Only the ones that use actual lasers. The low-budget operations that use cheap, knockoff "lazers" have all kinds of problems.
Besides, 99% successful is a pretty low success rate... I wouldn't want to go into surgery knowing that I had a 1 in 100 chance of coming out compromised in some way, not unless my condition was life-threatening.
If it weren't for sites like this and others, and independent researchers who expose these shennanigans, their unethical behavior would go largely unremarked.
And the reverse-engineering provisions of the DMCA make a whole lot of sense now, don't they. I suppose, though, it would be kinda hard for Sony to prosecute someone for reverse-engineering software that's illegal in the first place.
Well, there's expensive... and there's expensive. The government throws away (I mean, just throws away) billions of taxpayer dollars without batting an eye. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a few million thrown at prosecuting the higher-ups at Sony U.S. In the long run, if what they (and others like them) are doing becomes an accepted part of doing business, it will cost us a lot more.
If nothing else, those bastards ought to get arrested, charged with the crime, and spend a few nights in jail. Hell, the Feds got all this anti-terrorist stuff passed, have been using it against ordinary citizens charged with no crime at alll... I say nail a few corporate execs on terrorism charges. I'm sure the Justice Department can figure out a way to apply the Patriot Act to rootkitting someone's computer for a buck. People get arrested for simply reporting a problem in someone else's security: surely what Sony has done is worse?
Sure. Good idea, bonehead. Too bad you aren't an elected official. How about rounding that out with some stiffer penalties for privacy violations? How about taking the RIAA to court and punishing them for all of their abuses of the law (and their customers?) Hell, if I, as a software vendor, can now be sued for merely "facilitating" copyright infringement, how about Sony which believes that leaving thousands of computer systems open to remote exploitation, stability problems and data loss in order to "protect their intellectual property" is a legitimate business tactic? A formal apology to their customers should be forthcoming at the very least. Remember when Intuit Corporation had the decency to apologize after their copy protection debacle? It still cost them dearly but at least they admitted their mistake. What is Sony's response in a similar situation? "Most people don't even know what a rootkit is so what's the problem?", that's what.
After all this, I've come to the conclusion that the people running major corporations may or may not be actually stupid, but they do seem incapable of learning from others' very obvious, public screwups.
I'd really be more impressed with this guy if he was going after the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Sony for putting a goddamned ROOTKIT on legitimate buyer's computer systems. Once again, people whose only crime was giving a record company money are penalized for their support. Incredible, really.
Psst! Mr. Alvarez or Gonzalez or whoever you are... your corporatism is showing.
Well, if all the Slashdotters out there would simply send me ten dollars each, I would be happy to buy the Congressman of your choice. Minus a small handling charge, of course.
What would happen if each of us made a personal contribution to our elected representatives, along with a letter explaining that if they vote intelligently on certain important issues, there will be more where that came from. Maybe if four or five hundred thousand technjocks start putting their money where their mouth is, we could eliminate the entertainment industry influence entirely. Sure, I know about campaign finance laws, but if a given representative or senator got all he could legally receive directly from his constituents before the first RIAA lobbyist showed up at his door, it would go a long way to restoring a little balance.
And even if he has to give it back, the sight of a half-million small white envelopes, each containing ten or twenty dollars of actual cash might make him think a little. I mean things such as logic, reason, "doing the right thing", Truth, Justice and/or the American Way just doesn't seem to be enough anymore. So maybe we need to provide a little incentive.
I think the fact that we had a clear vision, a small and very experienced team, a really good working relationship with our usability team and research team, great QA, and excellent management had at least as much to do with it.
No, I would submit that those qualities had everything to do with it, and probably a lot more than anything that implementing Scrum could ever do. Consider yourself very fortunate to work with such people, in such an environment. I know I do.
Scrum and other such overarching methodologies are simply ways to enforce standardized positive behaviors upon otherwise mundane workers, or good workers lorded over by second-rate managers who themselves need some kind of framework to tell them how to handle their particular herd of cats. Managed-incompetence, you might say.
