Hi, IT here. You and I have been getting along pretty good at first, but now things have changed. You used to get excited about working with me. You used to stay late and do things with me because you wanted to. Sometimes you'd even take me home and play with me a bit there too.
Now you just see me 40 hours a week, and sometimes less. You don't touch me the same way; you're just going through the motions. You work with me just enough to get the job done.
Well I'm sick of it. There are a lot of developers out there that still find me exciting. A lot of developers still see the glory of working with me. Hey, let's face it, I'm pretty fucking awesome.
So, anonymous reader, it's over. I'm leaving you. It's not me, it's you.You're the reason you don't find me attractive anymore. I'm just as awesome as ever.
Every time I read about this kind of thing... more surveillance, finger printing, suspicionless checkpoints, etc, etc...
I think two things:
1. WTF. I'm not a crimial, and the majority of people aren't either and yet we're all subjected to this kind of BS.
2. Does it even work? Why are countries making all of these efforts and the citizens are the last to hear about it.
Will biometrics really make a difference at the borders? The first thing I think of are ways that a person could get around this.. and you know the US border is still pretty open.
By water or land people cross the borders all the time.
This all started with 9/11 by people who were in the country legally... so ya, this just doesn't make any sense to me and makes me more frustrated with our governments.
I think it's important to keep in mind the ever changing world we live in and make sure that the rules and values we hold grow and change with it.
I am against anonymizing all legal records, and I'm not sure that doing that for online records will be a great benefit, but I do think it is necessary to make sure the intent of public records are upheld while ways of exploiting this information are dealt with.
What I'm saying is, I don't really care if online records are anonymized, as long as there is a still a simple and easy way for full undoctored access to the information exists.
To satisfy your need for an answer, quoting the Portal end-game song, "We do what we must because we can...".
The person I replied to gave an answer about it being abundant and easy, and whereas I don't completely agree with the nit picky points of zero cost or loss, since I am giving away my hard earned electrons, I do think he has given an answer for us both.
You were a "poor college student" and an asshole (by your definition not mine) but now you're reformed. Back then would there have been anything the game makers could have done, save give you the game for free, that would have made you obtain the games legitimately?
Regardless of the answers to the OP, I believe the industry should care more about how they can reduce piracy by creating products and services (read not drm and not litigation) that make piracy difficult or undesirable.
I agree with this post, the fact that it is simple and easy to share the product, the product is much more likely to be shared.
I offer a solution, and I cite real products that exist today: Guitar Hero and World of Warcraft. You can use Dance Dance Revolution and D&D Online if you want. Either offer a tangible compliment to the game or make the game depend on remote content.
Without the guitar, Guitar Hero is pretty boring to play and WoW, even played on a private server, just isn't the same.
What they have to do is make a product that doesn't make sense to pirate. There are other ways too, like releasing games with massive amounts of content, content that you want, not cinematics shot in the most inefficient way possible.
Add this to the right price point and the idea of spending less than $20 to get it now vs. waiting for a very long time to download a 100gig games starts to make sense.
In the future when downloading 100gigs isn't a big deal, then offer an amount that is.
So, make games with dance mats, or ever changing remote content, make them jam packed with local content, include a login that allows you to interact with the game developers or celebrities or you favorite sports hero. Basically produce something that compels people to buy it... and they will.
There is nothing special about a Blackberry. It is a device that can be used as a phone and a very simplistic internet device. I have one, and it is not even close to the habit forming level of cigarettes, drugs or alcohol.
If you need a warning label for a Blackberry then you fail at life.
One is simple, Bill Gates competes with Linux/OSS/Free and other commercial software. It's not in his interests, yet, to support open source software because it doesn't benefit him.
The other issue is a matter of application. Some software and operating systems are better for certain things. I like Solaris for some things, Linux for others, Windows can be a nice development environment. Sometimes there's no software on the OS I am using for the application that I want. Or at least not a version that I like. So once again it's a matter of application. Some people like to type, others click. Really, the competition is good for MS, any competition at all against a monopoly is!
