Hey I work for myself. My point is I understand and agree with the idea of preventing someone from doing this.
If you work for a company where they care more about their image and liability than about how good your technical contribution is and how well you are helping the customer?
Who says you can't have BOTH? What does it say about a company that allows paid on-staff nitwits free reign to say any stupid thing they want to. Frequently I've found "tech support" to be any thing but good. Many companies are aware of that. Maybe some companies are trying to improve that. GOOD tech support REQUIRES training and supervision. You get neither with incidents on some third party BBS. Perhaps they don't want to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing someone to say something stupid and cause problems for the company.
I guess I wasn't clear. I understand the Free Radical Software is trying buy it. The line in the slashdot article implied that if they failed to buy it then the software would die. I was asking why it couldn't be released as open-source "abandonware" as you put it. Like for example the company has a lein on its assets. I've never heard of the company until today.(Might explain why they are in $ trouble, Yes?)
We are not talking about "whistle blowers" you stupid nitwit! Any body can post something anonymously. If a company truly has problems such things will happen. I'm talking about a poorly trained or new employee trying to do "the right thing" and posting incorrect and harmful info. I sure you have dealt with nitwit techs who shouldn't be working on the job yet do. They can't be corrected/trained/fired if they are posting as company reps off the clock and off site.
Everyone would know that it you want BellSouth's opinion, you should go to BellSouth's published information, that's why you think the policy will be effective against trolls, right?
Plenty of people if they saw a posting signed by someone claiming to be a company rep would assume that it was an authorized post. Many end users are idiots. And idiots have lawyers. Common sense is pushed aside when lawyers come on board.
You are a naive idiot. Run a company and get sued. Then you understand my point. I got sued once by someone that was stung by a bee at my front door.
It isn't about WINNING a case. Most lawsuits never get to court. It's about the threat of a lawsuit and expense of having to payoff a foolish user that followed the incorrect advise of an off duty tech that posted incoreect information using the company name.
In a court of law the claim doesn't have to be winable for you to sue someone. It just has to be enough of a problem to be profitable.
It isn't the stupid managers or there stupid techs that are the problem. It is the fscking lawyers.
This implies that the official support is always accurate. If users had half a clue they would demand such forums.
And your impling that somehow if its online that it is correct as well. Neither is correct.
But at least if the company is RUNNING the bbs and not some third party the company can remove/edit the incorrect information. If it's "out in the wild" they have no control. SO when stupid tech-rep X posts incorrect information the company is still going to get the phone call(or the lawsuit) from dumb user A who formated his hard drive because the "offical" rep told him to on a non-offical BBS that the company wasn't monitoring. And worse Google will make sure that that incorrect info is preserved forever.
I've had the scripts used on me as well. It just points out that they don't have the money to run a proper help support. Running A BBS would cost even more money and might or might not ease the help desk support load.
Techs who provide support in a non-authorised manner and therefore unsupervised manor should be prohibited from doing this.
I personally have seen incorrect information posted on BBSs. Yet if the poster IDs him/herself as an employee of company X and that incorrect information causes damage the company could be liable. The article says "So instead of spending twenty minutes drafting clear corporate policy on public forum relations protocol, some companies clamp down on such activities; sometimes brutally." No they took there 20 minutes and elimiated a potential legal loophole. Running a proper BBS forum would take a lot of resources and I can understand why a corportaion would want to clamp down on this.
This isn't the evil empire. This is CYOA. And considering the amount of stupid and incorrect information that can be found out there I don't blame them on bit!
This is so full of errors I can hardly bring myself to comment on it. Nonetheless: the fact that you say "He [Stallman] finds the idea of paying someone for a product to be reprehensive because he fears the power money brings" suggests to me that you haven't even read the GNU website. Here's the link.
I have read it and RMS's personal site as well. It is what led me to my opinions about him. If you think I'm wrong then go over it point by point. I not unwilling to be convinced of my so called errors.
The fact is, and this is the reason Stallman doesn't use the term Intellectual Property, ideas (and expressions of those ideas) by their very nature aren't property. The world isn't cheapened if I share an idea or it's expression idea freely. In fact, the world is enriched.
