I see a lot of people considering buildings and bridges as perfect constructions, free from defect or potential harm. Let's remember that people die from the shortcomings of man-made structures all the time.
More to the point though, individuals and corporations put their signatures on software that must not kill people all the time.
I expect you've driven and flown in some of the products that operate safely on software that has promises attached. Not to mention the many buildings you enter and bridges you cross that are safe in large part because of a number of types of software.
How about the machines that either save your life or keep you alive in the hospital? You think the software for those isn't backed up with promises regarding their functionality? You don't suppose there'd be lawsuits-a-plenty if the software failed regularly?
When you think of software, you think about Microsoft products or the crap software you use to rip your DVD's. You think of it because that's the cheap, mediocre crap right in front of your eyes on a daily basis. The important, quality software of the world goes largely unnoticed and works about as well as buildings do... which is to say, good, but never perfect.
It's never really been an issue of money for me. It's their damn Office suite. I could switch my entire organization over to linux if it weren't for Office 2007 and Exchange... which really are fantastic products as far as anyone here is concerned. Most everything else is SaaS.
I ran Vista 64-bit for about 2 months. The sound card didn't work, the wireless didn't work, and the touchpad didn't work. This was on a (at the time) 1 year old HP laptop. The drivers that windows update wanted to move to would not install because they weren't properly signed. It was like a bad joke... MS's OS wouldn't let me install drivers supplied by MS's update service because they were potential threats. Only it wasn't funny because my computer was virtually unusable.
With an incoming phone call, you can choose not to accept the call. At least as far as I know, I can't decide which SMS messages I want to receive. So in theory I pay for messages sent to me without my permission, and whether I want them or not. Right?
If so, THAT should be illegal. What happens if someone wants to be a jerk and uses an email gateway to ring up your sms bill in the middle of the night?
If I let one of my domains expire, it's really none of my business who or why it gets picked up afterwards. All I need to know is that I let it expire.
If I don't like that GoDaddy picks them up after expiration... then I shouldn't use GoDaddy. If I use GoDaddy, and it gets picked up by them after I willingly let it expire, it really isn't your place to complain that you can't have it. It was never yours, and you're not entitled to it. Sorry.
The fact that someone bought the domain you want and put ads on it may tick you off... it's happened to me... but I don't think it's illegitimate. So long as they're paying for the name and hosting, I don't get to cry foul. Similarly, if I buy a site and put a lame site up that maybe only three people in the world are interested in, tough... that's my business.
Seriously... people are going to rip stuff off no matter what you do. If you want to write software that anyone can look over, learn from and use... who cares if some mope out there is trying to run a scam? Best you can ever do is try to make everyone aware of the scam artists.
It's not like someone doing this is going to make a much better version, close the source, and make a hyper-mega-global-corp out of scamming Paint.Net source without attribution. They just want the quick buck.
I was wondering myself about how this happened to the poster. I assume they used a host and ALSO used the host to do the domain registration.
I've always used a separate registrar from the hosting co's. The sad fact is every jerk in the world is a hosting provider nowadays, but you know some hosting co's and registration co's aren't going out of business any time soon. Sometimes that means spending $10/yr instead of $6/yr for the domain, and then do your bargain hunting for the hosting. The name can be important... where it's hosted is a much more flexible affair.
So to the poster... make it a lesson learned, you're not getting the name back.
The most important part, perhaps, is that there are reasonable ways to make sure this doesn't happen... WE DON'T NEED MORE RULES AND REGULATIONS!
1. Teach a man how to fish 2. Lend him a crapload of money under the condition that he buys the fishing boat, fishing equipment and fuel from you 3. Wait until man can't pay off the debt due to disastrous interest rates, and invoke the default clauses such as taking ownership of his business, and diverting the fish to a Western market 4. Profit!
You're clearly confused... the Intel/Microsoft initiative is a different project altogether.
Agreed. I know if anyone wants to rob my house, a door lock isn't going to stop them. Guess what? I still lock the door when I leave.