Another answer is simply user choice. I know of a product that has two scripting languages in it. REXX and VBScript (seriously, I'm not kidding). Both languages were used to create a high level access to low level features in an application server. REXX was chosen since this app interfaced with mainframes and the idea was to make mainframe people more friendly to it.
I've seen people do just about anything to avoid having to write REXX code. For those who had to learn it, they all agreed it was a good language (read: it did it's job) but I've never seen someone write REXX for any other reason that necessity with this product.
I'm not sure why they didn't use it as much. It might be that it's not a very marketable language. I personally didn't like the look of the syntax.
Re:"Co-opt Java"
on
How C# Was Made
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But people DO say that Java was co-opted C++, including you and now.. me. Languages naturally progress from those that already exists like every other technology. Why reinvent the wheel and find out that squares don't work... over and over.
Java is taking ideas from C# as well, just take a look at 1.5 with enums, yes I know they existed before C# but I think their existence in C# prompted the move.
I just find it funny that pro-MS people often don't like to hear that C# could even possibly be an evolutionary step off of Java. And unlike older languages, Java itself is still evolving. The.NET runtime concept that works so much better than Java on a Windows machine is something that could exist for Java some day. C# might actually have a legitimately supported OS other that Windows, and although the Mono project is great, it ain't by MS.
I've used both and the both work and they'll both change... for a while... then another will come along.
I wounldn't try to find religion in a programming language, they come and go too quickly.
What do you want to know about it? My opinion? The law? Who does it? History of copyright? You'll have to elaborate on the question before I can answer you.
In my previous post I'm not saying it's ok to do it, just that I read a lot of posts saying how if only one thing changed they would stop getting illegally free high quality products off of the internet and I simply don't believe it. People still steal mp3s even though almost every music store around has listening stations to preview the music.
A whois of kungfucinema.com shows it's registered to a person in Seattle Washington. I think that's how they can bully the guy. I'm sure if there was a HK based movie selling site, there wouldn't be much that Miramax could do, unless they also owned the HK rights to the movie as well.
This is a classic example where even when a big corp. is wrong, making them do the right thing would cost too much time and money with almost no return.
This does make sense but it's too simple a solution to be usable. A complex patent could fall into one of many categories or make a new one (although I imagine few do these days). Choosing the keyword would cause the same effect of patents being missed in the review process. Keep mulling this over. Maybe you can come up with a new way of patent filing/searching. Make sure to patent it if you do!
requires the filee to do proper research. The fact that this position exists does not mean you can get an idea, file it and get it approved and it be legit. This person is only there as a last attempt at trying to weed out the duplicates.
Given the increase in complexity for these filings, doing your own research appears to be even more important that ever. I've gone through the process with mixed success. Even when proper research is done by the person filing and the patent office, you can still miss something.
Does the primary language of the person who programs your dialog boxes really matter?
No but that's not the point. When business was booming it was ok to stay in the country and reap the benefits of all the flowing cash. When times got tough these companies sent off work to other countries to save a quick buck.
This saves the company in the short term and those employees who are left with a job but eventually hurts it in the long term. If everyone sends work offshore then the economy continues to fall or at the very least slows growth. Leading to more people having to resort to government assistance and more burden on the taxpayer. This makes it harder to sell within the US, more layoffs, more services moved offshore, it becomes a snowball effect.
This is not true. The system would not be public accessible even if the code was open source. This would be for security purposes since it's not good, as any sys admin will support, to allow open access to a machine with sensitive material. MD5 is an excellent verification tool but in this instance only a restricted group of individuals would be allowed to run it, and who is to say that they are not also the ones tampering with the application.