Then why does he (RMS) care what I call Linux and why does he insist that all works that derive from the original be GPL'd as well? If "ideas" are truly free and I wish to take an idea modify it and profit from it how is the original owner HARMED? If I choose to be sellfish and keep all the benefits to myself, how does that stop you from taking the original free material and using IT anyway YOU want to? It isn't the fact that he gives away the product that is a problem. It is the fact that he wants to CONTROL the use of the product.
The belief that an idea is free once it "leaves the confines of your skill" was first recognised by the founding fathers of the USE. Would you describe them as "communist"?
I assume USE is a typo and you meant U.S.A. The founding fathers put IP protection in the consitution. You statement is unsported by the exsistance of that document. Please clarify your point because I don't follow or agree with you.
No I'd be going to Anti-matter R US to get fuel and Raw Matterials R US to get the base matter that a replicator would need. The idea that Star Trek style replicators would eliminate all commerce is foolish. It would have an effect personal commerce by changing the things you work for but all commerce would not be eliminated.
It's sad to see that the most valuable aspect of any product - the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS (from my perspective).
And you are surprised by this? RMS is clearly a leftist. The product of a single person is not something of interest to a communist. He has stated that he doesn't believe we have a right to IP. ANY form of IP. His belief is that an idea once it leaves the confines of your skull in any form is free to be used by anyone in anyway. Simply because it CAN be replicated he thinks it should without limits. If he could figure out how to replicate food and fuel and other tangible items I think he would.
As others have pointed out the main problem with FREE software or FREE music or FREE anything is that workers are exploited. Even RMS on some level realizes this or why would he get so pissy about insisting that Linux be called GNU/Linux. He wants to make sure he gets the credit.(i.e. Please don't exploit me! I wrote it. Waaah!) But for ideas to be truly free you've got to surrender that right as well. RMS is a hypocrite. He finds the idea of paying someone for a product to be reprehensive because he fears the power money brings. Money equals ownership and if you don't want money then you can't have ownership. Yet he doesn't like to surrender the power of being the author of GNU gives him. At some level he owns GNU because he wrote it. But when he gives it away you give that right away too. You can't have it both ways.
So every thing they do is colored by an illogical, irrational belief in God, and a desire to oppress and torture everyone who isn't of their particular Christian sect.
...cat. Just where the hell DOES he go when he vanishes for 3 days? Now If I can just tap into those orbiting "Star Wars" laser guns I could teach him to stay at home.
Bad KITTY!!! ***death ray come down from the sky***ZAP! Fried cat found 2 miles away.
I find it interesting that Hacktivismo was/is one of the members of Cult of the Dead Cow. I had a hard time fully following his rambling License (leave it to lawyer wannabies to craft long winded bullsh_t) but it does, I think, prohibit software designed to spy on anyone.
The Cult of the Dead Cow is most famous for Back Orifice, a so called remote access tool, which was mostly used as a Trojan to secretly invade, and thus spy on, NT networks.
He and his fellow members had no problem destroying my right to privacy in the past and now wants us to belive that he thinks this is wrong. Is this a change of heart or is he just a hypocrite?
... that it is Ugly and not user friendly. Most OSS was developed from the *nix crowd. *nix users are from the mostly command line crowd. While the number of people using X in the *nix crowd are going up that same crowd is often willing to accept blurry fonts, mis matched user interfaces, and other weirdness that the average (re: Windows or Mac) user will not accept or understand. Windows and Mac present a more polished interface thefore appear to be better software.
The idea of free, as in beer, software will appeal to most anyone. Most OSS software looks like it is cheap and people often equate cheap with poor quality. Many open software titles work well but the interface looks so bad that "Joe Six Pack" will never accept it. More so if he has used better(re: prettier) software.
Therefore ugly software must be cheap and if it is cheap looking and cheaply priced then it must be bad.
It also can be argued that if the software has a bad UI then it really IS bad software. The UI is an important part of the equation.
Note that Legal Tender is only required for DEBTS. I can refuse to sell my item to you if you offer cash but after I have sold it to you and you have promised , in writing, I must accept it. It is not a Debt until I have sold it to you and you have the item in your possession.
I may be wrong about this but I believe that the "default" DOS prompt will give you the drive letter with no path. The PROMPT command will let you change that to whatever you want but the "raw" prompt from command.com does give you a drive letter does it not?
Both prompts are configurable so we are picking nits and I don't have the desire to load up and old copy of dos just to check. Anybody know for sure?
