What can and should be legislated is actions that take away others agency. Now, it can be argued that just about anything could take away anothers agency- but what I'm reffering to is thing like murder, stealing, and other things that force one persons will directly upon another. The Declaration of Independance, along with the Constitution (as originally written, not as currently interpreted) provide good guidelines.
To some extent, this is true- but there does exist a class of people who use fraud quite often to take away another person's free agency- and right now, they're the ones who write the laws.
Well, if it worked that way, but as the saying goes, the tighter you close your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers. Or, to put it another way, when one is compelled in all things, and then one no longer feels that compulsion, then one becomes much less likely to do what they've been compelled to do. Also, the more one is compelled to do, the less likely one is to exceed that which they have to.
Who cares if they exceed what they have to do, as long as they do what they have to do?
As far as the tendancy of the population to not care about right and wrong this is a direct effect of our developing culture of slothful, glutiness, wicked and degenerate, fortune seeking- pride. Unless there is a change, we are headed for disaster. This culture starts in the homes and famalies, and that is where it must change- we must re-enthrone the family as the center of our society, and we must strengthen and fortify our homes.
That would be nice- but because it endangers profit, it won't happen.
While this is getting away from the central point of Microsoft and Monoplies, it is the core of every problem our society faces. If we had stonger famalies, our companies would have more ethical leaders, lawyers and politicians would not be as greedy and proud as they are.
And, at some level, we'd have a more materially poor society- but infinitely more rich in experience. I agree with this all the way. I just don't see a way to get there from here as long as people are willing to sacrifice family to profit.
But this is presumably aimed at big companies who buy a load of blank PC's and install them themselves. Or whatever, since they aren't going to do it, it's hard to know what it means. It could be that they'd send dudes round with powerpoint presentations on laptops, or it could actually have been a typo. The 'send the boys round' interpretation is either paranoid or a troll or bit of both.
It COULD mean that- but that would not be in keeping with the previous activities of this branch of Microsoft- which is more into sniffing around and slapping $50,000/seat fines on people who threw away the cardboard packaging after installing DOS or whatever.
The fact that they were even THINKING about sending people to MANUFACTURERS to try to get those MANUFACTURERS to stop selling blank PCs of the type we've all bought at one time or another (well, those of use who build systems for the fun of it have) is kind of scary- especially given EUCD/DMCA implications.
It may be paranoid to you- but it isn't paranoia without facts or precident behind it- going all the way back to 1976 when a young Billy Gates wrote a nasty letter to the editor in the Southern California Hardware Hacker's Club Newsletter about the piracy going on with Altair Basic paper tapes.
Of course, it needs to be stated that morals should not be legislated.
Or at least so state mass murderers and other people whose morality might not be accepted by the majority in a given society.
If people are compelled to be good people, are they truly good?
Who the hell cares as long as they are good enough not to go around murdering their neighbors?
This applies to all people- including those who run corporations.
True enough- but people who run corporations have the added incentive to ignore morality: profit.
Indeed, I choose to do business with companies that show moral character versus those that do not.
Good for you- but the majority of the market simply doesn't have enough information to work that way. In the end, most people due to a lack of time end up buying from the cheapest, most immoral, third world supplier they can find- simply to save money. Thus post-Mr.-Sam Wal*Mart takes over the world as far as retail is concerned....
In this way, good behavior can be encouraged without lining the pockets of lawyers/politicians.
Yes, but most people don't have time or inclination to do the due dilligence neccessary- and in fact the market itself discourages such information transfer.
In a real society- the law enforces ethics for people who have no personal set of ethics, or for those whose personal set of ethics varies from the common set of values for that society.
Under corporatism the purpose of the law is similar- but the set of ethics is skewed to put profit and greed above every other value, thus any law that doesn't support profit will eventually be watered down to the point of being useless.
The EUCD... yeah. It will be interesting to see if it'll ever be enforced.
With the DMCA, they seem to be concentrating on the THREAT of enforcement to make business models less attractive- which is usually enough to stop the targetted behavior.
Alexander also insisted that Microsoft was simply trying to help its reseller partners by explaining how they could grow their businesses by selling its software and services. But she did reiterate that the software giant is concerned that the sale of base systems may be linked to the use of counterfeit software.
And earlier in the article we find that:
Alexander's role is to combat the use of counterfeit and unlicensed versions of Microsoft's software. In February, Microsoft launched an initiative called Keep IT Real, in which "feet on the street" investigators would visit technology vendors suspected of installing counterfeit software on PCs before selling them.
In other words, this is an "oops, I said too much, I'd better put a good spin on it".
It's a migraine day- and I honestly couldn't remember. Almost all of those Northern territories run together to me anyway.