Although I love the idea of open source in many applications, to say that closed source is obsolete is not factually supported. Additionally, given the wide percentage of users of closed source versus open source, the arguement against closed source seems a little premature. Call me ignorant and dishonest, but I'm just looking at the facts of consumer usage to date.
Closed source junk, on the other hand, is imposible to test and verify.
I have a hard time accepting this often used stance against the choice of closed vs. open source in voting. Whether or not the public has access to the source does not necessarily assure the product is:
a. bug free, since most source, open or closed has bugs. That's life.
b. is tamper proof, given that the code is eventually compiled and there's nothing keeping a person from altering the code before compile.
And although I am a proponent for BSD or Linux vs. any WinX OS, bad code is bad code regardless of the OS it resides.
I personally think there is a better way than using open sourced code for electronic voting systems. I believe that the code should be restricted but reviewed by partisan and non-partisan groups to ensure fairness and robustness because I don't see the value of letting just anyone see the code. For those few bright people who would be intelligent enough and industrious enough, there should be an application process to become a member of the review team. This allows accountability and also security in the event that something illegal or incorrect happens but also keeps it difficult for those who would try to illegally manipulate the system.
But if I had to choose, I would rather an open source system used that a completely closed unreviewable system.
I can just imagine an unscrupulous spammer walking around convention centers scanning for badges, picking up their e-mail, phone and home address then selling this off to some penis enlarging-mortgage selling-credit card consolidating company.
Or better yet, sending those messages directly to the badges
Next thing you know, Symantec will be selling Norton Anti-virus Badge Edition to filter it all out.
Time.com has every right to remove elements of their site as they see fit. There are of course laws that restrict the content added to a site such as defamatory, fraudulant, etc, but there is nothing, that I know of, that restricts the removal of information.
If a speach by Clinton on why telephone poles should be taller were removed, it wouldn't even show up on the radar let alone be a/. story.
The reason this is important to discuss is that this type of self censoring is occuring more and more often as of late and doesn't appear to be slowing. More and more often the if you're not for, you're against mentality is cropping up and the power of political and commercial influence is so strong that the options of acceptable opinions is narrowing more and more by the second.
Take the Dixie Chicks who expressed an opinion on the subject of Iraq and had to give a public apology else their careers would no longer exist. The stigma still exists around them.
Unlike in the past when it was not possible to remove these articles so easily given they existed in print, now it's as easy as moving a file to another folder, deleting a link, or denying access to a location. Suddenly information that once was no longer exists. If we're lucky caching sites have a copy but that's only a hack and not a solution to the greater problem of reduced freedoms. The freedom to express oneself is something that all humanity should have and it certainly should exist in a country that has laws to protect that freedom. The question is, are these people and organizations censoring themselves simply as an expression of their rights and freedoms or are they being influenced by other greater powers which in turn is restricting those rights and freedoms?
The IRC admins, at least for most of the better channels, will simply set up a config to kick/ban the google bot. Many channels don't allow non-human connections unless set up by the channel admins. Unlike the annoying spammers who uses legit and stolen access points, google will likely come from a single legit source making the process of denying access easier.
Google shouldn't be trying to find more content, they should be working on filtering out the mass of garbage sites that already exist.
You are welcome to email me and ask for an elaboration.
No, but thank you. I'm quite sure I understand your position; I just disagree with it. I'll stay in Canada, I love this place and it's home. If I ever had to move to the US, it'd be no problem, it has a lot of places I really like. You can go as you wish, and think as you wish, no need to explain yourself to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, IT here. You and I have been getting along pretty good at first, but now things have changed. You used to get excited about working with me. You used to stay late and do things with me because you wanted to. Sometimes you'd even take me home and play with me a bit there too.
Now you just see me 40 hours a week, and sometimes less. You don't touch me the same way; you're just going through the motions. You work with me just enough to get the job done.
Well I'm sick of it. There are a lot of developers out there that still find me exciting. A lot of developers still see the glory of working with me. Hey, let's face it, I'm pretty fucking awesome.