I make full use of it. I keep mileage and billing records on it and use it to update contacts. When I am out in the field servicing computers and networks I can add or update records on the fly. For me the unit is vital to the way I run my business. I've tried to keep paper records but never was very organized. I know many people that don't use them but that is not true in my case.
Go ahead, mod me. I'm not a Troll, I am an OGRE and you had better say "Sir" when you call me that.
..you pay the piper. I think that most copyright laws are immoral but it IS THE LAW. Should we not hold Navy Cadets and Goverment personel to a HIGHER standard?
Go ahead. Mod me down. I'm a not a Troll, I am an OGRE and you better say "Sir" when you call me that.
This is all biased opinion but it's MY biased opinion:
/dev/fda or/dev/hda tells me exactly what it is and where it is. a: or c: or q: doesn't tell me shit other then that is what was setup. Only by knowing the established naming convention do I "know" that a: is a floppy. And D:? is it my CD-ROM or my second hard drive or my second partition on my first hard drive. In this *NIX is logical and superior.
C:/> or $ Sorry DOS wins here. the C: prompt tells me my location. The $ don't. In both cases, of course, you can modify the prompt to be more informative. But the "default" setting dos wins - though not by much.
dir or ls. No winner here both are not obvious what they do if you are newbie.
format C: or mke2fs/dev/hda I'd say neither got it quite right. "Format" is sure easier to grasp as a newbie but we still got that "what kind of drive is C:?" problem. While the other command defines the file system and the exact type of device being delt with. I'd have to say *NIX is better.
And you didn't mention \ vr/ I've seen plenty of people get confused over the \ that is used in dos based directories and the / used all over the net. DOS did it wrong.
Go ahead. Mod me down. I'm not just a Troll. I am OGRE and you better call me "Sir" when you say that.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey I work for myself. My point is I understand and agree with the idea of preventing someone from doing this.
If you work for a company where they care more about their image and liability than about how good your technical contribution is and how well you are helping the customer?
Who says you can't have BOTH? What does it say about a company that allows paid on-staff nitwits free reign to say any stupid thing they want to. Frequently I've found "tech support" to be any thing but good. Many companies are aware of that. Maybe some companies are trying to improve that. GOOD tech support REQUIRES training and supervision. You get neither with incidents on some third party BBS. Perhaps they don't want to shoot themselves in the foot by allowing someone to say something stupid and cause problems for the company.
Oh who does own all its code. I've never heard of this company until today.
I guess I wasn't clear. I understand the Free Radical Software is trying buy it. The line in the slashdot article implied that if they failed to buy it then the software would die. I was asking why it couldn't be released as open-source "abandonware" as you put it. Like for example the company has a lein on its assets. I've never heard of the company until today.(Might explain why they are in $ trouble, Yes?)
..what is stopping them from releasing the code as GPL anyway? Is the code tied up as an asset that might be seized by a bank?
Oh pleeeeeeese!
We are not talking about "whistle blowers" you stupid nitwit! Any body can post something anonymously. If a company truly has problems such things will happen. I'm talking about a poorly trained or new employee trying to do "the right thing" and posting incorrect and harmful info. I sure you have dealt with nitwit techs who shouldn't be working on the job yet do. They can't be corrected/trained/fired if they are posting as company reps off the clock and off site.
Everyone would know that it you want BellSouth's opinion, you should go to BellSouth's published information, that's why you think the policy will be effective against trolls, right?
Plenty of people if they saw a posting signed by someone claiming to be a company rep would assume that it was an authorized post. Many end users are idiots. And idiots have lawyers. Common sense is pushed aside when lawyers come on board.
You are a naive idiot. Run a company and get sued. Then you understand my point. I got sued once by someone that was stung by a bee at my front door.
It isn't about WINNING a case. Most lawsuits never get to court. It's about the threat of a lawsuit and expense of having to payoff a foolish user that followed the incorrect advise of an off duty tech that posted incoreect information using the company name.
In a court of law the claim doesn't have to be winable for you to sue someone. It just has to be enough of a problem to be profitable.
It isn't the stupid managers or there stupid techs that are the problem. It is the fscking lawyers.
This implies that the official support is always accurate. If users had half a clue they would demand such forums.