On the other hand, compact, tight-knit development groups (like the one you mentioned) have usually already worked out highly efficient methods of getting their jobs done, methods that directly apply to the type of products under development. That happens almost naturally when you have intelligent, motivated people with good communication skills who truly want to cooperate with each other. The group I work in is one such: after working together for years we all know each others strengths and weaknesses, and when given a directive we automatically assign the best person to the job, and if it requires more than one of us, the person best suited to take the lead just assumes the role. And that happens because our manager trusts our judgment and doesn't treat us like children, as some do. Granted, most of my coworkers have at least twenty years in software development. A team composed of fresh-out-of-school programmers would be a different matter entirely.
I guess what I'm saying is that if a company is fortunate enough to have a development group that is already fast, efficient, produces quality work and has that certain esprit de corps that is the hallmark of a good team, don't mess with it. That kind of team is a corporate Golden Goose, and it is surprisingly easy to kill. I'm not saying that there isn't always room for improvement... there is. But it's wise to be careful about making sweeping changes if you already have something that is working well.
We don't, however, do that much pair programming. And the whole completely open office space works for some, and definitely not for others. For myself, I'm way too easily distracted -- so I need a nice quiet and private cubicle in order to achieve the state of "flow" where I can write code. In my experience, pair programming works for debugging and integrating code -- and not so well for creating it. YMMV.
If I had mod points I'd give you a +5 Right on the Money for that one. Actual programming is a solitary effort, and a work environment should reflect that.
Easier said than done, as you very well know. It's easy to be critical, but given the way the market for engineers is looking nowadays, I'm sticking with my current job. I have a mortgage and all the usual bills and responsibilities. And that means that I drive to work, since the area where my company is located isn't a place that I want to move my family: the gang problem alone is becoming an issue in the residential areas surrounding it. There is no public transportation that will get me there in under three hours (I would have to take a bus to a train into the city, and then another train and a cab out to my job.) I'm glad you're in a situation where you can walk to work, but for the foreseeable future I will not be.
However, if it's any consolation to you, I ran my own business about fifteen years, working out of my house. I only went on site a few times a month... I used my van so little than it lasted for twelve years before the transmission finally blew. But times change, and now I commute.
blame the US for producing way too many of the vermin.
That's the most reasonable bit of U.S.-bashing I've heard yet on Slashdot. At least you didn't single out all of us as being warmongers or evil or Bush-lovers or whatever. And you're right: we're becoming a remarkably litigious society. Not that I have any idea how to cure the problem.
But your average corporate attorney isn't the problem, he or she is simply a tool, and a symptom of a larger problem. It is bad law, admittedly written by a bunch of lawyers (collectively known as "Congress"), combined with corporate executives who see nothing but dollar signs. Corporate lawyers just don't sit around suing people and companies for fun: somebody has to pay them to do it, and pay them handsomely. Those people are the ones you need to worry about.
You know, like the good folks in charge of Lexmark, Diebold and DirecTV. Laws like the DMCA just gave them an opportunity to put their lawyers to work. All Congress did was give a loaded gun to a bunch of idiots.
Actually, if you look at the history of that industry since the invention of the player piano, it has always been an evil enterprise. One could easily argue that they are a parasitic group riding on the backs of our most creative individuals. And perhaps that parasitism (they would call it "symbiosis") was necessary at one time, I don't know.
The difference between the industry today, and our perception of it in decades past is that modern technology has forced them out into the open. Right there for everyone to see, peer-to-peer lawsuits, corrupt lawmakers, broadcast flags and all. The buying public can begin to understand the nature of the organizations that provide our entertainment, if such knowledge is considered important. I think it is, and obviously you do, but given that sales of CDs and DVDs are on the rise, even now, I tend think that most people simply do not. But from Disney to the RIAA to the MPAA to Sony, we have one of the most corrupt, dissembling groups of corporate thugs in existence anywhere. Well, perhaps they're overshadowed by the oil companies... hard to say which is more evil. But fortunately I can choose where to spend my entertainment dollars: unfortunately I have to buy gas to get to work.