So, anonymous reader, it's over. I'm leaving you. It's not me, it's you. You're the reason you don't find me attractive anymore. I'm just as awesome as ever.
Step 1: build something
Step 2: Figure out how to use it to make porn
Step 3: make porn
Step 4: Profit!
I can't believe you left of JPod based on the book of the same name by Douglas Coupland. :)
It's a hilarious video game developer geek comedy.
Every time I read about this kind of thing... more surveillance, finger printing, suspicionless checkpoints, etc, etc...
.. and you know the US border is still pretty open.
I think two things:
1. WTF. I'm not a crimial, and the majority of people aren't either and yet we're all subjected to this kind of BS.
2. Does it even work? Why are countries making all of these efforts and the citizens are the last to hear about it.
Will biometrics really make a difference at the borders? The first thing I think of are ways that a person could get around this
By water or land people cross the borders all the time.
This all started with 9/11 by people who were in the country legally... so ya, this just doesn't make any sense to me and makes me more frustrated with our governments.
I think it's closer to a phone book with "escort services" listed.
I very much agree.
I think it's important to keep in mind the ever changing world we live in and make sure that the rules and values we hold grow and change with it.
I am against anonymizing all legal records, and I'm not sure that doing that for online records will be a great benefit, but I do think it is necessary to make sure the intent of public records are upheld while ways of exploiting this information are dealt with.
What I'm saying is, I don't really care if online records are anonymized, as long as there is a still a simple and easy way for full undoctored access to the information exists.
To satisfy your need for an answer, quoting the Portal end-game song, "We do what we must because we can...".
The person I replied to gave an answer about it being abundant and easy, and whereas I don't completely agree with the nit picky points of zero cost or loss, since I am giving away my hard earned electrons, I do think he has given an answer for us both.
You were a "poor college student" and an asshole (by your definition not mine) but now you're reformed. Back then would there have been anything the game makers could have done, save give you the game for free, that would have made you obtain the games legitimately?
Regardless of the answers to the OP, I believe the industry should care more about how they can reduce piracy by creating products and services (read not drm and not litigation) that make piracy difficult or undesirable.
I agree with this post, the fact that it is simple and easy to share the product, the product is much more likely to be shared.
I offer a solution, and I cite real products that exist today: Guitar Hero and World of Warcraft. You can use Dance Dance Revolution and D&D Online if you want. Either offer a tangible compliment to the game or make the game depend on remote content.
Without the guitar, Guitar Hero is pretty boring to play and WoW, even played on a private server, just isn't the same.
What they have to do is make a product that doesn't make sense to pirate. There are other ways too, like releasing games with massive amounts of content, content that you want, not cinematics shot in the most inefficient way possible.
Add this to the right price point and the idea of spending less than $20 to get it now vs. waiting for a very long time to download a 100gig games starts to make sense.
In the future when downloading 100gigs isn't a big deal, then offer an amount that is.
So, make games with dance mats, or ever changing remote content, make them jam packed with local content, include a login that allows you to interact with the game developers or celebrities or you favorite sports hero. Basically produce something that compels people to buy it... and they will.
Lawsuits and DRM won't make a difference.
Anyway, I'm gonna go play some Rock Band now.
There is nothing special about a Blackberry. It is a device that can be used as a phone and a very simplistic internet device. I have one, and it is not even close to the habit forming level of cigarettes, drugs or alcohol. If you need a warning label for a Blackberry then you fail at life.
There are two issues at hand.
One is simple, Bill Gates competes with Linux/OSS/Free and other commercial software. It's not in his interests, yet, to support open source software because it doesn't benefit him.
The other issue is a matter of application. Some software and operating systems are better for certain things. I like Solaris for some things, Linux for others, Windows can be a nice development environment. Sometimes there's no software on the OS I am using for the application that I want. Or at least not a version that I like. So once again it's a matter of application. Some people like to type, others click. Really, the competition is good for MS, any competition at all against a monopoly is!