"Is there any benefit to password protecting your home Wifi network? I have IT friends that say the only real benefit is that multiple users can slow down the connection, but they state that there is no security reason. Is this correct?"
The answer is, of course, an emphatic "yes". Mr. Dubner needs new IT friends.
Here's where the software becomes a useful tool...
I use WOW as my cable and internet provider, where my options were Satellite + DSL, Comcast Bundle, AT&T Bundle, or WOW. I regularly talk about WOW and their fantastic customer service, support, and quality product at a relatively low price. I know that if I test my connection and find that they're up to the same dirty tricks, making a stink about it will go further with them. They're always trying hard to convince people to switch away from Comcast, so it's in their best interest to do everything better than their competition.
In the meantime, the only way to scare Comcast is to threaten their dominance with competition, which becomes more viable as other companies invade their territory with better products and service at a lower price. Here's to hoping that I find WOW leaves my traffic alone so I have one more reason to promote them... if even so they can grow and eventually dent Comcast's influence in my region. Best case scenario, we see a genuinely competitive situation evolve between all the providers of TV, phone and internet service, where right now Comcast is often the only option.
This is exactly how I view it. If the context clearly indicates that the source is meant to be used freely, then I use it. If it's questionable, I ask.
Snippets offered in responses to other users questions on forums, online tutorials, books I bought, etc. are almost always fair game. Now if someone offers something significant in response to a question for an explicitly OSS project... then I'd ask, if I were working on a closed source app.
Funny... the question I was asking was, who are these "great many universities" that apparently allow unrestricted access to their networks from the outside. And how many universities don't already see reports of their network traffic that aren't at least this detailed? I don't want to be an apologist for the MPAA, but c'mon now...
Slashdot Mirror
I kinda want to stab anyone that uses 1500 HDD's as dominoes. :(
Thank you.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Ahem... Not exactly a new idea.
Oh no you didn't...
I see a lot of people considering buildings and bridges as perfect constructions, free from defect or potential harm. Let's remember that people die from the shortcomings of man-made structures all the time.
More to the point though, individuals and corporations put their signatures on software that must not kill people all the time.
I expect you've driven and flown in some of the products that operate safely on software that has promises attached. Not to mention the many buildings you enter and bridges you cross that are safe in large part because of a number of types of software.
How about the machines that either save your life or keep you alive in the hospital? You think the software for those isn't backed up with promises regarding their functionality? You don't suppose there'd be lawsuits-a-plenty if the software failed regularly?
When you think of software, you think about Microsoft products or the crap software you use to rip your DVD's. You think of it because that's the cheap, mediocre crap right in front of your eyes on a daily basis. The important, quality software of the world goes largely unnoticed and works about as well as buildings do... which is to say, good, but never perfect.
How dare you call my Firefly and SG1 "valueless"!
:(
Oh wait...
It's never really been an issue of money for me. It's their damn Office suite. I could switch my entire organization over to linux if it weren't for Office 2007 and Exchange... which really are fantastic products as far as anyone here is concerned. Most everything else is SaaS.
I ran Vista 64-bit for about 2 months. The sound card didn't work, the wireless didn't work, and the touchpad didn't work. This was on a (at the time) 1 year old HP laptop. The drivers that windows update wanted to move to would not install because they weren't properly signed. It was like a bad joke... MS's OS wouldn't let me install drivers supplied by MS's update service because they were potential threats. Only it wasn't funny because my computer was virtually unusable.
Experiences differ.
Diminishing Returns
While I wish you were right, I suspect you might have an overdeveloped case of optimism.
Oh. My. God.
Which brings up something I've always wondered...
With an incoming phone call, you can choose not to accept the call. At least as far as I know, I can't decide which SMS messages I want to receive. So in theory I pay for messages sent to me without my permission, and whether I want them or not. Right?
If so, THAT should be illegal. What happens if someone wants to be a jerk and uses an email gateway to ring up your sms bill in the middle of the night?
OMG you're so dead.
If I let one of my domains expire, it's really none of my business who or why it gets picked up afterwards. All I need to know is that I let it expire.
