Who would go out on a financial limb to support striking game creators?
First of all the union would support the strikers via strike pay which varies based on country, union, etc. but could be 2/3 of normal pay. Secondly, governments have enacted some pretty strong labor laws. You can't fire striking employees and simply go out and hire new people to replace them even if their job is trivially replaced (eg: a window cleaner). That applies even more for a developer who is difficult to replace due to the learning curve of jumping into a specialized software project midstream.
I think the problem is that someone's going to come along and say that Apple is trying to backpedal on the GPL somehow because they are attempting to enforce restrictions on third parties.
Note to self: avoid x10hosting like the plague. When your site exceeds its bandwidth allotment, they throw up the most godawful page filled with garbage ads that appear under your mouse when you move your mouse around. Even if that's a free hosting account, it's pretty ridiculous.
I think the point is that while in general "bugs per lines of code" is not a terribly useful metric, bugs per generated/assembly/etc lines per code is even less useful. It seems like a scare tactic.
The scare tactic is in saying that there's millions and millions of lines of (assembly) code, when in reality it may only be tens of thousands of lines of (C) code. The bug rate per line of assembly is probably on the order of a hundred times less than the bug rate per line of the C code that was compiled down to that assembly code.
So Facebook with hundreds of millions of users would need hundreds of millions of database credentials to ensure that the data user A could select from a view is isolated from the data user B could select?
Does it matter? I mean, are you saying you believe everyone has the right to face their accuser and defend themselves - unless the evidence is really convincing?
We're speculating based on not enough information. So allow me to speculate further... the owners of those hundreds of domains are not likely who they say they are on the whois information. Because Microsoft had to sue against the John Does who registered those domains, it seems to follow that the owners were either unknown, unreachable, and/or did not want to be contacted. If Microsoft made an error and these were legitimate domains run by honest owners who had no criminal elements, the domain owners can now pursue Microsoft for damages. Action such as tortious interference and so on would seem relevant, and I'll put a case of beer on the line and wager that the owners will not come forward.
I find it unlikely that the court would grant such an order if the domain owners were readily available. Besides which, doesn't the right to face their accuser only apply if the defendants are US citizens? Even if they are, here is the relevant section of the US constitution:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Note that this only applies to criminal prosecutions. Microsoft did not nor does it have the power to charge the unnamed defendants with a crime. That is up to the state.
So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals, and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them, all based on a mere accusation.
I take it you've read the court proceedings and are intimately familiar with the evidence Microsoft presented before the judge?
I would have it passively scan well-known websites for hidden messages. For example, browse Slashdot at -1 and pick up posts which contained a specifically formatted payload. Once the message was decoded, verify the message's signature against a public key and execute the payload.
Or on places which allow for image uploading. Use steganography to embed the payload into the images. Or Twitter status messages... look for specific hashtags such as #flamewar or something relatively obscure then follow the URL for the payload. The payload could be obscured via steganography as well... imagine a Twitter status saying "Awesome flame war on this forum" and someone's sig contains an image with the payload embedded.
Tons of possibilities and there's no way you can take down every site or scan every hidden message.
It would be like Slashdot trying to dictate the terms of Firefox development and distribution because Firefox is able to connect to and use Slashdot.
If Firefox were a Slashdot-only client and the Firefox developers agreed to adhere to Slashdot's terms and conditions when connecting to Slashdot, what's the problem? You may find such an arrangement offends whatever philosophy you subscribe to, but the conditions under which a company offers its services are entirely up to the company offering them.
I'm guessing you're also pissed off that Slashdot has a terms of service that precludes you from using the site if you don't agree to them?
"Use of Geeknet Sites constitutes full acceptance of and agreement to the Terms; if a user does not accept Geeknet's Terms, he or she is not granted rights to use Geeknet Sites as defined herein, and should refrain from accessing Geeknet Sites."
This is a contract of adhesion as well -- take it or leave it.
Back in the day, companies didn't try to make you subject to contracts of adhesion simply because you wrote a client that has the ability to connect to their service.
You're saying that companies which offered free public services wrote custom contracts for every developer who wrote a client app that connected to their free service? I don't believe that.
Linden have the right to place conditions of use on access to their servers, even if some of the conditions are kind of wack
Exactly. What is it with some people's sense of entitlement these days? Back before I was chasing kids off my lawn, if a company offered a service we took a look at the conditions that service was offered under, evaluated whether or not it met our needs, and if we didn't like it we took our business elsewhere. Kids these days stamp their feet and start whining on websites that they don't get what they want.
Slashdot Mirror
I watched the movie. Wasn't Frodo the openly homosexual character?
Ubuntu might want to stand out from the crowd, but there's a reason nobody else uses that color scheme ...
Nobody? I beg to differ: http://www.mcdonalds.ca/
Who would go out on a financial limb to support striking game creators?
First of all the union would support the strikers via strike pay which varies based on country, union, etc. but could be 2/3 of normal pay. Secondly, governments have enacted some pretty strong labor laws. You can't fire striking employees and simply go out and hire new people to replace them even if their job is trivially replaced (eg: a window cleaner). That applies even more for a developer who is difficult to replace due to the learning curve of jumping into a specialized software project midstream.
Good to know. Do you know or a more current reference? Other than doing individual whois lookups, of course. :)
Or, more succinctly: http://www.blockacountry.com/
The article is clearly a press release from Google.
But then an oil tanker would accidentally stray off course and cut the power cable with its propellers.