Another answer is simply user choice. I know of a product that has two scripting languages in it. REXX and VBScript (seriously, I'm not kidding). Both languages were used to create a high level access to low level features in an application server. REXX was chosen since this app interfaced with mainframes and the idea was to make mainframe people more friendly to it.
I've seen people do just about anything to avoid having to write REXX code. For those who had to learn it, they all agreed it was a good language (read: it did it's job) but I've never seen someone write REXX for any other reason that necessity with this product.
I'm not sure why they didn't use it as much. It might be that it's not a very marketable language. I personally didn't like the look of the syntax.
Exactly!
But people DO say that Java was co-opted C++, including you and now .. me. Languages naturally progress from those that already exists like every other technology. Why reinvent the wheel and find out that squares don't work... over and over.
.NET runtime concept that works so much better than Java on a Windows machine is something that could exist for Java some day. C# might actually have a legitimately supported OS other that Windows, and although the Mono project is great, it ain't by MS.
... then another will come along.
Java is taking ideas from C# as well, just take a look at 1.5 with enums, yes I know they existed before C# but I think their existence in C# prompted the move.
I just find it funny that pro-MS people often don't like to hear that C# could even possibly be an evolutionary step off of Java. And unlike older languages, Java itself is still evolving. The
I've used both and the both work and they'll both change... for a while
I wounldn't try to find religion in a programming language, they come and go too quickly.
What do you want to know about it? My opinion? The law? Who does it? History of copyright? You'll have to elaborate on the question before I can answer you.
In my previous post I'm not saying it's ok to do it, just that I read a lot of posts saying how if only one thing changed they would stop getting illegally free high quality products off of the internet and I simply don't believe it. People still steal mp3s even though almost every music store around has listening stations to preview the music.
Simply put, they steal because they can.
We steal because we can. We'd avoid taxes and paying for gas if we could. We'd take a free house to live in and free food for life if offered.
Why do you think there are locks on doors and cars and alarm systems and police departments?
The best part is that almost all people who steal music and movies on the Internet get away with it, so there's no deterrent.
If we couldn't get the same thing for free, easily, then we look at the option of actually paying for it.
Some still pay who have full free access to things without chance of getting in trouble, they are the exception that make the rule.
The free previews you mention are the pirated copies that we all download today.
A whois of kungfucinema.com shows it's registered to a person in Seattle Washington. I think that's how they can bully the guy. I'm sure if there was a HK based movie selling site, there wouldn't be much that Miramax could do, unless they also owned the HK rights to the movie as well.
This is a classic example where even when a big corp. is wrong, making them do the right thing would cost too much time and money with almost no return.
This does make sense but it's too simple a solution to be usable. A complex patent could fall into one of many categories or make a new one (although I imagine few do these days). Choosing the keyword would cause the same effect of patents being missed in the review process. Keep mulling this over. Maybe you can come up with a new way of patent filing/searching. Make sure to patent it if you do!
requires the filee to do proper research. The fact that this position exists does not mean you can get an idea, file it and get it approved and it be legit. This person is only there as a last attempt at trying to weed out the duplicates.
Given the increase in complexity for these filings, doing your own research appears to be even more important that ever. I've gone through the process with mixed success. Even when proper research is done by the person filing and the patent office, you can still miss something.
Does the primary language of the person who programs your dialog boxes really matter?
No but that's not the point. When business was booming it was ok to stay in the country and reap the benefits of all the flowing cash. When times got tough these companies sent off work to other countries to save a quick buck.