There is a fundamental flaw in any such methodology, though... it's called "discipline." I've worked in too many places where there was always a reason why established procedure had to be bypassed. Oh sure, it was always a "good" reason, but nevertheless if management itself is unwilling to live by its own rules I can guarantee you the programming staff won't either. Generally speaking, things like Scrum will only work in larger organizations where a top-down policy can be enforced. At least initially: you have to work past the resistance that most teams have to changing the way they do things. Once they see the benefits to them (always assuming that there are any) then the new processes may become more self-maintaining. But that's not so easy to achieve, because there will be a period of reduced productivity while everyone is trying to get rid of the old and figure out the new. And, depending upon how it is handled, that can easily evolve into active resistance. That's the point where, I think, a lot of these schemes fail: "See? We tried it for a month and now look how screwed up everything is. Let's go back to the old way."
No, because it really isn't all that hard to find someone that will. It's different when you are talking about a resource that can only be acquired through unethical means: then you have a value judgment to make. For example, should someone be forced to give up a heart, or a lobe of their brain, in order to advance the state of human knowledge? I would say no. But heck, right now I could line you up half a dozen women that would be proud to donate an egg or two to a significant research project. No coercion required.
Of course, now, if there was money involved that would help.
Yeah, really. How far do you think the Enterprise D would have gone at the end of the premiere episode "Encounter at Farpoint", if Captain Picard had raised a finger towards the viewscreen and said, "Lets see what this Galaxy Class starship can do! Enguage!"
According to the researchers, the software has accurately predicted Billboard hits for the past several months.
Hell, I can do that. My friends have noticed that, for a long time, any piece of popular music that I can't stand to hear becomes a hit. Hm... maybe I'm in the wrong business.
The screenwriters of the Stargate franchises could write a better patent application than that! In fact, I think it would be cool to apply for a patent on the Zero-Point Module and see if it gets granted.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. The lady seems to be quite the busybody, doesn't she.
Only the ones that use actual lasers. The low-budget operations that use cheap, knockoff "lazers" have all kinds of problems.
... I wouldn't want to go into surgery knowing that I had a 1 in 100 chance of coming out compromised in some way, not unless my condition was life-threatening.
Besides, 99% successful is a pretty low success rate
If it weren't for sites like this and others, and independent researchers who expose these shennanigans, their unethical behavior would go largely unremarked.
And the reverse-engineering provisions of the DMCA make a whole lot of sense now, don't they. I suppose, though, it would be kinda hard for Sony to prosecute someone for reverse-engineering software that's illegal in the first place.
Well, there's expensive ... and there's expensive. The government throws away (I mean, just throws away) billions of taxpayer dollars without batting an eye. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a few million thrown at prosecuting the higher-ups at Sony U.S. In the long run, if what they (and others like them) are doing becomes an accepted part of doing business, it will cost us a lot more.
... I say nail a few corporate execs on terrorism charges. I'm sure the Justice Department can figure out a way to apply the Patriot Act to rootkitting someone's computer for a buck. People get arrested for simply reporting a problem in someone else's security: surely what Sony has done is worse?
If nothing else, those bastards ought to get arrested, charged with the crime, and spend a few nights in jail. Hell, the Feds got all this anti-terrorist stuff passed, have been using it against ordinary citizens charged with no crime at alll
Stiffer penalties for copyright violations
... your corporatism is showing.
Sure. Good idea, bonehead. Too bad you aren't an elected official. How about rounding that out with some stiffer penalties for privacy violations? How about taking the RIAA to court and punishing them for all of their abuses of the law (and their customers?) Hell, if I, as a software vendor, can now be sued for merely "facilitating" copyright infringement, how about Sony which believes that leaving thousands of computer systems open to remote exploitation, stability problems and data loss in order to "protect their intellectual property" is a legitimate business tactic? A formal apology to their customers should be forthcoming at the very least. Remember when Intuit Corporation had the decency to apologize after their copy protection debacle? It still cost them dearly but at least they admitted their mistake. What is Sony's response in a similar situation? "Most people don't even know what a rootkit is so what's the problem?", that's what.
After all this, I've come to the conclusion that the people running major corporations may or may not be actually stupid, but they do seem incapable of learning from others' very obvious, public screwups.
I'd really be more impressed with this guy if he was going after the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Sony for putting a goddamned ROOTKIT on legitimate buyer's computer systems. Once again, people whose only crime was giving a record company money are penalized for their support. Incredible, really.
Psst! Mr. Alvarez or Gonzalez or whoever you are
Well, if all the Slashdotters out there would simply send me ten dollars each, I would be happy to buy the Congressman of your choice. Minus a small handling charge, of course.