However apparently even in the EU, you've got the EUCD which is just as silly as the DMCA....at least on the subject of going after the manufacturers of hardware and software algorithims that "promote piracy".
I know the concept of just about any weapon saying that- but here's my argument for the Taser. Unless the guy is high on PCP or Crack, it's non-leathal, thus I have NO ethical qualms whatsoever about "shock first, ask questions later".
PCP/Crack of course means that their heart is already racing, and the shock will put them over the edge into a heart attack- but then again, they're so pain free at that point you could put a clip of rounds from your Glock or S&W in them and it won't phase them in the slightest- ONLY electrocution or a direct shot into the heart or brain would stop them, and I ain't that good of a shot in an emergency.
Toss in those little CO2 canisters with the wires, and you can stop a guy with a taser at the same close range that you can accurately aim a Glock or an S&W with- and if the first shock doesn't stop them, you're still connected and can hit them with a second or third shock. Plus, back to the backpacking- we're talking a whole lot lighter than a handgun here.
Apparently I didn't read it closely enough- on re-reading I noticed this is UK not USA. What is the equivalent law in the UK? It's the same concept though- going after the manufacturers of "hardware that enables piracy", in this case, PCs that have no operating system installed and thus could *eventually* run prirated software. Of course, they convinced Finland, or was it Denmark, to enforce the DMCA against that kid who posted the source code for decrypting DVDs....
Taser says take this and use it on me? The person holding it says take this and use it on me. It doesn't matter if it's a taser, a gun, or a switchblade. If you are holding it and the attacker can read that you aren't going to use it, the attacker has already won and the weapon will be used against you. That being said, I vote taser. It is non-lethal in virtually all circumstances, so people will be more likely to use it when push comes to shove.
Exactly my point- though there have been a few incidents recently of people high on crack being killed by Tasers (the extra electricity pushes the already strained heart over the edge) most of the time it's an effective deterrant that with a stranger a "sorry" fixes if it was a mistake.
What the PDA can do that will help you complete the trip safely, is hold more highly detailed maps- by an order of magnitude. And the sidewinder takes care of that pesky battery issue.
The key here is that you're going to have two devices regardless- having a PDA that doubles as a cell phone, or a GPS unit that doubles as a PDA, is a good thing either way. Of course, you can't play tetris at night in your tent on a GPS unit- remember he said a LONG trip.
Because you're working with other human beings to create a product to be used by human beings.
Sometimes you are- sometimes you aren't. Embedded industrial software is an entire genre of software that has no end user at all.
Knowing how to work with those human beings is at least as important as knowing the business processes you're translating into code. Probably more so, since the latter can be written down, discussed, and researched.
Unless it is written down, discussed, and researched LONG before it ever reaches the programmer, the project will fail. All the rest is scope creep- and any project that has scope creep will run over budget.
As for the time communication takes, you'll find that it's more efficient if the people involved are inclined to work with you, instead of resisting and avoiding you.
I've never met any person like that- ever. All people really are following their own agendas, and it's rare that your project actually fits their agenda.
Funny how almost everybody other than you didn't seem to get the point. I'd even go so far as to say being a people person is a serious detriment to being able to work with computers.
By 1860, slavery was already on it's way out due to technology- the cost of keeping a slave working was WAY more than the cost of keeping a coal-based steam engine running. The Industrial Age would have killed slavery anyway within 20 years.
Why is it a key skill for a programmer to need to be able to work with human beings? In fact, I'd think being a people person would be a serious negative and drain on the productivity of the entire team, always visiting and talking on the phone.
No- really. For anybody who has been out of college for more than 2 years, that's what the article recommends. No advice if you're not a people person, hate people, and went into computers to avoid working with people. No advice if you're not a natural entrapreneur running your first ecommerce site before you've left the dorms in college.
Which is why, when I buy gifts, I shop at "Made in Oregon". You're absolutely correct for the most part- but what Wal*Mart discovered is relatively new: that if you have enough stores, you can become a large enough portion of your supplier's business to dictate price points to them- and suggest they close their factories here and move elsewhere if they can't meet that price point.
Slashdot Mirror
What can and should be legislated is actions that take away others agency. Now, it can be argued that just about anything could take away anothers agency- but what I'm reffering to is thing like murder, stealing, and other things that force one persons will directly upon another. The Declaration of Independance, along with the Constitution (as originally written, not as currently interpreted) provide good guidelines.
To some extent, this is true- but there does exist a class of people who use fraud quite often to take away another person's free agency- and right now, they're the ones who write the laws.
Well, if it worked that way, but as the saying goes, the tighter you close your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers. Or, to put it another way, when one is compelled in all things, and then one no longer feels that compulsion, then one becomes much less likely to do what they've been compelled to do. Also, the more one is compelled to do, the less likely one is to exceed that which they have to.
