It doesn't help, and here's why. Say you own a company that provides a service. Say someone learns how to acquire your service without paying. Nothing has been "stolen" but you've certainly been forced to provide that service for free now.
Should you not sue them, provided you know who they are and how they did it? Then again, you are not the same as the police, so you shouldn't be enforcing any laws...
Yes, that was sarcastic. But no, I do NOT support the RIAA. I just think you're leaning a bit too far on the other side of the fence.
That sort of professor is also why we're still the leader in producing problem solvers, while most of the education systems described in the article are producing memorizers.
India and China, to point out two specific countries, have built their education system specifically on memorization. Formulae, tables, languages, etc... In the US, we're not taught anymore to memorize the periodic table, rather we're taught how to analyze it.
It goes much deeper than this, but it's one of the reasons offshore outsourcing loses it's marginal utility after 10% or so. Software architects are still sought in the US, while we find a lot of the coding can be done faster offshore.
So I agree with the parent. Teaching people to make up their own minds about something we can neither prove nor disprove is a Good Thing®.
100 for a 4gb solid state drive is affordable, but not worth the price.
I do think $100 for 4GB is worth the price. Consider that only recently, people were paying $50 for 128MB USB thumb drives.
However, the title and description of the article written above are very misleading. It's $105 for the card.... then you get to add the RAM yourself. Not worth the price, at that point, to me (yet).
a counterfeit version of Windows, assuming the user purchased it legitimately in good faith, how in the hell is this the user's responsibility or fault?
Recieving stolen goods is also a crime. Caveat emptor, it's also the buyers responsibility to make sure the item they're purchasing is from a valid source.
You can rest assured you won't get a pirated copy from egghead, best buy, frye's, etc... But I wouldn't try that guy that's undercutting them on eBay.
Nice name calling... it certainly makes me respect your opinions...
It's only abusing monopoly powers if they, in fact, have a monopoly. Again, I said I didn't think it was right, but there are almost certainly other providers in the area.
It sounds more like a bad business decision to me.
Sure, but in the time between that vuln being reported to 3Com and it being fixed by the company who owns the software, people still want to know about it. I think that window is where 3Com is looking for profit.
Not really... now they're paying people to help them earn that money. Someone submits a vuln to 3Com, get's paid a few hundred or thousand dollars, and 3Com gets the many thousands they're already charging their customers. Then they work on a fix, and get some glory on the back end.
I too will be donating to this project. But I really do have to ask... why has this not been done already? My first WTF moment of the week, and it's only 10:00 AM on Monday.
Ok, first off, the parent was mostly about government, not corporations. It mentioned what a boon terrorism was for government, and that they were purporting the violent actions.
It THEN tied corporations to the boon. No, I do not believe corporations have my best interests at heart. Furthermore, I don't see any reason they should have my best interests at heart. A corporation is in business for one thing, and one thing only... profit.
That some corporations turn a profit by exploiting is a terrible shame. That most corporations realize that if they do turn a dime by exploiting people will mean that, upon people's realization of said exploitation, they will no longer be profitable, is reality.
That someone would suggest our government is creating the terrorism to turn a few pennies is absurd.
And I'd rather be weaing rose colored glasses than peril sensitive ones.
Where in the article does it say funding will be diverted from the DoD for this cabinet, and not some now defunct agency that either no longer exists or doesn't need the budget it once had?
Seriosly, with this President, do you really think the DoD would be the group to suffer?
I agree they should just let it go, but regarding this question you pose
Does anyone else here get the feeling that the only reason Microsoft is suing Google is because they know they can't win the search war?
If Google (which I prefer) is so much better than MS in search engine technology, why are they hiring an MS guy instead of someone else they can indoctrine with their own information?
Bear in mind a couple of things. First, the job market for IT workers is still weak in the US. If you won't take the job, that hungry person standing right behind you in line most likely will. Survival is usually deemed more important than principal when it comes to an issue such as a no-compete clause.
Second, those are always negotiable. You can either try to whittle the clause down, have it removed (maybe because the company only employes the policy for certain positions), or use it as a bargaining tool for a higher salary, more time off, etc...
I worked in the mutual fund industry for five years, and made quite a few friends on the trading desk and in portfolio management. Not only did those folks have stringent no-compete clauses in their contract, but when some left, they and their new employers were sued by the company I was working for.
In each case, the no-compete clause did not hold up in court, and the defendants were able to take their new jobs without a hitch.
Of course, I think it would depend on how each state's laws are written... this happened to be in Texas.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't help, and here's why. Say you own a company that provides a service. Say someone learns how to acquire your service without paying. Nothing has been "stolen" but you've certainly been forced to provide that service for free now.
Should you not sue them, provided you know who they are and how they did it? Then again, you are not the same as the police, so you shouldn't be enforcing any laws...
Yes, that was sarcastic. But no, I do NOT support the RIAA. I just think you're leaning a bit too far on the other side of the fence.
