drive patent application, so it's not unthinkable that the application was reviewed by a Slashdot reading patent examiner.