And your impling that somehow if its online that it is correct as well. Neither is correct. But at least if the company is RUNNING the bbs and not some third party the company can remove/edit the incorrect information. If it's "out in the wild" they have no control. SO when stupid tech-rep X posts incorrect information the company is still going to get the phone call(or the lawsuit) from dumb user A who formated his hard drive because the "offical" rep told him to on a non-offical BBS that the company wasn't monitoring. And worse Google will make sure that that incorrect info is preserved forever.
I've had the scripts used on me as well. It just points out that they don't have the money to run a proper help support. Running A BBS would cost even more money and might or might not ease the help desk support load.
Cover Your Own Ass
Another words the companies are only looking to protect themselves from lawsuits.
Techs who provide support in a non-authorised manner and therefore unsupervised manor should be prohibited from doing this.
I personally have seen incorrect information posted on BBSs. Yet if the poster IDs him/herself as an employee of company X and that incorrect information causes damage the company could be liable. The article says "So instead of spending twenty minutes drafting clear corporate policy on public forum relations protocol, some companies clamp down on such activities; sometimes brutally." No they took there 20 minutes and elimiated a potential legal loophole. Running a proper BBS forum would take a lot of resources and I can understand why a corportaion would want to clamp down on this.
This isn't the evil empire. This is CYOA. And considering the amount of stupid and incorrect information that can be found out there I don't blame them on bit!
....extra AOL CDs!
AOL wants the photo OP. This guy hates snail mail spam. Just back that dump truck onto his lawn.
*You've got mail.*
This is so full of errors I can hardly bring myself to comment on it. Nonetheless: the fact that you say "He [Stallman] finds the idea of paying someone for a product to be reprehensive because he fears the power money brings" suggests to me that you haven't even read the GNU website. Here's the link.
I have read it and RMS's personal site as well. It is what led me to my opinions about him. If you think I'm wrong then go over it point by point. I not unwilling to be convinced of my so called errors.
The fact is, and this is the reason Stallman doesn't use the term Intellectual Property, ideas (and expressions of those ideas) by their very nature aren't property. The world isn't cheapened if I share an idea or it's expression idea freely. In fact, the world is enriched.
Then why does he (RMS) care what I call Linux and why does he insist that all works that derive from the original be GPL'd as well? If "ideas" are truly free and I wish to take an idea modify it and profit from it how is the original owner HARMED? If I choose to be sellfish and keep all the benefits to myself, how does that stop you from taking the original free material and using IT anyway YOU want to? It isn't the fact that he gives away the product that is a problem. It is the fact that he wants to CONTROL the use of the product.
The belief that an idea is free once it "leaves the confines of your skill" was first recognised by the founding fathers of the USE. Would you describe them as "communist"?
I assume USE is a typo and you meant U.S.A. The founding fathers put IP protection in the consitution. You statement is unsported by the exsistance of that document. Please clarify your point because I don't follow or agree with you.
No I'd be going to Anti-matter R US to get fuel and Raw Matterials R US to get the base matter that a replicator would need. The idea that Star Trek style replicators would eliminate all commerce is foolish. It would have an effect personal commerce by changing the things you work for but all commerce would not be eliminated.
It's sad to see that the most valuable aspect of any product - the time put in by people - is the least valued by RMS (from my perspective).
And you are surprised by this? RMS is clearly a leftist. The product of a single person is not something of interest to a communist. He has stated that he doesn't believe we have a right to IP. ANY form of IP. His belief is that an idea once it leaves the confines of your skull in any form is free to be used by anyone in anyway. Simply because it CAN be replicated he thinks it should without limits. If he could figure out how to replicate food and fuel and other tangible items I think he would.
As others have pointed out the main problem with FREE software or FREE music or FREE anything is that workers are exploited. Even RMS on some level realizes this or why would he get so pissy about insisting that Linux be called GNU/Linux. He wants to make sure he gets the credit.(i.e. Please don't exploit me! I wrote it. Waaah!) But for ideas to be truly free you've got to surrender that right as well. RMS is a hypocrite. He finds the idea of paying someone for a product to be reprehensive because he fears the power money brings. Money equals ownership and if you don't want money then you can't have ownership. Yet he doesn't like to surrender the power of being the author of GNU gives him. At some level he owns GNU because he wrote it. But when he gives it away you give that right away too. You can't have it both ways.
So every thing they do is colored by an illogical, irrational belief in God, and a desire to oppress and torture everyone who isn't of their particular Christian sect.