What would happen if each of us made a personal contribution to our elected representatives, along with a letter explaining that if they vote intelligently on certain important issues, there will be more where that came from. Maybe if four or five hundred thousand technjocks start putting their money where their mouth is, we could eliminate the entertainment industry influence entirely. Sure, I know about campaign finance laws, but if a given representative or senator got all he could legally receive directly from his constituents before the first RIAA lobbyist showed up at his door, it would go a long way to restoring a little balance.
And even if he has to give it back, the sight of a half-million small white envelopes, each containing ten or twenty dollars of actual cash might make him think a little. I mean things such as logic, reason, "doing the right thing", Truth, Justice and/or the American Way just doesn't seem to be enough anymore. So maybe we need to provide a little incentive.
Better yet, how about bringing back Lost in Space with Michael Jackson as the Robot.
I think the fact that we had a clear vision, a small and very experienced team, a really good working relationship with our usability team and research team, great QA, and excellent management had at least as much to do with it.
... there is. But it's wise to be careful about making sweeping changes if you already have something that is working well.
No, I would submit that those qualities had everything to do with it, and probably a lot more than anything that implementing Scrum could ever do. Consider yourself very fortunate to work with such people, in such an environment. I know I do.
Scrum and other such overarching methodologies are simply ways to enforce standardized positive behaviors upon otherwise mundane workers, or good workers lorded over by second-rate managers who themselves need some kind of framework to tell them how to handle their particular herd of cats. Managed-incompetence, you might say.
On the other hand, compact, tight-knit development groups (like the one you mentioned) have usually already worked out highly efficient methods of getting their jobs done, methods that directly apply to the type of products under development. That happens almost naturally when you have intelligent, motivated people with good communication skills who truly want to cooperate with each other. The group I work in is one such: after working together for years we all know each others strengths and weaknesses, and when given a directive we automatically assign the best person to the job, and if it requires more than one of us, the person best suited to take the lead just assumes the role. And that happens because our manager trusts our judgment and doesn't treat us like children, as some do. Granted, most of my coworkers have at least twenty years in software development. A team composed of fresh-out-of-school programmers would be a different matter entirely.
I guess what I'm saying is that if a company is fortunate enough to have a development group that is already fast, efficient, produces quality work and has that certain esprit de corps that is the hallmark of a good team, don't mess with it. That kind of team is a corporate Golden Goose, and it is surprisingly easy to kill. I'm not saying that there isn't always room for improvement
We don't, however, do that much pair programming. And the whole completely open office space works for some, and definitely not for others. For myself, I'm way too easily distracted -- so I need a nice quiet and private cubicle in order to achieve the state of "flow" where I can write code. In my experience, pair programming works for debugging and integrating code -- and not so well for creating it. YMMV.
If I had mod points I'd give you a +5 Right on the Money for that one. Actual programming is a solitary effort, and a work environment should reflect that.
Very few national governments have powers that are truly vast ... half-vast, maybe.
What they want is the equivalent of a Bic lighter that plays music, and that's pretty much what Apple gives them.
Easier said than done, as you very well know. It's easy to be critical, but given the way the market for engineers is looking nowadays, I'm sticking with my current job. I have a mortgage and all the usual bills and responsibilities. And that means that I drive to work, since the area where my company is located isn't a place that I want to move my family: the gang problem alone is becoming an issue in the residential areas surrounding it. There is no public transportation that will get me there in under three hours (I would have to take a bus to a train into the city, and then another train and a cab out to my job.) I'm glad you're in a situation where you can walk to work, but for the foreseeable future I will not be.
... I used my van so little than it lasted for twelve years before the transmission finally blew. But times change, and now I commute.
However, if it's any consolation to you, I ran my own business about fifteen years, working out of my house. I only went on site a few times a month
And you will either see a. sales plummet or b. EULAs in their current form disappear. Either would be fine from my perspective.
blame the US for producing way too many of the vermin.
That's the most reasonable bit of U.S.-bashing I've heard yet on Slashdot. At least you didn't single out all of us as being warmongers or evil or Bush-lovers or whatever. And you're right: we're becoming a remarkably litigious society. Not that I have any idea how to cure the problem.