Who cares if they exceed what they have to do, as long as they do what they have to do?
As far as the tendancy of the population to not care about right and wrong this is a direct effect of our developing culture of slothful, glutiness, wicked and degenerate, fortune seeking- pride. Unless there is a change, we are headed for disaster. This culture starts in the homes and famalies, and that is where it must change- we must re-enthrone the family as the center of our society, and we must strengthen and fortify our homes.
That would be nice- but because it endangers profit, it won't happen.
While this is getting away from the central point of Microsoft and Monoplies, it is the core of every problem our society faces. If we had stonger famalies, our companies would have more ethical leaders, lawyers and politicians would not be as greedy and proud as they are.
And, at some level, we'd have a more materially poor society- but infinitely more rich in experience. I agree with this all the way. I just don't see a way to get there from here as long as people are willing to sacrifice family to profit.
But this is presumably aimed at big companies who buy a load of blank PC's and install them themselves. Or whatever, since they aren't going to do it, it's hard to know what it means. It could be that they'd send dudes round with powerpoint presentations on laptops, or it could actually have been a typo. The 'send the boys round' interpretation is either paranoid or a troll or bit of both.
It COULD mean that- but that would not be in keeping with the previous activities of this branch of Microsoft- which is more into sniffing around and slapping $50,000/seat fines on people who threw away the cardboard packaging after installing DOS or whatever.
The fact that they were even THINKING about sending people to MANUFACTURERS to try to get those MANUFACTURERS to stop selling blank PCs of the type we've all bought at one time or another (well, those of use who build systems for the fun of it have) is kind of scary- especially given EUCD/DMCA implications.
It may be paranoid to you- but it isn't paranoia without facts or precident behind it- going all the way back to 1976 when a young Billy Gates wrote a nasty letter to the editor in the Southern California Hardware Hacker's Club Newsletter about the piracy going on with Altair Basic paper tapes.
Of course, it needs to be stated that morals should not be legislated.
Or at least so state mass murderers and other people whose morality might not be accepted by the majority in a given society.
If people are compelled to be good people, are they truly good?
Who the hell cares as long as they are good enough not to go around murdering their neighbors?
This applies to all people- including those who run corporations.
True enough- but people who run corporations have the added incentive to ignore morality: profit.
Indeed, I choose to do business with companies that show moral character versus those that do not.
Good for you- but the majority of the market simply doesn't have enough information to work that way. In the end, most people due to a lack of time end up buying from the cheapest, most immoral, third world supplier they can find- simply to save money. Thus post-Mr.-Sam Wal*Mart takes over the world as far as retail is concerned....
In this way, good behavior can be encouraged without lining the pockets of lawyers/politicians.
Yes, but most people don't have time or inclination to do the due dilligence neccessary- and in fact the market itself discourages such information transfer.
In a real society- the law enforces ethics for people who have no personal set of ethics, or for those whose personal set of ethics varies from the common set of values for that society.
Under corporatism the purpose of the law is similar- but the set of ethics is skewed to put profit and greed above every other value, thus any law that doesn't support profit will eventually be watered down to the point of being useless.
The EUCD... yeah. It will be interesting to see if it'll ever be enforced.
With the DMCA, they seem to be concentrating on the THREAT of enforcement to make business models less attractive- which is usually enough to stop the targetted behavior.
And right after that:
Alexander also insisted that Microsoft was simply trying to help its reseller partners by explaining how they could grow their businesses by selling its software and services. But she did reiterate that the software giant is concerned that the sale of base systems may be linked to the use of counterfeit software.
And earlier in the article we find that:
Alexander's role is to combat the use of counterfeit and unlicensed versions of Microsoft's software. In February, Microsoft launched an initiative called Keep IT Real, in which "feet on the street" investigators would visit technology vendors suspected of installing counterfeit software on PCs before selling them.
In other words, this is an "oops, I said too much, I'd better put a good spin on it".
It's a migraine day- and I honestly couldn't remember. Almost all of those Northern territories run together to me anyway.
However apparently even in the EU, you've got the EUCD which is just as silly as the DMCA....at least on the subject of going after the manufacturers of hardware and software algorithims that "promote piracy".
1. stupid, 2. Most likely illegal, 3. immoral at any rate
2nd reply- I think that describes the activities of just about any company willing to put profit above the law in order of ethical importance.
Then why send the anti-piracy unit around, and refer to it as a business risk?
True, I missed this was the UK on first reading. But they must have something similar- else why would all of their consumer DVD players be Region 2?
Taser screams "take this and use it on me."