So this is a bad thing?
Now I have to go and buy tampons, depends, and diet Pepsi.
And damn I was bored one day and watched an infomerical. Now I've got to buy a "bowflex" too.
...cat. Just where the hell DOES he go when he vanishes for 3 days? Now If I can just tap into those orbiting "Star Wars" laser guns I could teach him to stay at home.
Bad KITTY!!! ***death ray come down from the sky***ZAP! Fried cat found 2 miles away.
Well maybe not...
I find it interesting that Hacktivismo was/is one of the members of Cult of the Dead Cow. I had a hard time fully following his rambling License (leave it to lawyer wannabies to craft long winded bullsh_t) but it does, I think, prohibit software designed to spy on anyone.
The Cult of the Dead Cow is most famous for Back Orifice, a so called remote access tool, which was mostly used as a Trojan to secretly invade, and thus spy on, NT networks.
He and his fellow members had no problem destroying my right to privacy in the past and now wants us to belive that he thinks this is wrong. Is this a change of heart or is he just a hypocrite?
I thought that Vulcan's Fury got shelved because De Kelly got ill and then died before it was finished.
... that it is Ugly and not user friendly. Most OSS was developed from the *nix crowd. *nix users are from the mostly command line crowd. While the number of people using X in the *nix crowd are going up that same crowd is often willing to accept blurry fonts, mis matched user interfaces, and other weirdness that the average (re: Windows or Mac) user will not accept or understand. Windows and Mac present a more polished interface thefore appear to be better software.
The idea of free, as in beer, software will appeal to most anyone. Most OSS software looks like it is cheap and people often equate cheap with poor quality. Many open software titles work well but the interface looks so bad that "Joe Six Pack" will never accept it. More so if he has used better(re: prettier) software.
Therefore ugly software must be cheap and if it is cheap looking and cheaply priced then it must be bad.
It also can be argued that if the software has a bad UI then it really IS bad software. The UI is an important part of the equation.
Note that Legal Tender is only required for DEBTS. I can refuse to sell my item to you if you offer cash but after I have sold it to you and you have promised , in writing, I must accept it. It is not a Debt until I have sold it to you and you have the item in your possession.
I may be wrong about this but I believe that the "default" DOS prompt will give you the drive letter with no path. The PROMPT command will let you change that to whatever you want but the "raw" prompt from command.com does give you a drive letter does it not?
Both prompts are configurable so we are picking nits and I don't have the desire to load up and old copy of dos just to check. Anybody know for sure?
I have an Handspring Visor Edge.
I make full use of it. I keep mileage and billing records on it and use it to update contacts. When I am out in the field servicing computers and networks I can add or update records on the fly. For me the unit is vital to the way I run my business. I've tried to keep paper records but never was very organized. I know many people that don't use them but that is not true in my case.
Go ahead, mod me. I'm not a Troll, I am an OGRE and you had better say "Sir" when you call me that.
..you pay the piper. I think that most copyright laws are immoral but it IS THE LAW. Should we not hold Navy Cadets and Goverment personel to a HIGHER standard?
Go ahead. Mod me down. I'm a not a Troll, I am an OGRE and you better say "Sir" when you call me that.
This is all biased opinion but it's MY biased opinion:
/dev/fda or /dev/hda tells me exactly what it is and where it is. a: or c: or q: doesn't tell me shit other then that is what was setup. Only by knowing the established naming convention do I "know" that a: is a floppy. And D:? is it my CD-ROM or my second hard drive or my second partition on my first hard drive. In this *NIX is logical and superior.
/dev/hda I'd say neither got it quite right. "Format" is sure easier to grasp as a newbie but we still got that "what kind of drive is C:?" problem. While the other command defines the file system and the exact type of device being delt with. I'd have to say *NIX is better.
/ I've seen plenty of people get confused over the \ that is used in dos based directories and the / used all over the net. DOS did it wrong.
C:/> or $ Sorry DOS wins here. the C: prompt tells me my location. The $ don't. In both cases, of course, you can modify the prompt to be more informative. But the "default" setting dos wins - though not by much.
dir or ls. No winner here both are not obvious what they do if you are newbie.
format C: or mke2fs
And you didn't mention \ vr
Go ahead. Mod me down. I'm not just a Troll. I am OGRE and you better call me "Sir" when you say that.