But your average corporate attorney isn't the problem, he or she is simply a tool, and a symptom of a larger problem. It is bad law, admittedly written by a bunch of lawyers (collectively known as "Congress"), combined with corporate executives who see nothing but dollar signs. Corporate lawyers just don't sit around suing people and companies for fun: somebody has to pay them to do it, and pay them handsomely. Those people are the ones you need to worry about.
You know, like the good folks in charge of Lexmark, Diebold and DirecTV. Laws like the DMCA just gave them an opportunity to put their lawyers to work. All Congress did was give a loaded gun to a bunch of idiots.
Actually, if you look at the history of that industry since the invention of the player piano, it has always been an evil enterprise. One could easily argue that they are a parasitic group riding on the backs of our most creative individuals. And perhaps that parasitism (they would call it "symbiosis") was necessary at one time, I don't know.
... hard to say which is more evil. But fortunately I can choose where to spend my entertainment dollars: unfortunately I have to buy gas to get to work.
The difference between the industry today, and our perception of it in decades past is that modern technology has forced them out into the open. Right there for everyone to see, peer-to-peer lawsuits, corrupt lawmakers, broadcast flags and all. The buying public can begin to understand the nature of the organizations that provide our entertainment, if such knowledge is considered important. I think it is, and obviously you do, but given that sales of CDs and DVDs are on the rise, even now, I tend think that most people simply do not. But from Disney to the RIAA to the MPAA to Sony, we have one of the most corrupt, dissembling groups of corporate thugs in existence anywhere. Well, perhaps they're overshadowed by the oil companies
There is a fundamental flaw in any such methodology, though ... it's called "discipline." I've worked in too many places where there was always a reason why established procedure had to be bypassed. Oh sure, it was always a "good" reason, but nevertheless if management itself is unwilling to live by its own rules I can guarantee you the programming staff won't either. Generally speaking, things like Scrum will only work in larger organizations where a top-down policy can be enforced. At least initially: you have to work past the resistance that most teams have to changing the way they do things. Once they see the benefits to them (always assuming that there are any) then the new processes may become more self-maintaining. But that's not so easy to achieve, because there will be a period of reduced productivity while everyone is trying to get rid of the old and figure out the new. And, depending upon how it is handled, that can easily evolve into active resistance. That's the point where, I think, a lot of these schemes fail: "See? We tried it for a month and now look how screwed up everything is. Let's go back to the old way."
Deal with it.
Sondra, sorry.
No, because it really isn't all that hard to find someone that will. It's different when you are talking about a resource that can only be acquired through unethical means: then you have a value judgment to make. For example, should someone be forced to give up a heart, or a lobe of their brain, in order to advance the state of human knowledge? I would say no. But heck, right now I could line you up half a dozen women that would be proud to donate an egg or two to a significant research project. No coercion required.
Of course, now, if there was money involved that would help.
Yeah, really. How far do you think the Enterprise D would have gone at the end of the premiere episode "Encounter at Farpoint", if Captain Picard had raised a finger towards the viewscreen and said, "Lets see what this Galaxy Class starship can do! Enguage!"
So what if it's broken. He's emulating the RIAA's current practices, which are also broken.
robotic taste-shaping overlords
Most people don't know it, but that level of technological sophistication was achieved nearly a century ago.
Nowadays, we call them "studio executives". They used to work reasonably well, but nobody has updated their programming since 1957.
I can just see Sonda Bullock and Sylvester Stallone discussing this over nachos at Taco Bell:
Stallone: "You know, it's odd that all your music sounds like Britney Spears."
Bullock: "Well, after the Great DRM Wars of 2030, all music is Britney Spears."
Stallone: "Oh my God!"
Algorhythm, you mean. If you're going to misspell a word for effect, make sure you misspell it correctly.
Or something like that.
According to the researchers, the software has accurately predicted Billboard hits for the past several months.
... maybe I'm in the wrong business.
Hell, I can do that. My friends have noticed that, for a long time, any piece of popular music that I can't stand to hear becomes a hit. Hm
The screenwriters of the Stargate franchises could write a better patent application than that! In fact, I think it would be cool to apply for a patent on the Zero-Point Module and see if it gets granted.