I know the concept of just about any weapon saying that- but here's my argument for the Taser. Unless the guy is high on PCP or Crack, it's non-leathal, thus I have NO ethical qualms whatsoever about "shock first, ask questions later".
PCP/Crack of course means that their heart is already racing, and the shock will put them over the edge into a heart attack- but then again, they're so pain free at that point you could put a clip of rounds from your Glock or S&W in them and it won't phase them in the slightest- ONLY electrocution or a direct shot into the heart or brain would stop them, and I ain't that good of a shot in an emergency.
Toss in those little CO2 canisters with the wires, and you can stop a guy with a taser at the same close range that you can accurately aim a Glock or an S&W with- and if the first shock doesn't stop them, you're still connected and can hit them with a second or third shock. Plus, back to the backpacking- we're talking a whole lot lighter than a handgun here.
Apparently I didn't read it closely enough- on re-reading I noticed this is UK not USA. What is the equivalent law in the UK? It's the same concept though- going after the manufacturers of "hardware that enables piracy", in this case, PCs that have no operating system installed and thus could *eventually* run prirated software. Of course, they convinced Finland, or was it Denmark, to enforce the DMCA against that kid who posted the source code for decrypting DVDs....
while Microsoft may say what they want in way of "encouraging" use of Windows, they have no power to force anyone to do it.
RTFA- they're using the BSA and a threat of DMCA action to do exactly that- and our elected officials gave them that power.
My question is- how do they avoid the homebrewer who buys a hard drive from one company, a motherboard from another, and a case from still a third?
Taser says take this and use it on me? The person holding it says take this and use it on me. It doesn't matter if it's a taser, a gun, or a switchblade. If you are holding it and the attacker can read that you aren't going to use it, the attacker has already won and the weapon will be used against you. That being said, I vote taser. It is non-lethal in virtually all circumstances, so people will be more likely to use it when push comes to shove.
Exactly my point- though there have been a few incidents recently of people high on crack being killed by Tasers (the extra electricity pushes the already strained heart over the edge) most of the time it's an effective deterrant that with a stranger a "sorry" fixes if it was a mistake.
What the PDA can do that will help you complete the trip safely, is hold more highly detailed maps- by an order of magnitude. And the sidewinder takes care of that pesky battery issue.
The key here is that you're going to have two devices regardless- having a PDA that doubles as a cell phone, or a GPS unit that doubles as a PDA, is a good thing either way. Of course, you can't play tetris at night in your tent on a GPS unit- remember he said a LONG trip.
I'd take a PocketPC or PalmOS PDA Phone and a Bluetooth GPS and a 4GB Microdrive, combined with some nice Hiking maps. And maybe some nice bright flashing toys from ThinkGeek. For Self-protection, I'd want a Taser. Oh yeah, and a Sidewinder so that I don't have to find a power supply for any of this stuff.
It's great to know that something launched before I was born (1980), can still be found and active
I was 7 when this was launched- and I want a laptop with those batteries!
Because you're working with other human beings to create a product to be used by human beings.
Sometimes you are- sometimes you aren't. Embedded industrial software is an entire genre of software that has no end user at all.
Knowing how to work with those human beings is at least as important as knowing the business processes you're translating into code. Probably more so, since the latter can be written down, discussed, and researched.
Unless it is written down, discussed, and researched LONG before it ever reaches the programmer, the project will fail. All the rest is scope creep- and any project that has scope creep will run over budget.
As for the time communication takes, you'll find that it's more efficient if the people involved are inclined to work with you, instead of resisting and avoiding you.
I've never met any person like that- ever. All people really are following their own agendas, and it's rare that your project actually fits their agenda.
Funny how almost everybody other than you didn't seem to get the point. I'd even go so far as to say being a people person is a serious detriment to being able to work with computers.
By 1860, slavery was already on it's way out due to technology- the cost of keeping a slave working was WAY more than the cost of keeping a coal-based steam engine running. The Industrial Age would have killed slavery anyway within 20 years.
So send the guards first- BEFORE discussing it in a meeting.
Why is it a key skill for a programmer to need to be able to work with human beings? In fact, I'd think being a people person would be a serious negative and drain on the productivity of the entire team, always visiting and talking on the phone.
No- really. For anybody who has been out of college for more than 2 years, that's what the article recommends. No advice if you're not a people person, hate people, and went into computers to avoid working with people. No advice if you're not a natural entrapreneur running your first ecommerce site before you've left the dorms in college.
Which is why, when I buy gifts, I shop at "Made in Oregon". You're absolutely correct for the most part- but what Wal*Mart discovered is relatively new: that if you have enough stores, you can become a large enough portion of your supplier's business to dictate price points to them- and suggest they close their factories here and move elsewhere if they can't meet that price point.