I think the problem is that someone's going to come along and say that Apple is trying to backpedal on the GPL somehow because they are attempting to enforce restrictions on third parties.
It took you 30 minutes to walk down 4 flights of stairs?
Maybe he's a quadriplegic (you insensitive clod!) and he had to drag himself down the stairs using only facial twitches.
Note to self: avoid x10hosting like the plague. When your site exceeds its bandwidth allotment, they throw up the most godawful page filled with garbage ads that appear under your mouse when you move your mouse around. Even if that's a free hosting account, it's pretty ridiculous.
>> Now, only if she we're here to keep me off of internet discussion sites. I'd have all that time back.
Your creative and seemingly random use of apostrophes intrigues me.
Perchance, have you considered an inquiry regarding a newsletter subscription?
I think the point is that while in general "bugs per lines of code" is not a terribly useful metric, bugs per generated/assembly/etc lines per code is even less useful. It seems like a scare tactic.
The scare tactic is in saying that there's millions and millions of lines of (assembly) code, when in reality it may only be tens of thousands of lines of (C) code. The bug rate per line of assembly is probably on the order of a hundred times less than the bug rate per line of the C code that was compiled down to that assembly code.
Push-button ignition can be turned off by holding down the button (kind of like with a computer)...
... and waiting for the software interrupt to get picked up by the CPU, which may be in a hung state.
Wait, I think there's a standard form for this:
You have proposed a:
[x] Legislative
[ ] Technical
[ ] Vigilante
approach to stopping P2P file sharing. This will not work because:
[ ] ... and so on.
Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job?
No, it's usually about someone else's. :)
So Facebook with hundreds of millions of users would need hundreds of millions of database credentials to ensure that the data user A could select from a view is isolated from the data user B could select?
Does it matter? I mean, are you saying you believe everyone has the right to face their accuser and defend themselves - unless the evidence is really convincing?
We're speculating based on not enough information. So allow me to speculate further... the owners of those hundreds of domains are not likely who they say they are on the whois information. Because Microsoft had to sue against the John Does who registered those domains, it seems to follow that the owners were either unknown, unreachable, and/or did not want to be contacted. If Microsoft made an error and these were legitimate domains run by honest owners who had no criminal elements, the domain owners can now pursue Microsoft for damages. Action such as tortious interference and so on would seem relevant, and I'll put a case of beer on the line and wager that the owners will not come forward.
I find it unlikely that the court would grant such an order if the domain owners were readily available. Besides which, doesn't the right to face their accuser only apply if the defendants are US citizens? Even if they are, here is the relevant section of the US constitution:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Note that this only applies to criminal prosecutions. Microsoft did not nor does it have the power to charge the unnamed defendants with a crime. That is up to the state.
So Microsoft secretly filed a suit against 27 unnamed individuals, and got a secret order taking 277 domain names away from them, all based on a mere accusation.
I take it you've read the court proceedings and are intimately familiar with the evidence Microsoft presented before the judge?
I would have it passively scan well-known websites for hidden messages. For example, browse Slashdot at -1 and pick up posts which contained a specifically formatted payload. Once the message was decoded, verify the message's signature against a public key and execute the payload.
Or on places which allow for image uploading. Use steganography to embed the payload into the images. Or Twitter status messages... look for specific hashtags such as #flamewar or something relatively obscure then follow the URL for the payload. The payload could be obscured via steganography as well... imagine a Twitter status saying "Awesome flame war on this forum" and someone's sig contains an image with the payload embedded.
Tons of possibilities and there's no way you can take down every site or scan every hidden message.
The Ukranians, Poles, and Chechs called. They're insulted that you're lumping them in with the Rooskies, and they're rooting your box.
The insulted Czechs are now rooting your box.
That explains all the spam. The Czechs are in the mail.
Congratulations on finding a flaw in an analogy and missing the rest of the point entirely.
It would be like Slashdot trying to dictate the terms of Firefox development and distribution because Firefox is able to connect to and use Slashdot.
If Firefox were a Slashdot-only client and the Firefox developers agreed to adhere to Slashdot's terms and conditions when connecting to Slashdot, what's the problem? You may find such an arrangement offends whatever philosophy you subscribe to, but the conditions under which a company offers its services are entirely up to the company offering them.
I'm guessing you're also pissed off that Slashdot has a terms of service that precludes you from using the site if you don't agree to them?
"Use of Geeknet Sites constitutes full acceptance of and agreement to the Terms; if a user does not accept Geeknet's Terms, he or she is not granted rights to use Geeknet Sites as defined herein, and should refrain from accessing Geeknet Sites."
This is a contract of adhesion as well -- take it or leave it.
Back in the day, companies didn't try to make you subject to contracts of adhesion simply because you wrote a client that has the ability to connect to their service.
You're saying that companies which offered free public services wrote custom contracts for every developer who wrote a client app that connected to their free service? I don't believe that.
Linden have the right to place conditions of use on access to their servers, even if some of the conditions are kind of wack
Exactly. What is it with some people's sense of entitlement these days? Back before I was chasing kids off my lawn, if a company offered a service we took a look at the conditions that service was offered under, evaluated whether or not it met our needs, and if we didn't like it we took our business elsewhere. Kids these days stamp their feet and start whining on websites that they don't get what they want.
Suggested one-liners, preferably spoken with an Austrian accent:
"Be sure to check under the hood!"
"Fill 'er up."
"Gas prices sure are sky high."