If I don't like that GoDaddy picks them up after expiration... then I shouldn't use GoDaddy. If I use GoDaddy, and it gets picked up by them after I willingly let it expire, it really isn't your place to complain that you can't have it. It was never yours, and you're not entitled to it. Sorry.
The fact that someone bought the domain you want and put ads on it may tick you off... it's happened to me... but I don't think it's illegitimate. So long as they're paying for the name and hosting, I don't get to cry foul. Similarly, if I buy a site and put a lame site up that maybe only three people in the world are interested in, tough... that's my business.
Again, we do not need more rules and regulations.
Seriously... people are going to rip stuff off no matter what you do. If you want to write software that anyone can look over, learn from and use... who cares if some mope out there is trying to run a scam? Best you can ever do is try to make everyone aware of the scam artists.
It's not like someone doing this is going to make a much better version, close the source, and make a hyper-mega-global-corp out of scamming Paint.Net source without attribution. They just want the quick buck.
I was wondering myself about how this happened to the poster. I assume they used a host and ALSO used the host to do the domain registration.
I've always used a separate registrar from the hosting co's. The sad fact is every jerk in the world is a hosting provider nowadays, but you know some hosting co's and registration co's aren't going out of business any time soon. Sometimes that means spending $10/yr instead of $6/yr for the domain, and then do your bargain hunting for the hosting. The name can be important... where it's hosted is a much more flexible affair.
So to the poster... make it a lesson learned, you're not getting the name back.
The most important part, perhaps, is that there are reasonable ways to make sure this doesn't happen... WE DON'T NEED MORE RULES AND REGULATIONS!
So what you're saying is, they're trying to make the ultimate "blog".
1. Teach a man how to fish
2. Lend him a crapload of money under the condition that he buys the fishing boat, fishing equipment and fuel from you
3. Wait until man can't pay off the debt due to disastrous interest rates, and invoke the default clauses such as taking ownership of his business, and diverting the fish to a Western market
4. Profit!
You're clearly confused... the Intel/Microsoft initiative is a different project altogether.
Agreed. I know if anyone wants to rob my house, a door lock isn't going to stop them. Guess what? I still lock the door when I leave.
"Is there any benefit to password protecting your home Wifi network? I have IT friends that say the only real benefit is that multiple users can slow down the connection, but they state that there is no security reason. Is this correct?"
The answer is, of course, an emphatic "yes". Mr. Dubner needs new IT friends.
Here's where the software becomes a useful tool...
I use WOW as my cable and internet provider, where my options were Satellite + DSL, Comcast Bundle, AT&T Bundle, or WOW. I regularly talk about WOW and their fantastic customer service, support, and quality product at a relatively low price. I know that if I test my connection and find that they're up to the same dirty tricks, making a stink about it will go further with them. They're always trying hard to convince people to switch away from Comcast, so it's in their best interest to do everything better than their competition.
In the meantime, the only way to scare Comcast is to threaten their dominance with competition, which becomes more viable as other companies invade their territory with better products and service at a lower price. Here's to hoping that I find WOW leaves my traffic alone so I have one more reason to promote them... if even so they can grow and eventually dent Comcast's influence in my region. Best case scenario, we see a genuinely competitive situation evolve between all the providers of TV, phone and internet service, where right now Comcast is often the only option.
"These guys are scientists, not super secret spies."
:)
Ok, I'll bite... "How do you know?"
This is exactly how I view it. If the context clearly indicates that the source is meant to be used freely, then I use it. If it's questionable, I ask.
Snippets offered in responses to other users questions on forums, online tutorials, books I bought, etc. are almost always fair game. Now if someone offers something significant in response to a question for an explicitly OSS project... then I'd ask, if I were working on a closed source app.
Funny... the question I was asking was, who are these "great many universities" that apparently allow unrestricted access to their networks from the outside. And how many universities don't already see reports of their network traffic that aren't at least this detailed? I don't want to be an apologist for the MPAA, but c'mon now...
I'm normally the first to whine, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that Judges are required. Isn't that how we want surveillance to work?