This saves the company in the short term and those employees who are left with a job but eventually hurts it in the long term. If everyone sends work offshore then the economy continues to fall or at the very least slows growth. Leading to more people having to resort to government assistance and more burden on the taxpayer. This makes it harder to sell within the US, more layoffs, more services moved offshore, it becomes a snowball effect.
anyone can run an md5 sum on a voting machine
This is not true. The system would not be public accessible even if the code was open source. This would be for security purposes since it's not good, as any sys admin will support, to allow open access to a machine with sensitive material. MD5 is an excellent verification tool but in this instance only a restricted group of individuals would be allowed to run it, and who is to say that they are not also the ones tampering with the application.
Although I love the idea of open source in many applications, to say that closed source is obsolete is not factually supported.
Additionally, given the wide percentage of users of closed source versus open source, the arguement against closed source seems a little premature. Call me ignorant and dishonest, but I'm just looking at the facts of consumer usage to date.
Closed source junk, on the other hand, is imposible to test and verify.
I have a hard time accepting this often used stance against the choice of closed vs. open source in voting. Whether or not the public has access to the source does not necessarily assure the product is:
a. bug free, since most source, open or closed has bugs. That's life.
b. is tamper proof, given that the code is eventually compiled and there's nothing keeping a person from altering the code before compile.
And although I am a proponent for BSD or Linux vs. any WinX OS, bad code is bad code regardless of the OS it resides.
I personally think there is a better way than using open sourced code for electronic voting systems. I believe that the code should be restricted but reviewed by partisan and non-partisan groups to ensure fairness and robustness because I don't see the value of letting just anyone see the code. For those few bright people who would be intelligent enough and industrious enough, there should be an application process to become a member of the review team. This allows accountability and also security in the event that something illegal or incorrect happens but also keeps it difficult for those who would try to illegally manipulate the system.
But if I had to choose, I would rather an open source system used that a completely closed unreviewable system.
I can just imagine an unscrupulous spammer walking around convention centers scanning for badges, picking up their e-mail, phone and home address then selling this off to some penis enlarging-mortgage selling-credit card consolidating company.
Or better yet, sending those messages directly to the badges
Next thing you know, Symantec will be selling Norton Anti-virus Badge Edition to filter it all out.
Who doesn't love spam?
Time.com has every right to remove elements of their site as they see fit. There are of course laws that restrict the content added to a site such as defamatory, fraudulant, etc, but there is nothing, that I know of, that restricts the removal of information. /. story.
If a speach by Clinton on why telephone poles should be taller were removed, it wouldn't even show up on the radar let alone be a
The reason this is important to discuss is that this type of self censoring is occuring more and more often as of late and doesn't appear to be slowing. More and more often the if you're not for, you're against mentality is cropping up and the power of political and commercial influence is so strong that the options of acceptable opinions is narrowing more and more by the second.
Take the Dixie Chicks who expressed an opinion on the subject of Iraq and had to give a public apology else their careers would no longer exist. The stigma still exists around them.
Unlike in the past when it was not possible to remove these articles so easily given they existed in print, now it's as easy as moving a file to another folder, deleting a link, or denying access to a location. Suddenly information that once was no longer exists. If we're lucky caching sites have a copy but that's only a hack and not a solution to the greater problem of reduced freedoms. The freedom to express oneself is something that all humanity should have and it certainly should exist in a country that has laws to protect that freedom. The question is, are these people and organizations censoring themselves simply as an expression of their rights and freedoms or are they being influenced by other greater powers which in turn is restricting those rights and freedoms?
The IRC admins, at least for most of the better channels, will simply set up a config to kick/ban the google bot. Many channels don't allow non-human connections unless set up by the channel admins. Unlike the annoying spammers who uses legit and stolen access points, google will likely come from a single legit source making the process of denying access easier.
Google shouldn't be trying to find more content, they should be working on filtering out the mass of garbage sites that already exist.
You are welcome to email me and ask for an elaboration.
No, but thank you. I'm quite sure I understand your position; I just disagree with it. I'll stay in Canada, I love this place and it's home. If I ever had to move to the US, it'd be no problem, it has a lot of places I really like. You can go as you wish, and think as you wish, no need to explain yourself to me.