Evolution is widely accepted within specie, but still is as hokey as creationism when it comes to proving how human beings came into... being.
That sort of professor is also why we're still the leader in producing problem solvers, while most of the education systems described in the article are producing memorizers.
India and China, to point out two specific countries, have built their education system specifically on memorization. Formulae, tables, languages, etc... In the US, we're not taught anymore to memorize the periodic table, rather we're taught how to analyze it.
It goes much deeper than this, but it's one of the reasons offshore outsourcing loses it's marginal utility after 10% or so. Software architects are still sought in the US, while we find a lot of the coding can be done faster offshore.
So I agree with the parent. Teaching people to make up their own minds about something we can neither prove nor disprove is a Good Thing®.
Nah... it wasn't meant as a troll, and I apologize for the post appearing that way.
100 for a 4gb solid state drive is affordable, but not worth the price.
I do think $100 for 4GB is worth the price. Consider that only recently, people were paying $50 for 128MB USB thumb drives.
However, the title and description of the article written above are very misleading. It's $105 for the card.... then you get to add the RAM yourself. Not worth the price, at that point, to me (yet).
Google for it, I think you'll find it's being treated as such.
a counterfeit version of Windows, assuming the user purchased it legitimately in good faith, how in the hell is this the user's responsibility or fault?
Recieving stolen goods is also a crime. Caveat emptor, it's also the buyers responsibility to make sure the item they're purchasing is from a valid source.
You can rest assured you won't get a pirated copy from egghead, best buy, frye's, etc... But I wouldn't try that guy that's undercutting them on eBay.
Nice name calling... it certainly makes me respect your opinions...
It's only abusing monopoly powers if they, in fact, have a monopoly. Again, I said I didn't think it was right, but there are almost certainly other providers in the area.
It sounds more like a bad business decision to me.
Sure, but in the time between that vuln being reported to 3Com and it being fixed by the company who owns the software, people still want to know about it. I think that window is where 3Com is looking for profit.
Internet access is only public in public buildings, such as the local library. If you buy it for your home, it's private.
Furthermore, they're not the only company that you can host sites with or that provides internet access.
Do I think it's morally wrong of them? Definitely.
Do I think it's legally wrong? I don't have the first clue about Canadian laws.
Do I think it was stupid to host a website with a company that you're on strike against? Monumentally.
Not really... now they're paying people to help them earn that money. Someone submits a vuln to 3Com, get's paid a few hundred or thousand dollars, and 3Com gets the many thousands they're already charging their customers. Then they work on a fix, and get some glory on the back end.
Seems a pretty sound business model to me.
I too will be donating to this project. But I really do have to ask... why has this not been done already? My first WTF moment of the week, and it's only 10:00 AM on Monday.
Ok, first off, the parent was mostly about government, not corporations. It mentioned what a boon terrorism was for government, and that they were purporting the violent actions.
It THEN tied corporations to the boon. No, I do not believe corporations have my best interests at heart. Furthermore, I don't see any reason they should have my best interests at heart. A corporation is in business for one thing, and one thing only... profit.
That some corporations turn a profit by exploiting is a terrible shame. That most corporations realize that if they do turn a dime by exploiting people will mean that, upon people's realization of said exploitation, they will no longer be profitable, is reality.
That someone would suggest our government is creating the terrorism to turn a few pennies is absurd.
And I'd rather be weaing rose colored glasses than peril sensitive ones.
OMFG! What color have you painted your tinfoil hat?
Where in the article does it say funding will be diverted from the DoD for this cabinet, and not some now defunct agency that either no longer exists or doesn't need the budget it once had?
Seriosly, with this President, do you really think the DoD would be the group to suffer?
Tell Alec Baldwin hello for me :)
Does this appointment nullify the Department of Defense? No. Strangely enough, more than one thing at a time can occur in Washington, D.C.
I'm sorry.. how is it again that children come about the income to pay for the rental fees? Oooohhhhh... their parents.
It's ok, here in the US we have a non-parenting epidemic as well. Oh no... I'll bet your lack of parenting is our fault too...
I wasn't aware that planning to buy a home somewhere automatically gave you residence there. I can now vote in every state!
I suppose, if you've been told you have 6 months to live.
Bear in mind a couple of things. First, the job market for IT workers is still weak in the US. If you won't take the job, that hungry person standing right behind you in line most likely will. Survival is usually deemed more important than principal when it comes to an issue such as a no-compete clause.
Second, those are always negotiable. You can either try to whittle the clause down, have it removed (maybe because the company only employes the policy for certain positions), or use it as a bargaining tool for a higher salary, more time off, etc...
I worked in the mutual fund industry for five years, and made quite a few friends on the trading desk and in portfolio management. Not only did those folks have stringent no-compete clauses in their contract, but when some left, they and their new employers were sued by the company I was working for.
In each case, the no-compete clause did not hold up in court, and the defendants were able to take their new jobs without a hitch.
Of course, I think it would depend on how each state's laws are written... this happened to be in Texas.